# Sinless Life -- How Hard Would It Be to Live? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 5, 2003, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sinless-life-how-hard-would-it-be-to-live/179823 "2003-06-05T14:07:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![handy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@handy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handy)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2003, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sinless-life-how-hard-would-it-be-to-live/179823/41 "2003-06-06T15:58:42Z")
“Sin” implies there is an opposite of omnipresent. That is not possible because something that is everywhere cannot have an opposite, thus, ‘Sin’ doesn’t exist & thereforeit is easy to maintain to be Sinless. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2003, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sinless-life-how-hard-would-it-be-to-live/179823/42 "2003-06-06T16:02:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by handy \* > \*\*“Sin” implies there is an opposite of omnipresent. That is not possible because something that is everywhere cannot have an opposite, thus, ‘Sin’ doesn’t exist & thereforeit is easy to maintain to be Sinless. \*\* Huh? How is sin the theoretical opposite of omnipresent? Am I not understanding something? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2003, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sinless-life-how-hard-would-it-be-to-live/179823/43 "2003-06-06T16:22:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by richardc \* > \*\*Diogenes, > > Curious. Where does Jesus say that thinking about committing a sin is the same as actually doing it? \*\* **Matthew 5:27,28** “You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” ---
**Author:** ![kjckjc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e36b37/32.png) [@kjckjc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kjckjc)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2003, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sinless-life-how-hard-would-it-be-to-live/179823/44 "2003-06-06T16:33:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by badchad \* > \*\*richardc: > > _It is still telling an untruth. I think that it is still a sin, but a very slight one, considering the situation._ > > Jesus sins (lies) here: > > John 7:8-9 > Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret. > > Let me know what the standard rationalization is. > > BTW, do you consider “name calling” a sin? \*\* Well, I think the “standard rationalization” is the same as the common sense answer, if my buddies said “Let’s go to the party” and I said “Nah, you guys go, it’s not time for me to make my entrance yet” and then I went later I certainly didn’t lie. That would be the “I go not up YET unto this feast” part. And I think the brunt of the verse is dealing with Jesus following the Father’s timeline and not the one his friends are following, even though the friends should be following the Father’s. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2003, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sinless-life-how-hard-would-it-be-to-live/179823/45 "2003-06-06T22:12:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\ ***Matthew 5:27,28** > “You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” \*\* That quote is about coveting a woman you’re not married to, which is in the commandments. Can you find a quote that doesn’t have to do with the commandments? I haven’t read the bible from cover to cover, so I’m interested if such is in there. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2003, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sinless-life-how-hard-would-it-be-to-live/179823/46 "2003-06-06T22:35:13Z")
If wrath is one of the seven deadly sins, I’ve always wondered why Jesus wasn’t sinning when he expelled the moneychangers from the temple. He sure _sounded_ pissed off. Heck, he even made a whip out of cords and did the Indiana Jones thing. ---
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2003, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sinless-life-how-hard-would-it-be-to-live/179823/47 "2003-06-07T03:02:58Z")
And now for something completely different: The Orthodox Christian perspective on sin is that it is “missing the mark”; it is a turning away from one’s proper nature. Orthodoxy teaches that man was meant to be immortal, sinless, and in communion with God. Man, however, had the capability to turn away from this, and he did, hence the fall. Man is still called to perfection and sinlessness, culminating in obtaining the likeness of God (theosis, or participation in the uncreated energies of God as far as human nature is able). He, of course, cannot achieve this by his own efforts, so the divine Logos assumed human nature to sanctify it, and enable human nature to be perfected through the actions of the Divine energies. This means that sin is not seen in the juridical light that it is in the West. Sin is not some sort of cosmic debt, for which God will demand satisfaction. It is a turning away from the perfection that humans are called to, and a denial of our nature. Sin is a spiritual illness of human nature, which Christ came to heal. There is no need for purgatory, in the traditional Catholic sense of it, which is satisfying the “debts” owed to God before being able to enter heaven. Likewise, there is no distinction between venial and mortal sin; sin is sin, though of course some sins are more damaging to one’s soul than others. Furthermore, there is no such concept of inherited guilt; one inherits a predeliction for sin, but human nature is not inherently sinful. So, to refer back to the OP, if Christ were God, then of course He would be sinless. God cannot turn away from His nature and become something else. It is theoretically possible for the rest of us to be sinless, but in practice, none of us are. However, it is through God’s grace (or energies) that we are healed of the effects of sin and can enter into communion with Him, which is what we are meant to do: be sinless. ---
