Addicted to  being sinful. That is so bang on. "What should I do". What should I do?" "How about.........? " "Oh,my God, what should I do?" I think  some  enjoy being sinful and don't want to change.

WEll never having sinned myself it's hard to really say.

However...

I've often thought idea of "total depravity" is only necessary to make the idea of "default eternal punishment" justifiable.

IOW

The only way you can justify going to hell by default, is to be totally depraved by default.

Unfortunately the only way you can justify total depravity, and the "life changing power" of salvation in counterpoint, is to focus all the time on sin. This is why you'll often see the "total depravity" type crowd intimating that anyone not saved is completely morally corrupt and goes around stealing and murdering and raping at will......

Of course the reality is that most people are pretty decent, and most Christians behave no better than non-Christians, and most Christian behave pretty much the same after conversion as before... basically decent with a few flaws.

Hmmm, could it be the church piles the guilt on our head and not Jesus?

I guess this gets to my point. As I say, I'm content to leave shuffling the theological justification for "salvation" and such to other threads.

Given that we're "pretty decent", why do people not only let, but seem to want, the church to pile the guilt on?

While more and more people engage in life-affirming spiritualities (I note witch's not having sinned comment), it seems as though the language of "sin" is almost impossible to let go of.

Even though, in most mainline churches, you would find few people who would say that someone is "going to hell" because they didn' "get Jesus", they still cling to sin and salvation.

That is not, in my never-very-humble opinion, healthy.

In fact, I'd suggest that its a better explanation of why people who have a healthy opinion of their own self-worth abandon church than some vague idea of the church's "relevance".

What's more irrelevant than tellimg me I have to be "saved" from "sin" when I know - as the book title goes - "I'm Okay, You're Okay." ?

 I think the most appealing aspect of sin is the forgiveness of it!  If it turns out Jesus did not actually take our sins away, maybe there would not be so much fascination with it.  There certainly wasn't before this theology developed, and it doesn't appear in Jewish theology.

Simply put, I think people really like the idea of someone else paying off their debt, and not having to take responsibility for it themselves.  Jesus is now eternally linked with our sins.  

Sin has to be present to make Jesus relevant.  

The christian church needs Jesus to be relevant for its survival, so, guess what the church focuses on?   Sin & salvation!   You can't have one without the other.

it would be good to all be on the same page with sin. What is "sin" for me might not be "sin" for you.

A good point. But as long as "sin" is a "thing" to be "avoided", then no matter what the "thing" is, we can still fall into addictive behaviour around it.

But why this obsession with the existence of a "debt", no matter who has to take responsibility for it?

Telling people that they're "in debt" just because they were born is like me telling my daughter she's a piece of crap just because she's not a boy. We wouldn't accept that - at least I certainly wouldn't - as a valid way to raise a child. Period. End of story. And yet on and on we go.

As I've said, it seems to me that it's this addiction above all else that makes people pick up "A New Earth" instead "the Bible".

See, being "sinful" isn't a state of being to me and I don't go around talking about being "sinful" or in need of redemption. I don't buy into "total depravity" or "Original Sin" and certainly not "atonement theology". Then again, I'm UU so you'd probably be shocked if I did talk about these things 

The notion of "sin" and "being sinful" is just an acknowledgement, a metaphorical one, that we all have traits that get the better of us and cause us to damage our relationships to each other, the community, Nature, and so on (and God if you so believe). The solution to sin is forgiveness (by the sinned against) and repentence (by the sinner). And by repentence, I mean being mindful of what you are doing to cause the damage, of the impact it has on the other elements in the relationship, and maybe trying to fix the damage or at least find a way to stop doing it. There is no cosmic "SIN" that requires an atoning sacrifice, simply human beings trying their best to be the best that they can and having to acknowledge that, at times, we don't achieve that.

Mendalla

It's even interesting, from what I've read how the Lord's prayer was changed to include the forgiveness of sins. From what I've read, the original instructions on how to pray did not include this in the original aramaic.

