SIN

#REDIRECT Social Insurance Number

SIN

Singapore

Sin

:''This page is about sin in the context of religion. For other meanings, see Sin (disambiguation)'' Sin has been a term most usually used in a religious context, and today describes any lack of conformity to the will of God; especially, any willful disregard for the norms revealed by God is a sin. The word is from the old English ''synn'', presumed to be from Germanic *sun(d)jō[http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE133.html] (lit: "it is true"). It is recorded in use as early as the 9th century. The most common formal definition is an infraction against religious or moral law. Colloquially, any thought, word, or act considered faulty, shame, harmful to oneself or to others, or which alienates self from others and especially from God, can be called a sin. Through sin, guilt is incurred; and according to guilt, punishment is deserved. Compare ''Impiety'' and ''Crime''. Atonement is a concept of justice and mercy, and "payment" for one's sins. An example is found in traditions of animal sacrifice (as found in early Judaism, for example). Atonement for one's sins thought through the agency of a Messiah became the central idea of Christianity theology. Repentance describes the acknowledgement of sin as well as the feelings, thoughts, and actions which accompany efforts to alleviate the effects of having sinned. == Etymology == The English word ''sin'' derives from Old English ''synn.'' The same root appears in several other Germanic languages, e.g. Old Norse ''synd'', or German language ''Sünde''. The word may derive, ultimately, from ''*es-'', one of the Indo-European roots that meant "to be," and is a present participle, "being." Latin, also has an old present participle of ''esse'' in the word ''sons,'' ''sont-'', which came to mean "guilty" in Latin. The root meaning would appear to be, "it is true;" that is, "the charge has been proven." The Greek word ''hamartia'' is often translated as ''sin'' in the New Testament; it means "to miss the mark" or "to miss the target". == Jewish views of sin == Judaism regards the violation of divine commandments to be a sin. Judaism uses this term to include violations of halakha that are not necessarily a lapse in morality. Judaism holds that all people sin at various points in their lives, and hold that God tempers justice with mercy. The generic Hebrew language word for any kind of sin is ''aveira''. Based on verses in the Hebrew Bible, Judaism describes three levels of sin. *''Pesha'' or ''Mered'' - An intentional sin; an action committed in deliberate defiance of God; *''Avon'' - This is a sin of lust or uncontrollable emotion. It is a sin done knowingly, but not done to defy God; *''Cheit'' - This is an unintentional sin. Judaism holds that no human being is perfect, and all people have sinned many times. However certain states of sin (i.e. ''avon'' or ''cheit'') does not condemn a person to damnation; only one or two truly grievous sins lead to anything approaching some Christians' idea of hell. The Biblical and rabbinic conception of God is that of a creator who tempers justice with mercy. Based on the views of Rabbeinu Tam in the Babylonian Talmud (tractate Rosh HaShanah 17b), God is said to have thirteen attributes of mercy: # God is merciful before someone sins, even though God knows that a person is capable of sin. # God is merciful to a sinner even after the person has sinned. # God represents the power to be merciful even in areas that a human would not expect or deserve. # God is compassionate, and eases the punishment of the guilty. # God is gracious even to those who are not deserving. # God is slow to anger. # God is abundant in kindness. # God is a god of truth, thus we can count on God's promises to forgive repentant sinners. # God guarantees kindness to future generations, as the deeds of the righteous patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) have benefits to all their descendants. # God forgives intentional sins if the sinner repents. # God forgives a deliberate angering of Him if the sinner repents. # God forgives sins that are committed in error. # God wipes away the sins from those who repent. As Jews are commanded in ''imitatio Dei'', emulating God, rabbis take these attributes into account in deciding Halakha and its contemporary application. A classical rabbinic work, Midrash ''Avot de Rabbi Natan'', states: :One time, when Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai was walking in Jerusalem with Rabbi Yehoshua, they arrived at where the Temple in Jerusalem now stood in ruins. "Woe to us" cried Rabbi Yehoshua, "for this house where atonement was made for Israel's sins now lies in ruins!" Answered Rabban Yochanan, "We have another, equally important source of atonement, the practice of gemilut hasadim (loving kindness), as it is stated 'I desire loving kindness and not sacrifice'". The Babylonian Talmud teaches that "Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Eleazar both explain that as long as the Temple stood, the altar atoned for Israel, but now, one's table atones [when the poor are invited as guests]." (Tractate Berachot, 55a.) The siddur of the ''Days of Awe'' (the High Holy Days; i.e. Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) states that prayer, repentance and tzedakah (charitable actions) are how one atones for sin. === Jewish conceptions of atonement for sin === . Atonement for sins is discussed in the Tanakh, known to Christians as the Old Testament. Rituals for atonement occurred in the Temple in Jerusalem, and were performed by the Kohen, the Israelite priests. These services included song, prayer, offerings and animal sacrifices known as the ''korbanot''. The rites for Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, are prescribed in the book of Leviticus. The ritual of the scapegoat, sent into the wilderness to be claimed by Azazel, was one of these observances. A number of animal sacrifices were prescribed in the Torah (five books of Moses) to make atonement: a sin-offering for sins, and a guilt offering for religious trespasses. The significance of animal sacrifice is not expanded on at length in the Torah, though Genesis IX:4 and Leviticus XVII suggest that blood and vitality were linked. Later Biblical prophets occasionally make statements to the effect that the hearts of the people were more important than their sacrifices. Note that Judaism's views on sin and atonement are not identical to those in the Hebrew Bible alone, but rather are based on the laws of the Bible as seen through the Jewish oral law. == Christian views of sin == === In General === In Western Christianity, sin is often viewed as a legal infraction or contract violation, and so salvation tends to be viewed in legal terms. In Eastern Christianity, sin is more often viewed in terms of its effects on relationships, both among people and between people and God. The Greek word in the New Testament that is translated in English as "sin" is ''hamartia'', which literally means ''missing the target''. Consequently, salvation is viewed more in terms of reconciliation and vastly improved relationships. These two perspectives are not necessarily mutually exclusive. === Roman Catholic Views === Roman Catholic doctrine distinguishes between personal sin and original sin. Personal sins are either mortal or venial. Mortal sins are sins of grave (serious) matter, where the sinner is aware that the act (or omission) is both a sin and a grave matter, and performs the act (or omission) with deliberate consent. The act of committing a mortal sin cuts off the sinner from God�s grace; it is in itself a rejection of God. If left un-reconciled, mortal sins result in eternal punishment in Hell. Venial sins are sins which do not meet the conditions for mortal sins. The sin may be one that is not a grave matter, or if a grave matter, the individual does not realize that the act is a sin or grave matter, or does not deliberately consent to the sin. The act of committing a venial sin does not cut off the sinner from God�s grace, as the sinner has not rejected God. However, venial sins do injure the relationship between the sinner and God, and as such, must be reconciled to God, either through the sacrament of reconciliation or receiving the Eucharist. Both mortal and venial sins have a dual nature of punishment. They incur both guilt for the sin, yielding eternal punishment, and temporal punishment for the sin. Reconciliation is an act of God�s mercy, and addresses the guilt and eternal punishment for sin. Purgatory and indulgences address the temporal punishment for sin, and exercise of God�s justice. Catholic doctrine also sees sin as being twofold: Sin is, at once, any evil or immoral ''action'' which infracts God's law and the inevitable consequences, the ''state of being'' that comes about by committing the sinful action. Sin can and does alienate a person both from God and the community. Hence, the Catholic Church's insistence on reconciliation with both God and the Church itself. According to Roman Catholicism, in addition to Jesus, the Virgin Mary also lived her entire life without sin. It is believed that Jesus assumed her directly into heaven after the end of her life on Earth; see Assumption of Mary. The belief in Mary's sinlessness is shared by many Eastern Orthodox theologians, but is not universally held and is not generally considered to be a point of dogma. In addition, the Orthodox view of the sinlessness of the Theotokos is not quite of the same nature as that held by Roman Catholics, since the Roman teaching of the Immaculate Conception is not an Orthodox doctrine. :''See also:'' Seven deadly sins === Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Views === The Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy use sin both to refer to humanity's fallen condition and to refer to individual sinful acts. Neither form of Orthodoxy makes formal distinctions among "grades" of sins and