“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?
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
yBeayf,
It isn’t? If God does not demand satisfaction or justice for sin, then why did Jesus die on the cross?
Why is there no need for purgatory?
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.
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, as well as here).
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…
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.
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. 