That Jesus died for our sin(s) is a major theme in the evangelical tradition of which I am not part...

Thanks for the interesting first post.

By 'major theme' would that be a necessary  theme for...uh...acceptence?

=============

And please excuse my ignorance: Dcn stands for Deacon which ,means what, other than

you take your religion seriously? 

i'm going to look it up; but what does it mean to you?

Cheers!

(H,G) John

 

(Dcn.Jae)

Post Scriptum:

Good Grief!

I Tim 3: 1-13

Is amazing!

Some things were thought about differently a couple of thousand years ago...

and further back, making Plato even more interesting (I was Creon in Sophicles

"Antigone" (Stage... and that (I just figured this out) was sixty eight years ago.

 What a great play!

time flies when yer havin' fun 

Cheers!

Well, Jesus did not die for my sins.

 

To me, sins are just mistakes, a necessary part of the learning process

 

The doctrine of substitutionary atonement is one of the many Christian doctrines that were invented after Jesus' death, by Paul and others. I don't think Jesus was in any way fundamentalist, literalist or dogmatist.

 

 

For he taught with authority, not like the scribes.

-Matt 7:29

For the phrase to be meaningful, you need a couple things to be true:

 

- You need Sin (and the capital 'S' is deliberate) to be a major concern in human existence. I believe in human fallibility and that we do miss the mark in our connections to the universe and other beings, but that is not quite the same thing as Sin, though Sin could be taken metaphorically as meaning that fallibility.

 

- You need a reason why someone has to die for those sins. In the case of Christian atonement theology, the notion is that Sin is a stain that must be washed away so we can either join God in Heaven or be raised up into the Kingdom of God after Judgement.

 

The fact that we are fallible beings is not in dispute. Whether you're talking Christian notions of Sin or the Buddhist Noble Truths (All existence is suffering, suffering is caused by grasping, and so on), the notion that our fallibility causes suffering to us and others is fairly clear.

 

Whether that constitutes an eternal stain on our immortal souls that must be, and can only be, removed by Jesus' sacrifice is in dispute. For me, I don't buy it because I do not believe in immortal souls, judgement, afterlives, etc. I believe that we need to live better lives in the here and now, not be guided by something that we have no proof for beyond an "I told you so" in an ancient book.

 

Our fallibility is our problem to resolve. Jesus showed us at least part of the way to that with his teachings on love, charity, forgiveness and healing. Arguably, his sacrifice and resurrection is a myth that could help lead us to a solution (essentially, a story carrying the message that living a life of integrity overcomes the suffering and allows a new life), but it is not, in and of itself, a solution. The Buddhist Eightfold Path offers another way. Classical philosophical ideas like Stoicism and Epicureanism offer other possibilities.

 

So, I do not see "Jesus died for my/our sins" as a meaningful notion save at a very high metaphorical level.

 

Mendalla

 

Arminius wrote:

To me, sins are just mistakes

This is the only part of your post that I would take issue with. I agree that some sins are certainly no more than mistakes but some go far beyond mistakes into pure deliberate evil.

 

In any discussion of moral standards I think that it might be helpful to discuss the difference between sin and evil. But before attempting that, let us examine a similar situation in the secular realm. Governments at every level pass legislation that probits certain actions. We use the word 'crime' to refer to the deliberate breaking of such a law. However, is the commission of a crime the same thing as committing an evil act? Here we come up against just how we might define evil. For the purposes of this discussion let me give a very simple definition:

 

Evil --- any deliberate action or inaction which compromises the physical or psychological integrity of a human being.

 

This, of course, is a narrow definition and we could likely spend a very long time extending it and refining it. Let us leave that at least for the moment. The point that I am sneaking up on here is that 'what is evil is not necessarily a crime' and conversely 'what is a crime is not necessarily evil'. To me this is obvious but let me just attempt an illustration of each statement.

 

First, 'what is evil is not necessarily a crime'. By my definition above, the killing of another human being is to be regarded as an evil act. However, the law does not regard this as a crime if it is done in self defence or in war.

 

Second, 'what is a crime is not necessarily evil'. In Singapore, for example, it is a crime to chew gum. I think most would not quibble about this not being evil according to the above definition.

 

Can we make similar distinctions in the spiritual realm concerning sin and evil? I believe that we can. First, we need a working definition of sin. Let me suggest a very simple definition:

 

Sin --- doing that which is forbidden by a spiritual authority.

 

Once again, we could debate this definition. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of this definition might involve whether or not a spiritual authority, such as a church or a scripture, can actually express the will of a Deity. Setting that aside, we once again are faced with two problems. The point being that 'what is evil is not necessarily a sin' and conversely 'what is a sin is not necessarily evil'.

