The early church’s myth-making masterminds were fairly ingenius when it came to establishing what consitutes sin, i.e. moral crimes against god.
They chose to label “sinful” behaviors which, left unchecked, could well be destructive, but in equal amounts and moderation were just the cost of doing business as a homo sapiens, kicking it live, here on terra firma.
Let’s look at the “Seven Deadly Sins” f’rinstance:
Pride: Really just taking satisfaction in your own accomplishments and hoping that other folks might recognize them as worth too. Seems to be a rather necessary attribute for good mental health.
Envy: A good motivation for striving to better one’s self and one’s situation. How am I too know I could do better unless I first recognize that my neighbor has something I don’t? Otherwise I would likely settle for less than my full potential.
Gluttony: Just wanting more than you can consume. A wise move in the old days when many folks didn’t know where their next meal was coming from. And enough Pride will certainly balance any negative results of Gluttony.
Lust: The sex drive! Without it folks, none of us would be here.
Wrath: A completely natural and biologically hardwired reaction to pain and suffering. It’s in that lizard brain fight or flight programming.
Greed: Equivalent to Gluttony, but with regard to material goods. Damn straight I want more than one blanket. I could lose my other one or it could get colder than I guessed it might.
Sloth: Work is fine, but rest is really what we all aspire to isn’t it? The highlights of our lives are our vacations from work and don’t we all dream of enough wealth (Greed) so that we can retire early for a life of Sloth.
My point is that all of these thing are just natural reactions to living life as two-legged mammals with big brains and opposable thumbs. Somehow the church fathers made a fantastic pre-freudian leap and figured out the sheer genius in labeling all of these things, which they knew every person experiences (no matter how hard they may strive to avaoid them) as crimes against their creator.
Nobody wants to piss off the big eye in the sky; after all hesheit decides if you fly or fry for eternity right? So don’t worry. Come to us. We have the answers. We have the abSolutions. Just give us your money and your minds and all will be well.
And two thousand years later people are still buying it.
Richard. Greetings and welcome. I humbly apologize for my tone in reply to your previous post; “A real Miracle?” I allowed personal issues to influence the attitude in my post which I think happens to all of us to some extent. Mine was an egregious example. I am not an asshole as “House” suggested, but I suppose I can be one at times. Again my apologies. I think perhaps I am in need of a miracle and was bemoaning my own lack of faith, but as an athiest, faith proves difficult. I tend to cling to the concept of Karma, and try to avoid promoting pain and suffering, that which you may regard as sin. That I lashed out at you with ugly words belies this concept. And while some in this thread have suggested that Atheists are exempt from sin, I think the argument is semantical. Regardless of faith, most people would, at the very least, agree to the basic tenet of treating others as you would have them treat you. In principal, this seems an easily obtainable task. In practice, it can be at times more difficult.
Half at least of all morality is negative and consists in keeping out of mischief. The Lord’s prayer is less than fifty words long, and six of those words are devoted to asking God not to lead us into temptation. The one-sided contemplative leaves undone many things that he ought to do; but to make up for it, he refrains from doing a host of things he ought not to do. The sum of evil, Pascal remarked, would be much diminished if men could only learn to sit quietly in their rooms. * Aldous Huxley contemplating the mescaline experience in “The doors of perception”
Sin though, is hard to define and is an individual perception dealing with guilt. If my wife and I have sex with another woman, I don’t feel the guilt of deciept. You might choose to perceive it as adultery nonetheless.
One that has always thrown me is taking the Lord’s name in vain. What exactly does that mean? I think it is generally associated with the phrase “God Damn it!” I’ve never understood how acknowledging God’s existence and power, and asking that his wrath be bestowed upon something you consider reprehensible and worthy of it should be construed to imply his name has been used in vain. Any thoughts?
I think it cannot be impossible for Jesus to live without sin, if you believe Jesus = God. The reason for this is because from the Christian perspective it seems that God is the arbitrator of all sin (being Omniscient,omnipresent etc.).
So though if we were in Jesus’ place when Mary Magdelain asked him if her ass looked big in her new dress, we could not determine if hurting her feelings was a sin or if telling an untruth was a sin (both appear to be sins from our limited understanding of what a sin is). Jesus in the same position actually knows which of all possible responses would be sinful and which would be not.
It is possible that Jesus told some untruths, it is certain that he hurt some peoples feelings, but none of these actions were sins. They only seem to be possibly sinful from our limited understanding of sin, and from our rules-of-thumb as to what a sin is.
