Admitting You're a Sinner

[Succubus]

Banned ...

A sinner is not born, and neither is sin an inherited condition as many teach.
In order to sin, you have to break the law of God in thought or deed.

So what's this business with priests, the font and the magic water?

We are born with the results of transgression on the human race, which necessitates compassion and not condemnation.

Transgression on the human race? When, where and how did this come about, and who or what was responsible?

And it is not a case of inventing a need in order to sell something - sin is a fact or life.

Sin is a religious construct and has no meaning outside of religious institutions.

[vulcanlogician]

It is a description of someone who is well down the path of Sanctification.

Well, it may align with your Wesleyan doctrine, but the passage itself says: "This is what is meant by true repentance for sin..." so I thought it directly concerned our discussion of the value "Admitting you're a sinner." My initial argument was that this admission seemed to have little/nothing to do with an improvement in one's moral character. In fact, I argued that such a thing might be detrimental to moral progress (and I still hold this view pretty much).

What's interesting about the passage is that it draws a line of causation between the state of repentance and "the Eternal Goodness." I interpret "Goodness" to relate to morality, and see "Eternal Goodness" as something similar to a Platonic form. A Christian might interpret it as "Gawd, Gawd, Gawd," and not catch the fact that (while the Eternal Goodness is certainly meant to be related to divinity) the word "goodness" signifies a moral phenomenon. Maybe I am interpolating too much here, but that's what I got out of it. If anything might be said to endorse viewing oneself as a vile sinner, it would be that such a state leads to transcendance.

Still, I think the concept "vile sinner" is more so used as a harmful pejorative than a catalyst for transformation. The fact that "sweatin' like a whore in church" has earned status as a common colloquialism indicates a general perception that "vile sinners" ought to feel unworthy among the ranks of Christians. It seems to me that Jesus preferred the company of prostitutes and outcasts. He didn't spend too much time among the sanctimonious religious authorities except to overturn their tables and insult them. Here's a neat little exercise: next time you read the Gospels, change out any instances of "scribes and pharisees" and replace it with "modern American evangelicals" and see if the shoe fits.

Another point worth mentioning (from Theologia Germanica) is the quote: "Such men are in a state of freedom, because they have lost the fear of pain or hell, and the hope of reward or heaven..."    If this represents the expression of one who is further along the path than most, why are Christians taught to emphasize such things?

(On a side note, I noticed that John Wesley made it into my quote journal a couple times, so obviously I think the guy had some good thoughts. The above wasn't meant to criticize Wesleyan doctrine so much as explore the value/non-value of "admitting you're a sinner.")

[Minimalist]

I interpret Original Sin as the fact that none of us are perfectly good. Basically we all have the tendency to sin, and we all will if given the chance. It started with the first humans and will continue throughout all of humanity. That's how it was explained to me in school anyway.

The more literal approach of "inheritance" and "being responsible for Adam and Eve eating a forbiden apple" is quite old school these days.

Maybe you had better email the pope and let him in on that secret, C/L.  Your catholic pals don't seem to have gotten the message.

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God"

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/ar...s2c1p7.htm

[Abaddon_ire]

I interpret Original Sin as the fact that none of us are perfectly good. Basically we all have the tendency to sin, and we all will if given the chance. It started with the first humans and will continue throughout all of humanity. That's how it was explained to me in school anyway.

The more literal approach of "inheritance" and "being responsible for Adam and Eve eating a forbiden apple" is quite old school these days.

Do you really believe that a new born infant is sinful? Really?

Do you really believe that you are responsible for your parents "sins"? Your grandparents? Your great-grandparents? And so forth?

Do you really believe you can be held responsible for the sins of two people who never existed and who your god maliciously entrapped? Really?

Annd why is your user name claiming a theology which you have just rejected?

