Sin

[Natachan]

There are a few doctrines I either never accepted or took a selective view of. I was raised a catholic, and spent a good deal of my childhood in the church. I was told that I was a sinner. I was told eating meat on Friday was a sin, swearing was a sin, beating up the neighbor boys was a sin. So now that I left the church I decided to look up what sin was.

There is the first part of sin, which is to do wrong, or that which causes harm to others. By this stealing is sin, murder is sin, etc. and I endorse this idea. However the idea of infinite punishment for this is abhorrent. The idea behind correction of any wrongdoing is justice, equal payment for any wrongdoing. Catholics of course don't have an issue with this, since we believe in purgatory. You pay for your sins and then they are absolved. For some Protestants they seem to believe in infinite punishment for finite crime, which is by definition unjust.

The second part of sin is "that which is contrary to the nature of an ideal being." This is irritating and somewhat absurd. Some of the sins under this category include eating, sleeping, breathing. This holds that you are damned simply for living. You are damned for eating, which is necessary to prevent starvation, which is sinful if you can get food to sustain yourself as suicide. You are damned for the pain that you caused your mother at birth, and damned for the nourishment you take. This category also contains "thought crime." Since an ideal being does not feel joy, lust, anger or wrath you are damned for this as well.

Then there is the third and most repulsive form of sin, original or inherited sin. This states that you are responsible not for any action of yours, but for the action of others who you had no say in and never knew. This idea is repeated over and over again. You are held culpable for the crimes of others committed before you were ever born. You are held as culpable for the crimes of anyone else anywhere. Your moral standing is affected not by your own actions, but by the actions of others over whom you have no control and no say. This is deplorable.

I spent a good deal of time buying into at least some of this idea of sin. But as I have gotten older I have rejected it. It is a disgusting and immoral doctrine and one of the dogmas which I heartily reject.

[Baqal]

@Natachan
-For some Protestants they seem to believe in infinite punishment for finite crime, which is by definition unjust.
Have you forgotten?
"The Creator is above justice. Even if His idea of justice may seem inappropriate to humanity, it is unsurpassed. God's judgment is the ultimate judgment, and no one should deny it."

[Chad32]

Sin is basically things that god doesn't like. He of course calls it evil, but there are many things we disapprove of that he approves of in his book, and vice versa. Basically we deserve hellfire for not being perfect, which is impossible. Even Adam and Eve were apparently not perfect, because they made a mistake. perfect beings don't make mistakes.

[vorlon13]

Infinite punishment for finite sin is Adam Smith in action.

God has raised the ante so high on sin that there is no possible payoff to justify the risk.

Pretty clever, actually. Too bad it doesn't work. Also, it's a bad deal for God and His staff, infinite punishment is expensive. You steal a communion wafer, pee on it, and put it back. Not a big deal for you, but Satan and his minions are going to have to enter it in the ledger, devise a punishment plan, and then carry out that punishment over the next infinity of years.

And all the while the overhead of running Hell accrues.

[Drich]

There are a few doctrines I either never accepted or took a selective view of. I was raised a catholic, and spent a good deal of my childhood in the church. I was told that I was a sinner. I was told eating meat on Friday was a sin, swearing was a sin, beating up the neighbor boys was a sin. So now that I left the church I decided to look up what sin was.

these are not biblically based sins (minus the swearing)

There is the first part of sin, which is to do wrong, or that which causes harm to others. By this stealing is sin, murder is sin, etc. and I endorse this idea. However the idea of infinite punishment for this is abhorrent.

The bible says hell is infinite. And the punishment set aside for satan and his demons is infinite. For us, Hell is the second death.

The idea behind correction of any wrongdoing is justice, equal payment for any wrongdoing. Catholics of course don't have an issue with this, since we believe in purgatory. You pay for your sins and then they are absolved. For some Protestants they seem to believe in infinite punishment for finite crime, which is by definition unjust.

what some of us believe is that it is not up to us to decide what is or is not just.

The second part of sin is "that which is contrary to the nature of an ideal being." This is irritating and somewhat absurd. Some of the sins under this category include eating, sleeping, breathing. This holds that you are damned simply for living. You are damned for eating, which is necessary to prevent starvation, which is sinful if you can get food to sustain yourself as suicide. You are damned for the pain that you caused your mother at birth, and damned for the nourishment you take. This category also contains "thought crime." Since an ideal being does not feel joy, lust, anger or wrath you are damned for this as well.

book chapter and verse please. No book chapter and verse, no sin has been committed.