Is that correct, anyone??? If so why do we continue saying this prayer without correcting it?

Sin is sin.  One person's sin is everyones sin.  And yes, we are all sinners.  Try living up to the 10 commandments.  It can't be done.  Try stopping smoking or drinking, over eating  or any other thing that might be harmful to yourself or others.  Easy....not really.  Thank God we have grace and salvation.  That is the Gospel message.  Enjoy it and relax, there is a God!

^^ In other words:  Yes, you're all guilty - we're all guilty!  But we can relax, because that guilt is being forgiven by another.

Which has nothing to do with the point of the thread other than to underline the level of addiction some people have to their dependency.

nope.

But I agree with you that lots of people try to turn it into that. Feeds their addiction.

I believe this goes back to the times before the Reformation when the Catholic Church built their wealth on making people pay for their sins to be forgiven- which was a very lucrative business. Luther was the one to revolt against it- but the damage was done by hammering the sin-idea into the general thinking and theology of the christian church.

I think the world's worse word is "sin". (The best word in the world is "free" )

An old song sprang to mind:

Jonny Mercer's "Accent the positive, eliminate the negative, and dont mess with Mr. Inbetween....

Now gather 'round me; the topic will be sin, and that's what I'm agin' "

--

I'm agin' it also. I am against the very concept of sin.

The concept(s) posted here, by a few, would make me shudder, if I was the shuddering kind.

I don't believe that I have sinned, but I have made some incredibly bad decisions, due to my ignorance.

Tell me of a 'sin' that doesn't track back to ignorance.

Mark Twain said "We're all ignorant, just about different thngs."

(By the end of the week, I promise myself that I will reduce my ignorance in Biocentric views concerning reality and consciousness....)

-----------

In my off-thecuff- very lay heritical way, I just think that the entire teaching of Jesus focuses on the awareness of immanuel...uh...inward divinity?

And thus to have life! And live it more abundently!

THE "Good News"

My opinion. So far.

(I happen to have a neighbor who is a Sufi. We talk 'religion' a lt. I think we are converting each other.)

------------

He maintains a direct link to God: When he does a favour, or something 'good', he feels he is plesaing God. He take  great pleasure in pleasing God.

I find it hard to argue (If I wnted to) with his 'Rumi' fundimentalism...

-----------

Regards,

John

If we don't call people on some of these things and stand up for what we think, we become enablers. We just feed the addiction.

Not me, sorry to disappoint you.

Sounds like a personal problem. Of course I am not bound by the strictures of your Bible. I take my direction from God, and He tells me that he's quite happy with me the way He made me.

Well I certainly thank God for grace, but salvation isn't an issue for me as I don't require salvation.

And I do relax and enjoy the love of God, thank you.

Many people and many denominations are programmed to believe that we are born sinners and we have to spend our whole life repenting for those sins.  That is a recipe for a very serious mental illness if you take it too seriously.  Whether or not the original intention of Christianity was to put people into a perpetual state of sinfulness, that seems to be what many want us to think we are in.  Only people, who make doing anti-societal things their purpose for living, should ever feel guilty and most of them likely don't.  We should live our lives thinking that we are good people, and do what we want to do to keep feeling that way, within, of course, what is legal and socially acceptable in the situations we are in.

I think the idea of being a sinner and having to atone for our sins, or we will go to Hell, was a tactic that people adapted to keep us tied to religion.  The fear of some horrible fate when we die is a very strong motivator for most people.  That is one of the main reasons, in my opinion, that the current religions have remained so active, with such large followings for such a long time.  Without the promise of an eternal Heaven or the fear of an eternal Hell, religions would not be near as popular as they are.  Obviously today, in western society, active involvement in a religious life involves only a minority of the people, but without the reward and fear factor, likely there would be very few, if any, people who are religious today.

Well, yes, the premise of the church is certainly circular.  It tells us the cause and offers the cure, how convenient.  I think it goes all the way back to Augustine, who came up with the concept of "original sin", which is somehow genetic, except for Mary, I guess.  The entire church history is bound up with convincing people they are all full of sin from birth, and only Jesus can pay our "wages of sin" which is death.

