• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christian: What constitutes sin?

No*s

Captain Obvious
This will be a fun one.

1). What constitutes sin?

2). Is it inherited?

On 1). I believe "sin" is anything that misses its mark, that falls short of what was intended for it. Sin, then, has consequences on body and soul. It brings about corruption and death. These, in their turn, destroy us physically, but that is a symptom of the spiritual problem where "sin" makes us experience God as hell, rather than in a positive manner.

On 2). Yes, corruption and imperfection is inherited. However, guilt is not inherited. Thus, I am not guilty of Adam's sin, only for my sin, which I am enslaved in because of the corruption which I have inherited.
 

Dadball

Member
Ok I'll bite.

1). What constitutes sin?

Sins are our actions and or words that separate us from God. Throughout the OT and NT, it is evident that God wants a relationship with his children. God also wants us to have a relationship with everything that He created, land, animals, fish birds and our neighbors. It is our sin that separates or strains our relationship with God and his creations.

2). Is it inherited? I believe that the flesh is weak, and God gave us free will. Adams weakness destined man to imperfection. It is this imperfection and our free will that causes us to sin.
 

groovydancer88

Active Member
No*s said:
On 1). I believe "sin" is anything that misses its mark, that falls short of what was intended for it. Sin, then, has consequences on body and soul. It brings about corruption and death. These, in their turn, destroy us physically, but that is a symptom of the spiritual problem where "sin" makes us experience God as hell, rather than in a positive manner.
I really like your answers, but I'm a bit confused as to why you say sin destroys us physically. Could you explain that to me? Pardon my ignorance... :eek:
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
groovydancer88 said:
I really like your answers, but I'm a bit confused as to why you say sin destroys us physically. Could you explain that to me? Pardon my ignorance... :eek:

It's OK :). We are whole beings, not just spiritual beings in a physical suite. As such, sin affects our whole person when it changes our relationship with God, which would include our physical being :).
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Dadball said:
Ok I'll bite.

1). What constitutes sin?

Sins are our actions and or words that separate us from God. Throughout the OT and NT, it is evident that God wants a relationship with his children. God also wants us to have a relationship with everything that He created, land, animals, fish birds and our neighbors. It is our sin that separates or strains our relationship with God and his creations.

2). Is it inherited? I believe that the flesh is weak, and God gave us free will. Adams weakness destined man to imperfection. It is this imperfection and our free will that causes us to sin.

I think we can agree on that for the most part :). However, do you reserve sin exclusively for actions, and are these actions any action that fails in some way or simply a transgression?
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Interesting topic. First, in order for an act to be named a sin it must inflict
unjustified moral evil on another, either by an act or by not acting (sin of omission).
Sin is a rejection of the Covenant relationship with God.
2nd, our freedom to choose corruption and imperfection is inherited. Original sin is not an actual sin we personally commit, but we are born into a condition (inherited) in which we are inclined to give in to the powers of evil that surround us.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
pcarl said:
Interesting topic. First, in order for an act to be named a sin it must inflict
unjustified moral evil on another, either by an act or by not acting (sin of omission).
Sin is a rejection of the Covenant relationship with God.

What happens if said sin wasn't so much of an infraction of the covenant as not fully fulfilling it. For instance, you go on a fast, and even without thinking much of it, make a show of it, and thus, garner your glory in the fast itself? Technically, this isn't a violation of a covenant, but I also think it would be sin.

pcarl said:
2nd, our freedom to choose corruption and imperfection is inherited. Original sin is not an actual sin we personally commit, but we are born into a condition (inherited) in which we are inclined to give in to the powers of evil that surround us.

But was the corruption that Adam was subjected to inherited by his ancestors?
 

Snowbear

Nita Okhata
I have no answer to the original question, only more questions.....
pcarl said:
First, in order for an act to be named a sin it must inflict
unjustified moral evil on another, either by an act or by not acting (sin of omission).
Can you further define "unjustified moral evil" please?
Can an act that inflicts unjustified moral evil on the self be a sin?
To be a sin, does it have to be a physical act?
Is thinking unkindly of another person a sin?
The covenant with God says we are to love one another, right?
So anytime we can't or won't love someone else does it constitute sin?
 

true blood

Active Member
I John 1:3-2...and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. (fullness of joy in a Christian's life depends upon the fellowship with God impaired) This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness (out of fellowship is walking in darkness), we lie, and do not the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another (because we as believers are in Christ), and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin (wherever we are out of fellowship). If we say that we have no sin (no broken fellowship), we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (in our minds). If we confess our sins (broken fellowship), he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins (broken fellowship), and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (every sin is unrighteous). If we say that we have not sinned (broken fellowship), we make him a liar, and his word is not in us (in our minds). My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not (it is God's will that we do not get out of fellowship). And if any man sin (breaks the fellowship), we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins (broken fellowship) of the whole world.

