What is Sin?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 29 Dec 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

RedWood	29 Dec 2002
This has been brought up in another post.. http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10168 So i thought this deserved another thread..so we dont deviate off topic in the other thread. Who, What, Where, Why and How?...Sin

Kiama	29 Dec 2002
The one I gave just now in the 'Did Jesus Sin?' post was: sin, or 'wrong action', is an undesirable action in itself, or an action which directly and inentionally causes undesirable consequences. In the 'Did Jesus Sin?' thread, I asked people to say whether they aggreed, disagreed, would like to change, etc, that defintion, so we could eventually get to a plausible defintion which is hopefully closest to the truth... Kiama

Fuzzmello	29 Dec 2002
To sin is to know of the correct thought or action to bring oneself into God's Grace and not do it. It's damned near impossible to live a life free of sin. Fortunately, those who believe in sin also believe that Grace is available to them if they will humble themselves, confess the sin and surrender their will to their Lord. Fuzz

Diana	29 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama The one I gave just now in the 'Did Jesus Sin?' post was: sin, or 'wrong action', is an undesirable action in itself, or an action which directly and inentionally causes undesirable consequences. Kiama Kiama: at what point in time does one know whether an action has caused undesirable consequences or not? Sometimes it is only years later, that what one thought at the time was "bad", actually made things turn out for the better. Edited to add: RedWood, the question in the Jesus and Sin thread was not off-topic. One can't decide whether Jesus sinned or not, if one doesn't know what one is talking about.

HudsonGray	29 Dec 2002
Also, you need to look at the culture. What may be ok in the Catholic religion is NOT ok in the Jewish, and both are Christian religions. Culture puts the name of 'acceptability' on any action, religion plays a big part in it too, of course, but you do need to realize that there are many factors in play here. Times shift things (the list of sins has changed throughout history, thanks to ammendments put on by the Pope & the church heirarchy). Culture. Reasoning. Law. Even instinct. A few examples. It's not ok to kill someone. BUT in times of war. Or a holy war--all murders (women, children) are ok during the crusades (they DID kill converted heathens in Jerulelem). Self protection? Saving a child? There are no clear cut lines on this. Eating meat on Fridays--it was ok till the middle ages, then forbidden, then ok again after 1960 or so. A sin to not do it right, but one based on when you lived, not one that stayed consistent through time. Fish, pork, chicken, beef, goat & sheep. Where did doormice fall in this? (they were eaten in the early middle ages). Is pork red meat? Oysters & mussels? Sea urchins? Is dolphin a fish or meat (it's a mammal after all). Umm....... Ditto for not eating an hour before receiving communion---but when it WAS a sin, did aspirin count if you had it before going to church? How about medications? Toothpaste if you swallowed it accidentally? Is it ok to lie or are all lies a sin? What about a white lie? What about if you don't know & make it up but find out it's not accurate & therefore a lie? Or if you believe something (like the sun revolves around the earth) and firmly condemn others for saying the sun has the earth revolve around it---they killed people for that back then, so who sinned there? Just food for thought.

JC	29 Dec 2002
Yes, this is going to start out as a very nit-picky post. Judaism is not a Christian religion. I doubt that's what you meant, but I have several good friends who are Jewish, and it's a knee-jerk reaction for me to point that out. I think before we discuss sin, we need to discuss the idea of objective versus subjective ethics. First, because "ethics" is a little less charged than "morals" or "sins" despite being a related topic. Secondly, because what may be a sin in one culture may not be in another, but it could be objectively unethical in both. For instance, is it ever okay to kill someone? I would relate this not only to the Crusades, but also to the concept of human sacrifice that's found in early European, Hindu and pre-Columbian South American cultures. Is it possible to realize that a person has a greater value than that of a scapegoat, especially in light of the fact that so many people are scapegoated today?

