SIN

On the subject of “Sin”; there is only one reasonable definition, that is, “deliberate hurt to Man or your definition of God”.  God cannot be defined by anyone but you. And whether it is Spinoza’s God, a Theist’s God or a secular humanists denial of God entirely, sins against Man are equally egregious.

 One of the more disgusting sins is the belief one houses a Burning Bush in one’s garage and can speak for God on any subject or condition. People who quote biblical passages as matters of doctrine and morals fall into this category.

Some of the things that probably should NOT be defined as sin are;

1.            Sexual Preference, including a dwarf, unless someone gets hurt.

2.            Swearing or using bad language.

3.            Lust – without hurt

4.            Pride (unless it becomes Hubris)

Of course, Pope Gregory defined the Seven Deadly Sins as follows;

Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity. Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation. Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires. Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body. Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath. Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness. Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.

There really isn't much of a problem with these, although I would like to soften most of them a bit and give a humanist twist to them, and define the “Grace of God”. I certainly would not agree all sin results from Pride. Greed would be a little closer to the truth in my opinion. But remember, when we define things we limit them.

Matt 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-29, and Luke 12:10 define the biblical version of UNFORGIVEABLE SIN as; (from Luke) “And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.”-- a very curious passage which has been interpreted in many ways. Each thinking person is given a duty to define that passage and my definition hinges on the words “blasphemy”and “Holy Spirit”- assuming the English translation is anywhere near accurate, what do they mean? 

If you believe as I do, that the Holy Spirit of God dwells in each and every human being, all that really remains is to define “blasphemy”.  To use the august Wikipedia definition, “Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a religious deity or the irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things.” Based on my previous definition of “Holy Spirit”, the UNFORGIVEABLE SIN becomes “lack of reverence and love for others” Theists, like me, have an overwhelming desire to add “God” to “Others”. A Panentheist wouldn’t care. Either way the UNFORGIVEABLE SIN seems to have been covered by the great sages as follows:

Native American -- Every dawn as it comes is a holy event, and every day is holy, for the light comes from your Father, Wakan-Tanka; and also always remember that the two-leggeds and all other peoples who stand upon this earth are sacred and should be treated as such.

Sri Ramakrishna –“I have now come to a stage of realization in which I see that God is walking in every human form and manifesting Himself alike through the sage and the sinner, the virtuous and the vicious. Therefore when I meet different people I say to myself, "God in the form of the saint, God in the form of the sinner, God in the form of the righteous, God in the form of the unrighteous."”

  Buddha -- Goodwill toward all beings is the true religion; cherish in your hearts boundless     goodwill to all that lives.

             RABBI Hillel- ---What is hateful to yourself do not do to your fellow man

             Mohammed----One cannot be a believer until he wishes for others what he wishes for     himself.

Confucius and Mozi, his disciple---Others must be regarded like the self and this love must be all embracing and exclude nobody.

And, of course, Jesus’ commandment, “Love God-- and your neighbor as yourself-- and upon these two commandments hangs all the Law and the Prophets.”

All seem to be saying that human beings are sacrosanct, eternal, spiritual beings. Secular Humanism might disagree with “spiritual and eternal” but not “sacrosanct”.

It is fairly clear that free will gives us the ability to “Sin”.  But what is Sin? Consider two scenarios;

A guy flies to New York on business and meets the woman of his dreams, has sex with her and flies back to Des Moines and does not tell his wife. Has he sinned?  Probably, by most definitions of Sin. But in the second scenario, he flies back to New York 12 times during the year to meet the girl and have sex.

In the second case he begins to justify himself morally. He might conclude something like “Well I NEED this woman to complete me”, or “My wife doesn’t understand me”, or “It’s not hurting anyone” Or some other justification for his behavior.  In this case he has blurred the lines of morality and has begun to alienate himself from God, by setting up his OWN concept of morality that allows hurtful things to his wife to be acceptable.  If we alienate ourselves from God or Truth FAR enough, we have lost whatever battle of Truth we are engaged in. 

So, by my definition Sin is alienation from God or Man.

Consider this issue.  Let us say you stole a piece of gum from a drugstore when you were 11 years old. You committed theft. Are you a thief? As a general characterization maybe once, but certainly not now.  You grew, developed a finer moral framework and today, like most of us, you are honest. Should that one theft haunt you the rest of your life?  I think not. Humans error.

We bandy about the word “Sin” until it begins to lose meaning. As George Carlin boasted in his skit about growing up Catholic in Philadelphia, “It was a mortal sin to want to feel up Ellen.  It was a sin to take Ellen to a place to feel her up.  It was a sin to try to feel her up.  It was a sin to enjoy feeling her up. It was a sin to remember feeling up Ellen and it was a sin to want to do it again.  There were seven damnable sins in one feel and it was hardly worth it.”

The point of sin in the Middle Ages was often to keep an unruly educated population in line…political as much as theological. In a more modern age we are faced with “sins” for nearly everything we do. And in many cultures “Sin” is seen differently. The 18^th Century Polynesian did not feel uncomfortable with having many husbands or wives until the white settlers “educated them”. Even today Mormon Polygamy is still with us. The practitioners find no sin in it. As to Homosexuality, it is changing in acceptance as I write, but many will not accept it on any basis because they believe in a literal interpretation of scripture. One wonders why it would make a difference to God, with whom we had sex. For many of these literalist people a heterosexual sadist might be more acceptable in God’s eyes than a homosexual in a loving committed relationship. Who is further from God, the sadist or the lover?

In Hinduism, for example, there is no sin.  Do what you want, but be prepared to pay for it.

Of course the idea of sin in the West, as a concept, often hinges on the Genesis story of The Garden with Adam and Eve, which is a tale that Christianity has bought into unequivocally.  But there is an earlier creation story in Genesis Gen 1: 26-31 where God creates all males and females with no rib subjugation, no fall from grace, no tempting serpent, giving the earth to humans to procreate and concluding that all He saw and did was GOOD. 

Under this definition Humans are committed to improve the world, not sentenced to it as punishment. As a Baptist preacher once said, “Why worry about ecology, after all earth is where Satan rules.” I find his definition unacceptable on many levels.  As Brian McLaren has stated, we have this vision of salvation in our traditional six line invasive narrative;

when we ought have something like this one;

 

The first model suggests “salvation” is all about me whereas the second is all about transforming the world with Love. McLaren also asks, “Are we making “converts” to a gospel of evacuation to heaven after death or are we making disciples to a gospel of reconciliation and transformation here on earth?”

He suggests; “Our contemporary gospel is primarily;

INFORMATION ON HOW TO GO TO HEAVEN AFTER YOU DIE

with a large footnote about increasing your personal happiness and success through God.

with a small footnote about character development

with a smaller footnote about spiritual experience

with a smaller footnote about social/global transformation.”

I have little doubt he has nailed the current, erroneous understanding of the “Kingdom of God.”

The idea of “Sin” ought to be to caution us that we are leaving the path of God, not condemning ourselves to Hell.

John P. Middleton

May 2013