Sin in Judaism

[cnorman18]

The concept of "sin," as it is understood in the Christian faith, has no exact cognate in Judaism. I thought it might be worth examining the differences.

First; Judaism has no concept of "original sin." No one is born guilty. (It's hard to see how that could make sense to anyone in the first place.)

Humans are inherently neither good nor bad; humans are just humans. All humans have an impulse toward good as well as an impulse toward evil, and that is not going to change throughout our lives. We will not magically lose the impulse toward evil through an infusion of the Holy Spirit, a Second Birth, or any other such supernatural experience. We are all doomed to remain human. Sorry about that.

Further, our job is not simply to resist the evil impulse and go with the good; for one thing, that is not humanly possible to do 100%. For another, the evil impulse is necessary to human existence. For instance, if there were no such thing as selfishness, to ANY degree, we would all be poor and homeless because we would all have given away everything we own. If no one sought sexual gratification, humans would have been extinct before we ever got out of the caves - and maybe the trees.

It is our job to take the evil impulse and sanctify it; to turn it to the service of good. Do you ache to be famous? Be famous for doing good; be a philanthropist or a volunteer. Do you want to be rich? Get rich by inventing or discovering something that benefits everyone. Do you want power? Run for office, and do your best to serve and do good for the people who elect you. Do you crave sex? Get married to someone who feels the same way and ball your brains out; make each other happy. Do you want to be admired and looked up to and depended upon? Do the same, and have many children.

The emphasis in Judaism is on doing good, not on not doing bad. It seems to me an altogether more positive, healthier, and happier approach. One spends one's energy looking for good things to do, not bad things to condemn.

The operative word here is mitzvah, often casually translated as "good deed." That is not quite accurate; the word actually means "commandment."

Now, the difference is notable; a "good deed" is usually thought of as voluntary, and a "commandment" mandatory; and we generally think of voluntary deeds as being more virtuous and positive than deeds which we are obliged to do.

It's interesting that the rabbis of old taught the opposite. They believed that obligatory acts are more consistent and beneficial, and thus more important and more morally significant, than voluntary ones. Two examples, courtesy of Rabbi Joseph Telushkin's discussion of this subject in Jewish Literacy:

Many people attempt to go on diets, and the overwhelming majority of those people fail to stick with them (I speak from much experience). However, Jews who "keep kosher" rather often go for their entire lives without once eating pork, shellfish, or other forbidden foods - and remember, in Judaism this is not motivated by a fear of Hell. (Telushkin even observes that if the Government ever mandated putting pork in chocolate products, he might be able to lose weight.)

Another example: In economic hard times, charitable giving drops off precipitously - but people still manage to pay their taxes. Taxes are required; "charity" is optional.

(In Judaism, giving to "charity" is not voluntary or optional; it is mandatory. There is, in fact, no word for "charity" in Hebrew. The applicable word is tzedakah, which is simply the feminine form of the word tzedek, "justice." Giving to the poor, for Jews, is not a voluntary "good deed" for which one gets "extra credit" or thought especially virtuous. It is an obligation. Not giving to the poor is a violation of Jewish law. Even the very poor are expected to give a portion of what they have, for the benefit of people poorer than they.)

Judaism, as I have observed many times, is a very practical religion. The most important difference between Christianity and Judaism in the subject of "sin" is just this; in Judaism, sin has no supernatural significance.. It does not "separate one from God"; it does not condemn one to Hell; it does not, in fact, change what one is, from "good" to "sinner" or anything like that. It's just stuff you shouldn't do, and you're going to do stuff you shouldn't as long as you live. It's not the end of the world or the death of your soul. You do the best you can, sincerely, and try to keep doing better. God doesn't hate you and want to send you to Hell for being human. If you believe He made you, presumably He knows how you're made.

(It's always especially puzzled me how Christians, who presumably believe that God WAS once human, can believe that He still wants to punish people eternally for being that. One would think that He learned what it's like.)

Too, forgiveness for sin can be given only by those sinned against. God can forgive sins against Himself only; broken vows, ritual offenses and the like. But if I punch you in the nose, God Himself has no right to forgive me; I must obtain that forgiveness from you, or not at all. Who is God to forgive you for what you have done to me or anyone else?