Kiama	29 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by HudsonGray Is it ok to lie or are all lies a sin? What about a white lie? What about if you don't know & make it up but find out it's not accurate & therefore a lie? This is like a story I heard a while ago when discussing Situation Ethics... (True Story, though I've forgotten names, places, and dates) Usually, sex outside marriage is considered a sin in the Jewish religion. However, during the Holocaust, the only way to get out of the camps (Not the Death Camps, the other ones: The ones they put you in just to work lots) was if you were pregnant. So, one Jewish woman, whose family wasn't Jewish, wanted to get out. At home, she had a husband, a young baby, and three children. So, she managed to get a young guard in the camp to sleep with her and make her pregnant. She got out of the camp and was reunited with her family, who forgave her, because the action, whilst technically being 'wrong', caused good consequences directly. This is why I rule out the idea that there are cut-and-dried rules of 'this is a sin', 'that isn't a sin'.... I feel it safer to judge 'sin' or 'wrong action' by th situation the action was done in... Am I explaining this okay, or am I being quite confusing? (Sleeeppp.... Need sleeeeppp....) Kiama

allibee	29 Dec 2002
Forgive me sounding like a complete nonce, but isn't a sin anything that goes against the ten commandments or (insert religious equivalent of choice)? In judging/qualifying sins of today, one must of course bear in mind that those commandments were for people of that era, but the gist is still the same isn't it? Hurt none, is the gist - excuse me 'nutshelling' it - whatever era you're from. Nothing wrong with that IMHO. But always remember when qualifying/judging others 'sins' to use humility, because there, but for the grace of god, go I.... Or you. allibee (What I want to know is how come only Moses got to chat with God on a physical one - to - burning bush basis?)

jmd	29 Dec 2002
Though it may be correct that the term 'sin' has been used in association within the context of particular religious or social conventions, the term seems to transcend these. I therefore agree with JC that a discussion of ethics is not only required, but underlies what is truly at issue. Etymologically, I recall that 'sin' is connected to 'guilt(y)'. Guilty of what? of not doing the right thing. To be sinful, then, can be considered just not doing the good. Whether we can ever know whether we are doing the Good or not is an epistemological question, ie, it may be different to what the Good actually is.

Kiama	29 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by jmd Etymologically, I recall that 'sin' is connected to 'guilt(y)'. Guilty of what? of not doing the right thing. To be sinful, then, can be considered just not doing the good. That's very interesting, JMD: Thansk for posting it.... It's interesting cuz it hand't really occurred to me properly til now, with all it's implications: Technically, sin woudln't just be doing 'bad', but also being 'neutral' then... I'm tempted to use the Lord of the Rings Tom Bombadil here... We could say that the Fellowship and all on their side are doing good, whilst Sauron and all on his side are doing bad... But then we get Tom Bombadil, the only character in the book who is entirely neirual. Originally, it is suggested that he be given the ring, but it was then realised that that too would be bad cuz he's so neutral that he'd just forget about it... So beig neurtal here is also a bad thing. What does everybody else think? Is being neutral just as 'bad' or 'sinful' as being on the opposite side of the good? Kiama

DeLani	29 Dec 2002
An interesting topic, as 'sin' seems to be a concept exclusive to monotheistic religions. As a pagan, I don't believe in sin. I think (now I could be mistaken) than Buddhists and Taoists don't either. Basically, there is the ethic of "harm none." If you do harm someone, you should probably try to compensate or make it right. But not following the rede isn't a 'sin,' it's just wrong action. There is no association with divine retribution or karmic assignment because of it. Just knowing that we are all part of a web, and what you do to one, you do to all (including yourself). And of course, that some of us will do our best to stop a person from harming others. From there, we could go off on fantastic ethics topics, but as for 'sin,' it's a human concept, no more, no less. Just a different take on the topic.

JC	29 Dec 2002
Well, if you're in the West, then there is no neutrality. This is because Western or Middle Eastern theology is based on concepts of opposing duality, good vs. evil, black vs. white, men vs. women, night vs. day, heaven vs. earth, life vs. death, us vs. them (okay, I'll stop now.) This is different than Eastern philosophies as summed up by the yin-yang symbol. In that, the two colors are not competing; each needs the other to form a cohesive whole as represented by the circle. So if we are debating about "sin", which seems to be a Western concept, and we are debating from the point of view of Westerners, then the concept of neutrality does not enter the discussion because it does not exist on a moral level. I'm prompted to say it does exist on an ethical level. I haven't worked out how, though.