in many ways the Orthodox Christian view of sin is similar to the Jewish. === Protestant Views === Many Protestants teach that due to original sin, man has lost any and all capacity to move towards reconciliation with God; in fact, this inborn sin turns humans away from God and towards themselves and their own desires. Thus, humans may be brought back into a relationship with God only by way of God's rescuing the sinner from his hopeless condition through Jesus's death on the cross in the place of the sinner (and of all sinners). Salvation is ''sola fide'' (by faith alone); ''sola gratia'' (by grace alone); and is begun and completed by God alone through Christ Jesus. This understanding of original sin, is most closely associated with Calvinism (''vid.'' total depravity) and Lutheranism. Methodist theology adapts the concept by stating that humans, entirely sinful and totally depraved, can only "do good" through God's ''prevenient grace''. This is in contrast to the Roman teaching that while sin has tarnished the original goodness of humanity prior to the Fall, it has not entirely extinguished that goodness, or at least the ''potential'' for goodness, allowing humans to reach towards God to share in the Redemption which Jesus Christ won for them. Some non-Roman or Orthodox groups hold similar views; such understandings of sin are most often associated with Arminianism. ==== Defined Types of Sin ==== Original sin - Most denominations of Christianity interpret the Garden of Eden story in Genesis in terms of the fall of man. Adam and Eve's disobedience was the first sin ever committed, and their ''original sin'' (or the effects of the sin) is passed on to their descendants (or has become a part of their environment) and is a primary reason that people must be born again and gain salvation. Concupiscence Venial sin Mortal sin Eternal sin - Commonly called "unforgivable sin," is perhaps the most controversial sin —whereby a Christian of sufficient spiritual maturity has become an apostate, forever denying himself a life of faith and death in salvation. See Matthew 12; the precice nature of this sin is often disputed. === Christian teachings on Atonement, or the Remedy for Sin === In Christianity, atonement refers to the redemption achieved by Jesus Christ by his crucifixion and resurrection. Its centrality means that it has been the source of much discussion and some controversy throughout Christian history. Christians begin with the proposition that the death of Jesus Christ was a sacrifice that relieves believers of the burden of their sins. But what was the actual meaning of Christ's death? Why did He have to die? The meaning of an event of such transcendent significance to Christians is hard to capture in any one verbal formula. But several have been ventured: * Origen taught that the death of Christ was a ''ransom'' paid to Satan in satisfaction of his just claim on the souls of humanity as a result of sin. This was opposed by theologians like St. Gregory Nazianzen, who maintained that this would have made Satan equal to God. *St. Irenaeus of Lyons taught that Christ recapitulated in Himself all the stages of life of sinful man, and that His perfect ''obedience'' substituted for Adam's disobedience. * St. Athanasius of Alexandria taught that Christ came to overcome death and corruption, and to remake humanity in God's image again. See ''On the Incarnation'' by St. Athanasius. *St. Augustine said that sin was not a created thing at all, but that it was "privatio boni", a "taking away of good", and uncreation. *Anselm of Canterbury taught that Christ's death satisfied God's offended sense of justice over the sins of humanity. Also, God rewarded Christ's obedience, which built up a storehouse of merit and a treasury of grace that believers could share by their faith in Christ. This view is known as the ''satisfaction'' theory, the ''merit'' theory, or sometimes the ''commercial'' theory. Anselm's teaching is contained in his treatise ''Cur Deus Homo'', which means ''Why God Became Human''. Anselm's ideas were later expanded utilizing Aristotelian philosophy into a grand theological system by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, particularly in his masterpiece, the ''Summa Theologica'', which eventually became official Roman Catholic doctrine. *Pierre Ab�lard held that Christ's Passion was God suffering with His creatures in order to show the greatness of His love for them. *John Calvin taught that Christ, the only sinless person, volunteered to take upon Himself the penalty for the sins that should have been visited on the rest of humanity, thus saving those from the penalty of sin who are Predestination (Calvinism) for eternal life. Calvin's view is called ''substitutionary punishment'' or sometimes "Perseverance of the saints". *Arminianism has traditionally taught what is known as "Moral Government" theology or the ''Governmental'' theory. Drawing primarily from the works of Jacobus Arminius and Hugo Grotius, the