Sin: A useful concept? What is it? Etc. (Jesus, moral)

[BrandonE]

This will probably be too unfocused to be useful, but I have several sin-related things I was thinking about recently.

So, I've recently finished reading The Road Less Traveled by M. Scott Peck (fantastic book that was just what I needed right now), and in it, he proposes that "original sin" is in fact entropy. He states that all sin, as commonly understood, comes from laziness, specifically the lack of will to carefully evaluate one's actions and thus avoid doing something that is harmful to oneself or others in some way (non-love in his terminology). I found this to be a compelling idea, and upon examination agreed that most of my own wrongdoing could in fact be seen to come from my own unwillingness to carefully and properly judge the potential outcomes of my actions.

What do you think of this proposal?

In general, do you find sin to be a useful concept, or are you prone to think of things less in terms of sin/not-sin and more in terms of varying degrees wisdom (more wise/less wise)? I personally tend to think of actions as having various degrees of wisdom with little black and white, as I tend to think that most actions at some time have a justification. For example, killing in the ultimate defense of self or others, white lies to protect someone's feelings, etc. However, I wondered what the Catholic cardinal sins were and if any of them would ever be justified. I found them on Wikipedia and decided that they may be onto something as I could think of no redeeming qualities or acceptable circumstances for any of the cardinal sins.

What do you think of the concept of sin?

[yuvgotmel]

I personally like what Super Universe had to say http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...542#post779542

You're forgiven. You've always been forgiven. Even if you don't believe, you're still forgiven.

Here are excerpts from "The Gospel of Mary Magdelene"

[Page 7]

13 "What is the sin of the world?"
14 The Teacher answered:
15 "There is no sin.
16 It is you who make sin exist,
17 when you act according to the habits
18 of your corrupted nature;
19 this is where sin lies.
20 This is why Good has come into your midst.
21 It acts together with the elements of your nature
22 so as to reunite it with its roots."

[Page 8]

1 "Attachment to matter
2 gives rise to passion against nature.
3 Thus trouble arises in the whole body;
4 this is why I tell you:
5 'Be in harmony...'

I personally feel as if "sin" equates as going against our true inner nature as described here:

Excerpt from "The Book of Thomas"

6 His students asked him and said to him,
Do you want us to fast?
How should we pray?
Should we give to charity?
What diet should we observe?

Yeshua said,
Do not lie and do not do what you hate.

[Super Universe]

Sin is an immature choice, one made because a being allowed emotion (selfishness) to control their choice or sin is a decision made before the being had all the relevant information, and usually experience (maturity).

People think the earth is a test, it's not. There is nothing you can do to make God angry with you or disappointed in you. He knows you. We are His children. And He knows that His children are safe because there is truly nothing in the universe that can harm your soul.

Jesus didn't suddenly forgive our souls, we've always been forgiven. Jesus just said it better than those before Him.

[eudaimonia]

Originally Posted by BrandonE

I found this to be a compelling idea, and upon examination agreed that most of my own wrongdoing could in fact be seen to come from my own unwillingness to carefully and properly judge the potential outcomes of my actions.

This is a very important idea, and a reason why I live the Examined life.

What do you think of this proposal?

It is brilliant, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

In general, do you find sin to be a useful concept

Not useful at all, since I am a nontheist and sin is defined as disobedience to God's will.

or are you prone to think of things less in terms of sin/not-sin and more in terms of varying degrees wisdom (more wise/less wise)?

Roughly speaking, yes. Morality/Virtue/Wisdom is a skill (or set of skills) that requires careful thought and well-trained habits.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[BrandonE]

Originally Posted by eudaimonia

This is a very important idea, and a reason why I live the Examined life.
...
Roughly speaking, yes. Morality/Virtue/Wisdom is a skill (or set of skills) that requires careful thought and well-trained habits.

Thanks for your thoughts eudiamonist. This is not my first exposure to the idea. I've read Rand and some Branden (whom I like better) before, but their portrayal of the examined life always struck me as burdensome before. It seemed entirely too difficult to think at that level all the time. Peck's explanation of the concept just struck me more agreeably. Perhaps it was his more religious language and "softer" approach. Perhaps I've just now reached the point in my life where I can finally accept the idea as true without internal horror. I'm sure that my previous reading of Rand and Branden laid a foundation in some way though.

