A world without sin

[Beorn]

I find great problems with popular views of sin, but I have not given up on the concept.

It's more intelligent and infinitely more sensitive to realize that people do things for a variety of reasons (including mental illness, among others) than there just being this black and white "sin."

There is still LAW. There is still is good and bad. But the concept of sin is limited and ignorant.

Within my religious tradition sin is much less about black and white acts and more about intent. There are strict right and wrongs, but those are based on the idea that certain acts are impossible to commit with good intent. In fact this is the very basis of the american criminal justice system. For most crimes intent must be proven. Then of course there are varying degrees of punishment dependent upon the level of intent. All this is a result of the christian tradition in the west. As we move away from the christian tradition in the west we are seeing more of an emphasis on consequentialism and less on intent in criminal law.

Marm, where does this "LAW" come from?
Why do you capitalize it?

Absolutely. the word "sin" is a dismissal of a human being's worth because it makes them "worthy" of eternal death and/or torment.

This is based upon a presumption that human worth is based on acts. The christian tradition which believes in sin does not believe in a sliding scale of human value. The worth of every human is imputed to them by God himself.

But, because their value is based within God they must not turn against God (by sinning). So while people may be treated differently (like being incarcerated for murder) it is not based upon the act in and of itself, but in the betrayal of what the person truly is as an image bearer of God himself. When people sin they act in a way that is outside of what they were created to be.

Human beings still cause destructive problems and like you say, there are reasons behind those behaviors. Understanding and correcting the underlying problems is preventative and the best problem solving I know.

The way to do this without judgment is to have enough humility to know that when placed in a different set of circumstances, even I, or even you, could be impacted differently and could in fact be the source of those same problems.

How is this not possible from within a framework which accepts sin as I have defined it above?

 

[Sniffles]

I find great problems with popular views of sin, but I have not given up on the concept.

What's rather interesting that when people commonly talk about sin, such as here, they only give half the story at best.

 

[Beorn]

What's rather interesting that when people commonly talk about sin, such as here, they only give half the story at best.

We only need to listen to fred phelps to know about the christian view of sin.

 

[Lark]

We only need to listen to fred phelps to know about the christian view of sin.

I've never heard of fred phelps, so does that mean that my RC picture of sin is not christian or what?

 

[Beorn]

I've never heard of fred phelps, so does that mean that my RC picture of sin is not christian or what?

I was being sarcastic.

Wiki is your friend.

 

[Sniffles]

Screw Phelps, Homer is my theologian.

[youtube="UUnH9NECSUU"]St. Homer[/youtube]

 

[Thalassa]

I prefer St. Francis, he loved the furry little animals.

 

[KDude]

I prefer St. Francis, he loved the furry little animals.

I like him too, but at the same time, I'd like to move away from ascetic models of goodness like him. When I watch a movie or read a story about him, I want him to chill out a bit and marry St. Claire actually. They could have still done a lot of good that way. Yet, there's this underlying message that something like that is beneath them. That you can't attain ultimate goodness without ascetism (and celibacy). That he was better off with solitude and stigmata. There are a lot of things I admire about RC/Orthodox saints, but their ascetism isn't one of them. This was also the crux of Nikos Kazantzakis' Last Temptation of Christ, where Satan's final "snag" on Jesus is tempting him with the prospect of simply being a normal man, with a wife and kids. As if that would make him lose his sense of purpose. St. Paul talks about this often too, where he advises even married couples to distance themselves at times. It's maddening. This is one idea of "sin" that definitely needs to go.

 

[Jack]

there isn't as much understanding as there could be

cradle to the grave, seed to the supermarket, mine to iphone

delusion is very appealing, as always.

 

[Lark]

I like him too, but at the same time, I'd like to move away from ascetic models of goodness like him. When I watch a movie or read a story about him, I want him to chill out a bit and marry St. Claire actually. They could have still done a lot of good that way. Yet, there's this underlying message that something like that is beneath them. That you can't attain ultimate goodness without ascetism (and celibacy). That he was better off with solitude and stigmata. There are a lot of things I admire about RC/Orthodox saints, but their ascetism isn't one of them. This was also the crux of Nikos Kazantzakis' Last Temptation of Christ, where Satan's final "snag" on Jesus is tempting him with the prospect of simply being a normal man, with a wife and kids. As if that would make him lose his sense of purpose. St. Paul talks about this often too, where he advises even married couples to distance themselves at times. It's maddening. This is one idea of "sin" that definitely needs to go.

Yeah but why does it need to go?

This question interests me because it featured in a big way in the reformation and Luther's idea of a universal priesthood of all believers, remove the asceticism, basically so, so much of the practice really and what is left?

The celibacy dimension I know is a massive bug bear for many but I can understand how its not difficult for someone whose focus is on things spiritual and they derive their satisfaction that way, plus a great deal of the modern rejection of both ascetism and celibacy is grounded on a foundation of fantasy anyway, people are not having that much sex or enjoying that much luxury really but they're totally possessed by the idea that they might, one day, maybe.

That and while living a relatively ascetic life characterised by simplicity would not have meant a serious departure from the norm in the day of St. Francis, the good life we many of us enjoy now being the stuff of kings and royal houses then, its a massive, massive leap now. That and we have created a culture which is premised upon enjoying, frequently indulging temptations rather than rejecting them or living with them as a kind of acknowledged burden, the coda of contemporary society is that you should fear more missed opportunities than regrets, that can be a really terrible thing. Where people where once proud of never having done something, they're now ashamed if they dont try everything, at least once, and feel aggrieved or disappointed and disatisfied if they dont get to. Changed times indeed.

To be honest I've always supported the ways in which the RCC financially supports the religious life as a vocation for the few whose calling to it is strong enough that they arent compelled or tempted by the trappings of a regular life or mundane pleasures, I dont think that is everyone, it doesnt mean God loves anyone more or less just that people are diverse.