This explains why murder is the most grievous of sins. There can be no forgiveness for murder; the only one with the power to forgive is dead. It explains, too, why most people feel an instinctive revulsion toward the murderer who "finds God" on Death Row and smugly asks of his victims' families, "God has forgiven me; why can't you?" His very assumption of being forgiven is an obscenity, and his accusing the families of his victims of injustice on that basis is even worse.

(This also explains why there is, and can be, no forgiveness for the Holocaust. The Jews of today do not have the right to forgive. Ask the six million.)
"Sin" consists of the bad things a person does. That's all. They ought to be fixed, if possible; they ought not be repeated. They have no further significance than that, and obsessing on the idea of "sin" is counterproductive, unhealthy, and unwise. Sin should be avoided, corrected, and the damage it causes compensated for; but it should not be railed against, credited with power it does not have, nor feared.

Nor should it personified; when you are tempted to do evil, you are not fighting a powerful, supernatural entity who plots your destruction. You are thinking about doing something you ought not do, and nothing more. Why make a demigod of it? Just don't do it.

[OnceConvinced]

An interesting read there CNorman. Once again you paint a picture of a more logical, rational religion. Hard to believe that Christianity became so far removed from its origins.

[Catharsis]

The concept of "sin," as it is understood in the Christian faith, has no exact cognate in Judaism. I thought it might be worth examining the differences.

First; Judaism has no concept of "original sin." No one is born guilty. (It's hard to see how that could make sense to anyone in the first place.)

Western Christianity differs with Eastern Orthodoxy on the nature of man's fall and the human condition. Following Augustine of Hippo, the westerns teach that Adam and Eve sinned against God. The guilt of their sin has been inherited by every man, woman and child after them. All humanity is liable for their "original sin."

Following the holy fathers, the Orthodox church holds that when Adam sinned against God, he introduced death to the world. Since all men are born of the same human stock as Adam, all men inherit death. Death means that the life of every human being comes to an end (mortality); but also that death generates in us the passions (anger, hate, lust, greed, etc.), disease and aging.

Western Christians have ordinarily paid little attention to the Orthodox conception of man as slave to death through his passions as manipulated by the devil. In fact, the devil has been pushed to the background. Thus, the Crucifixion has been understood by the westerns as Christ suffering punishment for the human race when, in truth, Christ suffered and died on the Cross to conquer the devil and destroy his power, death.

[cnorman18]

The concept of "sin," as it is understood in the Christian faith, has no exact cognate in Judaism. I thought it might be worth examining the differences.

First; Judaism has no concept of "original sin." No one is born guilty. (It's hard to see how that could make sense to anyone in the first place.)

Western Christianity differs with Eastern Orthodoxy on the nature of man's fall and the human condition. Following Augustine of Hippo, the westerns teach that Adam and Eve sinned against God. The guilt of their sin has been inherited by every man, woman and child after them. All humanity is liable for their "original sin."

Following the holy fathers, the Orthodox church holds that when Adam sinned against God, he introduced death to the world. Since all men are born of the same human stock as Adam, all men inherit death. Death means that the life of every human being comes to an end (mortality); but also that death generates in us the passions (anger, hate, lust, greed, etc.), disease and aging.

Western Christians have ordinarily paid little attention to the Orthodox conception of man as slave to death through his passions as manipulated by the devil. In fact, the devil has been pushed to the background. Thus, the Crucifixion has been understood by the westerns as Christ suffering punishment for the human race when, in truth, Christ suffered and died on the Cross to conquer the devil and destroy his power, death.

That's an interesting perspective. I did not know any of that.

It's apparent that the Jewish approach is pretty distinct from that, too, though.

Thank you.

[Nilloc James]

And this is why I incredibly rarely have a bone to pick with jeudaism

[I AM ALL I AM]

G'day Cnorman18.

Thank you for your post.

I traced the word "sin" back in history as far as I was able to at the time and came upon a Mesopotamian God .....

Sin
Mesopotamian god (Akkadian), Sumerian Nanna

in Mesopotamian religion, the god of the moon. Sin was the father of the sun god, Shamash (Sumerian: Utu), and, in some myths, of Ishtar (Sumerian: Inanna), goddess of Venus, and with them formed an astral triad of deities.

