Sin vs. Transgression (Jesus Christ, moral, Moses, Earth, choice)

[dan]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

I am rather perplexed by this idea that you cannot sin at all unless you know you're doing it? Do you really mean that or do you rather mean that you are not held responsible for such a sin? There's a distinct difference. Sin in Greek (sorry, but I don't know Hebrew so I shall restrict this to the NT, though I'd be interested to know how the Hebrew compares if somebody can explain) is amartia. This translates literally as 'missing the mark' which pretty much means falling short of God's standards. It seems to me that it's quite possible to miss the mark without knowing you are doing so. That doesn't mean that God will take note of it in the way He might a wilfull sin. James

Sin is sometimes ignorantly committed, but no one is held responsible for this. In Romans Paul talks about the "free gift." This free gift is the gift of "general salvation," or salvation from sins we should not be held responsible - including sins committed as a child, sins committed in ignorance, sins committed as the direct result of misdirected parenting, etc. Christ's Atonement takes care of all of these at no charge to you, but "individual salvation" is where we have to comply with the rules He laid down. This is where faith, repentence, baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost come into play.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

...we still baptise infants, because, for us at least, it is not just a washing away of sin.

We believe that baptism is more than just a washing away of sin, too. We see it as the means by which a person enters into a covenant relationship with his Savior. In other words, it's the third step in making a commitment to Him (the first two being faith in Him and reptentence for one's sins). We just see this commitment as being something a person can't really make as an infant.

I am rather perplexed by this idea that you cannot sin at all unless you know you're doing it? Do you really mean that or do you rather mean that you are not held responsible for such a sin? There's a distinct difference. Sin in Greek (sorry, but I don't know Hebrew so I shall restrict this to the NT, though I'd be interested to know how the Hebrew compares if somebody can explain) is amartia. This translates literally as 'missing the mark' which pretty much means falling short of God's standards. It seems to me that it's quite possible to miss the mark without knowing you are doing so. That doesn't mean that God will take note of it in the way He might a wilfull sin.

I wasn't aware of the Greek interpretation of the word, and from that perspective, I can see where you're coming from. But, consider the dictionary definition of the word "sin." The word is defined there as "any voluntary transgression of a religious law or moral principle." I think the word "voluntary" is significant, as it implies both knowledge and choice. I guess it gets down to what "falling short of God's standards" really means. I have a hard time imagining that God would consider a person to have fallen short of a standard if he didn't know the first thing about the standard.

I don't know if Mormons confess before a priest or alone or whatever but I'm sure you must confess in some way at some time. Don't you ask forgiveness for any sins you might have unwittingly made as well as those you know about?

We do confess serious sins, but these would always be sins we are fully aware of having committed.

I would say that children, for instance, certainly can fall short (sin) but that they are not held accountable until they understand. Is this actually what you mean?

Well, again, I understand your logic. About the best I can say is that the process is a gradual one. No one gains awareness of sin overnight, and I believe we are held accountable to the extent that we understand what we're dong.

In the case of the Fall, however, I fail to see how you can argue that there was no sin at all. Do you really need to understand good and evil to be able to see that you ought not to disobey one who loves you and gives you life? I wouldn't have said so. Small children usually know they ought to obey their parents without understanding why. It seems to me that Adam and Eve did sin, even if only in the way a child might, without full understanding of what they did.

You know what? I think our beliefs are actually very similar in this respect. I think that it's the words we're accustomed to using that are getting in the way of our understanding one another's position.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

You know what? I think our beliefs are actually very similar in this respect. I think that it's the words we're accustomed to using that are getting in the way of our understanding one another's position.

So do I. This reminds me of the sort of problems I often have talking to RCs where we use different words for the same concept or, even worse, similar words to mean something quite different.

Do you only confess grave sins? I mean, don't you confess all your sins in private? We do both, you see. Confession for me is not something only done before a priest but also includes confession in private prayer. Don't you ask forgiveness for sins you have unwittingly committed when you pray? That's what I meant and I get the impression you thought I was talking of confession as in the sacrament whereas I was actually intending a more general question.

James

[jonny]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

So do I. This reminds me of the sort of problems I often have talking to RCs where we use different words for the same concept or, even worse, similar words to mean something quite different.

Do you only confess grave sins? I mean, don't you confess all your sins in private? We do both, you see. Confession for me is not something only done before a priest but also includes confession in private prayer. Don't you ask forgiveness for sins you have unwittingly committed when you pray? That's what I meant and I get the impression you thought I was talking of confession as in the sacrament whereas I was actually intending a more general question.

James

We are supposed to confess all sins before God. For LDS members, this is usually done in private through personal prayer. In some unique circumstances, confession before a Bishop is necessary. Usually these are sins that are more serious, such as breaking the law of chastity or abusing children. I suppose you could confess anything you want to the Bishop if you feel a need.

[Deut 13:1]

Originally Posted by beckysoup61

I'm probably coming in at the wrong part of the discussion, but where on earth did you get the Satan was ACTUALLY a snake? I was taught to believe that he was as a snake, snakes basically, sly, deceiving, etc.

Is that to me? Because I agree it's not about Satan. I was asking Johnny why he said satan = serpant.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

Do you only confess grave sins? I mean, don't you confess all your sins in private? We do both, you see. Confession for me is not something only done before a priest but also includes confession in private prayer. Don't you ask forgiveness for sins you have unwittingly committed when you pray? That's what I meant and I get the impression you thought I was talking of confession as in the sacrament whereas I was actually intending a more general question.

Ah, yes... now I understand you. Yes, we do ask for forgivness when we pray (seems I have to do that a lot). When I use the word "confess," I suppose I'm thinking of making a sin known to someone (like my Bishop). Obviously, I don't have to make my sins known to God, since He is very well aware of all of them.

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by Deut 13:1

Is that to me? Because I agree it's not about Satan. I was asking Johnny why he said satan = serpant.

Deut, you've demonstrated in other threads a wonderful knowledge of the OT's original language so I'd like to ask you who or what you believe the serpent to be if not Satan.

I look forward to your response.