Perhaps after 2000 years of hearing this, its simply accepted because no one knows any better anymore.  The church has been so effective at stamping out anything that didn't conform to its pre-packaged box, that we've practically lost our spiritual imagination.

I also feel that the message was aimed at a largely uneducated audience, so perhaps that is why the whole idea is becoming increasingly questioned, with todays high standard of education for the average person.

Maybe the whole sinful thing is a matter of degree?  I am still worthy to burn in hell for all eternity BUT I am not as wicked as that person over there because I am smart enough to repent of my wickedness so Jesus will save me?   Plus like the Pharisee I am not as depraved as that sinner over there.

 As far as turning lives around because of faith I don't know.  I think faith can ruin lives.  

I think that's a very human and natural response. And I think it's a large part of why people are addicted to the concept of sin - We want to feel good about ourselves. Believing that we've been "forgiven our sins" is a way to do that.

I know this is just a bit of semantics on my part, but I'd say that dogmatic belief, whether in religion or sciience or anything else, can ruin lives. It requires its adherents to remain fixated on one interpretation of the world, with no ability to revise that interpretation as knowledge changes.

Faith, which to me is by definition flexible, fluid and adaptable, is the way out of that trap.

David

True, but many denominations, including the UCCan, are attempting to change this, to make it nothing more than history, and to recover the greater Message of the Christ that we are one with God.

Whether its education or affluence, I agree, people are less and less willing to be told they're crap. Which, as I say, seems to me to be a primary cause of the decline of denominational worship.

Because ...

even though, as noted, liberal denominations are trying to leave this behind, they're not, or at least not yet, very successful. To clearly state that "Jesus didn't dies for your "sins", but rather because the message of radical inclusion was heresy to the ears of the powerful" brings out the same kind of reaction that one would see if a heroin addict were told they didn't need a fix to live.

Amen.

nothing heretical about that at all John.

I could not agree more.

DAvid

Yes, I agree, but you know as well as I do that tradition has a death grip on religion.  Tradition is very slow to change, and people in general don't like change, unless its in their pocket.

The tradition of "Jesus dying for our sins" has had almost 2000 years as the very definition of christianity, offering the deal of a lifetime for everyone.  Anything else has been around at best, less than 100 years.

Hopefully, this next generation, having not been so immersed in tradition, will be able to loosen its hold.

Nice to see you Besh, it's been awhile since we had anyone horribly misrepresenting someone else's words to serve their own ego

I generally find it better to point up. Goes farther and makes a pretty rainbow if the sun hits it just right.

Ok, I'm personally sitting on the fence here with this one. Intrigued by the commentary. Willing to see the whole paradigm shift. The way I'm seeing it is either we are all one and the same in Gods standard when it comes to sin, therefore held to the same accountability. That all have fallen short of the glory of God and da da da....or we are completely connected to God in this world and there is no separation of any kind.

It pressumes nothing more but GIANT contradictions to me!

Given the fact that it depends on biblical/ theological  understanding past present and future. We're the writers specifically manuscripting on those times of Jewish Conquest or for all future renderings of human social conditioning and speaking the heart, will, and mind of God.

I morbidly consider the death penalty debate. If one axe murders children are they or should they? not be held by the righteous justice of God? a God? or Gods?The heart of a murderer must change before the murders happen. There just the end result of malicious intent of premeditation. That which is already of a sinful by-product of the human condition.   

However they should not be held in the same way as a non believer! to be judged same way.

Christ came to be the sin atonement as it says, the propitiation for sin. The sinless lamb. The suffering servant. Need I say more! So parts of the bible are flawed and fallible, which can be a relevant assumption or hypothesis.

But it throws the holy book into confusion with my own head spinning.

The intent of hatred is the same capabillity as a murderer. It is brought to the same base standard by Christ. The thoughts and emotions and attitude of the human psyche and heart are depraved as Jesus says also. 

