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

reply to post by jmdewey60

I think you were right in correcting me earlier, that the basic law is the Law of Love.

Yeah man, Christ called us to love all, in all situations. I failed that. But I immediately repented, I knew I was wrong. The conviction was basically immediately after it was over.

sin is the transgression of the law

plain and simple - known or unknown by you, deliberate or not

its in our blood, our nature, inherited from Adam

sin separates us from the Father; and thankfully there is a redeemer so when we ask forgiveness we are accepted

the law was taught to all the men of yisrael, who were supposed to teach their children and so on so that ignorance did not occur

as Apostle Paul says, I may have been ignorant of sin before, but now that I am aware of it, its eating me alive...

however, having said this, we are told to believe in Ya'shauh for forgiveness of sins

it is written in Genesis - Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned (imputed) to him as righteousness

(righteousnees being in right standing, being as righteous as the Father is)

reply to post by Highlander64

Apostle Paul says, I may have been ignorant of sin before. . .

In Romans 10:3 Paul was talking about the Jews keeping the Law but being ignorant of God's righteousness. So it sounds like the opposite of what you just said.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You know that there is a spirit of condemnation which continually seeks to accuse, and convict us, before God whenever we fall short of God's glory, so as to keep us in bondage to the law of should and shouldn't (tree of good and evil) and to that point of control, so as to prevent our movement into the freedom of God's love. Of course God can make use of that since he wills all things to the good for those who love him. I'm just saying that God isn't a taskmaster, and that love isn't love unless it's free, whereby the joy of love its its own reward..

reply to post by NewAgeMan
If we do something and then think about what we did and upon reflection, think of it as not being right, we can have a sort of hatred of that wrongness, but that should not become hatred for yourself.
I think a lot about what I do right here and wonder if I am doing something bad, and if I think I did, I think about how I need to be better so I don't do the same sort of thing.
I think what God does is to have us even care to think about it and wonder, in the first place. We don't want an unconditional self-love, in my opinion. We want to look at who we want to be and have our desire for that.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Of course of course, we want to have awareness and measure ourselves and subject ourselves to God's love as the standard, and work with loving discipline to grow in love.

I'm just saying that the Christian is often under a special kind of subtle attack which would have as it's aim the desire to deflect us from the love of Christ, and in the most cunning and subtle manner, re-enslave us back to the tree of the duality of the knowledge of good and evil (should and should not), instead of freely eating of the tree of life. It's an issue of jealousy and hatred, and not necessarily our own.

What I'm saying is that love is also a form of awareness which is self governing, and so we will catch ourselves, go duh, that wasn't loving, and then get back on the beam again, which just feels right. Maybe that's what she means, but it sounded like something stronger and more accusatory than that to me. We must test these spirits, particularly if they carry with them a sense of accusation and "conviction" which might get us more focused on the should, and less on the love of I want to, because such love is a free, spontaneous and wholly authentic expression of God's love for us and vice versa, unconditionally received and extended in kind and in the same spirit, not because we "should" but because that's our heart and what we are growing into, even what we are becoming as love itself.

The distinction is very subtle, but a very important one that needs to be made.

What am I saying? That it might not have been the spirit of the Lord that was "convicting" her (him).

Although there is the saying "fake it until you make it", if we TRY too hard to be good Christians, we'll miss the whole point, which is the opportunity to get to actually BE one, for real!

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Although there is the saying "fake it until you make it", if we TRY too hard to be good Christians, we'll miss the whole point, which is the opportunity to get to actually BE one, for real!

Could be an artificial standard. That would be what Paul was talking about, I would think, having people trying to live up to something you could write down, instead of having a direct spiritual connection.

I would define sin, personally, as any action that is likely to have, or in fact does have, a consequence that is not in line with your overall identity or preferences, or the sort of person that you self-identify as, or have chosen to be.

That sounds like I'm offering license for amorality; and yes, in reality, I am. Will is free.

That doesn't mean that I condone actions like the destruction of the World Trade Centre, or the continual creation of fear and other negative energies in the public, in relation to that. I do not personally choose the dark or STS polarity as my own developmental path, partly because it is associated with large quantities of stress, pain and misery for everyone involved, and partly simply because it is ultimately illusory and stagnant. It doesn't really lead anywhere. Although I don't always express those things, being human; at a base level, I prefer joy, peace, love, compassion, and an absence of fear.

For people who *are* on that path, however, what they do is not sin to them. The reason why this is important to understand, is because getting us to psychologically and emotionally sit in judgement of them, is a major part of the way by which STS (Service to Self) polarised individuals induce us to generate the types of negative emotions and energies which they enjoy, and feed from. If you don't judge them, you won't hate them, and if you don't hate them, you won't feed them; and thus, you won't perpetuate their behaviour, or the events associated with it.