Then there is the third and most repulsive form of sin, original or inherited sin. This states that you are responsible not for any action of yours, but for the action of others who you had no say in and never knew. This idea is repeated over and over again. You are held culpable for the crimes of others committed before you were ever born. You are held as culpable for the crimes of anyone else anywhere. Your moral standing is affected not by your own actions, but by the actions of others over whom you have no control and no say. This is deplorable.

ah, no.. Again book chapter and verse.

I spent a good deal of time buying into at least some of this idea of sin. But as I have gotten older I have rejected it. It is a disgusting and immoral doctrine and one of the dogmas which I heartily reject.

good for you, now keep asking, seeking, and knocking.[/quote]

[Jenny A]

The idea behind correction of any wrongdoing is justice, equal payment for any wrongdoing. Catholics of course don't have an issue with this, since we believe in purgatory. You pay for your sins and then they are absolved. For some Protestants they seem to believe in infinite punishment for finite crime, which is by definition unjust.

what some of us believe is that it is not up to us to decide what is or is not just.

Indeed, that is what some believe. It's just that some of us think that's insane. People are perfectly capable of reasoning out justice. If what the Bible says sounds barbaric, chances are that it is barbaric.

The second part of sin is "that which is contrary to the nature of an ideal being." This is irritating and somewhat absurd. Some of the sins under this category include eating, sleeping, breathing. This holds that you are damned simply for living. You are damned for eating, which is necessary to prevent starvation, which is sinful if you can get food to sustain yourself as suicide. You are damned for the pain that you caused your mother at birth, and damned for the nourishment you take. This category also contains "thought crime." Since an ideal being does not feel joy, lust, anger or wrath you are damned for this as well.

book chapter and verse please. No book chapter and verse, no sin has been committed.

Actually the sermon on the mount is full of "thought crimes." Just thinking of sex outside marriage is a sin.

Then there is the third and most repulsive form of sin, original or inherited sin. This states that you are responsible not for any action of yours, but for the action of others who you had no say in and never knew. This idea is repeated over and over again. You are held culpable for the crimes of others committed before you were ever born. You are held as culpable for the crimes of anyone else anywhere. Your moral standing is affected not by your own actions, but by the actions of others over whom you have no control and no say. This is deplorable.

ah, no.. Again book chapter and verse.

Both the fall of man in Genesis and the idea that we all me need a savior for sins seems to have plenty of evidence.

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” Romans 5:12

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of god: not of works, lest any man should boast” Ephesians 2:8-9.

[Natachan]

Well hey there! I'm about to get to sleep but I'll give ya a quick reply.

these are not biblically based sins (minus the swearing)

Yeah, Catholics are kind if big into sin. I'm somewhat familiar with you silly Protestants enough to know that some follow an even stricter view of sin, which they use the bible to justify. However most of my knowledge comes from theology training.

The bible says hell is infinite. And the punishment set aside for satan and his demons is infinite. For us, Hell is the second death.

Uncertain. The bible states that hell is eternal, but is unclear of exactly if that is eternal conscious torment or oblivion. Unfortunately I do not have my vulgate or my Latin dictionary (it was old, it's missing some stuff in the m's) so I'm relying on the KJV for this. Some passages state it is eternal torment, such as in revelations (which I put no stock in even when I was a catholic) and some say eternal blackness and second death. So it can be interpreted either way.

what some of us believe is that it is not up to us to decide what is or is not just.

This sounds a lot like the "higher justice" argent that I hear a lot. The bible states that God is just, and if you believe that his actions can be considered just if he deals out infinite punishment and torment for a finite crime you have to justify that statement.

book chapter and verse please. No book chapter and verse, no sin has been committed.

Thought crime is explicitly stated to be a sin. In exodus:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

In Matthew:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Abstinence from all bodily and worldly concerns is usually inferred, and while Catholics tend to take it to extremes it is based in biblical teachings to "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." If you wish I can give a better description in the morning.

ah, no.. Again book chapter and verse.

If you are denying original sin you have quite a hill to climb. This is foundational doctrine of all Christian theology. It is the reason that God had to come to earth.

[Ravenshire]

Sin is such a stupid concept. The idea that gawd is somehow hurt or displeased when we break some arbitrary rule. I'm sure it kills him every time I eat a shrimp, wear a shirt with two materials woven together, look at a woman lustfully, say a bad word (words, really?) or any of the innumerable other arbitrary things defined as "sin." It's bullshit, plain and simple.