ihcoyc	30 Dec 2002
To me, sin is more of an existential thing, a part of the human condition, rather than being a breach of some or all of a list of laws or commandments. This, to me, is what Jesus was saying in the Sermon on the Mount. He says, basically, that anyone who has ever thought a harmful thought about someone else has committed the sin of murder, and that anyone who looks lustfully at anybody not their spouse is guilty of adultery. Even a fleeting, momentary, or involuntary thought is enough. Whether or not they did anything is beside the point. The idea here seems to me to be to get people out of the mindset that "I'm not a sinner because I never did that." The standard has been placed so high that it is impossible for anyone to achieve it. Sin is that dark place all of us has, that makes us hate our fellow men, that urges us to feel superior, to be greedy, and to shirk our duties. Even a person who has managed to avoid breaking anything on a list of commandments still has that dark place, so they are still sinners. It's part of the burden of being human. Lists of commandments are useful mostly because they call attention to the fact that we are in fact filled with sin, even if we never commit specific violations. You cannot avoid sin by self-control or by any effort of will.

HudsonGray	30 Dec 2002
If sin is based on consequences, then what happens when the choice made gives both good & bad consequences? It's hard enough trying to see the outcome of actions, but bringing in other people multiplies everything exponentially. (Be aware that Ethics classes in college never got final, definitive answers on questions like these either).

Minderwiz	31 Dec 2002
I don't think its possible to come to a general answer on this question because 'sin' is religion specific - I was always taught that it was a sin to put ice in whisky but I'm sure a moslem would simply say that it is a sin to drink whisky and an Irish Catholic would almost agree with me except that in their case it would be a sin to put ice in whiskey. One thing that is not a sin though is to wish everyone a Happy New Year, so Happy New Year to All

Ravenswing	01 Jan 2003
hi all-- as i see it, sin is that which causes you to deviate from your path (whatever that may be). of course, this makes sin an entirely personal thing. and one man's sin may be another man's way to heaven... trudging along ravenswing

Karenwhe	01 Jan 2003
Quote: Originally posted by HudsonGray Culture puts the name of 'acceptability' on any action, religion plays a big part in it too, of course, but you do need to realize that there are many factors in play here. Times shift things (the list of sins has changed throughout history, thanks to ammendments put on by the Pope & the church heirarchy). Culture. Reasoning. Law. Even instinct. Sin from my point of view is a matter of perception or viewpoint. The example above written by HudsonGray is “Indoctrinated Beliefs/Perceptions”. Therefore I personally don’t believe that a common consensus can be found on this, it just depends where you come from. So, the bottom line is that if you believe that something is a sin then for you that is a sin. The best example that I can think of right at this moment is the Old Testament that has been studied and interpreted by “Parshanim” for hundreds of years. Every interpreter (“Parshan”) give a slightly different meaning (or totally different meaning) to the issue that they are interpreting and even now after so many thousands of years the Old Testament is still studied from the point of view of one Interpreter “Parshan” or the other. So what is good and what is bad and what is sin really depends on your perception and indoctrinations. Just as a last note, from here also comes the saying “Finding your own Truth” which in simple words would translate to shedding all perceptions and indoctrinations to find what is really true for you without having to follow other people perceptions. There is a saying in the Old Testament “Avot ahlu boser shinei banim takhena” (this was for who knows the Old Testament in its original language “Aramit”). This would translate in English “Fathers have eaten the forbidden fruit but the sons teeth will be black” (I am really bad at translating bible stuff in English so forgive me please). What this means in layman words is that “Fathers has done sins and the sons pay for it”. Why do they pay for the fathers sins? Because they follow the same path (indoctrination). But of course no Rabbi will tell you this because if they will… they will lose all their followers……. and religion just like many other things is about indoctrination, and religion is the first belief that generated the word “sin”. I hope I didn’t confuse anyone……

