Sin, What is it, and is it Anything We Need to be Concerned About?

I want to copy into this thread OP something someone on another thread just posted because I think this is the first attempt I have seen on this forum to address this question.

To sin is to "miss the mark" of perfection, and this is why Jesus did what he did, as an invitation to us, to evolve spiritually as a "work in progress" on the path of progress towards perfection. Anything less, is too brutal, and God does not make orphans of his own children. Praise God for the saving, intercessory grace of Jesus Christ, that righteousness can be accounted to us by faith. All sin is rooted in ignorance, may we learn and grow into light, set free for the sake of freedom to freely love as we are loved.

"Love, and do as you will."
~ St. Augustine

We are all sinners my friend, but very few are the willful sinners without the capacity for repentance and renewal

That was a quote from NewAgeMan
Let's see if anyone else has any ideas about all this.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Explanation: S&F!

This thread might shed some further light on the issue ...

coexistence is a sin (by Ausar posted on 14-2-2010 @ 07:07 AM) [ATS: Conspiracies in Religion forum]

... and here is my post quoted in full from there...

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
Explanation: S&F!

Ultimately...There can ONLY BE ONE!

This is Spiritual Science with high level mathematics using Time+Space algorythyms used as an ALLEGORY for our relationships BOTH spiritually and physically with each other i.e. or sine / sin = Attitude!

Its also an issue of SCALE and Location of POV.

For example.... Observing the entire universal/GLOBAL scale from a TRANSCENDENT [i.e. Non Local to the Global state] POV results in seeing the WHOLE of Time+Space existence as a singularity and there is only YOU observing this. This is the POV of the SOURCE! Its a simple POV as it JUST IS! There is no Attitude and therfor NO sine / sin!

So now...let us come down a peg in the scale to a GLOBAL but IMMANENT POV. This results in an INTIMATE overview of the whole map from the POV of the MAP itself! This is the POV of the Godhead and is where all necessity can be fulfilled as you literally the ONE! There is Attitude but its all internal and not external and therefor it has no specific required angle
of attack and therefor no sine / sin!

OK lets go down another peg in scale to a LOCAL POV, which must be immanent by default of immersion within a greater GLOBAL scale!
This POV results in multiple relationships with all other localities.
These relationships are highly definable by their individual Attitudes towards / away from each other and those Attitudes can be wholy defined by there sine / sin angles between each of the Localities.

Personal Disclosure: There are more scales ect and I encourage anybody who understands what I have just posted and who wants some more info, to look carefully at my signature.

P.S.

This thread TOTALLY made my day. It made ABSOLUTE sense to me!

edited [very late edit] to change The into This. Sigh

[edit on 14-2-2010 by OmegaLogos]

Personal Disclosure: I hope that helps explain things as I see them.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I do agree accept for one thing.
It's impossible for us to be perfect, what Jesus wants us to do is be as close to perfect as possible.
Maybe this is what this guy meant, not sure.

I have also encountered the definition of sin as "missing the mark" and it makes much more sense to me than how our culture has come to define it. A reading of the New Testament with this definition in mind can be very illuminating.

sin is an emotional guilt trapped in the consciousness, it is created by all our negative emotions that come from our subconsciousness, only those that walk in the light with the righteous can repent.

GM

what is sin?

Sin = Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.

Do we have to be concerned about it?

No, nobody knows the will of God except God, assuming God exist that is.

Any accusations of sin is one person making judgment on another person in the name of God. To call somebody a sinner is to claim you know the will of God with absolute certainty. Religion is based on faith, Sin is based on the assumption that you know what God thinks somehow.

Faith and assumptions do not make the known will of god. To know the will of God is impossible so to call anything a sin is presumptuous.

Cool, glad to see the idea picked up in a new thread on this issue.

Should we worry over it? Try "not to" sin? Are we under the gun, subject to the law of should and shouldn't? Is the human being driven by animal instincts and impulses they cannot control, except by fear of reprisal as a deterrent?

I don't think that's the right understanding (the way most would normally address these questions), at all! If anything it's a sort of "devilish" understanding imho, who's aim it is to undo the Great Work (Magnum Opus) of the Cross.

"That which we resist, persists."
~ Carl Jung

What is the "right" understanding? It's something wonderful, and magnificent and astounding, which for most people is a POV that they may never have considered before. As a hint it's rooted in freedom, and the slaying of the twin dragon of should and shouldn't.. Don't have time right now to give this the attention it deserves. Later.

Best Regards,

NAM

Originally posted by GmoS719
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

I do agree accept for one thing.
It's impossible for us to be perfect, what Jesus wants us to do is be as close to perfect as possible.
Maybe this is what this guy meant, not sure.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree at this moment but it seems to be a concise but comprehensive explanation that would be a good starting point for discussion.

Originally posted by Open2Truth
I have also encountered the definition of sin as "missing the mark" and it makes much more sense to me than how our culture has come to define it. A reading of the New Testament with this definition in mind can be very illuminating.

Missing the mark is like the root words that the term in Greek is derived from but the word sin seems to have taken on a life of its own since the New Testament was written, and part of the reason why I think it would be helpful to get into looking at different aspects of it.

reply to post by sageofmonticello


God instills in us right from wrong.
So we do have the capability of knowing what sin is.
Going around sinning and using that as an excuse isn't going to cut it.

reply to post by OmegaLogos
I haven't been reading a lot in the conspiracies side lately, but I have run across at least one post by you, in this sub-forum, talking about sine. I studied things like calculus and physics in college so I have an appreciation for the concept of the sine.
I suppose you are thinking in terms of ortho, as in the prefix of orthodoxy.