You see, Fellowship is a christian's continued relationship with God. Sonship is God's permanent relationship with the christian. Note that sin for sons of God is different from the sin of a non-son of God. Sin for the non saved is basicly death however the sin of a born-again isn't death (because he has everlasting life) therefor the sin is more like broken fellowship with the Father. And fellowship is only maintained by putting the correct words of God in ones mind and living it. According to Romans 12:2 "...Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind". Philippians 2:5 "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.." Colossians 3:16 "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly.."
 

Dadball

Member
No*s said:
I think we can agree on that for the most part :). However, do you reserve sin exclusively for actions, and are these actions any action that fails in some way or simply a transgression?
I think transgression is a better word.
 

Dadball

Member
I believe
Can an act that inflicts unjustified moral evil on the self be a sin?
Yes, you are a child of God. To sin against yourself, is to sin against God.
To be a sin, does it have to be a physical act? No, either by word or deed, or lack of.
Is thinking unkindly of another person a sin? Yes, God knows your heart. I ask forgiveness everytime I drive in traffic.
The covenant with God says we are to love one another, right? It's in all 4 Gospels
So anytime we can't or won't love someone else does it constitute sin? Yes. We don't have to like or agree with them or what they do. Even those who reject God. They are children of God. Not loving them is not loving the Father. I'll go even further, that don't love them for your salvation, but for theirs.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Dadball said:
I think transgression is a better word.

I tend not to. The idea of simply "missing the mark" encapsulates the meanings of amartia and amartima[/] quite well, and since that's clumsy and nonsensical in places, I prefer just "sin" in translation :). However, "transgression" is used for another word for sin that I didn't mention righ there, because it's not mentioned as much, nor is it ever used to describe the overall condition of humanity. paraptoma, or paraptosis for a related form, denote the idea of a "false step," a "transgression."

Sin in general is more broad than that :).
 

Dadball

Member
No*s said:
I tend not to. The idea of simply "missing the mark" encapsulates the meanings of amartia and amartima[/] quite well, and since that's clumsy and nonsensical in places, I prefer just "sin" in translation :). However, "transgression" is used for another word for sin that I didn't mention righ there, because it's not mentioned as much, nor is it ever used to describe the overall condition of humanity. paraptoma, or paraptosis for a related form, denote the idea of a "false step," a "transgression."Sin in general is more broad than that :).

I agree, I meant that transgression was a better definition when I said action or act.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Dadball said:
I agree, I meant that transgression was a better definition when I said action or act.

Yes, but there there is still some further clarification. There are also some actions that are "sin" but do not transgress a commandment...they are sin simply because of their actions. If I fast, and that fast puffs me up, even if I tell no one, the fast has become a sin...but it's one I likely couldn't see. There, transgression cannot apply.

The term "transgression" limits sin largely to a violation of law, but sin is far more encompassing, even when an action :).
 

hoomer

Member
SIN.....
http://www.wordorigins.org/wordort.htm#Trespass
Trespass/Debt/Sin

Many people wonder about the word choice in different versions of the Lord's Prayer. One version, favored by Roman Catholics and Anglicans, uses the phrase forgive us our trespasses. To the modern ear, trespass seems an odd word to use. Another version, favored by Protestants of the Reformed tradition, says forgive us our debts, another odd choice to the modern ear. Many modern translations simply use the word sin instead. Why the difference? It has to do with translation.

Matthew, writing in Greek, uses the word opheilemata, which has a literal meaning of financial debt, but which also has a metaphorical sense of spiritual obligation. This sense of debt meaning spiritual obligation is also present in Aramaic writings of the period and Jesus, who spoke and taught in Aramaic, uses this metaphor in various parables. Luke, however, has a different version of the prayer in which he uses the Greek hamartia, a word that quite literally means sin.

When it came to producing an English Bible, translators had to choose which English word to use.

