rex@nbc1.UUCP (Rex Espiritu) (11/17/89)
In article <Nov.10.02.52.20.1989.12208@athos.rutgers.edu> cbz@alux6.att.com (Craig B Ziemer) writes: ... Our Moderator appends: ... >What sin does do is tarnish or corrupt the image of God, so that >everything we do is to a greater or lesser extent corrupted. The view This seems to fit in with the concept of sin being defined as "separation from God". Would anyone more knowlegeable on the definition of sin care to elaborate more? -- M. Rex Espiritu, Jr. National Broadcasting Company, Inc. rex@nbc1.ge.com 30 Rockefeller Plaza, Room 1615W {uunet!crdgw1,ge-dab,philabs}!nbc1!rex New York, NY 10112 (212) 664-5390 ``Where there is no vision, the people shall perish.'' --Is
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (11/24/89)
In article <Nov.17.04.24.35.1989.3289@athos.rutgers.edu> rex@nbc1.UUCP (Rex Espiritu) writes: >This seems to fit in with the concept of sin being defined as "separation >from God". Would anyone more knowlegeable on the definition of sin care >to elaborate more? Why is there so much debate regarding exactly how sin is implemented within our souls and flesh? The Scriptures do not tell us, and no amount of human analysis will ever yield an adequate definition of a spiritual phenomenon for which we have no frame of reference with which to compare it. Is it not sufficient to simply recognize sin for the awful thing that it is? Sin is so awful before God that He declares it justly punishable by eternal damnation. Romans 6:23 begins "For the wages of sin {is} death;". We are all guilty of it. Romans 3:23 says "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;". These facts alone ought to make us tremble with shame before our Creator. Needless debate about whether or not sin has some minute amount of goodness associated with it is merely the futile attempt of the sinful human mind trying to find some small justification for its flawed motivations. The following Scriptures provide a brief description of God's definition of sin. I suggest that we all sincerely study them, accept what God has told us, and spend all our time and efforts trying to warn our acquaintances of the awesome penalty they are facing and do not as yet realize. As we do this, we must also beseech God to bless our efforts and open their spiritual eyes and ears to the truths which we are proclaiming. Proverbs 14:34 says "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin {is} a reproach to any people.". 1 Corinthians 15:56 says "The sting of death {is} sin; and the strength of sin {is} the law.". 1 John 3:4 says "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.". 1 John 5:17 begins "All unrighteousness is sin:". Proverbs 21:4 says "An high look, and a proud heart, {and} the plowing of the wicked, {is} sin.". Proverbs 24:9 begins "The thought of foolishness {is} sin:". James 4:17 says "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth {it} not, to him it is sin.". Romans 14:23 concludes "for whatsoever {is} not of faith is sin.". Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin) (11/29/89)
> Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 24-Nov-89 Re: sin (was Re: > Satan) Dave Mielke@watmath.wate (2387) > Why is there so much debate regarding exactly how sin is implemented > within our souls and flesh? The Scriptures do not tell us, and no > amount of human analysis will ever yield an adequate definition of a > spiritual phenomenon for which we have no frame of reference with which > to compare it. > > Is it not sufficient to simply recognize sin for the awful thing that > it is? Sin is so awful before God that He declares it justly punishable > by eternal damnation. The debate over "what is sin?" is, I think, an attempt to systematically determine answers to the question "what specific actions are sins?" If we knew what the definition of "sin" was, we would know precisely what we could do that God would not punish, and what we could not. (This is -not- the same as the "what is necessary/sufficient for salvation?" question, but certainly is related.) There are several different proposed answers, and they all lead to *different* categories of sin/not sin. There is the strict "Does the Bible forbid it?" approach, the aforementioned "Does it turn away from the nature of God?", and others; plus variations, depending