Nanna, the Sumerian name for the moon god, may have originally meant only the full moon, whereas Su-en, later contracted to Sin, designated the crescent moon. At any rate, Nanna was intimately connected with the cattle herds that were the livelihood of the people in the marshes of the lower Euphrates River, where the cult developed. (The city of Ur, of the same region, was the chief centre of the worship of Nanna.) The crescent, Nanna’s emblem, was sometimes represented by the horns of a great bull. Nanna bestowed fertility and prosperity on the cowherds, governing the rise of the waters, the growth of reeds, the increase of the herd, and therefore the quantity of dairy products produced. His consort, Ningal, was a reed goddess. Each spring, Nanna’s worshipers reenacted his mythological visit to his father, Enlil, at Nippur with a ritual journey, carrying with them the first dairy products of the year. Gradually Nanna became more human: from being depicted as a bull or boat, because of his crescent emblem, he came to be represented as a cowherd or boatman.

Sin was represented as an old man with a flowing beard—a wise and unfathomable god—wearing a headdress of four horns surmounted by a crescent moon. The last king of Babylon, Nabonidus (reigned c. 556–539 bc), attempted to elevate Sin to a supreme position within the pantheon.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/545523/Sin


Often depicted as a wise old man with a long beard, the moon god Sin was one of the most important Babylonian gods. His main temples were situated at Ur and Harran. This relief from about 2300 bc shows Ur-Nammu, the first king of the third dynasty of Ur, making a sacrifice before Sin.

[Goat]

Often depicted as a wise old man with a long beard, the moon god Sin was one of the most important Babylonian gods. His main temples were situated at Ur and Harran. This relief from about 2300 bc shows Ur-Nammu, the first king of the third dynasty of Ur, making a sacrifice before Sin.

That make perfect sense to me. The legend of Abraham had him coming from the city of Ur.

[I AM ALL I AM]

Often depicted as a wise old man with a long beard, the moon god Sin was one of the most important Babylonian gods. His main temples were situated at Ur and Harran. This relief from about 2300 bc shows Ur-Nammu, the first king of the third dynasty of Ur, making a sacrifice before Sin.

That make perfect sense to me. The legend of Abraham had him coming from the city of Ur.

G'day Goat.

That's correct mate.

Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
- Genesis 12:1

Which also brings into question whether the Judaic religion founded by Abraham is based upon the religion of his father, that of the worship of Sin.

There are some interesting correlations made at this link .....

The Hyksos, Kings of Egypt and the land of Edom
By David J. Gibson

http://nabataea.net/hyksos.html

..... and more made in this video .....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4941053618

..... at around the 1hr mark (or just prior) onwards.

[Jian^sia]

The concept of "sin," as it is understood in the Christian faith, has no exact cognate in Judaism. I thought it might be worth examining the differences.

First; Judaism has no concept of "original sin." No one is born guilty. (It's hard to see how that could make sense to anyone in the first place.)

Humans are inherently neither good nor bad; humans are just humans. All humans have an impulse toward good as well as an impulse toward evil, and that is not going to change throughout our lives. We will not magically lose the impulse toward evil through an infusion of the Holy Spirit, a Second Birth, or any other such supernatural experience. We are all doomed to remain human. Sorry about that.

Further, our job is not simply to resist the evil impulse and go with the good; for one thing, that is not humanly possible to do 100%. For another, the evil impulse is necessary to human existence. For instance, if there were no such thing as selfishness, to ANY degree, we would all be poor and homeless because we would all have given away everything we own. If no one sought sexual gratification, humans would have been extinct before we ever got out of the caves - and maybe the trees.

It is our job to take the evil impulse and sanctify it; to turn it to the service of good. Do you ache to be famous? Be famous for doing good; be a philanthropist or a volunteer. Do you want to be rich? Get rich by inventing or discovering something that benefits everyone. Do you want power? Run for office, and do your best to serve and do good for the people who elect you. Do you crave sex? Get married to someone who feels the same way and ball your brains out; make each other happy. Do you want to be admired and looked up to and depended upon? Do the same, and have many children.

The emphasis in Judaism is on doing good, not on not doing bad. It seems to me an altogether more positive, healthier, and happier approach. One spends one's energy looking for good things to do, not bad things to condemn.

The operative word here is mitzvah, often casually translated as "good deed." That is not quite accurate; the word actually means "commandment."

Now, the difference is notable; a "good deed" is usually thought of as voluntary, and a "commandment" mandatory; and we generally think of voluntary deeds as being more virtuous and positive than deeds which we are obliged to do.