 

First, 'what is evil is not necessarily a sin'. I think that most would agree that to torture someone is an evil. However, if we just look at Christian scripture, I do not see any specific prohibition that would make torture a sin. A similar argument could be applied to female genital mutilation (circumcision).

 

Second, 'what is a sin is not necessarily evil'. Here, we can get into a very much more controversial debates. It is certainly true that Christian scripture regards homosexual actions as sinful. However, within society at large and within a number of Christian churches in particular, homosexual behaviour is no longer regarded as an evil in and of itself. It is also certainly true that Jewish scripture regards the breaking of the dietary laws as sinful and even an abomination. However, within society at large and within a number of Jewish traditions in particular, the breaking of the dietary laws is no longer regarded as an evil in and of itself.

 

The distinctions made here between crime and evil and also between sin and evil lead us in a real quandry for society at large. The western world has become, and is increasingly becoming, extremely diverse in language, culture and religion. There is also no real way of reversing this. Since different religions cannot agree on what is sin, I do not think that we can rely on religion entirely to inform our moral and ethical behaviour. Since what is regarded as sin has so often in the past led us into framing our laws to determine what is criminal, I think we need a new approach to the problem. We need an approach that avoids the imposition of one set of religious beliefs on society at large --- an approach broadly constructed on a concensus of what is evil and therefore what is criminal. Leave what is regarded as sin to the consciences of those in particular religious traditions.

 

 

Great discussion!

I am listening in for now.....

I would love to hear more on Jae's position .....  ... 

JRT ..... great point about deliberate evil......

I have heard sin described as "missing the mark"

This implies that the person was aiming for the center of the target.... and that target being something good....

"Deliberate evil" would imply aiming for something else altogether....

That is certainly not the same as "missing the mark" .......

..... a very good discussion!

Thank you!

Rita

In the light of heiros gammos (the religious attitude of powerful people towards what common people should know) the lights were sacrificed down in GEO Ghia (geographical earth). This was achieved so that common people wouldn't know the difference between crime, sin and menial injury caused by starving your neighbour to make a quick profit. This could include the extortion of a vinyard to put the withered vine in perspective. What authority really knows the underlings work? I've experienced this upper knowledge in extreme negative form ... leading to negative thought patterns I'm toled .. thus take up the position as nut under the Shadow of the Logos tree ... absolutely nobody knows that one! It is part of strange math and cunning in abstract calculation that's out of here and our hands ... a real þ' ithchii situation at least!

 

The problem about ignorance in common people is the communicative nature of myths ... wise ancient people (classic thinkers?) knew these spread like wildfire ... which is evident now in authorities that don't know any better than nothing (nothing being the wee people the supported ones rountinely ignorant of underlying functions). But you can't say this outright or you'll be liabled for proding the Golden ASS ...our powerful leaders who haven't seen the light of a good Cain'n for years ... old adage ... no pain/no gain and this works for the collective mind too a virtual imaginary thing it appears. All that is left is isolated thought ... and emotional people that are too distraught to gather anything ...

Ignore the fore going ...

 

I was decreed not to know anything by certain authority ... so I admit to knowing nothing for sure ... mostly because of all the lies and myths fed to me. I did interpret many of the myths but the lies are just beyond me ... nothing I can really accept as an authoritarian foundation and thus the whole scroo'dup thing collapsed as a Hindi dukkha in and who in the western world would understand that dip in thought?

 

It is said some nut that fell for this bult a pool and a temple in the middle of it ... just for reflections ache ... a painfull backflash from Ur burn'd in the alchemii? That'd be psychic!

Hi JRT: Interesting, informative, and thought provoking post (like most of your posts :-) 

 

I still think, though, that sins are mistakes, except that some mistakes are more serious than others.

 

Sin with a capital "S" probably is a sin against the spirit. (And by "spirit" I mean the unitive spirit of the unified universe.)

 

So, anything that goes against the spirt of unitiveness would be, according to my consciousness and conscience, a capital Sin.

