Social Redefinition of Sin

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Did anyone notice the trend to redefine what is sinful and what is not in modern society? It is all the more worrying as its implications are grave and if not sufficiently countered may lead to the damnation of many souls.

What I'm referring to is the emergence of new 'sins' such as "not recycling" or "hurting someone's feelings". Many people also hold the various "isms" as the worst type of sin. Undoubtedly, discrimination and hatred is not mandated by God, but theses "isms" are often poorly defined and serve various political purposes.

On the other hand, some of the worst sins are often not even mentioned. Fornication, homosexual acts, impurity, adultery and divorce are rarely considered. Many people who profess Christianity do not even consider them sins. This is all the more worrying as Our Lady stated in the Fatima apparitions that more souls end up in Hell on account of sins of the flesh than any other sin. Avarice is another sin which has been relegated to a crime of a bygone era. It is often chalked up as "being ambitious" or having a "take no prisoners" attitude.

Pondering the above, I consider this an unmistakable proof that the devil has not been asleep. Described as the ''father of all lies", this must undoubtedly be his handiwork.

Squeeonline

A sin is the action of something you publicly disapprove of, done by someone else.

"You" in this case can be a plural like a social group or particular church.

PopePalpatine

Have you ever considered that Opus Dei might be wrong?

smacl

Jolie Eager Domino wrote: »

On the other hand, some of the worst sins are often not even mentioned. Fornication, homosexual acts, impurity, adultery and divorce are rarely considered. Many people who profess Christianity do not even consider them sins.

Given the results of the recent referendum, I would consider hardly any Christians in this country would consider homosexual acts to be a sin, and I'd say few enough would care about the other items you've listed.

homer911

I thought that our "post-Christian" society simply denied the concept of sin, rather than redefining it.

Christians, myself included, need to get past our "obsession" with sexual sins - at the end of the day we are all sinners. As a recent post I spotted on Facebook said "Don't judge me just because I sin differently to you" (or words to that effect). What we need to do is reject ALL sin

Not a NSA agent

Sin hasnt be redefined, the things you listed are still considered sinful in many religions.

Most people just have little time to care about what 2 consenting adults do.

hinault

Jolie Eager Domino wrote: »

Did anyone notice the trend to redefine what is sinful and what is not in modern society? It is all the more worrying as its implications are grave and if not sufficiently countered may lead to the damnation of many souls.

What I'm referring to is the emergence of new 'sins' such as "not recycling" or "hurting someone's feelings". Many people also hold the various "isms" as the worst type of sin. Undoubtedly, discrimination and hatred is not mandated by God, but theses "isms" are often poorly defined and serve various political purposes.

On the other hand, some of the worst sins are often not even mentioned. Fornication, homosexual acts, impurity, adultery and divorce are rarely considered. Many people who profess Christianity do not even consider them sins. This is all the more worrying as Our Lady stated in the Fatima apparitions that more souls end up in Hell on account of sins of the flesh than any other sin. Avarice is another sin which has been relegated to a crime of a bygone era. It is often chalked up as "being ambitious" or having a "take no prisoners" attitude.

Pondering the above, I consider this an unmistakable proof that the devil has not been asleep. Described as the ''father of all lies", this must undoubtedly be his handiwork.

This is as good a place as any to identify what is sinful

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P6C.HTM

Seth Brundle

hinault wrote: »

This is as good a place as any to identify what is sinful

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P6C.HTM

What makes that information correct on what is sinful?

hinault

Two other useful links

http://www.catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/PiusX/psin.htm

http://www.catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/PiusX/pvice.htm

lazybones32

Jolie Eager Domino wrote: »

Did anyone notice the trend to redefine what is sinful and what is not in modern society? It is all the more worrying as its implications are grave and if not sufficiently countered may lead to the damnation of many souls.

