What is sin?

Originally posted by sonhouse
However. trancendant ethic comes about because of a belief system
not a cosmologic fact.

I think the above comment is a bit out of scope for this thread, but it deserves a brief mention.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly; perhaps you can clarify your position. You appear to have assumed the existence of a transcendent ethic, but you have also posited that such an ethic is based on human invention. Would that not, therefore, mean that the ethic is not transcendent after all? Again, I'm not trying to be obtuse, I just want us to be clear in our language.

The only reason I bring it up, to keep focus on the topic of Sin, is that Sin assumes the existence of a transcendent aspect. To reuse our "Wild Strawberries" example, being "guilty of guilt" is our state from a materialistic standpoint and therefore gives us no ultimate hope of doing away with our guilt; the guilt goes unresolved, silent, often uninspected, yet operative in our being. Being "guilty of sin," however, allows for redemption by providing for the possibility of ultimate forgiveness.

A worldview that embraces transcendence has both terrifying and reassuring aspects. The bad news is that Sin, in a cosmic sense, puts us in a terrible position, subject to the wrath of a being we'd rather didn't exist. However, the good news is that, if this being is the Christ, then there is the Cross! This means that the burden of Sin can be made to disappear ultimately; the earthly consequences don't go away, but the good part is that eternity is alot longer than one single human lifetime. Guilt can last a hundred years, but a forgiven soul can last an eternity.

I'll be the first to admit that Sin is an uncomfortable concept. It's natural for us to just want to say it isn't so. But, just supposing for a moment, if we were to admit that it was so and take the consequences both good and bad we "could not be a loser by mistake." (Blaise Pascal)

I think the above comment is a bit out of scope for this thread, but it deserves a brief mention.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly; perhaps you can clarify your position. You appear to have assumed the existence of a transcendent ethic, but you have also posited that such an ethic is based on human invention. Would that not, therefore, mean that the ethic is not transcendent af ...[text shortened]... quences both good and bad we "could not be a loser by mistake." (Blaise Pascal)

Originally posted by Ristar
The bad news is that Sin, in a cosmic sense, puts us in a terrible position, subject to the wrath of a being we'd rather didn't exist.

I was right with you until this part. The only reason to believe that we are subject to the wrath of God is from the bull god aspects gleaned from the OT, that God flies into mad rages and starts smiting people. We have come to believe that this sort of behavior is, taking a very tame euphemism, inappropriate for a loving father. Yet many Christians insist that this horrible rage filled entity is the perfect Father of all.

We have every reason to believe that we deserve such a wrath, but we also know in our hearts that such a wrath is not forthcoming. This knowledge is not a reassurance, but instead serves to further highlight out inperfections, or missed marks, our sin, not in the eyes of God but in our own eyes.

The concept of blood sacrifice to reach redemption is not only carnal and barbaric, it makes absolutely no sense. How can something physical cure the spiritual? How can there even be a concept that even suggests that there is, or once was in this case, a bind on a perfect God's love and forgiveness? Sorry kids, but I can't love you fully right now. An appropriate blood sacrifice needs to be made before I can embrace you filthy--uh, I mean wonderful children. If you feel you need to do something in the meantime, write "my sins" on the side of an innocent animal and set it on fire. I might love you for a little bit then, but don't expect any miracles.

We are indeed full of sin, and we are willfully seperate from God. However, like the Prodigal Son, we will be welcomed home by the Father if we seek him out and we seek the truth within ourselves. No blood needed.

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Originally posted by Ristar
[b]The bad news is that Sin, in a cosmic sense, puts us in a terrible position, subject to the wrath of a being we'd rather didn't exist.

I was right with you until this part. The only reason to believe that we are subject to the wrath of God is from the bull god aspects gleaned from the OT, that God flies in y the Father if we seek him out and we seek the truth within ourselves. No blood needed.[/b]

Perhaps I'm not understanding your position; maybe you can clarify it for me? You appear to be a theist, but your position is obviously not orthodox Christianity. Please allow me to clarify this position further:

* God is a holy God and cannot tolerate sin. He loves the sinner and will not "send" anyone to eternal torment. However, that is not who will spend eternity seperated from God; it is those who clench their fists, as it were, and demand seperation. As C.S. Lewis once said, '"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell chose it." '

* The blood of bulls and goats was never effectual in the salvation of the human soul. That was allowed only to remind people of the horror of sin (an act which is a shattering/breaking/rupturing of that intimate relationship God desires) and to look ahead to Golgotha and the Cross. However, the sacrifice of Christ, barbaric and horrible though it may be, was effectual. If I may quote Lewis again, "'When a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor's stead, the table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards.'" (The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe).
If we are taking a theistic position, please keep in mind the plan and purpose of Christ's work and its place in human history.

* Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through me." This would be mutually exclusive with finding the Truth in ourselves.

I realize that not all agree with this view, but this is the Christian counterperspective as presented in the Bible itself. I just thought that needed clarifying.

Fond regards,
R

Originally posted by Ristar
Perhaps I'm not understanding your position; maybe you can clarify it for me? You appear to be a theist, but your position is obviously not orthodox Christianity. Please allow me to clarify this position further:

* God is a holy God and cannot tolerate sin. He loves the sinner and will not "send" anyone to eternal torment. However, that is not who will ...[text shortened]... the Bible itself. I just thought that needed clarifying.

Fond regards,
R

I understand the perspective, an understanding which is one of the only things taken from my time in a Lutheran grade school where they had me memorize the Bible but never objectively think about it. But that is neither here nor there. On with my commentary.

God is a holy God and cannot tolerate sin.
What image does your imagination conjure up for this supposed holy figure not tolerating sin? A glowing white figure in robes, perhaps, living in a glowing land surrounded by glowing servants. This image, and others like it, equate holiness with cleanliness. Sin is therefore dirt. God cannot tolerate his children because they are covered in dirt. I'll tell you what: My daughter could be completely covering is muck and feces and I would still hug her. She could spit in my face and I would still kiss her cheek. There is absolutely no way that I would not be able to tolerate her and do everything in my power to help her. Which image is more holy, the father who stands in his high castle and refuses to "tolerate" sin or the father who embraces it as his own creation, disregards the filth in favor of love.

The rest of your first paragraph I agree with. Of course those who refuse love cannot recieve it, and will ever be willfully seperate.

As for the second paragraph. However, the sacrifice of Christ, barbaric and horrible though it may be, was effectual. How can you be sure of this? The only way you can come to this conclusion is if you assume that God lives up to the image of the High King in his castle refusing to deal with the dirty peasents. In that case, we need a middleman, someone to bring our case before the great Lord. However, as I continually bring up in these forums (without much response, I might add) this image make no sense. If God is truly holy, then He is perfect, and as a matter of course He must be both or He is not God. If he is perfect, then the image of the intolerant King in the castle does not fit, for that is obviously a flawed image. God must love any who turn to Him with a penitent heart, or else His love is not perfect, and that is too ridiculous to contemplate.

But then you, the Christian, says, "but I opened my heart to the Holy Spirit and was filled with the Glory of Jesus Christ. I feel that so strongly that I'm ready to burst!" This is a name game. For you God and Christ are the same person, so to be filled with the Glory of God is to be filled with the Glory of Christ. Of course this type of behavior is effective--it always has been effective. If you turn to God with a penitent heart you will feel the truth. What you do, however, is climb the outside of the building and crawl through a window when the door has always been unlocked.

In short, for all of those who got lost in all the above words, no blood is needed to make God's love perfect. It was perfect to begin with. Try and tell me it wasn't, and suddenly you have an imperfect God on your hands.

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
I understand the perspective, an understanding which is one of the only things taken from my time in a Lutheran grade school where they had me memorize the Bible but never objectively think about it. But that is neither here nor there. On with my commentary.

[b]God is a holy God and cannot tolerate sin.
What image does your imagination conjure ...[text shortened]... n with. Try and tell me it wasn't, and suddenly you have an imperfect God on your hands.[/b]

Again, I'm not sure I'm following you. Perhaps you can answer some questions for me:

The word "perfect" (teleios in the Greek) means to be finished or complete, wanting nothing. In this case, perfected in virtue. The word "holy" (hosios in the Greek) means to be undefiled by sin and free from wickedness. The word "sin" (hamartia in the Greek) may mean either a willful transgression or "missing the mark," i.e. failing to live up to a standard of holy conduct.

In other words, sin is not a mistake. It is a conscious act of rebellion (either by commission or omission).

Elsewhere in the Old Testament (a series of books often wrongly criticized for presenting purely an angry God), it says "To fear the Lord is to hate evil" (Prov. 8:13), but elsewhere says, "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live." (Eze. 33:11).

