The idea of "sin" is wrong.

[playhavock]

"Sin" is - loosly defined as anything that is agenst Gods commands and/or (the way god is) in fact, no one can not be in sin since God is perfect (apprently)
So, no matter what you do you are "wrong" and must be forgen (constantly?) for this, making one feel very down or bad on themselfs. I find the idea and very consept of sin to be wrong. Perhaps someone will have a difernet concept of what sin is, and I can analise that one and see if it too is offencive.

[Ankhhape]

Your Sins are my Pleasures! Sin is a fabrication of the Abrahamic world, it is meant to control its Sheeple. No one is born into Sin, for Sin is Subjective.

Metaphorically speaking:
The Fall represents mankind's and nature's fall into materialism. This Fall shields us from the spiritual world and opens an Abyss between Man and the Divine. The reason behind the Fall is often described as being hubris, man's search for knowledge and forces that originally were not meant for him to acquire.

Lucifer-Daath, the metephoric Serpent of the Garden of Eden (Sumerian lore mentions this place as Edin), represents the divine force of creation that is able to carry out the idea of creation. Lucifer slithers down to man's level and awakens the power of creation and the sexual energy in man, thus the creative aspect of Man.

Interesting to note that in Gematria the number 666 refers to the Beast, Satan-Typhon, Apophis, Jesus, and the spirit of the Sun. The number 358 refers to the Serpent in the Garden of Eden (Lucifer) as well as the Messiah.

Here we have defining concepts behind the Truth, that Satan/Jesus is the Spirit of the Sun, the Element of Fire of the South and the Divine manifest into the Physical. We then have the concept that the Serpent (Lucifer/Daath) is the True Messiah, that it is through Lucifer's compassion and gnosis, that we know we can go home to our Higher-Self and Become a God.

-from the Gospels of Nag Hammadi:
Testimonial of Truth
"the God whom most Christians worship, the God of the Hebrew Bible, is 'himself' one of the fallen angels, from whose tyranny Christ came to set human beings free.

TOT (3:4-5)
it reveals truth only when one reads it in reverse, recognizing that God is actually the villain, and the Serpent (Lucifer) the holy one

Reality of Rulers (Nag Hammadi)
"It is Samael and his fellow 'rulers' of the Darkness (Eph.6:12), not the true God, who formed Adam's physical body, set him to work in Paradise, "to till and cultivate it" then put him to sleep and fashioned his female partner out of his rib."

"It is this God that commanded Adam not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, which could open his eyes to the Truth. When Adam & Eve, enlightened by the feminine spiritual principle who appeared to her in the form of the Serpent and deified them."

Psychologically speaking:

The Original Sin as the tradition of the Fall from the Garden of Eden' is an archetypal structure embedded deep within our unconsciousness. The Original Sin is Man's guilt of being carnivorous and lycanthropic.

We are all descended from males of the carnivorous lycanthropic variety, a mutation evolved under the pressure of hunger caused by the climatic change at the end of the pluvial period, which induced indiscriminate, even cannibalistic predatory aggression, culminating in the rape and sometimes even in the devouring of the females of the original peaceful fruit-eating bon sauvage remaining in the primeval virgin forests.

It was the 'clothes of skin' and the 'aprons of fig-leaves', that produced the nakedness of man, and not the other way round, the urge to cover man's nudity that led to the invention of clothing. It is obvious that neither man nor woman could be 'ashamed' (Gen. ii. 25) or 'afraid because they were naked' (Gen. iii. 10 f.) before they had donned their animal's pelt or hunters' 'apron of leaves', and got so accustomed to wearing it that the uncovering of their defenseless bodies gave them a feeling of cold, fear and the humiliating impression of being again reduced to the primitive fruit-gatherer's state of a helpless 'unarmed animal' exposed to the assault of the better-equipped enemy.

The uncovered body could not have been considered 'indecorous' or 'im-moral'.The very feeling of sin, the consciousness of having done something 'im-moral', contrary to the mores, customs or habits of the herd, could not be experienced before a part of the herd had wrenched itself free from the inherited behaviour-pattern and radically changed its way of life from that of a frugivorous to that of a carnivorous or omnivorous animal.

- from a lecture delivered at a meeting of the Royal Society of Medicine by ROBERT EISLER - First published in 1951 by Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, London, B.C.4
Printed in Great Britain by Butler and Tanner Limited Frome and London[/u]

[Slopeshoulder]

Hey playhavock,

What I showed you in my post was the othodox Catholic view. What Slopeshoulder is presenting is the liberal, modern Catholic view.