What I'm referring to is the emergence of new 'sins' such as "not recycling" or "hurting someone's feelings". Many people also hold the various "isms" as the worst type of sin. Undoubtedly, discrimination and hatred is not mandated by God, but theses "isms" are often poorly defined and serve various political purposes.

On the other hand, some of the worst sins are often not even mentioned. Fornication, homosexual acts, impurity, adultery and divorce are rarely considered. Many people who profess Christianity do not even consider them sins. This is all the more worrying as Our Lady stated in the Fatima apparitions that more souls end up in Hell on account of sins of the flesh than any other sin. Avarice is another sin which has been relegated to a crime of a bygone era. It is often chalked up as "being ambitious" or having a "take no prisoners" attitude.

Pondering the above, I consider this an unmistakable proof that the devil has not been asleep. Described as the ''father of all lies", this must undoubtedly be his handiwork.

By all means, pray for sinners, but only be concerned with your own sin. As Our Lady says from Medj: Pray, pray, pray.
"You know that I love you and am coming here out of love, so I could show you the path of peace and salvation for your souls. I want you to listen to me and not permit Satan to seduce you. Dear children, Satan is strong enough! Therefore, I ask you to dedicate your prayers so that those who are under his influence may be saved. Give witness by your life, sacrifice your lives for the salvation of the world... Therefore, little children, do not be afraid. If you pray, Satan cannot injure you, not even a little, because you are God's children and He is watching over you. Pray, and let the Rosary always be in your hands as a sign to Satan that you belong to me." (February 25, 1989)

noelfitz

Carlowbruiser,
thank you for initiating the debate here. Not all who reply agree with you, but all the views are respectful and courteous, and many fundamental points are raised.

You say sins such as not-recycling are new. My favourite example of a new sin is smoking where it is not allowed. But sin is used in these circumstances as anti-social behaviour. You talk about 'isms' sometimes being sinful, this is not new. Also the condemnation of 'sins of the flesh' has not been abolished, and I do not think Church fundamental teaching has changed. Catholics have two of the 10 commandments against these (6th and 9th), other religion have one. I learned in school that sex outside marriage is wrong, Catholic teaching has not altered this. But I think of the Pope's words "who am I to judge". Finally Opus Dei holds to Church teaching.

So once again, thanks to all who contribute here. Honest and sincere debates are healthy.

sins have always been socially defined.

as society changes, therefore, the notion of what is sinful will adapt accordingly

Peregrinus

I think every generation has its own concerns and preoccupations, arising out of its own circumstances, and of course this influences the sins of which they are particularly conscious. Not-recycling wasn't seen as sinful in the past simply because human consumption and waste didn't present the existential threat that it does today. But now that it is a threat, and known to be so, obviously we are sensitive to the moral implications of this form of behaviour in a way that we weren't before. And rightly so.

Our changing views of sin are not necessarily bad; I'd say that our new-found awareness of the form of greed and selfishness that we might term "environmental sin" is a good thing. On the other hand, they're not necessarily good. I wouldn't be the first to point out that a puritanical focus on sexual sin sometimes serves to allow us to ignore sins of oppression, injustice or neglect, and to ignore what the gospel has to say about wealth and its uses and abuses. Which means that the claim that "more souls end up in Hell on account of sins of the flesh than any other sin" can be taken two ways; is it our sexual sins that cause us to fall, or our obsession with sexual sins?

Joe1919

I remember some time ago reading Reinhold Niebuhr discussion on sin in his Nature and Destiny of Man. He distinguishes 'sins' from 'sin'. Whereas there may be some relativity with 'sins' due to circumstances etc, 'sin' itself is not relative; it is always an act of defiance against God.
With regards to 'sins of the flesh', the big sin here is not from taking pleasure from the flesh (as this is only natural in moderation). The 'sin' here is making 'pleasures of the flesh' or hedonism ones goal in life. He sees this as also a sin against the first commandment e.g. The idolization of pleasure.
To some extent, I agree with him. The big problem today (imo) is not so much the individual weaknesses of ourselves as people but the way in which sexual fulfillment, the good life etc. is almost seen as absolute entitlement, as a sort of true path to happiness/salvation and hence a form of idolatry.

