sin, judgment, punishment, and redemption

[NathanATX]

Originally Posted by Emproph

I think Dewdrop said it well.

To clarify, for me, God knows no sin, except through our perception of it. When we “sin,” the cause of it is the belief in sin, in that someone or something has done us wrong or is wrong. The negative consequences of those actions further cut us off from the awareness and perception of only Grace.

The idea of anything less than perfection is the idea of sin. Anything perceived as unjust (imperfect) is then responded to with sin causing a chain reaction. Leading to a human condition where the idea of sin (imperfection) is a fundamental aspect of our perception and thus our decisions. So for me, we are all “dirtied” only by that chain reaction "Adam's" original sin set off, we break the chain when we put an end to it's idea.

Without that idea, “sin,” is recognized ONLY as a “call for Love,” as A Course in Miracles puts it. No sin, no blame, no need for retribution or to forgive, this is how God sees us. When we ask for and receive forgiveness/salvation, we are recognizing that we were never blamed to begin with or not “safe” in God’s Love. So whether it’s ‘forgiveness’ or the recognition of 'only Grace always,’ depends on one’s perception of God/Love.

We here in the physical aspect of creation were designed to experience the building blocks of Love – to learn “The knowledge of good and evil.” Without that, it’s just another ‘day’ in heaven, everything blissfully happy all the time without knowing or caring how or why.

The only motive Love could have would be to create more of itself. By understanding it’s absence (evil) we understand the meaning of it’s presence (good). A good analogy is an adult whose learned responsibility and productivity by remembering the ‘painful’ lessons of childhood. The pain of consequences is not intended to be ‘punishment,’ just the result of “missing the mark” as Nathan mentioned, for the sole (soul) purpose of knowing BETTER.

The goal is to recognize the perception of sin/evil as an expression of the absence of Love, not as it's opposite. To do so is to accept the miracle of Love. To do so with singularity is to accept the ability to perform miracles.

Beautiful!

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Legion

If you take time to investigate what the Bible actually says about the sinful nature of humans, it should become obvious fairly quickly that while God's love is a major theme, so is God's judgment. There are at least 389 verses in the Bible that specifically use the word "sin", 90 verses in the New Testament alone. 285 verses use the word "judgement". 281 verses use the word love. 261 verses contain the word "mercy". A reading of the Scriptures that comes away with a belief that human beings are not sinful is unbalanced, blind and unrealistic.

Legion, where do get statistics like that, and when will I ever learn to assume that the information I desire can not only at the very least be sought for on line, but chances are guaranteed that you will learn HOW to search.
I can't believe I am still not automatically assuming this available information is always on line.

I'm specifically interested in how many "scriptural sins" are committed, when 1 verse of scripture is used OVER another for the sake of absurd accusation in the name of Love thy neighbor. without so much as even recognizing the need to acknowledge the discrepancy, exactly the opposite of what you typed above.

It's not tomato potato we're discussing here, it's potato patato. The church being (sorry, I trailed off here, what was I saying?)

Statistics like that would be interesting and compelling no matter what the Biblical subject. Do they make Biblical Thesauri?

[Jamie McDaniel]

I've noticed through my journey from cultural christian to fundamentalist to liberal, that faith groups develop models in an attempt to understand such weighty theological concepts as those being discussed in this thread. For example, in regards to the question of infant salvation, some denominations went with having all newborns baptized into the church. Southern Baptists, on the other hand, rejected that practice and came up with the "age of accountability" model.

The trouble with most models is I can never make them fit every single instance.

As an example, I have really grown to appreciate the idea of sin being understood as a human "missing the mark." However I am not at all comfortable with saying that Hitler simply "missed the mark." How do we understand sin and its relationship to evil? I think alot of Christians see them as being one and the same, but are they in fact two different things? If so, what it their relationship to each other?

Regarding the idea of "total depravity," there is something very wrong about a little girl performing a solo in church and singing "...that saved a wretch like me." And so I reject total depravity. But even if it was the model that best represented the human situation, I have observed the negative effects that such a teaching seems to have on those that hear it. Self-destructive behavior is often a consequence of a low self-image. How much better to hear the message that we humans, created only slightly lower than the heavenly beings, can get it right. Is not that the message that Jesus proclaimed?

[Jennifer5]

I agree Nathan that was well said

[Emproph]

Thanks Nathan, thanks Jennifer.

I'm never sure if I'm clear enough, so I appreciate it.

Oh, and they do make Biblical thesauri, I got a bunch of books at books a million last night. NO wait, I got a million books at books a bunch last night.

Yes, I like that reality.

[awediot]

Guess I'll just dive right in with my 2 cents worth. (2cents, right. Length escapes me. Sorry. How 'bout $3.50 worth?) The idea of missing the mark implies an A for effort, and a well I tried shrug. It mirrors the idea that sin is simple ignorance, and we don't know any better. That'd be fine if your evilest deed was being too nice and white lieing your loved one a bit of esteem. But we've all done worse than that. Probably alot worse. The Oops option nearly strips morality of any urgency, personal responibility or consequences that are indeed Your Doing. It all just takes practice. But how does one get the chance to practice doing the right thing? Either we wait like a fireman, ironically hoping for a disaster, or we play the Phoenix and make some ashes of our own to grow from. It tends to justify a very cavalier attitude about our capacity to destroy eachother.
I've come to believe "Sin" is the word for our actions that cause unnecessary harm. Simple. God didn't choose them arbitrarily, They are a small list of instructions on how to help one another get through this Life part, in the very Best manner. Not the easiest. The difficulty is that my choosing the easiest, may only hurt YOU, while I seemingly get all sorts of benefits.
Original sin hinged on Pride, the unavoidable risk of recognizing MEness, or Youness, the inherent choice of sentience and freewill that God knew would darken our future. Ambition was the required flaw, and if Adam, or Eve hadn't disobeyed, Abel or Cain would have, or their kids, or if not theirs, You would have... We all did. On the day you knew in that heart of hearts, that to DO this or that bad thing tempting you, was Wrong, Real Wrong, the more so because you wouldn't get caught kinda Wrong, you Knew, and then did it anyway. And knowing full well its not practice, or knowledge you need, you'll do it again. That God will put up with it Again, and probably forgive you Again, I suppose is some of that original Grace discussed earlier. God's vallium to keep Him from strangleing us. Adam didn't do any thing we might have done ourselves.