Your point about virtue being a skill is a GREAT one. I hadn't thought of it that way before, but it really is. I will try to remember this the next time I mentally come down hard on myself for failure to live up to my own expectations. Like any skill, it takes practice, and part of practice always includes failure to achieve. Thanks so much for that insight!

[eudaimonia]

Originally Posted by BrandonE

Your point about virtue being a skill is a GREAT one.

Thank the Greeks. It was Socrates who advocated the Examined life, Aristotle who spoke of virtues as habits, and the Stoics who insisted that virtues are skills.

Rand, Branden, and Peck, all worth reading for their personal insights, are late-comers to the scene.

It seemed entirely too difficult to think at that level all the time.

Just keep in mind that when you form a skill, it requires less thought and concentration over time. Remember how intensely you had to think when first learning how to drive? Now you just have to pay moderate attention and remember where you are going.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by BrandonE

So, I've recently finished reading The Road Less Traveled by M. Scott Peck (fantastic book that was just what I needed right now), and in it, he proposes that "original sin" is in fact entropy. He states that all sin, as commonly understood, comes from laziness, specifically the lack of will to carefully evaluate one's actions and thus avoid doing something that is harmful to oneself or others in some way (non-love in his terminology). I found this to be a compelling idea, and upon examination agreed that most of my own wrongdoing could in fact be seen to come from my own unwillingness to carefully and properly judge the potential outcomes of my actions.

What do you think of this proposal?

I think that this framework has some validity. It is similar to the views of Socrates and the Buddha, and it fits with my own view that all the harm that we do to each other is due to not seeing our interconnectedness/interdpendancy.

HOWEVER, this view comes from a position of privilege and therefore cannot be a universal framework through which to view sin. Not everyone has the time for constant self-reflection. And I reject any definition of sin that would define such people as "lazy" or more "sinful."

For me, sin is denying our interdependancy/mutuality and erecting barriers between self and "other." Sin can be overcome by either wisdom or love (preferably both). People who don't have the circumstances to cultivate wisdom are nonetheless capable of love.

Originally Posted by BrandonE

In general, do you find sin to be a useful concept, or are you prone to think of things less in terms of sin/not-sin and more in terms of varying degrees wisdom (more wise/less wise)? I personally tend to think of actions as having various degrees of wisdom with little black and white, as I tend to think that most actions at some time have a justification. For example, killing in the ultimate defense of self or others, white lies to protect someone's feelings, etc. However, I wondered what the Catholic cardinal sins were and if any of them would ever be justified. I found them on Wikipedia and decided that they may be onto something as I could think of no redeeming qualities or acceptable circumstances for any of the cardinal sins.

What do you think of the concept of sin?

I find it to be a useful concept. I understand why many people reject the concept, because it has been abused, used to oppress people and make them feel worthless. Otoh, I think that religious liberals and UUs in particular, in our rejecting the concept of sin we also did away with the ability to fully identify things that are fundamentally harmful to humanity. To me, racism is a sin, sexism is a sin, heterosexism is a sin, religious bigotry is a sin, etc... meaning we must counter it when we see it and work to remove it from ourselves. Just saying that these things are "bad" doesn't carry nearly the same force and urgency.

[eudaimonia]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Not everyone has the time for constant self-reflection.

That's not what any of them are recommending that one should do.

Rather, they are saying "be mindful of the ethical implications of the situations you find yourself in, and pay all due effort and attention to your ethical decision-making given the context, its degree of importance, and time-permitting".

As you form your moral character through moral habits, you will require less and less time to form reasonably good decisions. In fact, if you need to make a snap judgment because you must act immediately, you will be able to do so almost entirely from habit. You will "feel" the right thing to do, or at least a good approximation of the right thing.

The idea that the Rational (or Mindful) Life requires constant or massively time-consuming self-reflection is a myth. No one advocates this. Not even Ayn Rand.


eudaimonia,

Mark