Actually that's not true. The opposites are really orthodox vs. unorthoox, conservative vs. liberal, traditional or premodern vs. modern. You're mixing categories and trying to call me unorthdox, a technical term. I am not unorthodox, merely less common and known to to "das mann."
We're both orthodox (in line with creeds and councils, not heretics, not excommunicated), but you are conservative-premodern, and I am liberal-modern. Calling me unorthodox is inaccurate.

Both views as views are valid. But I do not agree with him, and he does not agree with me.

True. Fair response. Thank you. We disagree strongly, but I know you to be a good guy. Unlike others we could name.

We aren't born perfect because of the fall.

No. The fall is a mythic account, with profound meaning, that seeks to make sense of how we aspire to the good but often fail, how we are radically finite (morally, perspectively, and biologically), and how we are dependent.
But it didn't happen. It's a myth. It instructs. There is no cause and effect historicism in it.

That is one interpretation.

You are free to hold that opinion, and I am free to hold my own.

Agreed.
But what's wrong with mine? How is the content of Christianiity diminished if we don't focus on literalism vs. mythic meaning? Can't God speak to us in the latter? I submit this is the only way he can and does.

When Adam and Eve (or the original humans) sinned. That broke the balance between man and God. We were put in charge of nature, and the first 'sin' knocked nature out of control (this comes up in the Augustinian theodicy).

Well that's one interpretation. But even if "true", it can't be taken seriously as a fact claim about actual events. Rather, Augustine is appropriating the myth for use in his theology. Personally I don't buy Augustine in this regard. Although imbalance and alienation as a result of our finitude is a good theme, so maybe I do buy it. In other words, the meaning is cool, the history and science are not.

I don't think science and history have anything to say in this regard.

When you say "this happened," you are making scientific and historical claims, and they fail to meet the standards of science or history, or reason. The mythic interpretation is, IMO, both more reasonable and more satisfying.

BTW, I'm noticing a pattern of refusal to engage the substance of my argument in favor of low level, unimpressive, predictable, and tired apologetic trickery/rhetoric, as if I'm an idiot or something.

But Jesus came and died for us (long story) in order to pay the price we needed to.

Well IMO sin and atonement theology (see Augustine) is an utter crock. Even as myth. I think the greek orthodox do a better thing with incarnational theology and redemption, light and dark, and all that. But the general point that an external redeemer who resets the balance is good I guess. As is the story of the crucified yet risen incarnated god-man. Good stuff. But pay the debt? And literally? Nope.

Again, you are free to hold that view, I however do not share it.

Noted. Christianity has room for more than one Christological emphasis and interpretation. Both are kosher-legal.

We can access Jesus' saving power in several different ways, but the main one is through Baptism.

Baptism is a nice ritual. I don't think it effects anything. But it's a nice ritual, very symbolic. Better ways to access what some call "Jesus' saving power" are probably through thought, feeling and action, in contemplation, meditation, and lived life.

So Jesus didn't mean what he said?

How do we know what Jesus said? All we have are theological narratives, works of interpretation and rhetorical intent: mythic history, a unique and ancient literary form. And we are to interpret them in light of reason, conscience, theology, reality on the ground, human need, scholarly input, intuition, the heart, and the tradition of exegesis. If you think you can point to a qoute and establish sin&atonement theology, I say you're wrong, or have underestimated your audience and the challenge at hand. The discourse is broader than that. So net, Jesus is alright wth me, but I don't accept what you said.

Slopeshoulder doesn't appear to hold the early Church and the teachings of the fathers in high regard.

I hold them in high regard as part of the entire tradition, including the modern reappropriation, and my own well-earned theological chops. Again, you're indulging a reduction and considering it some sort of truth.

The problem is not about being born perfect, it is about staying perfect. Jesus and Mary both managed to stay perfect (although the teaching of the Catholic Church is that they were born perfect as well, but I'll save that one for another day).

So the story goes. Not literal of course. I wonder what the meaning is though. There's a theme of fulfilled not fallen that emerges in the leaders/mediators in the story.

What of the Bible do you believe?

I believe all of it.

But I take very little of it literally. It's clearly meant to be read mythically, as interpretive theological history. I read it as an educated modern, not as a premodern or as a modern fundamentalist or an uneducated literalist. I read it as one part of the conversation and tradition, albeit as something that is normative insofar as our reflections must take it and its history of application seriously.
Do you really mean for me to take your rhetorical tricks and simple rejoinders seriously? Again, you underestimate me sir. This isn't street corner or bible night stuff. You'll have to raise your game. Send in a seminarian if necessary.

