Is sin like garbage or like a pit?

[tomspug]

I see two ideas of the judgment of sin.

There is one idea that sin is accumulative. The more **** you have, the more **** you're in, in not-so-polite terms. So the goal is to sin as little as possible so that you are to blame for as little sin as possible.

Then there is the other idea, that sin is like a pit that you fall into. Once you are in it, you cannot get out of it by your own will. The only action you can perform is to dig yourself deeper.

There are probably millions of metaphors for sin out there, but I think that they basically fall into either of these two ideas. I would love to hear alternative ideas, if you think that these two choices are lacking. Anyways, with this in mind, which concept of sin do you prescribe to (if any)?

 

[ayani]

i would say, sin before salvation can be like the stench and heavy pollution of a big city. we live in it, we contribute to it, we unknowingly suffer directly because of it, we are oblivious to it's noxiousness so long as we live within it. when we are brought out into the countryside, into the hills beyond the city, we know what it is to be free of that toxic air, and we see the pollution for what it was all along.

 

[Valjean]

It's like a roadblock.

 

[Caladan]

'Sin' is simply not part of my jargon.

 

[Darkness]

Then there is the other idea, that sin is like a pit that you fall into. Once you are in it, you cannot get out of it by your own will. The only action you can perform is to dig yourself deeper.

Sin is like a blood-stained robe. You can scrub and scrub at it and slowly get it out or you can use Tide and remove it in a single wash. One method is harder than the other.

 

[Ozzie]

I see two ideas of the judgment of sin.

There is one idea that sin is accumulative. The more **** you have, the more **** you're in, in not-so-polite terms. So the goal is to sin as little as possible so that you are to blame for as little sin as possible.

Then there is the other idea, that sin is like a pit that you fall into. Once you are in it, you cannot get out of it by your own will. The only action you can perform is to dig yourself deeper.

There are probably millions of metaphors for sin out there, but I think that they basically fall into either of these two ideas. I would love to hear alternative ideas, if you think that these two choices are lacking. Anyways, with this in mind, which concept of sin do you prescribe to (if any)?

I think the second definition corresponds somewhat to my notion of sin. I think the illusion of willful ability to facilitate escape is precisely what digs one a deeper hole.

 

[Ozzie]

'Sin' is simply not part of my jargon.

What other term do you suggest for running away from self-knowledge?

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Sin is telling God you don't want to be with Him.

 

[tomspug]

Sin is telling God you don't want to be with Him.

So do you think that puts you in circumstances that are accumulative or circumstances that are absolute?

 

[Caladan]

What other term do you suggest for running away from self-knowledge?

Can you point me to where does the OP refer to self-knowledge?

 

[tomspug]

Can you point me to where does the OP refer to self-knowledge?

I think he is suggesting that the "idea" of sin can be equated to the failure to learn, which is basically true. The definition of sin revolves around the idea of failing or making a mistake. To do so over and over would suggest a failure to learn from ones mistakes.

 

[Caladan]

What about sinning knowingly?

 

[tomspug]

What about sinning knowingly?

All sin is done knowingly, as Paul said. If there was no law, there would be no sin.

 

[Ozzie]

What about sinning knowingly?

Sinning knowingly is also a "failure to learn".

 

[horizon_mj1]

Wouldn't sinning knowingly be absolute and sinning unknowingly be accumulative? In other words if you know you commit a sin, that can not be denied. If you do not know you have committed a sin and have yet to learn from it, accountability lies in ignorance.

 

[Ozzie]

All sin is done knowingly, as Paul said. If there was no law, there would be no sin.

Not knowing the law is no excuse.

 

[Caladan]

All sin is done knowingly, as Paul said. If there was no law, there would be no sin.

So murder, rape, genocide and all forms of atrocities are mistakes?
where do we draw the line between mistakes and responsibility ?

Also maybe I should have expanded my question. since this is not the Christian DIR, I think a relevant question is, who's to determine what is 'sin'? as many of us do not even use this term in our daily lives.

 

[horizon_mj1]

So murder, rape, genocide and all forms of atrocities are mistakes?
where do we draw the line between mistakes and responsibility ?

Also maybe I should have expanded my question. since this is not the Christian DIR, I think a relevant question is, who's to determine what is 'sin'? as many of us do not even use this term in our daily lives.

(1) I see it kind of like murder vs manslaughter. Murder you know, manslaughter is usually an accident that incurrs a death due to ones actions.

(2) I was also wandering about this. Are we referring to a "sin" being an infringement of law?

 

[Jeremy Mason]

So do you think that puts you in circumstances that are accumulative or circumstances that are absolute?

I not sure if I understand, you either sin or you don't...

 

[Masourga]

All sin is done knowingly, as Paul said. If there was no law, there would be no sin.

The term "sin" speaks more from a moral standpoint than one of law, certainly. For instance, do you believe that God would find it sinful to drive with a broken tail light? There is a modicum of "wrong" associated with this because it can be harder to tell when someone is stopping ahead of you, thereby possibly causing some fender benders. But even, for the sake of argument, if it had just happened while you were driving and you had no idea, the law will still pull you over a cite you for it, but I don't believe God would give you "baddie" points on your permanent record.

Both sin and law get their ideas from the same place. Morality. Which is merely the collection and measure of severity of the socially acceptable and unacceptable behaviors as defined by and agreed upon by the majority. Which is, for the most part, relative.

For instance, if I came to live on a desert isle by myself, and I had a car, it would not at all be immoral to drive without tail lights, or head lights. Heck, I could drive naked, and that wouldn't be immoral either. And even after doing all that, I don't believe I would have sinned either. Within the context of life among other humans, those things take on different meaning, and whether or not I am endangering others can be at question.

To answer your original question, I believe that since they do have their common base in morality (and knowing it is relative to one's circumstances) I believe that (assuming God exists and is keeping track) sin would be much like law is on Earth, where the more you accumulate, the more trouble you are in... and you have the option to make up for it, but are somewhat stigmatized and probably on some sort of Godly blacklist, rap sheet, or probation period.