Given this evidence, is it not reasonable to say that the God of the Bible makes a distinction between sinful deeds and the doer of those deeds (loving the sinner but hating the sin)? Perhaps I simply am not understanding your perspective, but I still hold to C.S. Lewis' words and have every reason to believe that they still hold true. Is there some other reason for your objection to this concept?

As for the sacrifice of Christ:

The "atonement" (katallage in the Greek) refers to a restoration of the favor of God. In other places, the work of Christ is referred to as a propitiation (hilasmos in the Greek), i.e. an appeasing. Some have referred to the "at one ment," where God's judgement is "satisfied" and our communion, our intimate relationship with the Heavenly Father is restored.

Think of it this way. I young girl whose mother had once died asked her father. "You said that because Jesus died for us, we didn't have to die. So why did Mommy die?"

The father looked at her and said, "See that big truck over there? If you had a choice to be run over by the truck or the shadow of the truck, which would you choose?"

The girl replied. "The shadow, Daddy. It wouldn't hurt as much."

"That's what Jesus did for us," the Father replied. "When He was on the Cross, the truck of God's judgement ran over Him. It's only the Shadow of Death that runs over us who believe."

I hope that illustrates the point effectively. By His own admission, God does not hate us or repulse us. He welcomes us and has even paid the ultimate price for us, but some of us refuse His offer just the same. His sacrifice is effectual for all who will grasp it. I can offer you a present, but it won't really be yours until you take it for yourself.

Regards,
R

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
I understand the perspective, an understanding which is one of the only things taken from my time in a Lutheran grade school where they had me memorize the Bible but never objectively think about it. But that is neither here nor there. On with my commentary.

[b]God is a holy God and cannot tolerate sin.
What image does your imagination conjure n with. Try and tell me it wasn't, and suddenly you have an imperfect God on your hands.[/b]

The only way theology of ANY ilk can survive is if God is imperfect.
A perfect god would make the universe in such a way as to eliminate ambiguity I would think. And of course you can argue I am putting words in gods mouth, if it has one. I object to the idea of a supreme being on the grounds that conjures up images of human-like heirarchies. I would think a god would be more like a hologram:
no ultimate body as we think of it, perhaps the universe itself is god.
Thing is about the universe, we don't know how big it really is. Could be finite, could be infinite. There are some cosmological theories suggesting the univese we see, which we peg as being about 14 billion years old, may only be a tiny bubble in a much larger space-time, and only one of an infinite number of such bubbles. So we are in way over our heads no matter which way we look. It makes me faint to think of that. I think the progression of events on earth have nothing to do with a proported god, existant or not. I feel we are more of an experiment and it will go whichever way the local forces take it, humans being one of those forces for good or bad. I don't think we are either the pinnacle of creation as some folk feel and I don't think we are in a special place and time that will allow some greater force to come down and save our sorry ashes if we screw up to such an extent as to drive us into either extinction or back to caves.
The Earth has a long (to us) history and has a lot of future history yet to unfold. If humankind goes extinct, I think intelligence may arise again. Its not a sure thing, life got along without intelligence for a billion years with just a few simple to understand imperitives.
Intelligence is not DESTINED to appear again if humankind dissappear, it needs several kinds of stress to come back, maybe the same conditions would re-appear, maybe they won't. I don't think there is a god that is driving the earth towards intelligence, the univese is way to big, even the one we can see. There is room for many other experiments out there and the biggest mistake humans can make is to assume we are in some way special in this universe.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The only way theology of ANY ilk can survive is if God is imperfect.
A perfect god would make the universe in such a way as to eliminate ambiguity I would think. And of course you can argue I am putting words in gods mouth, if it has one. I object to the idea of a supreme being on the grounds that conjures up images of human-like heirarchies. I would think e biggest mistake humans can make is to assume we are in some way special in this universe.

I'm not sure if I follow you. I'll try to codify your position; please correct me if I'm reading you wrong.

When you define perfect, I'm assuming you mean "free from all defects, moral and otherwise." Are you then saying that God's being free from defect creates determinism? Remember that it is not Christianity's assertion that God is omnipotent in the sense that He can do "anything," but rather omnipotent in being absolutely sovereign, having total authority over that which He has made.

It is also worth noting that the Bible speaks of God as being in Eternity, which is to say ungoverned by time. He sees all history simultaneously and injects Himself into time at various points. Therefore He does not see things "before they happen" but "as they happen." All time is "present" to Him. Determinism speaks of things being preordained when that is an innacurate way of viewing the biblical God. Rather He is present and at work at all points, cooperating with our Free Will "as it happens."

