Originally posted by Bosse de NageStop doing that-all of you. I DO NOT WANT REFERENCES TO OTHER SITES. i'm way more interested in what you have to say-even if it is taken from somewhere else. Sorry my head stays buried in the sand until you give me something of yourself
Here's a short article dealing with both issues:
http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/site/comments/trespass_sin_debt/
Originally posted by karoly aczelOh well, refer to what I said previously. The archery thing is a common misconception.
Stop doing that-all of you. I DO NOT WANT REFERENCES TO OTHER SITES. i'm way more interested in what you have to say-even if it is taken from somewhere else. Sorry my head stays buried in the sand until you give me something of yourself
Originally posted by karoly aczelI am not sure. We may both be partly correct if thats possible 🙂 For what i said the word most commonly translated as "sin" in the new testament from the classical greek is "hamartia" meaning - to miss the mark or to miss the target.
is that its exclusive meaning or was the other guy right as well?
Originally posted by utherpendragonSo 'sin' really means 'ham archer'?
I am not sure. We may both be partly correct if thats possible 🙂 For what i said the word most commonly translated as "sin" in the new testament from the classical greek is "hamartia" meaning - to miss the mark or to miss the target.
Unless you're allergic to explanatory links as well, you can click on the one I provided to read about the hamartia thing.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nageham archer lol I did click on your link but couldnt navigate to the definition. I must be over tired, its 4:40 am here.
So 'sin' really means 'ham archer'?
Unless you're allergic to explanatory links as well, you can click on the one I provided to read about the hamartia thing.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagemaybe it wasn't written anywhere, and i don't know what links to provide, but do you have any comment on my origonal assertion that sin is 'God-eclipsing'?
So 'sin' really means 'ham archer'?
Unless you're allergic to explanatory links as well, you can click on the one I provided to read about the hamartia thing.
Originally posted by karoly aczelIn that case your metaphor simply doesn't work, since an eclipse is a natural phenomenon with definite connotations. For God to be capable of being eclipsed (perish the thought), God would have to be a celestial body -- sun, moon, planet, whatever you like -- whose emitted or reflected light can be partially or totally obliterated by another celestial body or its shadow.
no...its more like anything outside of 'God'.(more than 'God',or beyond 'god'😉. Yeah i know the language can get difficult in these aeres but i'm sure you can take away some meaning from it
God is identified with the sun (source of life) in many traditions, so the metaphor could work -- but what would be capable of eclipsing God?
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagei'm trying to say that somehow we are outside of God. If you can't get your head around that i will drop it. I'm really not trying to preach here, although i do get a little passionate,please excuse me.
In that case your metaphor simply doesn't work, since an eclipse is a natural phenomenon with definite connotations. For God to be capable of being eclipsed (perish the thought), God would have to be a celestial body -- sun, moon, planet, whatever you like -- whose emitted or reflected light can be partially or totally obliterated by another celestial ...[text shortened]... ) in many traditions, so the metaphor could work -- but what would be capable of eclipsing God?
(and yes i too perish the thought anything could eclipse God for he(it) is everything. But in the higher-dimensional,non-perishing sense our (true)identities are somewhat removed from our origional condition. that condition being united with God)
Originally posted by karoly aczelin another sense it is 'God-eclipsing' to take authority from outside-other than as a guide . Those who are taking authority from outside, like the bible soley, are betraying their own inner-wisdom to the point of cutting themselves off from the divine
i'm trying to say that somehow we are outside of God. If you can't get your head around that i will drop it. I'm really not trying to preach here, although i do get a little passionate,please excuse me.
(and yes i too perish the thought anything could eclipse God for he(it) is everything. But in the higher-dimensional,non-perishing sense our (true) ...[text shortened]... ties are somewhat removed from our origional condition. that condition being united with God)
Originally posted by FabianFnasSin is defined by God and God has not changed so if it was a sin according to God 100 years ago then it still is.
Sin is something relative.
What was a sin hundred years ago might not be a sin today. What is a sin today may not be a sin hundred years ago.
What is a sin for some christians may very well be okay for other christians.
What is a sin in one situation may very well not be a sin in another situation.
Conclusion - there cannot be any universal definition of 'sin'.
Originally posted by FabianFnasSorry to burst your bubble but everyone sins all the time. That is why everyone needs a Savior and that Savior is Jesus Christ. Jesus is the only name under heaven by which we might be saved.
You ask the wrong person here.
In my opinion, the original sin was invented by those wanting power over people. There is no original sin, nor sin in general.
Some says it's a sin to work on sundays (though preast are).
Some says it's a sin to work on saturdays (though rabbis are).
Some says it's a sin to work on fridays (though imams are).
Concl ...[text shortened]... ng non-christian. If anyone is happier to think they are sinners, then please do. I'm not.