The other thing that is even more important to understand, is that no; this attitude is not fluffy or flakey; quite the opposite. The reason why I say this, is because binding yourself to anything in that sense, and then sitting in judgement of people who violate supposed "absolutes," and expressing negative emotions/energy towards them, is itself a shift towards the STS/negative polarity. So the only way we remain consistent with our own preference, if said preference is positive, is to continue to feel positive towards said individuals, regardless of how depraved their actions supposedly are.

So no, sin is not really something to worry about. Sin is what occurs when you commit an act, and/or experience a consequence of that act, which is not consistent with your own moral self-definition. For us, a sin is putting a cat in a recycle bin. For someone with the opposite polarity, it might well be a sin NOT to do that.

reply to post by petrus4

Sin is what occurs when you commit an act, and/or experience a consequence of that act, which is not consistent with your own moral self-definition.

The Pharisees had their own definition of sin but Jesus told them they were wrong.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by petrus4

 

Sin is what occurs when you commit an act, and/or experience a consequence of that act, which is not consistent with your own moral self-definition.

The Pharisees had their own definition of sin but Jesus told them they were wrong.

As well as their own understanding of righteousness, which Christ said they had zero.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by petrus4

 

Sin is what occurs when you commit an act, and/or experience a consequence of that act, which is not consistent with your own moral self-definition.

The Pharisees had their own definition of sin but Jesus told them they were wrong.

As well as their own understanding of righteousness, which Christ said they had zero.

I missed that verse, somehow, could you give a citation for it?

Sin is the absence of love. If you love someone, you won't steal from them, you won't commit adultery with their spouse, you won't kill them, you won't bear false witness against them, you won't lure them into a subprime mortgage, you won't try to make a profit off of selling them things or loaning them money, you won't do anything that would piss them off (whether they'd ever find out about it or not). If you intentionally do something that you know would piss someone else off, you've sinned, whether that other person is your fellow man or God. Every one of the Ten Commandments defines a different way you can sin against man or God. Jesus' one single "love everyone as you love yourself" commandment is a blueprint for avoiding sin. Everyone always seems to make this topic much deeper than it needs to be, spelunking into dimly-lit, arcane realms of theology theory, but it's so, so simple. Love and respect everyone, and you will not sin. Do nothing that harms or annoys someone (including God), and you will not sin. This is why it's not a sin to shave your face, or eat rattlesnake, or let your children live when they back-talk you, or to be gay, despite Leviticus telling us that all of those things are sinful, because God changed the rules once Jesus sacrificed himself for us. Go look up the story of the Apostle Simon Peter attending a banquet at the house of a Roman named Cornelius, and what happened there. It's in Acts, chapter 10, and it should make everything clear, especially verse 28. If not, ask the Holy Spirit for guidance. That's why it exists.

reply to post by Thought Provoker
So are you saying sin is doing a sin, as in an infraction of the commandment, in this case the commandment to love others?
What if sin was just not having any of that sort of love and the only motivation you had was concern about wht you wanted?
Jesus says, "Don't do that." but is he defining what sin is right there?
How about when he tells the woman caught in adultery, "Sin no more." did he mean don't be doing the sort of evil that would get you put to death, or did he mean not to do any sort of thing that could be considered an infraction of the commandment?

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by petrus4

 

Sin is what occurs when you commit an act, and/or experience a consequence of that act, which is not consistent with your own moral self-definition.

The Pharisees had their own definition of sin but Jesus told them they were wrong.

As well as their own understanding of righteousness, which Christ said they had zero.

I missed that verse, somehow, could you give a citation for it?

Christ called the Pharisees "blind guides", "hypocrites", a "brood of vipers", and that their father was "the devil". I can't think of an instance where Christ had anything positive to say about them.

reply to post by jmdewey60

So are you saying sin is doing a sin, as in an infraction of the commandment, in this case the commandment to love others?

You're looking for the reason a sin is sinful? I don't think any given action is a sin because it's "against the one true law;" it's a sin because someone got hurt and you willfully did it. (Nothing that happens by accident or without your willful intent can be a sin. You have to have wanted to do it, without caring what happens to anyone else as a result.) "Love Everyone" is a law because of what it's meant to prevent: people not caring whether others come to harm. If you willingly harm someone, you've sinned, not because you broke the law, but because it harmed someone. Make sense?

What if sin was just not having any of that sort of love and the only motivation you had was concern about what you wanted?

Oh, that's sin too, believe me. That's the very foundation of it: concern only for yourself. Doing something to benefit yourself at someone else's expense, and knowing it'll hurt them, means you don't care about those who get hurt. You don't love them. You only care about yourself. "Sin" is very nearly a synonym for "greed."