agnostic	30 Jan 2003
It interests me that in this thread, and the predecessor, that no person makes reference to the actual source of sin. In Christian context it seems that sin is clearly defined early on, where Adam and Eve find themselves in the garden of Eden. They can do all they want and are masters of all, yet God has a number of rules for them to follow. The most famous of which is not to eat the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge. In this religion, eating from the tree would mean going against the wish of God. When Eve eats the fruit and Adam follows this example, sin is realized for the first time. It must have been a fearful experience, for I don't see any way to turn back for Adam and Eve. They immediately understand that they have committed sin and hide from God in shame. If it is true that in the beginning, as told in this religion, man and God were able to speak to one another and sin was defined by god. Then it stands to reason that sin is where a person(s) do something against Gods instruction not to do so. Taken literally, sin may remain in this context. Between man and God. However, as time moves on this story has had several interpretations. Which no doubt shall remain open for debate. Now, what if you believe that God is created by man. Afterall, as humans we always seem to have a need to believe in something greater than ourselves. Across humanity and its cultures we never fail to create some type of divination. Could it be said then that sin is defined by man, as man thinks that the god has defined it? If so then sin and an understanding thereof is a natural part of our existence. It is also most likely different from others depending on which religion (or non-religion) culture you are born to. Perhaps the existence of sin is a key ingredient to life. For if I never new sin, how could I recognize whatever its opposite is? In context of time, place, culture and belief sin seems to evolve. Is this the work of god or man? When Moses brings the 10 commandments sin is redefined. Again there does not seem to be any way back for a sinner, at this time. Just a connection between the God and man. Later the story of a Messiah. In the Christian faith, the son of God comes to further define sin but interestingly also offers redemption from sin. Finally a way back. The consequence of sin is also changed over time. In the beginning it's expelsion from Eden. The action and outcome changes each time that sin is redefined, but sin is never expelled. Nor can it be, for without sin I don't think that its opposite can exist. Taking this further, can sin and its' opposite exist without man? Which leads to the question: "If man does not exist. Does God exist?" Hence we go full circle. The belief in a divine being or God, seems to bring with it a definition of right and wrong. The line between them always seems to be defined by the god. So we can say that depending on your god or your perception of your god, your belief of right and wrong is shaped. Within the context of your time, place, culture and belief, your definition of sin may be unique and therefore an instrument of disagreement with whom ever does not subscribe to your belief or definition of right and wrong.

Ravenswing	31 Jan 2003
ah yes. the doctrine of original sin. but what was the original sin? i don't believe that it was the 'disobedience' that was the original sin-- i've got a slightly different slant: God asked Adam, "What did you do?" Adam, kind of flustered, pointed over at Eve. "Well, you see, this woman you gave me..." God turned to Eve. "And what happened, young lady?" She fluttered her lashes and said, " There was this serpent in the tree..." God turned to the serpent. The serpent smiled back. I don't see disobedience in and of itself as the original sin. After all, we are supposed to have been given free will. And I think that this is something that God would expect us to exercise. So what is the sin? Not taking responsibility for your actions. Not standing up and saying "Yes, I did it. I did it knowing full well what I was doing, and I will gladly accept the consequences of my actions." But then again, it's just my thoughts on the matter. Ravenswing

patter	31 Jan 2003
I think we are mixing two things here internal -- sin is an action that makes me feel quilt or remorse external -- sin is an action that does harm / as my community defines harm These are NOT the same.

cheekyminx	17 Feb 2003
A sin? to me sin is based on religious belief. e.g 10 commandments. But what is considered a sin to some may not be a sin in others eyes. No where that I know of are sins set in stone. We all live different lives & all have different expectations & beliefs. I for one do not believe in 'sins' as to me this is just something my religion teacher used to talk about & I had no interest in listening to the priest. We all make mistakes, hence trial & error & that's how we learn. But from a very young age we are taught what our parents/guardians believe in.....sometimes until we are old enough to have our own opinions & beliefs. I'm very lucky to have grown up in a household where religion wasn't the main issue & was never enforced upon me. Each to their own! We all have our own beliefs & I hope that it makes you happy!

coldsuns	17 Mar 2003
Sin is crime and things you do make you feel guilty.

The What is Sin? thread was originally posted on 29 Dec 2002 in the Spirituality board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Spirituality, or read more archived threads.