Down playing sin and sins

[Eamonn]

Back in the days when I was a little fellow it seemed that sins and being a sinner was a really bad thing.

While there were of course big sins and little sins, both were very much frowned upon and at worst led to all sorts of stuff, none of which was nice or good.

Sin and sins were looked at as being offensive to God and a sure way to land in hot water with people in authority.

Again as a little fellow I was really happy to be R/C and thought that being able to go to Confession was my Get Out Of Jail Free Card.

There were fairly big repercussions for getting caught doing something that you ought not to be doing.

A big part of which, apart from the punishment was the guilt trip laid very firmly at your (My) Feet.

While I'm not sure if it was ever spoken out loud or not? I seem to remember the idea that if I didn't mend my ways, I was going to be doomed to hellfire and damnation. There was not a chance I was going to get past them pearly gates.

Somehow, someway things have changed.

Today the idea of not blaming the person, but placing the blame on the sin seems to have taken hold.

While there is 101 reasons given for why people do wrong doings, when all else fails we seem OK to just blame the sin.

This seemingly lack of accountability is something I'm having a hard time with.

Ea.

[Stosh]

Bestowing blame removes guilt and thus turns everyone's attention away from the one responsible, or in most cases, irresponsible.

 

We used to be a culture of shame (corporate guilt) but soon narrowed that down to just individual guilt, now we just pass it along to "someone else".

 

Stosh

[Beavah]

Yah, I reckon some of that was from your R/C culture, eh? You folks take da notion of sin, guilt, and penance to a high art form.

 

But I do believe you are right even in da secular sense. There is no sense of honor anymore. This of course is most noticeable in politics, which was always a bit honor-deprived. But it used to be that there were certain lines a fellow wouldn't cross at least in public. You'd see folks present their argument in da best light, but they wouldn't lie. You'd see folks do their best to get legislation through, but they wouldn't try to use procedural work-arounds or manipulate da process. That was a matter of honor, particularly in the Senate. Now "winning" or "scoring points" seems to mean more.

 

Banking, too, is a good example. Banking used to be a pretty staid, boring profession, eh? Yeh provide a service. Yeh know your clients. Yeh make a few percent a year on the spread plus some fees. Now da entire banking industry is about gambling with other people's money. Excitement. Trading. Making 30% a year usin' leveraged instruments. Used to be that would be dishonorable, eh? An honorable fellow exercises greater care with the money of others than his own; anyone who didn't would be so ashamed they might even jump from their highrise office.

 

Beavah

 

[frank10]

I think Merle Got it right when he sang -

"Mama tried to raise me better, but her pleading, I denied.

That leaves only me to blame 'cos Mama tried."

 

 

(That's Merle Haggard in case your too young to know, look it up, embrace your redneck side and hear real music for a change! Ahh kids today with there sorry excuse for music)

 

[Scoutfish]

You know...there just isn't a black and white world anymore.

 

I think the biggest thing is that people just don't have honor , nor do they care to do anything if it doesn't benefit themselves.

 

Know what I mean? Everybody is concerned for the welfare of Numero Uno only! Rules apply to everybody ele but me. I do not care who has been in line all day, I am going to cut in front of them all because4 I want something!

 

I get service calls to customers who think they have the right to slap you if they don't like what you have to say. And true example, I had a guy who didn't like the price quote he was getting to replace his garage door opener. When I told him a new one was going to cost him $250.00 (tax, install and all materials included), he said I better get a lower price or he was going to "slap your jowells!"

 

So this guy thinks He has the right to physically hit somebody over a price he doesn't like? Really?

What ever happened to calling another company about a price or just saying : "WOW! That much?"

 

Toomany people only thin of themselves and do not understand the concept of treat others the way you yourself would like to be treated. They have no concept of respect others or just getting along.

 

But at the same time, alot of stuff was considered morally wrong or even sinful that is just rediculous. And when I say sinful, I'm not talking going against the Ten Commandments muder and mayhem sorta think.

 

For example. back....way back, so way back it was behind way back.. in the day, I was hanging out with a friend who also happened to be female. We were at her house during the middle of the day watching tv. That's all....nothing else. WE were really good friends. Hung out alot, but that's all there was to it, nothing else.