When I had a conversion experience almost 20 years ago now it was a changing one, it was something not of my own ability to have done humanly because I was doing and behaving in my same old nature. The bible says that "you no longer walk in ignorance of your former selves." 

It opened me up to this... and kind of made me aware of myself and changed me within.

Sin could very well be a presumption of man's inability to understand himself and corelate it with righteousness. What does it mean to be righteous? who is? and what is its moral standard of accountability. I can see where the religious rhetoric comes in.

Its kind of like why do we keep killing each other on the planet? and we want pleasure unending, and to know the good benefits of life without the bad. Blessing and curses.There is no reason to assume I am right because  a pedophile might assume he is right! 

But I'll still take a back seat on it and read on...........

Isn't this the same as the idea of "glass being half full versus half empty"?

One seeing humans as in their innermost self being failing and therefore in constant need of forgiveness and help -and the other seeing the human being as profoundly good, but in need of help and forgiveness for when he/she is failing.

I would not call this an addiction- though, I just googled a definition which came up as:

Addiction:-being abnormally tolerant to and dependent on something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming (especially alcohol or narcotic drugs).
 

Attitudes and convictions and self-esteem certainly influence our interpretation and interaction with the world, - if you want to call this a "habit".

I doubt that both sides could discuss this issue and come to a common ground.

I would agee with you.

No, and I actually didn't ask the question in regard to the validity of one theology over another. My point is that, even when denominations as a whole move past atonement theology, they cannot let go of "sin" because there is an element, like friend besh, who become hysterical at the mere thought.

This is like the withdrawal symptoms that addicts exhibit when denied their fix. That's the analogy that I'm alluding to.

The majority of mainline denominations do not adhere to the innate "sinfulness" of humanity. And yet they can't let go of the language. So by default, large numbers of people who cannot use the language when they don't have the belief, let go of the church.

David

Hi FD.

Well, for me the latter - connection - is a given.

What I'm repeatedly struck by is that, even though many mainline denominations have essentially shifted from "original sin" to "original blessing" theology, they, or at least some of the people involved in them, find it impossible to let go of the language of "being sinful."

Thanks for sharing your comment about your conversion experience. Many people, in many faiths, have had enlightment moments that changed them forever. They're pretty uniformly described as feeling like something/someone outside of themselves facilitated it.

Again, that's not what I'm talking about when I use the phrase "addicted to being sinful." The very fact that the comments in this thread (outside of besh's perennial crush on me) continually tip to one side or the other, without really considering the question head on, makes my point - an addict can't overcome their addiction until they recognize it as such.

DAvid

In Addition

Memories are Reactivated by Cues Associated with the Initial Acquisition of Information

Hi David-Long time no see.--(addicted to being sinful)  Thats a big heading David. I Believe we are all sinnful by Just living  in the flesh. To me thats what the Bible says.Now as a Christian I will go by what the Bible says.I noted by reading a lot of what you say you don't Talk much about Jesus. Thats your right of course.Oh by the way David I don't give that right , God does.I do know in my walk Jesus is a word that comes out very offten.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------David Wrote-People "turn their lives around" - often with the help of faith, but just as often with the help of caring and compassionate people who may or may not include "repentence" in their vocabulary.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This may be so David . Do you then know for sure God had nothing to do with it? airclean33.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would like to give you a  vers  or two from the Bible on who is in charge of sin and as far as I can see is the only one that can help you get out of it.-------Takes it away-John-1x21-----Has power to forgive--Matt-9x6--Saves His peopleFrom-- Matt-1-21-----Makes reconciliation For-Heb-2x17---Purges our-Heb--1x3---Cleanes us From---1-John-1x7-9--- Washes us From Rev-1x5-----------------------------------------Sin Bearer---One Who Takes The Sin Of Another Upon Himself.  Lev 16-6x19---Heb-9-11x28----Yes David as a Christian  and a Sinner. As I am one of all that fell short of Gods Righteous Judgment, and am in thanks and Praise of My Lord JESUS. airclean33 God Bless David.