 

Hi John Wilson. This I beleve is the Rock of Chrisanity. Did Christ Jesus come into the world to save our Souls. If so why and how could He do this. The Jewish Laws are very stricked on how they are to be used.Laws I mite ad given them by GOD.Sin I think being a great part of them . My belief as a Christain though is differnt. Sin to me is to disobay GOD. This seems as it has been from the beginning. Of all trees you may eat , save but the one, I tell you not even to touch it.Adam disobayed GOD  Sin came on flesh . Also the punishment for sin Death. I believe GOD Loved Mankind as He should for these were and are His Children.So GOD hade to find a way to save them from themselfs.His  choise through the blood. He showed it many of times in his word  The Bible. If we remember It was GOD who Gave death to mankind and I believe it would be GOD who takes it away. But man must be showen it would not happen though mans doind . Or mans knowlage. But though a Loving Father who is willing to show His Love for Mankind.Now we come to Jesus The Christ , GOD in Flesh the secound Adam. Who Loved His Father so much as to give His life up  .The only begotten son of GOD.All things were made  though Him and by Him. He was are father who made us . He stood ready and willing to leav this world again in a very horrific death. To die for us so His Father could offer for giveness to those who would recive Jesus Christ as Lord.Which He really always has been. He is Father --Son ---Holy Spirit. I believe  We can be saved no other way, than through that precious blood.  You dare not come befor GOD with out it.   God Bless friend I hope  this is of help. -airclean33-gord

I think humans are more innocent than they know.

It's pure ignorance that drives "sin". A sickness that dogs humanity when we forget that we are also mammals being jerked around by forces we don't understand. We are also being told stories about what is important that are not necessarily true, but we act consensually as if they were. That probably means that evolution needs to be conscious.

Jane Goodall's musings in this subject are intriging. 

Did I oversimplify that?

Good read JRT. Reminds me of a quote "Greed is not a criminal offence".  Some tycoon said that.

Excuse me? "Not" part?

 

Something we should know?

 

Maybe Jae is going to a United Church, now, Chansen. What do you think?

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/06/does-chimp-warfare...

 

 

This is what I mean re: Jane Goodall's work.

Jae confuses me. At times, I'm fairly sure his faith is evolving away from his baptist congregation, and that he posts their beliefs just to toy with us. He leaves little clues in his posts that you wouldn't expect, like this "not". Only Jae can untangle this.

 

Hm... Not sure why I wrote, "not." Chalk it up to my writing before breakfast, when I was only 3/4 awake. What I meant to say was, "a" part. My church is evangelical, my seminary is evangelical, 'nuff said.

Jesus, a common person, died on a Roman cross in the first century. One of many persons who died on many crosses. Why? Because the powers of Religion and Politics had no taste for difference of opinion expressed as liberating practice among exploited and oppressed populations and lands. No taste for any person who called into question the powers of State and Religion in collusion for the sake of profit and power. 

 

Did Jesus die because of sin? You bet he did. It was by Political will and Religious benediction that he was murdered. The murderers considered themselves free to exploit and oppress peoples and lands for the sake of Palaces and Temples. These were the practitioners of conspicuous consumption with contempt for persons bent and broken by the structures of rapacious greed built by exploited labour and defended by exploited armies.

 

Sin is that distortion of human being by which some exalt themselves at the expense of others, generally a minority at the expense of a majority. Those who have imagined themselves to be as gods, with no accountability to any ethic or morality beyond self-interest and self-aggrandizement.

 

Of course the plain story is much obfuscated by Priests and Politicians who continue to exploit and oppress the planet and its peoples for the sake of profit and power. How convenient to place the death of Jesus at the feet of God.

 

I suspect that there is not a politician or priest who could resist the urge to kill Jesus were he to show his face, speak his words and do his deeds among us. Why? Because our structures of exploitation and oppression, by which a minority is enriched and the majority enslaved, want no part in the truth which sets persons free from the delusions by which power is established and maintained.

 

All of this is obscured by the metaphysical fantasy of priests. These claim to hold the key opening the way to heaven. But they do not go in and neither will they let others go in. For the kingdom of heaven is the undoing of any and all earthly kingdoms built on the cornerstone of sin and the foundations of deceit.

 

George

 

(The Grand Inquisitor)

 

 

 

 

Hi John

Four points from me... First is that the statement has a context and commenting would depend on the context. As well, the person making the statement frames the statement with a number of assumptions, underpinning the statement. It is quite possible that outside the framework and context, the words are not a statement at all, and may not carry any meaning. Then perhaps no point to comment...

Second, I think it important to understand what kind of sin and whether is individual or collective.

Third, as I imagine it, the speaker's statement says to me that the speaker understabnds God as someone would die for the speaker to rid the speaker/sinner of his sin. Interesting concept of God. (God serves people. God, if temporally alive, would die to have people free of sin, however understood.) I think. when held, this notion reveals the nature of God and God's forgiveness to the person making the statement, and perhaps to us.