 

Her mom and dad were totally cool with me to. They didn't care if I came over or not when they werent' there.

 

So anyways, on one particular day, we were watching some movie about ...whatever - I can't remember now..and her grandma who was visiting, came into the living room, and starting hitting me with a broom. Called us both pigs, saying we should be all ashamed for being sinful and what not.She said that people had better control of themselves when she was younger.

 

What was the problem? The problem was that a boy and a girl were in the same room.

 

AND THATS IT! She was sitting in a recliner, I was on the couch and there was 3 feet plus an end table between us.

 

So this old woman decides we are being sinful and physically starts assualting me with a broom.

 

Okay, truthfully, I thought it was funny about the broom thing, and being old, she wasn't hyurting me in any real physical way.

 

But from a mental standpoint, I had enough. I called her out right then and there. I told her that I cannot help that back in her day that a boy and girl left alone were such piods they could not help but get physical with each other, and it was a real shame that her parents had to keep a watchful eye on her and her loose pants. But that had nothing to do with me orv hetr granddaughter.

I then pointed out what a shame it was that as a CONSTANTLY self proclaimed Christian, the very first thoughts she had at all were those of less that honorable. I then pointed out that just because she had lustfull thoughts around men did not mean anybody else did. I then told her that maybe she should see about setting herself straight.

 

So long story short: What ws the sin that I was guilty of committing? Being friends? Hanging out and watching a movie? Enjoying friendship foir the sake of friendship?

 

Point is, people used to see so much sin, bad behavior and just plain wrong stuff wherte it didn't exist.

 

Used to be a time women were scorned for wearing pants.

 

Remember the old bathing suits? Men had full shirts and pants on, womens swimsuits had skirts and covered women from top of the neck to their lower ankles. Anything less and they were considered harlots. Really? Because the top of their ankle was showing?

 

JUst saying, Some things that were considered sinful back them shouldn't have been!

 

 

 

Even today, the mentality is that if a woman wears something skimpy and is attecked by a man , that it is all her fault. And while I agree that it may not be the wisest thing for her to do...it does not relieve any man from the full responcibility for his own actions and judgement. Everybody has control over their actions.

 

A woman should be able to walk down the road naked and have no fear of being attacked. No, naked walking isn't a good idea,but that's not the point. Any man who acts on it acts of his own vilation and under his own will.

 

Why blame the woman for a man' sactions?

 

And that's big problem too. People are impulsive, and cannot / will not take responcibility for their own actions. And too many mom and dad's coddles that mentality to the point, the kids are stuck that way!

[qwazse]

In Arabic, there are two words for sin. One is the same word for "a mistake", something that flies in the face of cultural norms, or inadvertently offends someone sensibilities. The other is "an offense", a corruption, a tendency to rise up against the Almighty.

 

If you have a uniform culture with defined norms (e.g., a young man and woman should not sit in the parlor unchaperoned) then lots of sin/mistakes can be regulated as if they are sin/offenses.

 

In a diverse culture such as ours (where folks of different beliefs are here because their forefathers were fed up fighting someone else's holy wars) it's no longer possible to enforce the sin/mistakes. Just like scoutfish's girlfriend, my old-country grandparents were fit-to-be-tied over this.

 

Moreover, I think we are still fishing around for the lowest common denominator of sin/offenses.

 

So is naked walking a sin/mistake or a sin/offense? Guess it depends on how many cars run off the road as a result.

[Scoutfish]

So is naked walking a sin/mistake or a sin/offense? Guess it depends on how many cars run off the road as a result.

 

Well, whaty I meant, but somehow didn't actually say is this:

 

One person's sin is not responcible for anothers sin.

 

Basically, like my son gettin g in trouble for throwing rocks at cars and saying that his cousin was doing it too. So? What your cousin did had nothing to do with you making your own decision to act on something.

 

If the girl was naked..that's it's own issue. The man acting oin it would be a second and seperate issue with the man.

 

I just hate when people blame their own actions on somethinmg somebody else did: He laughed at me for getting fired, so I shot him!

[qwazse]

I figure it's been that way since Genesis chapter 2 ...