Atonement (Governmental view) teaches that Christ suffered for humankind so that God could forgive humans while still maintaining divine justice. Unlike the perspectives of Anselm of Canterbury or Calvinism, this view states that Christ was not punished for humanity, for true forgiveness would not be possible if humankind's offenses were already punished. Christ's suffering was a real and meaningful substitute for the punishment humans deserve, but Christ was not punished on behalf of the human race. This view has prospered in traditional Methodism and all who follow the teachings of John Wesley, and has been detailed by, among others, 19th century Methodist theologian John Miley in his classic ''Atonement in Christ'' and 20th century Church of the Nazarene theologian J. Kenneth Grider in his ''Wesleyan-Holiness Theology''. Variations of this view have also been espoused by 18th century Puritan Jonathan Edwards (theologian) and 19th century revival leader Charles Grandison Finney. *Karl Barth taught that Christ's death manifested God's love and His hatred for sin. The several ideas of these and many more theologians can perhaps be summed up under these rubrics: *''Victory'': the idea that Jesus defeated Death through his death, and gave life to those in the grave. Both following models may be understood as variations of the Victory idea: *''Participation'': the idea that God's death on the cross completed his identification with humanity - God's participation in our sin and sorrow allowing our participation in his love and triumph; *''Ransom'': the idea that Jesus released humanity from a legal obligation to the Devil, incurred by sin. (Theories involving ransom owed to divine justice are generally classified under Substitution, below.) *''Punishment'': the idea that God assumed the penalty for human sins on the Cross, and volunteered punishment as the price paid to release humanity from so that the faithful might escape it; *''Government'': the idea that God forgives the penalty due humans for their sins, provisioned on their acceptance of that forgiveness, but that Christ suffered on the Cross in order to demonstrate the seriousness of sin; *''Example'': the idea that Jesus's death was meant as a lesson in ideal submission to the will of God, and to show the path to eternal life; *''Revelation'': the idea that Jesus's death was meant to reveal God's nature and to help humans know God better. :''See also'': Penance; Repentance; Reconciliation; Catholic sacraments == Muslim views of sin == Islam sees sin (''dhanb'' ذنب) as anything that goes against the will of Allah. Muslims believe that God is angered by sin and punishes some sinners with the fires of Hell (jahannam), but that He is also the Merciful (''ar-rahman'') and the Forgiving (''al-ghaffar''), and forgives those who repent and serve Him: :Say: "O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Qur'an 39:53) Some of the major sins are held to be legally punishable in an Islamic state (for example, murder, theft, adultery, and in some views apostasy; see sharia). Most are left to God to punish (for example, backbiting, hypocrisy, arrogance, filial disrespect, lying). == Hindu views of sin == In Hinduism, the term ''sin'' or ''papum'' is often used to describe actions that create negative karma. Sin, in Hinduism, besides creating negative karma, is violating moral and ethical codes as in the religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In fact, it is much described in the scriptures that chanting the name of Hari or Narayana or Shiva is the only way to atone for sins, prevent rebirth and attain moksha. For reference, see the famous story of Ajamila, described in a story described in the Bhagavata Purana and described in one web site source, [http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/1148/k8.html]. Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami explains in the lexicon section of his book, ''Dancing with Siva'', that "sin is an intentional transgression of divine law and is not ''viewed in Hinduism'' as a crime against God ''as in Judaeo-Christian religions'', but ''rather'' as ''1)'' an act against dharma, or moral order and ''2)'' one's own self." Furthermore, he notes that it is thought natural, if unfortunate, that young souls act wrongly, for they are living in nescience, avidya, the darkness of ignorance. He further mentions that sin in Hinduism is an adharmic course of action which automatically brings negative consequences. Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami explains that the term sin carries a double meaning, as do its Sanskrit equivalents: 1) a wrongful act, 2) the negative consequences resulting from a wrongful act. In Sanskrit the wrongful act is known by several terms, including pataka (from pat, "to fall") papa, enas, kilbisha, adharma, anrita and rina (transgress, in the sense of omission). He comments that the residue of sin is called papa, sometimes conceived of as a sticky, astral substance which can be dissolved through penance (prayashchitta), austerity (tapas) and good deeds (sukritya). Note that papa is also accrued through unknowing or unintentional transgressions of dharma, as in the term aparadha (offense, fault, mistake). Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami further notes that in Hinduism, ''except for'' Dvaita ''school of'' Shri Madhvacharya, there are no such concepts of inherent or mortal sin, according to some theologies, which he defined as sins so grave that they can never be expiated and which cause the soul to be condemned to suffer eternally in hell. Adapted and cited from lexicon section of his book, ''Dancing with Siva.'', with italics to indicate non-quotes. :''See also'': God, Religion, Karma Christian law Christian philosophy Religious law Theology la:Peccatum simple:Sin == Other == Sin is an abreviation in many Role Playing Games for "Assassin"

Sin

Folks, that was just a first stab at it. Feel free to jump in and do it right!! :-) ---- ==Etymology of the word, ''Sin''== Quick question on the etymology on the origin of sin in English language any definitive sources?--dgd :I have added a paragraph on the etymology of the English word. ---User:Ihcoyc (Feb. 26, 2003) ---- ==Sin, sins and scope of atonement== I'm not sure if this is the correct place to voice a thought on the matter, but I do think that under the heading of sin there should be a full listing of the 10 commandments as well as a reference to Jesus' teachings on the most important of Gods laws (love of God and love of neighbor) Also, why not mention lifting of kosher food laws as described in the Christian bible. --User:24.18.238.66 23:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) soley individualistic accounts of sin. perhaps need to be balanced with the idea of corporate exile (and perhaps not). User:mhjb ---- :I appreciate the Protestant/Catholic usage note, but in my experience Protestants (ministers, laity, and writers) used it primarily in terms of personal sin. As in, "Do not commit sin!" or "It would be a sin to do that." or "Lord, forgive me, for I have sinned." Protestants like repentance, too, not just Catholics. :-) User:Ed Poor ---- Actually, both viewpoints are accurate. Many Protestant churches speak of "Original sin," and of "sins," acts contrary to God's law and one of the results of "Original sin." User:F. Lee Horn ---- ===Sin and Atonement jointly considered=== A suggestion was made at Talk:Atonement that the material on that page ought to be merged with this one, which already contained a discussion of Jewish concepts of atonement. I have tried, and this is a first go at it. ---User:Ihcoyc :I object to the merging of these two articles Sin and Atonement. While these two subjects may go hand in hand with each other (maybe even more so for Judaism), these subjects also go hand in hand with many other religious subjects. And other Wikipedia article-subjects also go hand in hand with other article-subjects, but Wikipedia generally doesn't merge articles merely because they go hand in hand. There needs to be a compelling reason demonstrated first why subjects each with their own unique concepts should be merged before they actually are merged. That has not been done. I could agree that maybe a separate article called Sin and Atonement is needed IN ADDITION to articles for each subject, but as it is, even this article Sin is not properly titled for its subject matter! User:BoNoMoJo 18:13, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC) ---- ===Roman Catholic views compared with others=== "There also tends to be a distinction between Roman Catholic and many Protestant views of the effects of sin. Many Protestants typically teach that sin, including original sin, entirely extinguished any human capacity to move in the direction of reconciliation towards God. Salvation is ''sola fide'', by faith alone, and ''sola gratia'', by grace alone, and by God's initiative alone. Roman Catholics, by contrast, typically teach that while sin has tarnished the original goodness of humanity prior to the Fall, it has not entirely extinguished that goodness. Under this view, humans can take the initiative in reaching out towards God and seeking redemption. " I can't speak for what Catholicism teaches (though whatever it is it's probably a doctrine, not merely a ''typical'' teaching), but that's not my experience of Protestant churches. There are many views on whether we reach for God or he reaches for us, but I hadn't heard one put in terms of original sin. I don't think I'm up to rewriting it myself, though, but I'd say the best thing would be to combine it with the atonement bit and put in different teachings. For now, I'm just changing it a little. User:Bagpuss 23:27 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC) :I put in "typically teach" because some writers who were not "Protestants," like St Augustine of Hippo, taught something closer to the Protestant position by my understanding. In other words, there