on who interprets the Bible (is the Pope an infullible interpreter?), what the nature of God is, etc, etc, etc. These differences show: note the continuing controversies -- within and between Christian communities -- over whether "sin" includes birth control, being rich, abortion, masturbation, non-belief in the divinity of Christ, homosexuality, slavery. (All right, that last isn't much of a controversy; but "does the Bible forbid it?" You see the sort of problems that come up.) At any rate, this sort of question cannot be ignored. --Z [Then there's the answer that sin often depends upon intention and context, so it isn't defined as a specific list of actions. --clh]
bd@hp-ses.sde.hp.com (Bob Desinger) (11/29/89)
In soc.religion.christian, you asked about the definition of sin. The common Hebrew word (in the OT) translated "sin" is chatta'th, and the usual Greek word (in the NT) is hamartia. In both languages the verb forms mean "miss," in the sense of missing a goal, a target mark, or the right point. Judges 20:16 uses the verb form chatta when it mentions 700 left- handed Benjamites who could "sling a stone at a hair [or, "hair breadth," KJ] and not miss." Greek writers often used the verb form hamartano with regard to a spearman missing his target. Interestingly, the KJ translates Job 5:24 using the word "sin," but the NIV and other modern Bibles use the word "missing." The original words mean not just missing physical objects but also missing moral goals: Proverbs 8:35, 36 says that the one finding Godly wisdom finds life, but the one missing [from the Hebrew chatta] wisdom harms himself. Here again the KJ translates it "sin" but the NIV and New English Bible, among others, use something to the effect of "fails to find." Both Hebrew and Greek terms refer mainly to sinning by intelligent creatures. They have the connotation of "missing the mark" with regard to God's commands, a moral failure to hit the target of perfectly carrying out God's will. I'm no language scholar, but I have this great Bible dictionary.... bob desinger <bd@sde.HP.COM> <uunet!hplabs!hp-ses!bd>
dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) (11/30/89)
In article <Nov.28.23.05.17.1989.24678@athos.rutgers.edu> ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin) writes: > >The debate over "what is sin?" is, I think, an attempt to systematically >determine answers to the question "what specific actions are sins?" If >we knew what the definition of "sin" was, we would know precisely what >we could do that God would not punish, and what we could not. (This is >-not- the same as the "what is necessary/sufficient for salvation?" >question, but certainly is related.) > I disagree. I think the question "what specific actions are sins" is uniquely ill-posed, and extremely dangerous. Actions are never sins; they are the symptoms of sin. In other words, one does not sin *by* committing a certain action; one commits the action because one is sinful. The very notion that it is conceivable that we could avoid God's judgement simply by avoiding "sinful actions" is misguided. Our sin is deep in our nature; we are a fallen species. Only Christ was without sin. To claim that his sinlessness was simply a failure to commit any sinful acts is to grossly trivialize the magnitude of His sacrifice. One important consequence of this view of sin, which I don't hear preached very often, is that no "sin" (in the sense of "sinful action") is any "worse" (reprehensible, culpable, abhorrent to God) than any other. And yet it has always been the first tendency of the "religious" to attempt to disassociate themselves from the "wicked" murderers, pimps, prostitutes, thieves, etc. How pathetic this must appear to God: a tragic example of "the pot calling the kettle black". The truly repentent Christian must recognize that he or she is *every bit* as sinful as the worst rapist or cutthroat, not just in some abstract theoretical sense, but in the only sense that matters. I'm not going to claim to be very good at this myself, but I recognize the fault as my own... -- David M. Tate | DISCLAIMER: dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | "Hey, that's *my* dis!" _____________________________________________________________________________ Statistics is the science of inferring the obvious and the false.