Wyclif (1384) and the translators of the King James Version (1611) chose to use debt to translate Matthew's opheilemata. Debt dates to c. 1300 and is from the Old French dete or dette. The letter B was artificially inserted into the spelling in the 16th century to parallel the ultimate Latin root, debita. This preserved the original Aramaic metaphor, but had the problem of the fact that debt did not have a sense of sin or violation in English. And such a sense of the word has never really developed in English. Use of debt to mean sin is pretty much limited to the translation of this particular verse.

William Tyndale, on the other hand, chose the word trespass for his translation (1525). This word did have a sense of sin in English, although it did not preserve the original metaphor. Trespass is from the Old French trespas, literally meaning passage, but also having the sense of offense against the law. In English the word dates to c. 1290 and the original sense is the general one of a violation of law or a sin. The more usual modern sense, unlawful entry onto real property, doesn't appear until c. 1455.

Many modern translators prefer the straightforward sin. In English, this is the oldest of the three words, from the Old English syn and dating to c. 825. It has cognates in other Germanic languages and it may be related to the Latin sons, meaning guilty.

There is a belief that sin derives from some archery term meaning to miss the target. This tale stems from confusion and misunderstanding of preachers giving Sunday sermons. The English word sin has no such etymology. The Greek hamartia, however, can literally mean to fall short or miss, especially in the archery context. Preachers sometimes use this Greek etymology as a sermon illustration and people confuse it with the etymology of the English word. The sermon illustration, however, is somewhat flawed. By the time of Christ the archery sense of hamartia was obsolete, so the sermon illustration is anachronistic. To Christ and his contemporaries it would simply mean a violation of God's law
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
<Can you further define "unjustified moral evil" please?>

Moral evil is the,free, deliberate, and unjustified intention and/or action of inflicting real (ontic) evil on oneself or others. Real evil is anything that deprives
one of what one needs for life, growth, developement of person. In a just war one
faces the necessity of killing, or as a last resort in defending oneself, although evil
actions that deprive one of life etc, it is justified, not a moral evil. But the deliberate
killing for reasons that are not justified is a moral evil.

<Can an act that inflicts unjustified moral evil on the self be a sin?>

Yes. We believe all life, including our own, belongs to God.

<To be a sin, does it have to be a physical act? >

A 'physical act' that inflicts moral evil on another is the product of the
greater fundamental sin, refusing to live in solidarity with one another, not witnessing
God's incarnational presence in our actions.

<The covenant with God says we are to love one another, right?>

Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to love one another

< So anytime we can't or won't love someone else does it constitute sin?>

We cannot love God and hate another.
 

Snowbear

Nita Okhata
pcarl said:
< So anytime we can't or won't love someone else does it constitute sin?>

We cannot love God and hate another.
I didn't say hate... I said can't or won't love.... just 'cause we don't or won't love someone doesn't mean we do hate them.... I believe I can love God, and though I don't hate a transgressor, I don't love him either....

I ask again.... Does not being able to or not be willing to love someone constitute sin?
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Snowbear said:
I didn't say hate... I said can't or won't love.... just 'cause we don't or won't love someone doesn't mean we do hate them.... I believe I can love God, and though I don't hate a transgressor, I don't love him either....

I ask again.... Does not being able to or not be willing to love someone constitute sin?

Snowbear, I would say it is sin. Sin is an imperfection, any imperfection. I suffer from it as much as anyone. The depth and breadth of our sin...it simply staggers the mind :(.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
<... I said can't or won't love.... >

"Love one another as I have loved you" (John 13:31-35)

The key to the commandment to love one another is the phrase &#8220;as I have loved you.&#8221; We have to love as Jesus loved. How did he love? He gave his life for people. He served people. He helped people. He healed people. He fed people. He liberated people. He taught people. He encouraged people. He blessed people. He prayed for people. He felt compassion for people. He forgave people. He was nonviolent toward people. He resisted evil for people. He laid down his life in love for everyone and he says to us, &#8220;Now you go and do the same thing. Love others as I have loved you.&#8221; It&#8217;s a great challenge, but it&#8217;s also the best way to live, to walk in the footsteps of Jesus on the road of love, trying to love as Jesus loved us.
(excerpt from a homily by Father John Dear )

<I ask again.... Does not being able to or not be willing to love someone constitute sin?>

Not to be willing, to refuse to love, is deliberate. You have made a judgement
on the person, 'transgressor', and it is never the sinner we hate or not love, but the sin. So yes, refusing to love as Jesus commanded, is a sin It does not mean we must
'like' everyone'.
 
Top