As a Christian, I go by what the Bible says as well ac. Funny that, to me, "we are all sinnful by Just living  in the flesh" is not what it says. It's certainly what Augustine was able to convince the church it said, but that's not the same thing.

However, your post makes my point very well and I thank you for it.

For those addicted to "being sinful", just as for those who insist that they stay in abusive relationships because they don't deserve anything better, no amount of discussion has the least effect.

They're forced to convince themselves that those who don't share their addiction don't "go by what the Bible says." It justifies the addiction and allows them to pretend that those who are in relationships with God without that need to consider themselves crap aren't "Christian" and can go to hell in good time.

Again, and as I've said repeatedly in this thread, my comment has nothing to do with a particular theology - only with the addictive behaviour associated with it. Again, those who feel threatened by that concept simply prove the point when they try to justify the theology rather than discuss the behaviour.

be well

David

Thanks inna

I enjoyed those, particularly the RAWilson one. I haven't read much about his Quantum Psychology stuff, but I glanced at his site and the "Standard English" vs " E-Prime" formulations certainly grabbed my attention.

Maybe the question, given that we know how difficult it is for people to let go of concepts absorbed in childhood, is the opposite of what I've been asking.

Maybe the real question is - Since we know that concepts such as "sin" are an integral part of our cultural upbringing, why has western society been so successful over the past half century in breaking free of the addictive behaviour associated with considering oneself "unworthy"?

DAvid

Maybe we just got tired of being good people having to wear a "totally depreaved" label?

Maybe.

I think that a huge factor in this is communication - specifically the increasingly integrated way that the "developed" countries exchange information. Those who seek to dominate others often start off by isolating them from friends and family; from anyone who might suggest that there's a different way of living, equally valid, that doesn't involve a sense of self-worthlessness.

It's harder to keep believing that we need to be "fixed" once we're no longer only hearing from people who're trying to convince us we're broken.

Dave Asked-

My question is this -

Why are traditional "churchpeople" so addicted - and I use that word intentionally - to the idea of being "sinful"??

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------My answer--From the Bible---.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would like to give you a  vers  or two from the Bible on who is in charge of sin and as far as I can see is the only one that can help you get out of it.-------Takes it away-John-1x21-----Has power to forgive--Matt-9x6--Saves His peopleFrom-- Matt-1-21-----Makes reconciliation For-Heb-2x17---Purges our-Heb--1x3---Cleanes us From---1-John-1x7-9--- Washes us From Rev-1x5-----------------------------------------Sin Bearer---One Who Takes The Sin Of Another Upon Himself.  Lev 16-6x19---Heb-9-11x28----Yes David as a Christian  and a Sinner. As I am one of all that fell short of Gods Righteous Judgment, and am in thanks and Praise of My Lord JESUS. airclean33 God Bless David.

lol - no ac. Sometimes you're as amusing in your attempt to twist my words as besh is.

But I'll say it again anyway - I do not recognize your authority to define what the Bible says. If you believe you have the authority to tell God how to think, I guess that's your choice.

So I "agree with the Bible" ac. I just don't agree with you.

Hope that's okay.

David

Just to expand on this a bit, I think that we're seeing the outcome of change that started over fifty years ago when a whole generation, coming home from WWII, were too world-wise to blindly believe that they were better than anyone else anymore.

The attitude that led to books like "I'm Okay, You're Okay" (1969) challenged the traditional Christian claim that "you're not okay and you never will be".

From Wikipedia:

I'm OK, You're OK, by Thomas A Harris MD, is one of the best selling self-help books ever published. It is a practical guide to Transactional Analysis as a method for solving problems in life. From its first publication during 1969, the popularity of I'm OK, You're OK gradually increased until, during 1972, its name made the New York Times Best Seller list and remained there for almost two years. It is estimated by the publisher to have sold over 15 million copies to date^[1] and to have been translated into over a dozen languages

Nothing is black and white of course (the first Parliament of the World's Religions took place in 1896), but I wonder if a course like this :

I’m Okay, You’re Okay: Teaching Tolerance through World Religions ,

would have been able to run in a high school anywhere in the "west" in the 30's or 40's?