were differences of opinion on the topic that took place well before the Reformation. If Roman Catholicism has adopted some different formulation as doctrine, I don't know what it is exactly. -- User:Ihcoyc 00:10 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC) : I think what's being described above is known as total depravity, which is more specifically a Calvinist doctrine which does have roots in Augustine. Arminians, like those in the Methodist tradition, would stop well short of the total depravity position. Eastern Christianity also rejects the doctrine; they just weren't able to correct Augustine in a timely fashion, as communication between East and West was already being hampered by linguistic and cultural differences. User:Wesley 14:53 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC) :Is there a technical term for the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox position other than "Arminianism"? We definitely need to do some kind of article on the theologies of grace. I added links to "total depravity" and "Arminianism," also to "Pascal's wager" which strikes me as assuming some variety of Arminianism. -- User:Ihcoyc 16:29 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC) :: The technical term for what Roman Catholicism is not, is Pelagianism. Since the time of Augustine (whose formulations against Pelagius caused a rift between the East and West), Western popes (especially those who had been monks) and Western councils have gradually modified the interpretation of Augustinianism (in part with the intention to lessen the conflict with the East). User:Mkmcconn :I have modified the following ::Under this view, humans can take the initiative in reaching out towards God and seeking redemption. :and written :: Under this view, humans can reach towards God to share in the Redemption which Christ won for them :although I think the issue could be better stated, it is more accurate than the previous statement (the initiative is, actually, God's, as one can see in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church). User:Pfortuny, 16:28 Oct 9, 2003 (UTC). :: Central to Eastern understanding of sanctification, is a theological commitment to absolute freedom - this terminology does not translate well, in Western terms. Neither would it translate well, unless I'm completely mistaken, if the Western meaning of those terms were translated into an Eastern equivalent. So, I think that the Western version (called semi-Augustinianism) is not very different from the Eastern version (which owes a lot to the monastic tradition beginning with John Cassian). It is not proper to equate this with Arminianism, because the theory of atonement in the East is primarily focussed on the incarnation (the so-called ''theory of reciprocity''), and Arminianism is a psychological theory of atonement (the ''governmental theory'' or ''moral influence theory'') and is therefore closer to what the Western councils condemned in denouncing Semi-pelagianism. I have not been able to discern a Western equivalent in the Eastern theories of what Christ accomplished on the cross, although its universal intent makes it easily distinguishable from Calvinism (which besides incarnational and moral significance, adds a particular intention to Christ's death, which other Christians reject: he lived and died in view of the whole world, to redeem those chosen by God). User:Mkmcconn 21:47, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC) :: I'm not aware of a specific name for the Eastern Orthodox position; I'm sure that neither it nor Roman Catholicism could really be termed "Arminian", even if they do share some similarities. Roman Catholicism probably has a term, but I don't know what it is. Orthodoxy does talk a lot about free will, and about gaining increasing amounts of free will as one is healed of the effects of sin, and of course about God's desire for everyone to be "saved", but I don't think I'm qualified to talk about this well. ''Freedom of Morality'' by Florovsky would probably be a good source. Haven't actually read it yet; I'm still doing a lot of learning myself. User:Wesley 16:06 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC) ---- ==God repents== The twelfth attribute of mercy reads: '' God repents sins that are committed in error.'' Shouldn't the word ''repents'' be changed to ''forgives''? User:Wesley :Not sure who wrote those, but it seems so to me also. -- User:Ihcoyc 20:24 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC) :: I believe that User:RK added those attributes. I'm hoping that either he or Slrubenstein will confirm. User:Wesley ---- It says some religions define sin, not as an act that offends God, but as an act that damages the soul. Which religions are those? User:128.101.130.129 23:35, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC) :Many within Judaism hold this view. This is an especially important concept within Kabbalah, esoteric Jewish mysticism. {Not all Jews accept Kabbalah as authoritative (in fact, most don't).