 

[fruit crunching]

"So, do you feel any smarter, yet?"

"No, do you you?"

"I think we've been scammed."

"What's a scam?"

"Nevermind, I'm gonna chat with the monkeys."

"What, I'm no good for conversation anymore?"

"I'm sorry Ms. wannabe a diety, but at least they have the sense to not let snake-talk get in their fur."

"Oh yea, well at least they have fur ..., I saw that look in your eye when you saw the chance to get God-smart. Explain that to your chimp-chump friends in your hairless hide!"

"Don't start with me, you're walking just as naked as I am ..."

"Uh-oh"

[Scoutfish]

Not that it has anything to do with the post, but your last coment reminded me of a cartoon I once saw. Adam was standing there holding an apple and Eve was in the background frolicking in Eden. Next to Adam was a PR rep and he was saying: "By the time we get done spinning this incident,it will look like her fault!"

[Old_OX_Eagle83]

 

You hit the nail on the head.

 

"But I do believe you are right even in da secular sense. There is no sense of honor anymore. This of course is most noticeable in politics, which was always a bit honor-deprived. But it used to be that there were certain lines a fellow wouldn't cross at least in public. You'd see folks present their argument in da best light, but they wouldn't lie. You'd see folks do their best to get legislation through, but they wouldn't try to use procedural work-arounds or manipulate da process. That was a matter of honor, particularly in the Senate. Now "winning" or "scoring points" seems to mean more."

 

In my opinion where things went wrong is when we started to place value in perception, rather than truth. Each of us knows who and what we are, and when that true self becomes something you can be proud of, you have honor. The set of rules you live by to be able to have that pride in your true-self makes you honorable. When a person takes pride in how they make others see them, it is not a measure of the true-self, just an illusion.

 

It has been said that you can take everything away from a man but his honor, and that is why we swear by it.

 

[JoeBob]

I'm uncomfortable calling the assumed transgressions 'sins'.

 

'Sin' implies a particular deity. If you write your laws based upon a particular deity, don't you have to exempt automatically everyone who does not believe in your deity?

 

Can we discuss 'wrongs' with the same gravitas?

 

"There is no sense of honor anymore."

Beavah, I gotta agree with you so much it hurts.

[BadenP]

 

I have to kind of agree with Joe Bob. As far as honor in politics that has NEVER been the case in the world or even our country, rather it's one of those historical urban myths. The Continental Congress tried to fire Washington twice , Thomas Jefferson as VP to John Adams wrote anonymous letters to Congress and the papers making up untruths about Adams to get him deposed so he could be President and was almost successful.

There is no honor among thieves and that is what politics has been from the local to the international level right through to present day. OX you need to take off your rose colored glasses.

 

Sin or the desire to do something wrong is not a thing you can blame all our problems on rather it is just part of human nature that is sometimes very hard to control. It was the gift of choice that God gave us, but it comes with a heavy price tag.

[acco40]

I'm no biblical scholar but the concept of original sin always bothered me. Something about a newborn have sinned doesn't sit well with me.

 

The "sin" issue also illustrates how folks rationalize their own religion. Murder my neighbor is equated with taking the Lord's name in vain? Reminds me of the "cafeteria" Scouters who ignore the BSA's "rules" because it is in the best interest of the boys.

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>'Sin' implies a particular deity. If you write your laws based upon a particular deity, don't you have to exempt automatically everyone who does not believe in your deity?

 

Can we discuss 'wrongs' with the same gravitas?

[BadenP]

 

In the "Born Again Christianity" scenario no matter how evil you have been or evil acts you have committed once you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior everything is forgiven.

 

In Roman Catholicism you must go to a priest present him with a laundry list of your sins and ask for forgiveness/absolution as only RC clergy have the power to forgive sin, and you must continue to go to Confession on a continual basis for the rest of your life.

(talk about a control issue)

 

The problem with both of these scenarios is that they fail to recognize that we are all imperfect and will continue to sin no matter how often we go to church or confession.

Sin is not a tangible thing or entity, rather the desire or temptation to do wrong is just part of our human nature just like the desire to do something good, and once you realize that then all the labels or catchwords and all the rituals become meaningless.