You have to WANNA!!!

[Avatar]

Do you mean that if you hold yourself responsible, it's not that much of a sin, even if you did it?

--A

[The Pumpkin King]

Do you mean that if you hold yourself responsible, it's not that much of a sin, even if you did it?

--A

If you recognize, when you do something, that there will be consequences, and you make yourself aware of those consequences, and accept that you will indeed be responsible them.

The majority of most fault in a sin lays in accountability.

This applies mostly to sins that aren't inherently evil. Say, you can't justify killing someone just because you know you'll be sent to prison and get the death penalty.

But on more minor things, I feel that taking responsibility for ones actions and, more importantly, learning from them is the largest part of the battle.

[dennisrwood]

and trying not to do them again...

[The Pumpkin King]

and trying not to do them again...

I did say, after all, "learning from them."

I think "not trying to do them again" falls under that.

[dennisrwood]

there is a difference. too many people think that i can commit sinful acts, confess and do it all over again next week. learning that is wrong doesn't mean changinging...

[The Pumpkin King]

there is a difference. too many people think that i can commit sinful acts, confess and do it all over again next week. learning that is wrong doesn't mean changinging...

Not "learning something is wrong"

"learning to be a better person."

There's a BIG difference there.

[Avatar]

Certainly if we're talking about "generic" sin, and not "evil" ones, I agree that taking responsibility, and learning from it not to do it again is probably the best possible outcome.

Of course, here we're back in that nebulous territory of defining sin, but on the whole, I see what you're saying.

The acceptance and learning has to be backed up by not continuing, otherwise you didn't learn from it in the first place.

--Avatar

[dennisrwood]

Mortal sin is defined by St. Augustine (Contra Faustum, XXII, xxvii) as "Dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem æternam", i.e. something said, done or desired contrary to the eternal law, or a thought, word, or deed contrary to the eternal law. This is a definition of sin as it is a voluntary act. As it is a defect or privation it may be defined as an aversion from God, our true last end, by reason of the preference given to some mutable good

Venial sin is essentially different from mortal sin. It does not avert us from our true last end, it does not destroy charity, the principle of union with God, nor deprive the soul of sanctifying grace, and it is intrinsically reparable. It is called venial precisely because, considered in its own proper nature, it is pardonable; in itself meriting, not eternal, but temporal punishment

[Avatar]

Well, given my aversion to god, I guess I'm screwed either way.

And again, to me, thought cannot be cinstrued as sin. Simply thinking about doing something evil is completely different from doing it. And there comes the voluntary act. To do it is voluntary. To think about it, is not.

Only the commission of an act which destroys charity is a "sin" in my eyes, and even then, to a specific conception of "charity".

"Sin" per se exists only because of religion. Whether or not something is considered a sin, doesn't affect the intrinsic "badness" of it. In other words, many, if not most, sins have nothing wrong with them. Only very few are intrinsically wrong.

--Avatar

[dennisrwood]

The Supreme Law-Giver begins by proclaiming His Name and His Titles to the obedience of the creature man: "I am the Lord, thy God. . ." The laws which follow have regard to God and His representatives on earth (first four) and to our fellow-man (last six).

Being the one true God, He alone is to be adored, and all rendering to creatures of the worship which belongs to Him falls under the ban of His displeasure; the making of "graven things" is condemned: not all pictures, images, and works of art, but such as are intended to be adored and served (First).
Associated with God in the minds of men and representing Him, is His Holy Name, which by the Second Commandment is declared worthy of all veneration and respect and its profanation reprobated.
And He claims one day out of the seven as a memorial to Himself, and this must be kept holy (Third).
Finally, parents being the natural providence of their offspring, invested with authority for their guidance and correction, and holding the place of God before them, the child is bidden to honour and respect them as His lawful representatives (Fourth).
The precepts which follow are meant to protect man in his natural rights against the injustice of his fellows.

His life is the object of the Fifth;
the honour of his body as well as the source of life, of the Sixth;
his lawful possessions, of the Seventh;
his good name, of the Eighth;
And in order to make him still more secure in the enjoyment of his rights, it is declared an offense against God to desire to wrong him, in his family rights by the Ninth;
and in his property rights by the Tenth.
This legislation expresses not only the Maker's positive will, but the voice of nature as well--the laws which govern our being and are written more or less clearly in every human heart. The necessity of the written law is explained by the obscuring of the unwritten in men's souls by sin. These Divine mandates are regarded as binding on every human creature, and their violation, with sufficient reflection and consent of the will, if the matter be grave, is considered a grievous or mortal offense against God. They have always been esteemed as the most precious rules of life and are the basis of all Christian legislation.


does that help?

[Avatar]

Certainly they are the basis of christian legislation, just as similar laws were the basis of legislation before christianity.

I don't have much problem with the ones which are intended to protect man from his fellows, the majority of them are perfectly reasonable, and the ones about the unlawfullness of desiring something are simply a bit of wishful thinking.

Of course, I take issue with the claim of the "One True God", and the thought of an obligation of obedience/veneration/worship. Leave that out, and I'd be a lot happier. Of course, these commandments don't cover everything that is considered sin though. The ones they do cover, are pretty acceptable.

Somewhere down the bottom of the page is a thread started by Fist, which is a nice interpretation of the commandments. It's called, IIRC, "The Ten Commandments."

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Not "learning something is wrong"

"learning to be a better person."

There's a BIG difference there.

See, that's one of the reasons why I have a problem with the Christian definition of Sin, and 'good' compared to my definition, which has nothing to do with 'good'.

In the church, you can learn that something is a sin because god said so, not because it hurts you and others.
So you can ask God to forgive you, because God didn't like what you did, not because YOU understood that it was wrong.
So you can learn that God thought it was wrong, and feel bad for disobeying God, without really learning that the action was wrong.

[dennisrwood]

Jem: that's intellectual masturbation and not what the Church teaches. we are all about social ministry. we teach that wrong is wrong, not some sort of relativism, that "it's only wrong because God says so, but we don't need to understand that."
the bible is a primer for social justice that has a very black and white viewing of the world.

SOURCE: THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

DATE WRITTEN: 63 AD

The Beatitudes

1And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. 2Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:


3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.

6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

just one example. also read all of Matthew. none of it fits your definition.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

... ok then, let's use birth control as an example.

Why is birth control a sin? Because god said so, obviously. I mean, it has nothing to do with hurting anyone in a consensual couple, it seems to be based totally on scripture....

How about the sin of eating meat on a friday during lent? Obviously hurting someone. Maybe yourself I guess, if you have blood pressure issues...


But that's all semantics, that's not what I'm really interested in.

The Beatitudes are nice and all, but basically what they say is "Do all this stuff now, and later, god will reward you"

They don't refute my statement, they support it!

Why should we be meek? Why, if we do, We'll inherit the earth!
Why should we be merciful? Why, to obtain mercy, obviously...

[Kymbierlee]

Ahhhh- I love being Pagan.

"An it harm none, do as you will"

It's that simple.

[Avatar]

I agree with you Jem, but it might be couched that way deliberately, because people always want something for what they do. It's probably because this is the only way that we can convince people to behave like this.

Need some mercy? Then you better be merciful yourself, etc.

--Avatar