} Many Jewish religious rationalists (those who reject mysticism) also hold that sin is something which damages the soul, e.g. Maimonides. User:RK 14:10, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) : Many Christians I've talked to hold a similar view, defining sin as a self-destructive act. My (Protestant) Greek professor in college preferred to translate the last part of John 3:16 something like "... so that whoever believes in Him would not destroy himself but rather have eternal life." He said the verb in question was in the middle voice, which generally means the subject is intimately involved in the action, hence the above translation instead of the more common would not perish. The notion of sin as an offense against God makes the most sense if you happen to live in a feudal society, or another one that has a large concept of offense against an important person's honor. User:Wesley 15:43, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) :I think that what the question seeks to get at is a difference between, say, a religion that propounds a body of rules that define sin -- in which case sin is any action that breaks the rules; and those religions that define sin by its effect on the spiritual well being of the sinner. The difficulty is that these two views are not mutually exclusive. Some varieties of Christian theology say that even "virtuous" acts done by the unsaved are sins; they're presumably done to be admired, or for some other selfish motive. No one can be good unless God is with them. On the other hand, you have faiths like Buddhism, where sins are acts that incur a debt of karma, but there is no judge of karma to determine the presence or degree of guilt. -- User:Ihcoyc 16:22, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) :: That makes sense. I suspect (thought I don't know) that Buddhism probably contains groups that have detailed lists of do's and don't's for their followers to follow in order to avoid incurring more karma debt, and groups that don't, just as within Christianity there are some that affirm total depravity (which I think is what you described) and some that don't. So the difference isn't really between different religions, but between different schools of theological thought within different religions. ---- I have changed the last edit (and commented (i.e. with ) it in the article. It said something about the Assumption, Pope John Paul, etc... which was quite incorrect (see the comments there). Anyway, I doubt if that paragraph fits well in this article. ---- Near the top: "Atonement describes the process through which we become reconciled to God for sins." Who is "we" here? Is it all christians, or is it some particular subgroups? I find it confusing when articles say this is what christians believe, with no discussion of whether they mean some sect of protestants, or the Catholics, or the Orthodox, or one of the old churches, or who... User:209.8.184.25 04:37, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC) ==Distinct topics== Shouldn't sin be considered separately from atonement? I see from previous discussion that they used to be separate articles, and they were later merged. What is the thinking behind this? User:MkmcconnUser Talk:Mkmcconn 17:51, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC) Yes, I think they should be separated (obviously). I do not know when/how they were merged. User:Pfortuny 07:42, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) ==Protestant vs Catholic?== This contrast is only vaguely familiar to me, as a Protestant; and so, I'm assuming that it is not really representative of a contrast, as it claims. For that reason, I removed it. Roman Catholics also have an idea of sin being a state or condition from which redemption is necessary, just as Protestants do. Protestants also certainly understand by "sins" those acts which do not conform to the word of God. It does not appear to me to be true that the contrast can be maintained, or that there is such a reservation of the word among catholics; since in the West, Christians are largely agreed that every individual is born into a condition of corruption, a state of "sin", from which it is not possible to deliver oneself apart from the grace of God. The difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is more subtle than the following paragraph would appear to imply. User:MkmcconnUser Talk:Mkmcconn 19:56, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC) : ''There is a difference among Christianity concerning the use of the word "sin". Protestantism use it primarily for what they see as humanity's inherently sinful nature, and only secondarily to actual instances of sin. Catholicism by contrast reserve the word only for actual instances of sin, calling the sinful nature of humans "concupiscence". '' ::In my oppinion (I am a Catholic) the paragraph is at the least ''unclear''. I think ''all'' Christian denominations use the word