Cheers, Bippy
Well then, if that’s the case, then the answer would be that Jesus didn’t live a sinless life either. After all, Jesus violated the Sabbath. He also destroyed a fruit tree.
One could use the argument that he had good reasons for doing so. But, according to your understanding, it was still wrong of him to commit these acts, regardless of any other mitigating circumstances.
In any event, we all get into situations in our lives where we have to make a choice of “the lesser of two evils.” If your position is that, in such a case you have no choice but to sin, then it is impossible to be sinless.
It would seem quite easy to not sin if you’re the one making the rules. For instance, if I said everything I do is perfect and anything else is sinful, I would be sinless wouldn’t I?
I find it hard to believe Jesus was without sin. Lets re-examine one of the situations mentioned, when an assassin came to kill Ralph. When the assassin came to kill Ralph and asked you where he was, your mind would go through the possible things to say, A) Lie B) Tell the truth and be responsible for killing him C) Don’t say anything. If you chose not to say anything because A and B would both be sinful you would be correct. In order to arrive at C you would have to examine all the possible scenarios however, and even thinking about committing a sin is sinful according to Jesus. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Do religions other than Catholic believe in venial sin? I’ve had admittedly limited exposure to various religions, but I don’t think the concept of one’s mere thoughts being sinful (other than in context of “coveting”) is something I’ve ever heard of beyond Catholicism. And how did anyone know that Jesus didn’t experience a “sinful” thought? It’s not as though mind-reading is something that just died out in the past 2003 years.
It’s often said Jesus was ‘tempted.’ Does this mean that he wanted to break the rules? That would mean his thoughts weren’t totally pure, though obviously I’d respect him more for resisting.
(What’d be be so bad about turning stones to bread anyway? Never mind, I’ll ask someone later. It’d only be a hijack)
This is a genuine question - I’m not trying to score points either way. And I resisted the temptation to ask whether Jesus’d think “Whoah, Mary M is hot. Better keep that quiet though, wouldn’t want to set a bad example.” or “Mary is one of my flock, and I appreciate her in all ways, including the sexual.” or “Mary is like m daughter, she is beautiful, but only platonically.”? Oh, whoops.
Let’s put it this way: if, by incredible personal devotion, I was able to live my entire life without sin, would it please God more than if I had not been so attentive to my righteousness?
Didn’t Jesus doubt God’s plan during his Garden of Gesthemine (sp?) episode? Would that not be considered a sin? How about Mary? Did she not ascend directly to heaven (bypassing purgatory) and therefore lived a sinless life (including the original kind)?
I’m not a practicing Christian now, so I’m working from years of Catholic grade school religion classes. Could be oversimplified.
I believe that some Christian sects other than Catholics believe in mortal and venial sins. I think this is what every Christian believed in until the Protestants started protesting.
Jesus didn’t have the stain of original sin. He didn’t have any sinful tendencies. He wouldn’t have had any sinful thoughts. And I don’t think that every bad thought can be in itself sinful. For example, the teaching about impure thoughts. The impure thoughts that come into one’s mind are not of themselves sins, but rather temptations and incentives to sin. Impure thoughts are only sinful when one culpably entertains them (deliberately keep them in one’s mind), consent to them, or expose oneself to the proximate danger of consenting to them.
I think one can be tempted and not desire to break the rules. God can’t desire to sin. Why would He desire to offend Himself? A neurotic God!
I don’t think that Jesus would have those thoughts. This is supposed to be a Divine Person, free from original sin. I suppose that because He was supposedly like us in every way, except sin, He could find females attractive or beautiful. I’m not sure about the sexual part. Maybe someone here could answer that.
Jesus = God is not a valid argument that he did not sin.
Didn’t God go around smiting people left and right, mass murdering, and generally being wrathful? (old testament, of course) I say Jesus could have, and probably did, sin. Creative editing and a helpful double standard kept it off the books though.
Jesus was supposedly subject to all the normal human temptations while he was in the wilderness. Jesus also said that thinking about committing a sin was the same as actually doing it, ergo, Jesus was a sinner.
Zev, your first post in this thread is one of the wisest things I’ve read for some time.
tastycorn- I refer you to God’s answer to Job. God does things for good reasons and some are simply beyond our human comprehension.
Diogenes- I think it’s common to give the Devil too much credit. It was not possible for Jesus to sin. His temptations were do things that He could not do anyway. My sinful temptations are do things that I could do, His sinless temptations were do do things that He couldn’t do anyway.
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.