amalton@relay.eu.net (Andrew Malton) (12/04/89)
In article <Nov.28.23.05.17.1989.24678@athos.rutgers.edu> Andrew Plotkin said that > The debate over "what is sin?" is, I think, an attempt to systematically > determine answers to the question "what specific actions are sins?" If > we knew what the definition of "sin" was, we would know precisely what > we could do that God would not punish, and what we could not. (This is > -not- the same as the "what is necessary/sufficient for salvation?" > question, but certainly is related.) and then later asserts > this sort of question cannot be ignored. The moderator says that > [the definition of] sin often depends upon intention and >context, so it isn't ... a specific list of actions. I think I'm coming in at the end of this discussion. But please: while we followers of Jesus are wearing our snakeskins, yes, let's think a little about what `sin' means. While we're wearing our dove feathers, though, let's remember: to cling to definitions of sin is to place ourselves under law, where Christ is of no value to us. In your innocence, sin is like this: you fail to come up to your beloved Parent's hopes of you. But never mind, you have an elder Brother (the first-fruits and first-born) who also loves you very much and promises to fix up your boo-boo and stand by you guiding, forever until the end. Saint Paul simply got on with his work, and didn't even judge himself. He really did `ignore this sort of question'. Do any of us really want to relax in systematic confidence that `God [will] not punish' some action? By no means. I'd rather talk to my brother about it, and decide, and do it, and if it goes wrong then we'll go and chat with Dad/Mum/God together and sort things out. For the sure knowledge that this is how our life together is in the family of God, shout praise to God whenever you can. -- Andrew
crowe@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Daniel Crowe) (12/04/89)
In article <Nov.30.02.58.56.1989.19129@athos.rutgers.edu> dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes: >One important consequence of this view of sin, which I don't hear preached >very often, is that no "sin" (in the sense of "sinful action") is any "worse" >(reprehensible, culpable, abhorrent to God) than any other. Until this morning, my understanding was the same as David's; now I am not as certain. Recently I have been listening to the RSV NT on cassette in the car while I commute, and this morning I heard the letters of John. 1 John 5:16,17 stuck in my mind precisely because it seems to contradict my understanding as expressed by David above. The passage reads as follows in the NIV: "If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death." (1 John 5:16,17, NIV) I am interested in an exegesis of this passage. Thanks in advance. -- Daniel (God is my judge) | "Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to physics graduate student | speak and slow to become angry, for man's City College of New York | anger does not bring about the righteous crowe@sci.ccny.cuny.edu | life that God desires." (James 1:19-20,NIV) [The commentary I referred to (in the Harper's NT series) believes this passage is talking about the issue of whether we can be forgiven for sins committed after baptism. This is known to have been a difficult and controversial issue in the early Church. Doubts on the subject led many to be baptized as late as possible. The commentary quotes a number of Jewish documents, as well as Mk 3:29, Mt 12:31f, Lk 12:10, as showing a tendency to treat sins as falling into two classes: forgivable and unforgivable. However the distinction is different in different documents. Christian tradition has found it hard to interpret "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit". Mt 18:12ff makes it clear that forgiveness is the normal case. The commentary guesses that 1J's definition of unforgiveable sin is the holding of false faith. "This is what 1J opposes from start to finish. And the sign of holding false faith is failure to love the brothers. Those who sin mortally are, in other words, those of whom the opposite of the dual statement in 3:23 is true. They neither believe nor act rightly." At any rate, I don't think this passage is dealing with distinctions such as the Roman Catholic one between mortal and venial sins, but with a type of sin that makes forgiveness impossible. This seems clear since it is hopeless even to pray for such people. --clh]
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (12/08/89)
In article <Dec.3.13.29.03.1989.23645@athos.rutgers.edu> crowe@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Daniel Crowe) writes: >I am interested in an exegesis of this passage. The passage in question is 1 John 5:16-17 which says "If any man see his brother sin a sin {which is} not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.". The issue was that if all sins are equivalent then how can there be an unforgivable sin. The Scriptures do not teach that all sins are equivalent. Matthew 23:23 says "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier {matters} of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.". They do teach, however, that the most insignificant sin is still bad enough to deserve eternal damnation. Romans 6:23 begins "For the wages of sin {is} death;". Since we know that we are commanded to pray for the forgiveness of one another, we must be very careful when it comes to the decision of whom not to pray for. Rather than guess, we must insist that we should pray for every single person unless we can find clear, Scriptural evidence to the contrary in some specific case. Note that it is still better to pray for everyone because there is absolutely no Scripture which declares that praying for someone whom we need not pray for is wrong. Even this Scripture does not make such a declaration. We may be wasting our time, but God would still find our conduct acceptable. I, personally, would never want to get into the business of judging someone else's heart to the extent that I would dare decide not to pray for him. Judging someone else's sins is most definitely an evil practice. The Scriptures only define exactly one sin to be unforgivable. This sin is referred to as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. It is described as the claim that Jesus derives His power from Satan. Mark 3:28-30 says "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.". This is not a claim that a saved person would ever make. It is also not a sin which God would permit a person whom He intends to save to make. A person who makes this claim would never want Jesus to be his Lord and Saviour as he would never want to become submissive to someone whom he believes to be truly evil in the greatest possible sense. Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) (12/11/89)
In article <Dec.8.03.16.03.1989.20787@athos.rutgers.edu> bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes: > >The Scriptures do not teach that all sins are equivalent. Matthew 23:23 >says "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe >of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier {matters} >of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, >and not to leave the other undone.". > As I've described my conception of "sin", this is a non-sequitur. Matthew says that some matters (mercy, faith, etc.) are more important than others (tithes, sacrifices (by implication)). Where does this talk about sin? To make this a passage about relative "badness" of sins, you need the highly suspect additional assumption that "sin" is simply action which is not in accordance with the Law. I have already argued that this is a terrible mis- construction of the nature of sin, leading to nitpicking legalism, holier- than-thou hypocrisy among believers, and fragmentation of the Body. -- David M. Tate | DISCLAIMER: dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | "Hey, that's *my* dis!" _____________________________________________________________________________ Statistics is the science of inferring the obvious and the false.