Mary and Jesus both freely choose God. They both freely resisted sin. That is why we consider them 'perfect'. Both are 'stainless'.

So this reinforces free will and choice, but only with a divine or divine-enabled nature. Key themes. Good. Although all the sin/sain stuff is a little self-hating and tired, so can't we just say imperfection or finitude? And what's so wrong with imperfection and finitude? isn't that just how we are? Good for us to try to transcend it!!! Within reason. I find that Christians, Buddhists, and humanists (and others) all have good things to say on the matter.

Is the question: 'what is wrong with imperfection and finitude' one you want me to try and answer?

No, it was rhetorical. I'm just a bit tired of the self-hating hand wringing dualism. We're finite. OK, there's wisdom there, but let's all chill a bit. Not everyone is as tortured, fear-driven, self-hating, or other-hating, as Paul, Luther, Augustine, Kierkegaard, etc. were.

[playhavock]

Ankhhape

-from the Gospels of Nag Hammadi:
Testimonial of Truth
"the God whom most Christians worship, the God of the Hebrew Bible, is 'himself' one of the fallen angels, from whose tyranny Christ came to set human beings free.

TOT (3:4-5)
it reveals truth only when one reads it in reverse, recognizing that God is actually the villain, and the Serpent (Lucifer) the holy one

Darn I thought for sure I had come up with this idea on my own! Sigh! But yeah, it makes WAY more sence this way – I don’t buy it anyway, but it would make sence. I’ve never heard of this gospel of Nah Hammadi – where does it come from , histroicaly speaking? When was it written, who wrote it, who accepts it, etc etc – what languge and so on?
I… would not understand how the devil comes to tempt Christ plays into the above eather, so yeah… but none of this really resolves the orginal issue.
Doctranal issues
I had no idea I was talking to Catholics I .. have zero idea about catholicisem other then rumors and a few things that I’ve read about it – just too meny things to research really. I do not understand how Marry can be born perfect – but no one else – or who is “right� there seems to be no way to deside such matters – because, well – its all interpation and subjective, there is (as far as I know) no objective data to look at and alalise so there can be agreement. As far as I can tell – neather view answers how sin is not a bad thing – to me (clearly) it is offencive. Yes, some people are … fill in the blanks – and some people are wonderfull – and some are a bit of both. If there is a creator it screwed up with the free will idea – of course… who knows if there is free will or not – or both. And that is a whole other - other - other issue that I’d rather not tangent into.
@_@

[connermt]

"Sin" is - loosly defined as anything that is agenst Gods commands and/or (the way god is) in fact, no one can not be in sin since God is perfect (apprently)
So, no matter what you do you are "wrong" and must be forgen (constantly?) for this, making one feel very down or bad on themselfs. I find the idea and very consept of sin to be wrong. Perhaps someone will have a difernet concept of what sin is, and I can analise that one and see if it too is offencive.

Not all christians believe you need constant forgiveness of sins - once forgiven always forgiven.
Beyond that, sin seems to be only attributable to humanity. For example: God says don't murder - it's a sin. But god murders many, many people. So if sin is distancing yourself from god, and murder is a sin, shouldn't god be sinning (distancing himself from himself) by murdering people himself? Yes. Unless, god's a god of "do what I say not what I do". Which seems to be the case.
Currently, so many things are considered "sins" - some by one but not by others of the same faith:
smoking
drinking
cursing
lying
being gay
acting on gay thoughts
premarital sex, etc.

Seems like anything a group of people don't "like" they say is "sin".
It's tedious and ultimately ridiculous.

[Suluby]

"Sin" is - loosly defined as anything that is agenst Gods commands and/or (the way god is) in fact, no one can not be in sin since God is perfect (apprently)
So, no matter what you do you are "wrong" and must be forgen (constantly?) for this, making one feel very down or bad on themselfs. I find the idea and very consept of sin to be wrong. Perhaps someone will have a difernet concept of what sin is, and I can analise that one and see if it too is offencive.

This presumes that Adonai requires absolute perfection. That is not correct, Adonai requires us to follow His commandments. There are many things that are not included in His commandments. However, the truth is that Adonai requires us to live according to His ways. He gave us the commandments because of the hardness of our hearts. Thus the first and greatest commandment is "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." What should one call it, when one does not love one's spouse? Is this not an offense against ones spouse?

Never heard the name "Adonai" used for (G) before - but okay. So being told to love someone is a good moral? Love me! This is a good thing?