sin ''generically'' (for lack of a better term), as in, ''by sin entered death into the world'' -which means both ''a sin'' and ''sinfulness''-. Also, concupiscence is not ''the sinful nature of human'': ''pure malice'' is not an issue of concupiscence, as I understand it. ::So I am happy with your removal. User:Pfortuny 07:40, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) == Islamic views of sin == :''In the Islamist movement, Muslim sinners are held to be liable for the death sentence. According to Islamic law, conversion by Muslims to other religions is a sin. Penalties may include ostracism or even execution if they live or have lived in an "Islamic State" and are deemed enemies of the state.'' Focusing on this stuff strikes me as rather POV. There has to be some kind of developed theology behind Islamic law. I assume that atonement from sin is possible in Islam, but I am short on the particulars. User:Ihcoyc 00:47, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) :There is IMO a very highly developed theology. But there are a couple of barriers to including it in Wikipedia. :One is that while we Westerners have a faith in knowledge and a joy in spreading it, that may not be part of Islamic cultures (note the plural) at all, and it typically isn't as high a priority. ''Criticising the Qur'an'' is a criminal offence in many Islamic countries. The penalty varies; A personal friend was deported from one country because he was (falsely) accused of it. But even if it's completely unenforced, just having such an offence on the books isn't exactly free speech. AFAIK all Islamic cultures regard any pictorial representation of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as offensive. Please note, I'm not saying any of this is ''wrong''. I am just saying it's ''relevant''. It makes it difficult to obtain the information, and restricts our right to publish it even if we do obtain it. :Another is Islamic scholars may not regard what we would call their ''theology'' as knowledge in the way we might. It's rather a sort of wisdom. That's not to say that it's seen as less valid than knowledge, just the opposite. On a scale, opinion is seen as being at one end, Islamic truth at the other, and scientific reasoning is in the middle. This again makes it difficult to obtain and publish the information, as describing it as either knowledge or opinion is in a sense inaccurate, and possibly offensive. :The other point I'd like to make is that the concept of ''atonement'' as understood in Western culture doesn't necessarily appear in Islamic 'theology' at all. This may be surprising, as both Jesus and Abraham are regarded as prophets in Islam, but it's been my impression talking to some thoughtful Moslems over the years. I think the problem might be that much Western theology, including the doctrine of atonement, comes from a Greek cultural perspective, not from a Jewish one as is traditionally assumed and often claimed. As such it is alien to Islamic thought (and also to Jewish thought). :These are difficult issues, see Islam for a very different perspective on the cross-cultural issues regarding knowledge, but again note that the clash between Greek and Islamic thought is affirmed. User:Andrewa 06:09, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC) ---- ==Copyright/authorship question== The Hindu interpretation section says that it is adapted from a book, and that italics indicate ''non-quotes''. I would hope that actually considerably larger sections of this passage are "non-quotes", otherwise the section is probably not "kosher" from a copyright point of view. User:jcorneli Wed Mar 23 02:14:15 2005 UTC ==Jewish views of sin== As the text already indicates, the means of atonement in Judaism changed over time - there was a move away from sacrifices. As is not made equally clear, beliefs in the form retribution takes have also changed: in particular, the belief in Hell/Heaven as we currently understand them is in all probability post-biblical, or late-biblical at most. It is also certain that, say, Maimonides believed certain sins to condemn the sinner to hell, or at least to make him "lose his part in the world to come", even if they were not committed to defy God, or in full conscience of their being sins: for example, believing in the corporeality of God makes the believer not go to Heaven. There is also the distinction to be drawn between the sins of Gentiles and the sins of Jews; the former have to obey only the seven Noahide laws and their consequences - yet, at the same time, punishment (at least temporal punishment) of Gentiles can be harsher than that of Jews for the same offense (at least in some worked-out subsystems within classical Rabbinic Judaism). Reform views also should be explained, insofar as there are sections on retribution and atonement in this article: the Pittsburgh platform explicitly rejects the notions of Hell and Heaven. User:Hasdrubal 22:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

S