My last and forth point. One is hard pressed to find any substantive reference in the four gospels, of Christ dying to forgive sin. (Lambs were usually not used for sin offerings.) I think there is much stronger basis to find the Gospels putting forward that Christ offered himslef and his life --- not his death -- for people so they could live. More importantly, the notion that Christ died for people's sins is not a message found in the teachings and messages of Christ as actually recorded in the four Gospels. Would Christ die for my sin... I expect yes. Would God die for me....? If God would die for me, what does thgis tell me about reality and my place in it.

 

aldo: I'll respond to your post after this note to

Aircleen: I admire you for choosing a life shared by millions of others and results in benefits and satisfaction (and lots of hoots from this place) I would not want to change your  mind on anything.

 

Now to your post Aldo, my thought is fairly simple:

"Jesus died for out sins"

IS substitutionary atonement which is historically and psychologically 

nonsense.

----And takes away from the teachings of that poor peasant of Palestine 

on how to have life and live it abundantly.

Cheers!

.... technically you have a strong position... how is it that millions who believed that have benefited as much as they have... I have seen too many who have believed that and who have as a result so changed because of their experience to 'write off' the statement of experience. So what has gone on with such people having such experience with such profound consequence to themselves? .... perhaps a kernel of ....?.... that is resilient regardless...

"Hm... Not sure why I wrote, "not." Chalk it up to my writing before breakfast, when I was only 3/4 awake. What I meant to say was, "a" part. My church is evangelical, my seminary is evangelical, 'nuff said."

 

Is it possible for the saved to be fallable? Only if you believed not ...

 

Thus the dark side remains in giggles about not knowing why God's people say such things ...

 

Did not the word say to embrace the stranger? And prey tellus what is stranger than the mind of inhumane people hidding in dark script? Thus the human sector can remain innocent or ignorant or whatever reaction you chose as the result of excess liberte without resonsibility for anything else ... that may be considerable extensive ... more so than a mortal mind thought or believed!

 

How do I know these things? I don't I learned a long while to probe everything else for answers ... that still remain out-there!

 

People that believe that have it all in hand (yah) thus say I'm mentally challenged ... don't know much ... really causes a stir in the general extreme population (once known as religious polity). Alas that too changed with the Crusades and anyone that was familiar with that ... died off! This allows the remnant to remain stewed or stew þ' idée the decree of the roué's as a dark flowering of a cause of forgetting everything in addictive passions.

 

Odd things these passions can arise from addition of possession of anything from a piece of stone, heroin, hero-in, to a Jared wise Key ... anything to interfere with despised thoughts! Thus with all this we don't until letting go ... leading to NDE's ... an experience in it's elf ... that devilish intellect that's out there ungraspable and purely  indeterminate from an extreme physical position!

 

Can you imagine who would support physical things ... metaphysics as a thought? These things could underlye words ... you know subtle E! Thats' chi ... the well-whetted fire bearer at the well-head takes a tolle on muses ... when it strikes eM! Then they're cut luce ...

Should one support a thinking staff, like Moses?

 

Corporate heads, authoritarian governments and similar religious operations prove to be crummy this way ... as they ignore the intelligent staff as they prefer emotionally quick processers that don't read fine print ... a delicate situation to say the least when you really look into that frail fabric we support!

 

Now was that a snaky frolic in the unknown? Such ventures allow a solid grip on the myth of the Golden Ass ... and it is not as it appears ...

WaterBouy....

if there is one thing that proceeds from the mouth of God and is evident in the Word of God and presently manifest in the actually existing Christ.... its that no one is in a position to judge... let alone pass judgement... I think what I understand you say is right...

I don't believe that Jesus died for our sins, like a lamb put to slaughter so that those who say the words of devotion and "give themselves to Him" can be saved. We save ourselves in response to the teachings, and in particular to the application of those teachings within ourselves. If we don't apply those teachings, and therefore force a change within ourselves, then we cannot be saved. This is why Jesus said, in Matthew 16:24, "if anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it". Jesus taught that the personality, our physically, emotional and mental being, is secondary to the soul, and that the latter must take precedence over the former, even if that means the sacrifice of our "lesser" self.


The soul seeks to express itself through it's vehicle, the man or woman, but these vehicles have to respond to the teachings. Great Teachers like the Christ can only show us the way (John 14:6), They cannot take us there against our will. And this way the path back to God teaches us, or probably more aptly put, reminds us once again of the great Laws, such as the Law of Karma, the Law of Rebirth, and the Law of Harmlessness.


So what is sin you ask? I believe that sin is when we break the laws of life with our eyes wide open. In other words, it is not sin if we are truly ignorant and naive of the law. In this case the Law of Karma is our greatest teacher. If, however, we are informed and know the laws of life but continue to break them, then the Laws of Karma and Rebirth still apply but become ever more serious. We cannot escape these Laws as they are basic universal forces.


