It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The original meaning of sin.

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ecossiepossie
Let he or she whom has not sinned throw the first stone.Dont miss though as that is sinnfull .....................

I love it, it is such a rich subject! In spanish sin means without, "cerveza sin alchol" beer without alcohol. When as a young boy arrived in spain, a boy in a jesuit school threw a rock at me from far away. I saw it comming but did not move, it hit me right in the centre of the forehead. So that makes it a sinless strike, mind you I will never forget and at the same time take notice of your prevision .




posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   
The original sin, the first mistake. The mistake, the lie that separates 'you' from God. Missing the point.
From the first mistake all confusion grows.
It is a case of mistaken identity. All because you don't know who 'you' are.

youtu.be...

I believe the symbol of the cross is representing the cross hair on a target, the point of Christ is the middle.
edit on 3-12-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ancientthunder
reply to post by Tayesin
 


Yes I suppose you could say that could easily be considered to be an original type of sin.


But you can hardly miss the mark if it didn’t even exist yet, sounds like creation is making it up as it unfolds ? What ever the real case may be, it certainly seems like the creator ( or whatever each person like to call it ) is leaving a lot of local issues up to us.


How many attempts do we get at 'hitting the mark'? Is each unsuccessful attempt a sin, I wonder? The greatest sinner, is presumably identified as being the worst shot! Hence, Robin Hood proves his (spiritual?) innocence, by being a perfect shot. As does William Tell.

Metaphorically.

Obviously, the nature of what is and isn't a sin has changed somewhat over the centuries, but many hunter gatherer cultures see/saw it as displeasing to the gods if a kill/shot wasn't clean. To maim an animal was a spiritual crime amongst many cultures. Depending upon the cultures, the punishments could be quite severe.

I can see the evolution, there is a continuity there. I commend the OP!



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
To turn away from God is the original sin, the only sin.
youtu.be...
Sin is not a behaviour. Sin is an anti spiritual gesture.
edit on 3-12-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Going back to the ancient Gnostics on the subject of Original sin, they taught it as the fall from the light. The dis-ease of Eve or Eves-ill(Evil) is loosing sight of the truths of God. When one turns from the light(truths) they fall into the darkness(confusion) of separation from those truths and thus loose the "I AM" and become separated from the One principle of Knowledge. Eves-ill was/is the ego of man or false knowledge of the light.
 




Your description of the cross forming "cross hairs" brings it right back to Sun worship as the cross within the circle is an ancient symbol of the Sun.


edit on 3-12-2011 by Agarta because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Very interesting discussion and interesting thread.


While I have read and contemplated numerous religious texts and views on the concept of sin, I have found the Gnostic views to be particularly interesting.


Originally posted by Agarta

Going back to the ancient Gnostics on the subject of Original sin, they taught it as the fall from the light. The dis-ease of Eve or Eves-ill(Evil) is loosing sight of the truths of God. When one turns from the light(truths) they fall into the darkness(confusion) of separation from those truths and thus loose the "I AM" and become separated from the One principle of Knowledge. Eves-ill was/is the ego of man or false knowledge of the light.



Gnostics do not look to salvation from sin (original or other), but rather from the ignorance of which sin is a consequence.

Source

Personally, I find it quite telling to ponder the state of our world if the "standard" definition of sin had never existed. If all the lower emotions of fear, guilt, shame, anger, and hatred that have been manifested in relationship with traditional concepts of sin were dissolved away - and indeed had never existed - what would our world look like today? Could the energy that mankind has poured into these lower states of mind and emotion have been expressed in a better, more positive and beneficial manner? If so, how very different might our world look today?










If, on the other hand, morality is said to consist of an inner integrity arising from the illumination of the indwelling spark, then the Gnostic will embrace this spiritually informed existential ethic as ideal.
edit on 12/3/2011 by Open2Truth because: source link correction



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ancientthunder
 


i dont think that u could b correct there, original sin is to s like original win is to vv

s like snake or silence or sex or sand or shut or #
ww like win or want or will or war or waranty or way and always or wide

so original sin is what define u being lost forever, this is sad and unfair bc principally of two different factors

first bc it cant justified tortures and forcing abject deaths of real livings awareness loneliness forever

second bc of truth, what is objective is not but of absolute powers force life, so what give forms to humans sins or souls sins is the living sin god that will never b judged nor lost, that is unacceptable



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Chet, the Hebrew word for sin, also means 'to miss the mark"...so yup...



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


u r translating that to ur positive will

missing is clear but mark how that become a goal ? it is more logical to see mark as what objectively exist already, not some intention u subjectively point being ur goals



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 

thanks for the video, it was really worth hearing his wholistic view. Some words clarify, others cloud over.




posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Open2Truth
 

Thanks for your input, it shows that at various points in time, there were people that were very aware and were able to discern beyond the meaning of the word. This enables us to experience life in a much more satisfying way. The gnostics definitely had a very advanced view that many powers were unable to understand. What is misunderstood, is often trampled upon and considered to be of no value whatsoever. Funny how this happens.




top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join