Originally posted by Grey Magic
sin is an emotional guilt trapped in the consciousness, it is created by all our negative emotions that come from our subconsciousness, only those that walk in the light with the righteous can repent.
GM

This is something in 1 John 1, that the writer feels is important to the Christian community, this concept of walking in the light. It is implied that what you do in the light is not what some people do in darkness, so we need to always behave in a way that would be the sort of thing that would be done while being closely observed by all the rest of the community.

reply to post by GmoS719


I don't think you understood what I wrote, I said

Sin = Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.

I did not say, Sin = doing something you know in your conscience to be wrong.

you say

God instills in us right from wrong.

I would take that to mean, a persons conscience.

Please explain how that has anything to do with knowing the will of God? Thank you.


ETA: Example:

I don't kill bugs but you may. By your logic, my conscience says that killing bugs is a sin and your conscience says that killing bugs is not a sin. Therefore By your logic actions can be both sins and not sins depending on the person.

If sin changes from person to person, how can it be the known will of God?

(just my example, I do not pretend to know if you kill bugs or not)

To know the will of God is impossible so to call anything a sin is presumptuous.

reply to post by sageofmonticello

Basically you said, that to know what sin is you have to know the will of God.
And you go on to say that we don't know the will of God, so we can't know what sin is.
And I just disagreed with you.

reply to post by sageofmonticello

Religion is based on faith, Sin is based on the assumption that you know what God thinks somehow.

Christianity very early on had apologists that would write books addressed to the Emperor about how it would be the ideal religion for an empire, to rule consecutively with the civil government, as a parallel, ecclesiastical government. So, I think, you ended up with (after the empire took them up on the offer), sins that matched pretty closely with what an empire would consider acceptable for public standards of behavior and then the degrading to a lower status, sins that were not offensive to a civil government. Bottom line, at a practical level, god = ruling oligarchy, when you have this sort of church/state relationship such as was in existence through the dark ages and onward to different degrees.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Sin is going against the law. The law, when followed, can only provide benefit to others. This can easily be considered a positive value. A negative value goes against the law. I am not speaking of the many laws of man. I am referring to God's law. God keeps His law simple.

Matthew 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

The original Mosaic law was designed as a guardian for man as he develops sentience.

Galatians 3

23 Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

When Christ comes on the scene, the law is replaced by a law. This is 'the' law of God. Love others. That's it. If we love others as ourselves, we fulfill the law a Jesus did when He walked the earth. We can literally only break one law. This one law of love covers all offenses. Step outside the law of love for others and you sin.

Go back to the idea of positive and negative. If we add a positive and a positive, we get more positive. This is addition to mankind apart from sin. When a negative is added, a positive must be added to return the original value to zero. As man has evolved, he has figured out how to cheat the system. If negatives can be multiplied, a positive is produced. Man is crafty in this concept to harm others. How you ask?

If two negatives are multiplied by many people, a positive is produce. The problem is, this creates debt that must be repaid. Men, in their infinite greed, have found a way to transfer this debt to others. We see this today in our own government. Debt is borrowed from the people to finance theft of goods and services. The debt is transferred to the people but the profit is kept for those stealing the revenue. War is the primary means to steal money and transfer wealth to the top.

Anyone can accomplish this theft and we see people doing it all the time. It's called stealing without paying the price. Jesus did something 2000 years ago to undo this debt to those who love others. Jesus took our negative sin and multiplied it by the negative of His death on the cross. This produces a positive for those who love God. The debt that is left is transferred back to those who are currently reaping the reward they have chosen. When final judgment comes, this debt of mankind will be heaped and piled on the lawless individuals of the world who choose to steak, kill and destroy for profit.

Sin is negative. Serving others and forgiving debt is the opposite of sin. In other words, giving instead of taking.

Jesus walked and suffered every step for us to pay our debt of sin.

reply to post by GmoS719


Yes, then I replied to you and asked you to explain your position better because it does not make any sense to the dictionary definition of sin in theology, to me and in my opinion. I then gave you an example of how your logic does not make sense to me.

this is what one would call a discussion. Now lets see if we can continue to have a discussion or not. Would you mind replying to my response to your disagreement or do you not wish to discuss the matter?

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Don't have time right now to give this the attention it deserves. Later.

Nice preview, though and come back later if you have time, and add some answers, since it looks like you have one question already.

"John came neither eating or drinking, and you called him insane. Here I come eating and drinking, no doubt you'll call me a glutton and a drunkard!"

Jesus, to Simon and special guests.

..."But our law, it allows us to judge who is righteous and who is not!"

"And you should not judge!"

upon which the known prostitute enters the scene, and weeps on his feet.

"Daughter, your sins, and I know they are many, are forgiven you, because of your great love. Go and sin no more."



The love of God brings us to repentance..

Our guilt therefore, is a great blessing. Woe to the guiltless who sin without remorse. How happy the guilty who've experienced the grace of forgiveness.

"He who's been forgiven more, loves more."

Love is a morality which trascends the duality of should and shouldn't. So why do we keep eating from the wrong tree?

reply to post by jmdewey60


I appreciate your taking the time to write a reply to me but I am not very sure how your reply relates to the text of mine that you quoted. Could you please elaborate in that context so I can understand the point of what your reply to me was? Thank you.