Originally posted by sonhouseSin is nothing more than breaking the great commandment of love.
Is it breaking any law on the books of mankind? Is running a red light a sin? Is strealing the change in a buskers hat a sin?
Is burning down an abortion clinic a sin? Just what is the definition of sinness?
Are there laws on the books that, if broken, would NOT be defined as sin?
Originally posted by sonhouseParis Hilton bringing out an album. . . thats a sin ðŸ˜
Is it breaking any law on the books of mankind? Is running a red light a sin? Is strealing the change in a buskers hat a sin?
Is burning down an abortion clinic a sin? Just what is the definition of sinness?
Are there laws on the books that, if broken, would NOT be defined as sin?
Originally posted by LemonJelloEtymologically sin means "missing the mark", failing to reach a certain standard of behaviour e.g. under Stalin "hoarding" was a sin against communism punishable by death. Perfectionists are often racked with a sense of having sinned (they deserve to).
Since 'sin' is normally used to denote transgression against the will or law of some existent god, 'sin' is probably just a word without a referent. It's also a pretty useless concept since it has no necessary connection with moral wrongness: as a concept, it just reinforces the sort of infantile behavior in which people follow heteronomous rules without giving any thought to the justification (if any) of such rules.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageExcellent answer (and very biblical as well) drawn from the world of Greek archery.
Etymologically sin means "missing the mark", failing to reach a certain standard of behaviour
It is, meanwhile, worth noting that the word "Sin," in the ultimate cosmic sense (which is what most of us would probably be referring to in this forum), would not really be a valid word when determining moral culpability unless there was a transcendant power one was accountable to.
For example, in the play "Wild Strawberries" the judge says the man is "guilty of guilt." If all I am, ultimately, is guilty of guilt, then the Christian counterperspective has nothing to say to me. If, on the other hand, I am guilty of sin, then and only then is there a savior.
Fond regards,
R
Originally posted by RistarHow about Atman? Or, the Supreme Self, the mark one aims to hit (that book on Zen & archery comes to mind).
It is, meanwhile, worth noting that the word "Sin," in the ultimate cosmic sense (which is what most of us would probably be referring to in this forum), would not really be a valid word when determining moral culpability unless there was a transcendant power one was accountable to.
3 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSince you mention Atman... 😉
How about Atman? Or, the Supreme Self, the mark one aims to hit (that book on Zen & archery comes to mind).
In Hinduism, when one is trying to achieve Moksha (release), the veracity of the concept of Sin (pavam) would depend on one's path in life (by the way, if any Hindus are reading this and see misconceptions they wish to correct, please do so; the one thing I'm not is omniscient 😉 ).
In the paths of Yoga, for example, one can be a theist following the "Way of Devotion," or you can even be an atheist following the "Way of Knowledge."
If one follows the way of devotion, it is really then that Sin becomes meaningful. Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami described "Pavam" as a transgression against divine law.
The point to remember here is that the whole cosmic sense of Sin hinges upon a transcendant ethic.
Regards,
R
1 edit
Originally posted by RistarHowever. trancendant ethic comes about because of a belief system
Since you mention Atman... 😉
In Hinduism, when one is trying to achieve Moksha (release), the veracity of the concept of Sin (pavam) would depend on one's path in life (by the way, if any Hindus are reading this and see misconceptions they wish to correct, please do so; the one thing I'm not is omniscient 😉 ).
In the paths of Yoga, for example, one ca e is that the whole cosmic sense of Sin hinges upon a transcendant ethic.
Regards,
R
not a cosmologic fact.
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseI once heard someone describe sin as abuse. It is abuse of something or someone that goes against its origianal design or purpose. For example, there is nothing wrong with food, unless you become a gluten. There is nothing wrong with alcohol unless it leads to drunkeness. There is nothing wrong with sex unless it is done outside of marriage, etc.
Is it breaking any law on the books of mankind? Is running a red light a sin? Is strealing the change in a buskers hat a sin?
Is burning down an abortion clinic a sin? Just what is the definition of sinness?
Are there laws on the books that, if broken, would NOT be defined as sin?