And that's to say nothing of the irony that there are still school boards in the US that want to teach creationism as equally valid to evolution.

It seems to me that there is a pendulum swinging to extremes here.  At one end, people are obsessed with their "sinful nature" and the idea of humans being inherently evil.  At the other end, people will think they are better than others and look down their noses at people that they judge to be less worthy than they are.  Of course, then the people who know they are sinful can look at the ones who are full of themselves and think "I'm better than you because I -know- I'm sinful and you don't see how sinful you are." Et cetera.

Psychologically at least, the healthiest place would be seeing and accepting our imperfections, as well as celebrating our best.  People are most able to make changes personally when they are generally happy with themselves, too. 

The second world war had a profound impact on humanity for a number of reasons.  It was the first war where civilian causalities were felt as much as the loss of a soldier.  Whole cities were bombed and the final act - the atomic bomb - changed the face of global warfare forever.

For those growing up in Canada the impact was felt but not the same as for those in Europe.  Yesterday, in our little book club, one of the ladies who lived in London, England during the war told us a little tale about how the war changed their church habits.

Her family was High Anglican.  They went to church twice a day - when she was in school she went three times a day.  They were not permitted to do anything on Sundays but sit quietly and contemplate the sermon of the day.  This all changed when war broke out.  Many churches had to close due to the bombings.  Evening services were canceled.

Three years into the war, for reasons unknown, cinemas were reopened.  Her brother, a young soldier, apparently went to one on a Sunday.  Word of this - dare we call it  - sin got back to her parents.  Much to the amazement of all, her father said 'our children have grown, the time has come for them to make their own decisions'.  At that point no one in her family was made to go to church against their will.

The outcome of these social changes did not bring on the wrath of God as many had been taught to believe.  Lightening did not strike them.  The young soldier was not blinded because he sought  a moment of release in a darkened movie theater on a Sunday.  Indeed, if there was a lesson, it was all their prior pious living had not saved them from the ravages of man made bombs and destruction.

For those living in that time the face of Evil was human and, for the first time, that face was broadcast in moving pictures complete with sound.  It revolutionized what those people considered sin and the idea that something trivial like going to the cinema could be held on par with gassing millions was seen for the human folly it truly was.

There was one other fall out from that war; because the average person witnessed how one evil man led a nation of average persons to acts of atrocity, many vowed to let no human control their behaviour again.  They began to question their leaders both political, religious and even familial.  They began to suspect anyone who sought to control and manipulate.

It was the end of blind trust. 

The memories of these people are blurring and being lost.  The horrifying lessons they learned are being ignored and forgotten.  As a result those not facing the horrors inflicted by man are once again trivializing the wrath of God on to petty misdemeanors.

And that is a sin that leads to blindness.

LB

Sin is geographical.

     Bertrand Russell

Good morning David - It Looks Like Besh is not Happy with you.I May be onhappy with the answer you give me . But I do not think your Stupid David, I think it is the  opposite, you are smart..Don't think to much on it David . I think most  of, if not all on wondercafe are very bright. Besh when not angry One of the best.God Bless David. Have a good day.---By the way David . I also Believe If The World could do away with anger. There  would be a lot less Sin.  airclean33.

That, for me, is the true Message of the Christ.

It affirms our healthy relationship with "God" (whatever we conceive God to be, as Max Ehrmann said in Desiderata) and encourages us to strive to be the best that we can be each day.

lol - not to worry ac, I won't consider his tantrums a reflection on your religion. Besh's issues, whatever they are, are obviously his. He just uses biblical literalism to justify them.

Even though our definitions of "sin" are different, ac, that's something we can agree on.

Anger primarily (not always) comes from fear. So perhaps if we can build understanding without requiring agreement, we can reduce the fear that so many feel when confronted by those who see the world differently than they do.

What do you think?

DAvid