Adon-i is the way that Jews speak the name of G-d, as a vocalization of the Tetragrammaton. The Hebrew word mean 'master' or 'lord'.

It is used in prayer. HaShem (The Name) is used in conversation.


.

[bluethread]

Never heard the name "Adonai" used for (G) before - but okay. So being told to love someone is a good moral? Love me! This is a good thing?

Is it, therefore, not a sin against you to not love you?

Not at all. Anyone is free to love or hate me as they so wish to, I might want peole to do one over the other, but neather is "sin" as far as I know. Emotions towards me are not themselfs bad to me - it is the action that someone might take that may harm me in some way that might harm me and I might not like or care for that, but that is not a "sin" it is simply something that I do not perfer to have happen to me, laws and other enforcements might (or might not) keep me (more) safe from bad things and in general people are not jerks without reasion (but not always)
finaly, no matter how much you might love someone you might still accedently run over them with your car - so it is not very relevent to if loving or not loving them was a sin (if we are looking at sin as something wrong) - the "sin" as i have defined it is doing somethign that is agenst gods orders - whether by error or on purpous, I am not sure I have totaly correct your version of it, but I hope my explaition of what I think is correct follows.

What is the significance of your avatar? I ask because, to me, it seems to imply an understanding of the Scriptures from a jewish prospective. To my best knowledge, the jewish prospective is that love is not about emotions, but actions. It is the romantic, ie. roman, view of love that focuses on emotions. In fact, if one were to look at the entomology of emotion it means that which causes motion. Therefore, even under that understanding, a loving felling that is not acted on is not really an emotion and not really love. In conclusion, if "sin" is defined as not doing what Adonai requires and Adonai requires one to love someone, isn't failing to actively love someone a sin? Also, regardless of how one feels, someone running over another with ones car can not be called loving them. One is still required to make restitution.

[bluethread]

Never heard the name "Adonai" used for (G) before - but okay. So being told to love someone is a good moral? Love me! This is a good thing?

Adon-i is the way that Jews speak the name of G-d, as a vocalization of the Tetragrammaton. The Hebrew word mean 'master' or 'lord'.

It is used in prayer. HaShem (The Name) is used in conversation.


.

After reading your post, I believe I owe an explanation. Though playhavok wanted an explanation, I find most people I talk with recognize Adonai as a name for HaShem without all of the baggage attached to the G term by christians and others. The term HaShem, on the other hand, is rarely recognized outside of jewish circles.

[Quath]

I think sin is defined as going against a command of God. I think a sin is created anytime a person wanted others to obey that person's desires. That person just has to claim they found a new command from God.

Even though the Bible says that all of God's commands are perfect and eternal, we know the Bible is filled with horrible commands that are routinely ignored. No one is promoting making a raped girl marry her rapist, even though it is a marriage law in the Bible.

So most talks about sins today are cherry picked rules that the person likes.

[Ankhhape]

I think sin is defined as going against a command of God. I think a sin is created anytime a person wanted others to obey that person's desires. That person just has to claim they found a new command from God.

Even though the Bible says that all of God's commands are perfect and eternal, we know the Bible is filled with horrible commands that are routinely ignored. No one is promoting making a raped girl marry her rapist, even though it is a marriage law in the Bible.

So most talks about sins today are cherry picked rules that the person likes.

Actually the 7 Deadly Sins as well as the 10 Commandments are simply rewritten statements from ancient Egypt's 42 Negative Confessions found in the Papyrus of Ani.

IMO this is yet another attempt at controlling the Pagan religions.
Ironically most of the worst Sinners are from the Abrahamic faiths.

[bluethread]

I think sin is defined as going against a command of God. I think a sin is created anytime a person wanted others to obey that person's desires. That person just has to claim they found a new command from God.

Even though the Bible says that all of God's commands are perfect and eternal, we know the Bible is filled with horrible commands that are routinely ignored. No one is promoting making a raped girl marry her rapist, even though it is a marriage law in the Bible.

So most talks about sins today are cherry picked rules that the person likes.

This cherry picking is what leads to some commandments looking horrible. In the context of HaTorah as a whole, making a man provide for a woman he has raped for the rest of her life without any relief for any reason does make sense. However, there are several biblical presuppositions in that statement that those who do not take HaTorah seriously have also discarded. Allowing a man or woman to destroy their children's childhood simply because they don't "feel loved" is also horrible. However, in the context of current western culture it is not considered a sin. So, when looking at a concept such as "sin" it is important to look at the entire context.