In Genesis 2:17 God tells Adam, so the story goes, regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that “in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die”, and yet Adam is said to have lived 930 years! Obviously the threat of death must have had a different meaning. The Laws of Reincarnation answers this by saying that the mythical Adam started down a road of cycles, like the coils of a serpent, where life was to be followed by death which was to be followed by life again, etc. Only through awareness and the application of that awareness would the cycle ever be broken.


This is how I see it.

Then why are we judged so severely for thinking outside the box ... alas it being made from a tree no less? Where the juç's hid their scrolls! Catch one of those mother's rye and ther'd be some unravelling ...

 

Doesn't it cause you some reaction to the action of Christians that are determined you are going to hell? It may be one of the lighter places in the dark firmament ... Shamayim in old tongues where everyone has to take a dipping ... what Buddha called a dukkha ... that in western tongues is phoneticised as a duck'n ... Kahn ton ease duckaL'orange ... when well roasted?

 

Alien codes are so easy ... once known!

Are you responding to my post WC? And if so, are you asking why we are judged by "religions" for thinking outside of the box? Please explain..

Hi Neo--You posted-----

In Genesis 2:17 God tells Adam, so the story goes, regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that “in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die”, and yet Adam is said to have lived 930 years! Obviously the threat of death must have had a different meaning. The Laws of Reincarnation answers this by saying that the mythical Adam started down a road of cycles, like the coils of a serpent, where life was to be followed by death which was to be followed by life again, etc. Only through awareness and the application of that awareness would the cycle ever be broken.

This is how I see it.

___________________________________

Airclean-- You do understand  a day to GOD can be a thousand years.. No Man has ever liven beyond that time.--airclean33

No entiendo or comprendo Airclean.

"Are you responding to my post WC? And if so, are you asking why we are judged by "religions" for thinking outside of the box? Please explain.."

 

I can't NEO ... I've been told so many times I'm going to hell for knowing the difference between good and bad it has changed me to a blithering idiot as I am stilled into a rabid ogre of laughter ... that odd sound (sona) in the beams and rafters of the church.

 

Many stoics cling to the spirit of not knowing and thus secretly are "Duffs" in the intellectual realm ... remaining far out in an upended dimension as addressed by Kimmio! These things happen when presence is viewed through the eye of a calm-elle (camel?) or the camera obscura ... as'ole you can't see. Can you really see the pupil in the OZ-iris or is it something taken only in context of the contrast? So there is wasn't ... as things that people don't believe can exist as gnots, or things that bug eM!

 

Such metaphors will just kill a fixed, or unmoving mind ... thus motivating it to think the fey route ova ... "pious people won't leave the structure of institution"---Nurse Ratchet as cranked out under the roué of Murphy who escaped from under that hand! Do you understand roué NEO its decreed by the pious that can't process ... leaving me out (isolation, shunning) of what they believe is heaven (not having to think by pious decree) but may not be so! Love observes no roué's just gets into them to see how the dark things work. Thus Eris of Lil-ethe ... a wee pew made from a tree?

 

Why can't I know? Not because of the corrupt lies we've been told by unthinking souls (rapturous gaps like missing synaps?) but because I can't think when enveloped in satyrs ... a type of far out Allah Gory ... bloody funny as a spirit of confused literary device ... when you look around at human progress ... is this a deflationary curve of intelligence? Thus anything wwe know ends ... or so it appears ...

 

The book says to be cautious about how things appear ... may be more to it that meets the eye as contrasting Oz (powerful) Iris that can close up on what's obvious ... the occult observer as an excellent pupil? Such is a Su Fi myth ... rare in our present case ... providing us with etherial thoughts as mire metaphors of aberrations in energy ... ARMINIOUS said and that has to be true ... heh's ben there ... nerve Anna ... a neurological reflection as autonomous wave! Causes unseen giggles ... authorities frown upon eM!

In the Baptist tradition, a Deacon concerns himself with the physical needs of the church he serves. Many focus on the physical upkeep of the building their church meets in, doing odd jobs such as painting, cleaning, vacuuming, etc. The office also includes voting on building issues the church faces - do we put a new roof on the building this year? Install a lift? Repaint the wall behind the baptistery? Deacons also often help with the tangible needs of individuals. Providing/serving food at church meals for example. Usually, it is also the Deacons who serve the elements in the ordinance of Communion. Some Baptist denominations now allow for women to serve as Deacons, however mine does not.

All of this is meant to free the Elders from such responsibilities, so that they have more time to devote themselves to the spiritual needs of the church they serve.

I would imagine that other denominations have people in similar roles, whether they call them Deacons and Elders or not.