Jesus says, "Don't do that." but is he defining what sin is right there?

It isn't just the act of disobeying his One Law that's sinful; it's the act of deciding to hurt someone else. But remember: disobeying God does piss him off. It does hurt him. So when you sin against a person, you're simultaneously sinning against man and God... but only if you know it's a sin. (Read around verse 22.)

How about when he tells the woman caught in adultery, "Sin no more." did he mean don't be doing the sort of evil that would get you put to death, or did he mean not to do any sort of thing that could be considered an infraction of the commandment?

The latter. Jesus couldn't care less about man's laws. The Pharisees were using God's laws to get themselves a little afternoon's stoning entertainment at the woman's expense, ignoring the fact that they themselves were just as sinful as her. "Sin no more" was shorthand for "Don't cheat on your husband anymore, it annoys him." That's the sin of adultery, not the sex itself. It's being selfish, getting some pleasure at another's expense. Jeering at the losing football team is sin. Calling someone "Idiot" is sin. Usury is sin. Trolling is a sin. And they're all sins because they're a conscious choice to hurt someone else, whether you benefit or not.

This is fun. I love to teach.

To further clarify: Jesus didn't mean "Obey my commandment because I said so." He meant "Obey my commandment because nobody likes being sinned against." The law is there so people know that it's wrong to do selfish and malicious things to each other. After all, if you don't know something is a sin, you cannot and will not be held accountable for commiting it. The law is there so we all know that hurting others is sinful. See?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by petrus4

 

Sin is what occurs when you commit an act, and/or experience a consequence of that act, which is not consistent with your own moral self-definition.

The Pharisees had their own definition of sin but Jesus told them they were wrong.

As well as their own understanding of righteousness, which Christ said they had zero.

I missed that verse, somehow, could you give a citation for it?

Christ called the Pharisees "blind guides", "hypocrites", a "brood of vipers", and that their father was "the devil". I can't think of an instance where Christ had anything positive to say about them.

Seems you don't have time to look up any verses so I will see if I can find anything about Pharisees. The reason I asked was because I wondered if you were in the habit of telling people they have zero righteousness. It is one thing to say to yourself that YOU have zero righteousness but it seems judgmental to me to say it about other people. Even though these people are dead now, you are still insulting actual persons.

Now one of the Pharisees asked Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table.

Sounds like Jesus did not have a problem associating with Pharisees if they were welcoming to him.

Then when Paul noticed that part of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, he shouted out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead!”

Paul even called the Pharisees "his brothers."

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The experts in the law and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat. Therefore pay attention to what they tell you and do it.

Jesus told the people to respect and obey the Pharisee's authority.

But some from the religious party of the Pharisees who had believed stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and to order them to observe the law of Moses.”

Apparently some of the first Christians were Pharisees.

I lived according to the law as a Pharisee. . . According to the righteousness stipulated in the law I was blameless.

Paul said he had some sort of righteousness. That would make it more than zero.

Easy to know what sin is.

Sin is any thought or action that causes pain eventually.

That's how we know.

The sin may seem pleasurable at the moment of the sin, but afterwords pain comes as a direct result of the action.

The wages of sin is death. [ Romans 6:23 KJV Bible ]

1 John 3:4
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; indeed, sin is lawlessness.

Practices. The word in this verse means generally, to do. The Greek word here can be found in 74 different forms, according to its usage. Of the one particular spelling as found in this verse, there are 27 occurrences in the New Testament. It may be of interest to look at a few of these to see what it may mean or what John was trying to convey.

Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Everyone who hears these words of mine, and doesn't do them will be like a foolish man, who built his house on the sand.

Everyone who comes to me, and hears my words, and does them, I will show you who he is like.

But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God."

a devout man, and one who feared God with all his house, who gave gifts for the needy generously to the people, and always prayed to God.

That the rest of men may seek after the Lord; All the Gentiles who are called by my name, Says the Lord, who does all these things.

Do you think this, O man who judges those who practice such things, and do the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?

They have all turned aside. They have together become unprofitable. There is no one who does good, no, not, so much as one."

Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in doing so, you will heap coals of fire on his head."

having abolished in the flesh the hostility, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man of the two, making peace;

Pay attention to yourself, and to your teaching. Continue in these things, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.

I command you in the sight of God, and Christ Jesus, and the chosen angels, that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing by partiality.

My Comment: Looks like John is contrasting all these admonitions to "do" something but not just anything, but what you need to do for salvation; with someone who instead, "does" exactly the opposite. So it is not just a single act but a lifestyle, what he meant in this verse by "practices", you make it a practice to do what makes you not be saved.