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.

[bluethread]

"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?

[Alueshen]

"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 themselves. 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.

I get what I think your trying to say, the problem is that your putting the cart before the horse.

When we think of concepts like, perfect, loving, omniscient, omnipotent and all knowing. People a lot smarter then me have shown that these qualities can be self contradicting and paradoxical. The apologist has two choices when faced with these types of arguments, limit their god or change what the words actually mean. In my experience is much more common to change the latter then the former.....

[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.

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?

[His Name Is John]

Catholics believe both Jesus and Mary were both without sin.

Sin means 'missing the mark'.

It is an act that diminishes us or others, so that we are less capable of sharing in God's life of love, peace and joy. Less able to become the person God wants us to be. Sin is a crime against ourselves, our fellow humans, nature and God.

No human is perfect (bar Mary and Jesus), and when we makes mistakes, we Christians call those mistakes 'sins'. I don't see how the idea of 'sin' is wrong.

[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?

[playhavock]

Catholics believe both Jesus and Mary were both without sin.

Sin means 'missing the mark'.

It is an act that diminishes us or others, so that we are less capable of sharing in God's life of love, peace and joy. Less able to become the person God wants us to be. Sin is a crime against ourselves, our fellow humans, nature and God.

No human is perfect (bar Mary and Jesus), and when we makes mistakes, we Christians call those mistakes 'sins'. I don't see how the idea of 'sin' is wrong.

Intreging notion - but why be born with such a defencincy - if anyone can be born perfect, why not everyone?

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.

[His Name Is John]

Catholics believe both Jesus and Mary were both without sin.

Sin means 'missing the mark'.

It is an act that diminishes us or others, so that we are less capable of sharing in God's life of love, peace and joy. Less able to become the person God wants us to be. Sin is a crime against ourselves, our fellow humans, nature and God.

No human is perfect (bar Mary and Jesus), and when we makes mistakes, we Christians call those mistakes 'sins'. I don't see how the idea of 'sin' is wrong.

Intreging notion - but why be born with such a defencincy - if anyone can be born perfect, why not everyone?

We aren't born perfect because of the fall. 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).

But Jesus came and died for us (long story) in order to pay the price we needed to. We can access Jesus' saving power in several different ways, but the main one is through Baptism.

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).

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

I hope that answers your question

[Slopeshoulder]

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, perspectivally, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's always striking to me how Jesus is often getting into conflicts, insulting people, losing his temper, having doubts, etc, yet some Christians I know get all into twists of guilt and apology over one imperfect word. While it seems all nice and stuff, to me there's a psychology of narcissism rooted or expressed in radical dualism that IMO does not speak well of Christianity or make it attractive upon close scrutiny.

However I do acknowledge that this psychological type is archetypal and therefore the sin-atonement-dualism-fall-ransom-perfection trope will always appeal to some people. (As the lonely-loved and weak-power ones do to others). Luther, Paul, Calvin, Augustine, Kierkegaard, my friend Mike, and also many modern fundamentalists, christo-fascists, and what I can only call hate-christians come to mind, depending on range of maturity and good will.

[His Name Is John]

Hey playhavock,

What I showed you in my post was the othodox Catholic view. What Slopeshoulder is presenting is the liberal, modern Catholic view. Both views as views are valid. But I do not agree with him, and he does not agree with me.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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?