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (12/15/89)
In article <Dec.11.03.51.45.1989.23606@athos.rutgers.edu> dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes: >As I've described my conception of "sin", this is a non-sequitur. Matthew >says that some matters (mercy, faith, etc.) are more important than others >(tithes, sacrifices (by implication)). Where does this talk about sin? To >make this a passage about relative "badness" of sins, you need the highly >suspect additional assumption that "sin" is simply action which is not in >accordance with the Law. God HImself defines sin as a breaking of His law. 1 John 3:4 says "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.". >I have already argued that this is a terrible mis- >construction of the nature of sin, leading to nitpicking legalism, holier- >than-thou hypocrisy among believers, and fragmentation of the Body. While this may well be what we sinful people would do when confronted with the definition of sin which God has given us, we must bear in mind that such conduct is in and of itself sinful. God's law includes commands which do not permit us to assess either the conduct or the character of others. If we engage in this sort of conduct then we ourselves are sinning as we are transgressing those particular elements of His law. Philippians 2:3 says "{Let} nothing {be done} through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.". Matthew 7:1-5 says "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam {is} in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.". Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) (12/17/89)
[David Tate originally said >make this a passage about relative "badness" of sins, you need the highly >suspect additional assumption that "sin" is simply action which is not in >accordance with the Law. This message is a response to Dave Mielke's reply: >God Himself defines sin as a breaking of His law. 1 John 3:4 says >"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the >transgression of the law.". --clh] Absolutely, for the law says "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy sould and with all thy strength and with all thy mind." The sinful man, try as he might, does not. He thus breaks the Law. Sin is the transgression of the law not because that's the definition of sin, but because only the sinful transgress, and all the sinful transgress. The two are not identical, but they are equivalent. If sin were merely the breaking of some commandment, that would mean that Jesus differed from other men only in that he didn't happen to break any Laws. Not quite my idea of a "sacrifice without blemish" for such a magnficent ransom. (The irreverent might even hint that He cheated, only sticking around for 30 years to make it easier :-) ). I prefer to see Jesus's sinlessness as a more fundamental attribute. Jesus was Unfallen Man paying for the sinfulness of Fallen Man. -- David M. Tate | DISCLAIMER: dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | "Hey, that's *my* dis!" _____________________________________________________________________________ Statistics is the science of inferring the obvious and the false.
henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl polypropylene Henning) (02/28/91)
MAUREEN BURNS writes: >Sin is separation from God; it is more a state that we exist in rather than >an act. Our actions, motives, thoughts and responses are a reflection of >the fact that we are fallen, sinful creatures. To start, let me suggest that this paradigm of "sin" -- while it has an "internalized" role for many xians, who employ it to evaluate and regulate their own behavior -- seems basically an "internalized criticism" of one's fellow men. That is to say that -- while I am aware that many xians apply this state of fallen-from-ur-grace to themselves first (or nearly first) -- it serves as a basic, assertedly divinely-instituted, platform from which to criticize other people's behavior (or motives). And, it serves as a sort of "spiritual disclaimer" -- how can this or that person be expected to acknowledge the divine light, when their eyes are muddied by his sinful state? As an example, I cite the "rebuke" of a fellow netter directed towards a homosexual xian; and the bold, clear strokes with which another fellow netter drew the line between a xian, and the prospect of marrying a non- xian. >When God was finished creating, recall He said, "...it is good." Perfect, >pure, unblemished, untarnished. "good" does not mean "pure, unblemished, untarnished"; and if one asserts that this was what god /meant/, one is struck by the divine gift for understatement :-) >The world was ideal: no evil, no imperfection, no dust, no death. No dust? ... or just self-dusting bookshelves :-)? Seriously, this is a curious thing to exclude from a "perfect" creation ... they were in a garden; I assume (for lack of contrary evidence) that the fruits of the garden grew in dirt (maybe even in shit -- the record is silent on this point :-) The core of my response being, just what "imperfections" would have been de facto absent from Eden? "perfection" is one of the motleyest, particoloredest, sigh-inducingest bogeys of traditional religious thought, IMHO. >The relationship between Adam and Eve was perfectly fulfilling, totally >satisfying, unimaginably intimate. Here we enter fully into that vast annexed region to Terra Religia, the Romantic Gloss :-) >The relationship between God and his created humans was equally as perfect, >satisfying, fulfilling, intimate. He created us in His image in order to >have a relationship with us. If this was so, and if this relationship was so incredibly intimate, just where did the serpent get off? Or by perfect and intimate, are we to understand that Adam and Eve checked in with god every week or so, and the serpent caught them on Monday morning? It is in little details like these, that one views such biblical accounts as having an iconic, rather than historic, value. And if that is so, just what are we to make of this small matter of "perfection"? >However, when the serpent decieved Eve, and she enticed Adam, sin entered >the world with all it's evil, imperfection, >damage, hideousness, sorrow, toil and death, to mention a few of its >effects. The image of God in which man and woman was created was >grotesquely disfigured. Harsh words against the visual attributes of one's fellow people :-) ... or, for the matter of that, their socio-moral attributes .... >Jeremiah says that the heart is decietfully wicked; we are born with the >tendancy to turn away from God, to try to make life work on our terms, >without God's help. He loves us with an everlasting, passionate love, but >we stubbornly and willfully refuse to believe that He can or will truly >satisfy our deepest longings and desires. Surely this is an unduly negative caricature of the people around us; the idea being, I suppose, that the divine image is so utterly disfigured beyond all recognition, that any socio-morally redeeming qualities are the result of god's personal intervention. This does not square with (for example) the people /I/ know, who would not impute such good qualities as they have had occasion to cultivate to any supernatural source .... This attitude does, however, provide the cushioning expectation that people are going to resist xianization, by laying the fault upon the "nature" of the intransigent heathens, rather than on any possible weaknesses of xianity as a worldview. >That is sin. It's a condition that is common to every one of us. >But...Praise the Lord for Calvary. There is a HOPE!!! You'll forgive me if I choose not to partake of your generous offer of such a dismal "common condition" ... whose chief attribute seems to me to be, highlighting the miraculous cure. For those who see the human condition in different terms, there are different hopes. kph -- "The shrewder mobs of America, who dislike having two minds upon a subject, both determine and act upon it drunk; by which means a world of cold and tedious speculation is dispensed with." -- Washington Irving
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (03/13/91)
In article <Feb.26.04.13.29.1991.12446@athos.rutgers.edu> psburns@lims03.lerc.nasa.gov (MAUREEN BURNS) writes: >>[Or both? Perhaps confess both our general attitude of resistance to >>God and specific actions. --clh > >Sin is separation from God; it is more a state that we exist in rather than >an act. Our actions, motives, thoughts and responses are a reflection of >the fact that we are fallen, sinful creatures. Seems to me that both OFM and Maureen have pretty much said it. Sin starts in our hearts, which as Maureen points out are deceitfully wicked. The outworking of this is the actual acts that we often label sinful. Asking God to forgive us requires more than asking for forgiveness for a certain act. We need to also deal with the underlying cause of sin. >Jeremiah says that the heart is decietfully wicked; we are born with the >tendancy to turn away from God, to try to make life work on our terms, >without God's help. He loves us with an everlasting, passionate love, but >we stubbornly and willfully refuse to believe that He can or will truly >satisfy our deepest longings and desires. It is also a matter of trust, Maureen. We have to learn to trust God as we've never trusted, never dared trust, any person before. And this is not easy. En Christo, Gene