It's interesting that the rabbis of old taught the opposite. They believed that obligatory acts are more consistent and beneficial, and thus more important and more morally significant, than voluntary ones. Two examples, courtesy of Rabbi Joseph Telushkin's discussion of this subject in Jewish Literacy:

Many people attempt to go on diets, and the overwhelming majority of those people fail to stick with them (I speak from much experience). However, Jews who "keep kosher" rather often go for their entire lives without once eating pork, shellfish, or other forbidden foods - and remember, in Judaism this is not motivated by a fear of Hell. (Telushkin even observes that if the Government ever mandated putting pork in chocolate products, he might be able to lose weight.)

Another example: In economic hard times, charitable giving drops off precipitously - but people still manage to pay their taxes. Taxes are required; "charity" is optional.

(In Judaism, giving to "charity" is not voluntary or optional; it is mandatory. There is, in fact, no word for "charity" in Hebrew. The applicable word is tzedakah, which is simply the feminine form of the word tzedek, "justice." Giving to the poor, for Jews, is not a voluntary "good deed" for which one gets "extra credit" or thought especially virtuous. It is an obligation. Not giving to the poor is a violation of Jewish law. Even the very poor are expected to give a portion of what they have, for the benefit of people poorer than they.)

Judaism, as I have observed many times, is a very practical religion. The most important difference between Christianity and Judaism in the subject of "sin" is just this; in Judaism, sin has no supernatural significance.. It does not "separate one from God"; it does not condemn one to Hell; it does not, in fact, change what one is, from "good" to "sinner" or anything like that. It's just stuff you shouldn't do, and you're going to do stuff you shouldn't as long as you live. It's not the end of the world or the death of your soul. You do the best you can, sincerely, and try to keep doing better. God doesn't hate you and want to send you to Hell for being human. If you believe He made you, presumably He knows how you're made.

It is one thing to acknowledge the Creator, and another to blame Him. Or shed your own responsibility. Yes, He made you. But He also gave you a sovereign will, to decide ON your own. This is something even He does not violate.

(It's always especially puzzled me how Christians, who presumably believe that God WAS once human, can believe that He still wants to punish people eternally for being that. One would think that He learned what it's like.)

God doesn't punish us for being humans.

To presumably think that He has learned what it is like to be human and freely grant us passage to heaven, is tantamount to a judge letting a criminal go because he TOO is human.

Abraham said, "Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

Too, forgiveness for sin can be given only by those sinned against. God can forgive sins against Himself only; broken vows, ritual offenses and the like. But if I punch you in the nose, God Himself has no right to forgive me; I must obtain that forgiveness from you, or not at all. Who is God to forgive you for what you have done to me or anyone else?

Because you have ALSO broken His Law. e.g. Thou shalt not commit theft. Thou shalt honour thy father and thy mother.

This explains why murder is the most grievous of sins. There can be no forgiveness for murder; the only one with the power to forgive is dead. It explains, too, why most people feel an instinctive revulsion toward the murderer who "finds God" on Death Row and smugly asks of his victims' families, "God has forgiven me; why can't you?" His very assumption of being forgiven is an obscenity, and his accusing the families of his victims of injustice on that basis is even worse.[/quote]

You just said that the only one with the power to forgive is the one who was victimised. Why does the murderer need to then seek forgiveness from the family?

(This also explains why there is, and can be, no forgiveness for the Holocaust. The Jews of today do not have the right to forgive. Ask the six million.)[/quote]

"The six million are dead. Hitler and his generals, are also dead, therefore, are free to go."

"Sin" consists of the bad things a person does. That's all. They ought to be fixed, if possible; they ought not be repeated. They have no further significance than that, and obsessing on the idea of "sin" is counterproductive, unhealthy, and unwise. Sin should be avoided, corrected, and the damage it causes compensated for; but it should not be railed against, credited with power it does not have, nor feared.

I think the main difference between Christianity and Judaism on sin pertains to the effects (AND the cause of it AND its nature) of it.

*Sin results in terrible consequences. The Bible says sin results in "death." "God told Adam, '...you shall die'."
*Consequencess. Hurt. Regrets. Pain. Sadness. Injustices. Grievances.
*Consequences. A downward ripple effect. It affects family, friends, but mostly family.
*Sin destroys. It kills. It steals- takes away.
*Penalty. Like a red card. Guilt. Shame. A sentence. A judgment.
*Restitution. Payback. Vengeance. Punishment.