**Author:** ![Philly\_Style](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/977dab/32.png) [@Philly\_Style](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philly_Style)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2003, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sinless-life-how-hard-would-it-be-to-live/179823/48 "2003-06-07T13:22:11Z")
The very nature of sin makes this impossible. Unless the definition of sin was universal, there would always be conflict. For instance, for some, to serve in the military is sinful, for others, the dereliction of duty is the greater sin. This also assumes that our beliefs are constant throughout our lives. What once may have seemed a perfectly harmless diversion, could one day strike you as being reprehensible. The same could be true in reverse. Unless sin is considered situational, I don’t see how anyone who isn’t God could live a sinless life. ---
**Author:** ![richardc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7cd45c/32.png) [@richardc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/richardc)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2003, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sinless-life-how-hard-would-it-be-to-live/179823/49 "2003-06-08T02:48:46Z")
yBeayf, > [@](#): > > Sin is not some sort of cosmic debt, for which God will demand satisfaction. It isn’t? If God does not demand satisfaction or justice for sin, then why did Jesus die on the cross? > [@](#): > > There is no need for purgatory, in the traditional Catholic sense of it, which is satisfying the “debts” owed to God before being able to enter heaven." Why is there no need for purgatory? > [@](#): > > Likewise, there is no distinction between venial and mortal sin; sin is sin, though of course some sins are more damaging to one’s soul than others." This doesn’t make any sense. If there is no distinction between a mortal and venial sin, then all sin does equal damage to one’s soul. Yet you say that some sins are more damaging than others. If _that_ statement is true, then the categories of sin (mortal and venial) is a correct teaching. I think the problem is is that you don’t understand the teaching about venial and mortal sins. A venial sin does lesser damage to one’s soul. It is easily pardonable. A mortal sin does grave damage to one’s soul, and is forgiven either by absolution by a priest in sacramental confession (or outside sacramental confession in emergency situations), or by an act of perfect contrition. Also, please state _why_ you believe what you believe. Why do you believe there is no distinction between a venial and mortal sin? Furthermore, you speak of “orthodoxy” in your post. I would like to know how the teaching of mortal and venial sin and purgatory is not “orthodox”? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sinless-life-how-hard-would-it-be-to-live/179823/50 "2003-06-09T01:10:22Z")
**richardc** , When I speak of Orthodoxy (with a capital O), I speak of the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox church. It is relatively trivial to show that Orthodoxy does not accept purgatory (in fact, purgatory was specifically rejected in the aftermath of the pseudo-council of Florence; see [here](http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/death/stmark_purg.htm), as well as [here](http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b24.en.life_after_death.05.htm)). > [@](#): > > A venial sin does lesser damage to one’s soul. It is easily pardonable. A mortal sin does grave damage to one’s soul, and is forgiven either by absolution by a priest in sacramental confession (or outside sacramental confession in emergency situations), or by an act of perfect contrition. With regard to venial vs. mortal sin, again, the Orthodox church holds to no such distinction as the Catholics do, with mortal sins causing an immediate loss of the state of grace, and venial sins not affecting one’s salvation. Orthodoxy sees the difference to be one of degree, not kind. All sin is sin, and must equally be confessed and repented from. This leads to my next point… > [@](#): > > If God does not demand satisfaction or justice for sin, then why did Jesus die on the cross? The Orthodox teaching on this matter is that Christ became incarnate to santify human nature, and make it his own. With the fall, mankind had become estranged from God. There existed an ontological gulf, which could only be bridged by Christ descending and joining His nature to ours. Christ took on all aspects of our nature, save sin, and by doing so redeemed them. His dying on the cross was his taking on death; it was necessary not to satisfy some sort of cosmic debt, but so that Christ might, by assuming death, destroy it. In this regard, Orthodoxy is much more focused on the resurrection than the crucifixion. Christ died on the cross, it is true, but He did this so that He might rise from the dead and conquer death for us. Furthermore, Orthodoxy does not have a concept of salvation as a binary state (in that one is either saved, or not saved). Salvation is seen as a process of growing ever closer to God, culminating in assimilation to the Divine Energies (theosis). We are not saved by having some sort of ransom paid for our sins, but by having them progressively purged from our souls by the uncreated Grace of God, through participation in the sacraments, and after death, through participation in the Energies of God. ---
**Author:** ![richardc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7cd45c/32.png) [@richardc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/richardc)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sinless-life-how-hard-would-it-be-to-live/179823/51 "2003-06-09T12:19:24Z")
yBeayf, Now I understand what you are saying and why I was confused. Thanks for the information on the Eastern Orthodox perspective. I honestly do not know too much about the Eastern Orthodox church or its beliefs. Thanks. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sinless-life-how-hard-would-it-be-to-live/179823.md?page=2)