[The Grand Nudger]

Pope Francis has a term for people like that.  Christian parrots.  They prattle on about their "catholic" beliefs but miss a (or many) vital component(s). In his opinion it's largely that they do not do good works..but he's a bit of a christian parrot himself - so he's happy not to mention the elephant in the room. Lots of ink has been spilt by clergy and laypersons bemoaning the death of catholicism in the hearts of catholics. There is a huge number of catholics who..thinking they are good and faithful catholics, utterly deny what the church infallibly declares. No amount of tossing catechism or the declarations of popes at their faces seems to dissuade them from their heresy.

They've become cultural catholics..but..functuionally, wishy washy american protestants. Where I come from..you'll find more "catholics" at an evangelical service than you will at mass. It's a genuine crisis of faith.

[Catholic_Lady]

Good link and explanation Steve; did not know about this doctrine. Sounds a little like Catholic Grace or nearing beatification of an individual?

I know you aren't Catholic though.

CL calling you

I'm not sure what you're asking? I gave my thoughts on original sin just a few posts before, if that's what you're wanting.

---

I interpret Original Sin as the fact that none of us are perfectly good. Basically we all have the tendency to sin, and we all will if given the chance. It started with the first humans and will continue throughout all of humanity. That's how it was explained to me in school anyway.

The more literal approach of "inheritance" and "being responsible for Adam and Eve eating a forbiden apple" is quite old school these days.

Do you really believe that a new born infant is sinful? Really?

Do you really believe that you are responsible for your parents "sins"? Your grandparents? Your great-grandparents? And so forth?

Do you really believe you can be held responsible for the sins of two people who never existed and who your god maliciously entrapped? Really?

Annd why is your user name claiming a theology which you have just rejected?

A new born infant hasn't committed any sins, no. But because he is human, he is guaranteed to sin at some point if he gets old enough to. We refer to this as original sin. None of us are perfectly morally good.

I'm not sure what theology I rejected.

[The Grand Nudger]

That not what catholic doctrine tells us original sin is.  Who should we believe..you a catholic lady, or cathol himself?  

Lets ask the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia?

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first , the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine's statement: "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin" (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here. As to the sin of Adam we have not to examine the circumstances in which it was committed nor make the exegesis of the third chapter of Genesis

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

Pink?  Okay, maybe they're nutters..how about catechism?

The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the "reverse side" of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.
How to read the account of the fall
The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

CCC389/90
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/ar...s2c1p7.htm

More...... nutters......?

[The Valkyrie]

Good link and explanation Steve; did not know about this doctrine. Sounds a little like Catholic Grace or nearing beatification of an individual?

I know you aren't Catholic though.

CL calling you

I'm not sure what you're asking? I gave my thoughts on original sin just a few posts before, if that's what you're wanting.

---

Do you really believe that a new born infant is sinful? Really?

Do you really believe that you are responsible for your parents "sins"? Your grandparents? Your great-grandparents? And so forth?

Do you really believe you can be held responsible for the sins of two people who never existed and who your god maliciously entrapped? Really?

Annd why is your user name claiming a theology which you have just rejected?

A new born infant hasn't committed any sins, no. But because he is human, he is guaranteed to sin at some point if he gets old enough to. We refer to this as original sin. None of us are perfectly morally good.

I'm not sure what theology I rejected.

So, you're saying we should kill newborns before they grow up and sin?

[vorlon13]

Upon successful birth the infant inhales (inspirates) their immortal soul. Like all human immortal souls, even if the infant is incapable of independent movement, the soul will necessarily be in a state of sinning; perhaps contemplating all manner of crimes, or rebellion against God.

Just because the 'vessel' (the infant's underdeveloped body) precludes overt physical criminal conduct such as bank robbery or armed assault, the infant's immortal soul is ENTIRELY capable of all manner of grievous offenses against the Lord God Almighty. "Thought crimes", if you will, but crimes nevertheless.

[Catholic_Lady]

I'm not sure what you're asking? I gave my thoughts on original sin just a few posts before, if that's what you're wanting.

---

A new born infant hasn't committed any sins, no. But because he is human, he is guaranteed to sin at some point if he gets old enough to. We refer to this as original sin. None of us are perfectly morally good.

I'm not sure what theology I rejected.

So, you're saying we should kill newborns before they grow up and sin?

No.