As to the assertion that there is no God at all, this, of course, cannot be proved and requires a leap of faith. However a purely materialistic view (and a pantheistic view for that matter) of the universe self-destructs as it does not allow for any absolute category of truth. Man becomes the measure of all things, and that is plainly unlivable.

But to keep to the forum topic, sin, in a cosmic sense, would indeed be nonexistent if there was no absolute standard.

Regards,
R

Sin is any violation of God's moral law.

Originally posted by Ristar
Again, I'm not sure I'm following you. Perhaps you can answer some questions for me:

The word "perfect" (teleios in the Greek) means to be finished or complete, wanting nothing. In this case, perfected in virtue. The word "holy" (hosios in the Greek) means to be undefiled by sin and free from wickedness. The word "sin" (hamartia in the Greek) may mean ...[text shortened]... ly be yours until you take it for yourself.

Regards,
R

I agree that sin is not a mistake but a choice, intentional either though ignorance, fear, or malice. Our argument is not there.

I also agree that God our Father offers redemption to all who actively seek it, for those who recognize their sinful natures and realize that they must fight against that to be even a small part of the glory of God. Our argument probably isn't here, either.

I don't think that the OT only presents an angry God, only that some parts do. Other parts of the OT assist me greatly in my struggle to find and stay with my God who is always right behind me yet sometimes so far away. However, there are poems by T.S. Elliot that do the same thing for me. Neither source was written by God, but both were written by the grace of God. We may have an argument here, but it is not the one we're in right now.

My only present argument is that the concepts of a good, loving, and omnipotent sovereign lord contradicts with the idea that a blood sacrifice is needed for this lord to be able to offer forgiveness. I am not saying the God does not offer forgiveness, and I am not saying that sin, to turn away from God, is not a conscious choice. I am not saying that we are not full of sin and in need of salvation. The only thing I am saying is that it is ridiculous to think that once upon a time God's hands were tied on the matter of saving the downtrodden from the pressures of sin and needed a ritual blood sacrifice to either allow himself to forgive his myriad children or to eliminate the barrier that somehow keeps humanity from seeking him out.

I understand that some people like the story format of Christianity and the whole idea that the difficult path is make easier by this great and wonderful sacrifice and in a way are tricked into confronting themselves and finding God. Great for them. However, the sheer ridiculousness of the conflicting concepts drives perhaps just as many people away from even the idea of God's glory than it actually brings to salvation (be aware that most Christians are pew warmers). Sooner or later, if it really wants t o help a humanity that is advancing intellectually all the time, Christianity is going to have to face the fact that it may have to sacrifice its flawed premises of Biblical fact in the face of saving humanity from the depth of Godlessness.

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
My only present argument is that the concepts of a good, loving, and omnipotent sovereign lord contradicts with the idea that a blood sacrifice is needed for this lord to be able to offer forgiveness. (...)

The only thing I am saying is that it is ridiculous to think that once upon a time God's hands were tied on the matter of saving the downtrodden ...[text shortened]... riad children or to eliminate the barrier that somehow keeps humanity from seeking him out.

The Christian assertion is not that God's hands are tied, in the sense that He is powerless to forgive sin apart from human intervention. The assertion of the Bible is that sin is an act worthy of death because it is a direct assault on God Himself (i.e. His holiness) and a violence against the intimate communion he desires with each and every human.

Remember, the concept of the trinity means that God is complete in and of Himself. He does not need man at all. In His sovereign will, He chose to create Man and cooperate with Man's free will. He enforces the law rather than ignore us because He cannot ignore us and still be called just and loving.

Animal sacrifices were instituted as a symbol, both of the horror of sin and pointing ahead to the crucifixion. Meanwhile, in His sovereign will He chose to provide us with the only true sacrifice: Himself. The law only condemns; it is Christ who redeems.

The law is rigid, unforgiving, but let us remember that it is only a yardstick. A series of moral precepts are of no avail in making one righteous. Only through a relationship with the source of all goodness and beauty can have any hope of transforming the human being.

But why the obscene image of the Cross? Because sin is obscene, utterly so. An offence against infinite beauty and holiness can only be resolved, by law, with a punishment that lasts forever. Forgiveness is the only way out, one that satisfies the law and shows mercy to the offender who wishes to grasp that forgiveness for his own.

Hope this gives some food for thought. Comments are welcome, of course.

Regards,
R