IN Christianity, there are three parts:
Sin =(results in) consequence + punishment + repayment.

Nor should it personified; when you are tempted to do evil, you are not fighting a powerful, supernatural entity who plots your destruction.

Neither do we.

[cnorman18]

It is one thing to acknowledge the Creator, and another to blame Him. Or shed your own responsibility. Yes, He made you. But He also gave you a sovereign will, to decide ON your own. This is something even He does not violate.

What did I say here that indicates that I disagree with any of that, or that Jewish teachings deny it?

God doesn't punish us for being humans.

To presumably think that He has learned what it is like to be human and freely grant us passage to heaven, is tantamount to a judge letting a criminal go because he TOO is human.

Where did I say that sin has no consequences at all? Where did I mention Heaven, or free passage thereto? Jews believe in judgment; but what punishments or rewards God imposes, we do not profess to know. That's all.

Too, forgiveness for sin can be given only by those sinned against. God can forgive sins against Himself only; broken vows, ritual offenses and the like. But if I punch you in the nose, God Himself has no right to forgive me; I must obtain that forgiveness from you, or not at all. Who is God to forgive you for what you have done to me or anyone else?

Because you have ALSO broken His Law. e.g. Thou shalt not commit theft. Thou shalt honour thy father and thy mother.

That's another way to look at it, but Jews don't share that view.

This explains why murder is the most grievous of sins. There can be no forgiveness for murder; the only one with the power to forgive is dead. It explains, too, why most people feel an instinctive revulsion toward the murderer who "finds God" on Death Row and smugly asks of his victims' families, "God has forgiven me; why can't you?" His very assumption of being forgiven is an obscenity, and his accusing the families of his victims of injustice on that basis is even worse.

You just said that the only one with the power to forgive is the one who was victimised. Why does the murderer need to then seek forgiveness from the family?

I didn't say he did, nor did I say the family has a right to forgive.

The murderer is clearly not speaking from a Jewish point of view.

(This also explains why there is, and can be, no forgiveness for the Holocaust. The Jews of today do not have the right to forgive. Ask the six million.)

"The six million are dead. Hitler and his generals, are also dead, therefore, are free to go."

Where, again, did I say THAT?

There can be no forgiveness for that atrocity. What the consequences of that are, we do not know; but that certainly doesn't say that anyone is "free to go."

"Sin" consists of the bad things a person does. That's all. They ought to be fixed, if possible; they ought not be repeated. They have no further significance than that, and obsessing on the idea of "sin" is counterproductive, unhealthy, and unwise. Sin should be avoided, corrected, and the damage it causes compensated for; but it should not be railed against, credited with power it does not have, nor feared.

I think the main difference between Christianity and Judaism on sin pertains to the effects (AND the cause of it AND its nature) of it.

I quite agree: and I think that's pretty much what I've been saying.

*Sin results in terrible consequences. The Bible says sin results in "death." "God told Adam, '...you shall die'."
*Consequencess. Hurt. Regrets. Pain. Sadness. Injustices. Grievances.
*Consequences. A downward ripple effect. It affects family, friends, but mostly family.
*Sin destroys. It kills. It steals- takes away.
*Penalty. Like a red card. Guilt. Shame. A sentence. A judgment.
*Restitution. Payback. Vengeance. Punishment.

Other than the first point, which is of course one possible belief for Jews, and the matter of "penalty," which we regard as unknown, I don't see where I said anything that contradicts any of that. Nobody ever said sin is a GOOD or INCONSEQUENTIAL thing.

IN Christianity, there are three parts:
Sin =(results in) consequence + punishment + repayment.

Okay. I have no desire to convince anyone that his own beliefs are wrong and Jews are right. I just try to explain the Jewish point of view. It's similar, but not entirely the same.

Nor should it personified; when you are tempted to do evil, you are not fighting a powerful, supernatural entity who plots your destruction.

Neither do we.

Who's "we"? Those who believe in a personal Satan certainly do, and that's what I'm speaking about here.

I'm not advocating a point of view here, just explaining it. I'm not looking for an argument, either. If your beliefs are different, peace to you; I do not say they are false. I don't profess to know that, either.

For all I know, there are many paths. Jews only say that ours is the right path for Jews. Those of others - well, that's between them and God. We don't presume to judge or speak for Him.