UrFhasaidh

Towards a "redefinition" of sin? Okay, to begin to address this it has to be set down, from the standpoint of Christian (Catholic-Orthodox) Theology at any rate, that sin does not have (and nor has it ever had) a normative definition in Christian tradition. Certainly from the scriptural landscape there isn't much to go on. In the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) there is a sense of 'ritual impurity' and the 'breach of laws and regulations.' There isn't a clear cut Hebrew understanding of sin. There most definitely isn't a "definition." It is much the same in the Greek Christian canon (New Testament). There are various notions of 'falling short,' 'wickedness,' 'missing the mark' etc, but there is no hard and fast NT definition of sin or sinfulness.

Sin as we know it is a theological/moral development of the Early-to-High Middle Ages and the Scholastic Fathers. When it comes to our inherited Western (or Roman) Catholic concepts of sin we are really talking about the Thomist-Catholic (after St. Thomas Aquinas) thinking and that of St. Anselm (with the development of the Doctrine of Atonement).

Since we have no Credal or Doctrinal clarification or "definition" of sin then, to speak of a "redefinition" is meaningless. We simply cannot redefine the undefined. Like all Christian revelation it is locked into the stream of historical development and is revealed over time in the life of the Christian community - the Church. By Church here we can only mean the community of all the baptised - Ekklesia - and so when it speaks and gives its consensus we are hearing the word of the Spirit who is alive the the opinion and life of the Church. So when the majority of Irish Christians voted in favour of same-sex marriage the Christian theologian must consider at least that this is the voice of God - the will of the Church (which is the Body of Christ).

In a word: Let's not be getting tangled up in definitions which do not exist.

homer911

UrFhasaidh wrote: »

So when the majority of Irish Cchristians voted in favour of same-sex marriage

Fixed that typo for you..

UrFhasaidh

Homer - You will find that the vast majority of the electorate who voted overwhelmingly in favour of same-sex marriage were baptised Christians. It doesn't help to attempt to deny people of their right to the faith. If I have picked you up wrong, then do please explain what you mean.

homer911

UrFhasaidh wrote: »

Homer - You will find that the vast majority of the electorate who voted overwhelmingly in favour of same-sex marriage were baptised Christians. It doesn't help to attempt to deny people of their right to the faith. If I have picked you up wrong, then do please explain what you mean.

Hi UrFhasaidh, welcome to the Christianity forum

Nobody is denying anyone their right to anything

Last time I checked, having someone sprinkle water over you as an infant does not make you a Christian, neither does darkening the steps of a church for the occasional wedding, baptism or funeral. They may culturally identify as christian, but that doesn't make them Christians

UrFhasaidh

Perhaps that is how your 'reformed' understanding of Christianity works. If you don't mind terribly much I will stick to the two millennia old version where "We believe in one baptism for the remission of sins," and where in our Lord we are saved by water and the Spirit.

aaakev

UrFhasaidh wrote: »

Perhaps that is how your 'reformed' understanding of Christianity works. If you don't mind terribly much I will stick to the two millennia old version where "We believe in one baptism for the remission of sins," and where in our Lord we are saved by water and the Spirit.

No one gave me a choice whether i wanted to be catholic, just like thousands of others when i was able to think for myself i was quick to dismiss this forced "fath". I was 11 or 12 when i figured it out

I think people's time would be better spent worrying about their own sins than the "sins" of others

UrFhasaidh

aaakev wrote: »

No one gave me a choice...

This isn't good reasoning at all. Your Creator didn't give you a choice in your creation. Your thoughts were not sought when God entered into humanity in the person of Jesus of Nazareth as the Incarnation of God. The Lord himself did not seek your opinion when he, in an act of divine solidarity with humanity, laid down his life and rose again. Your consent was not asked for when Christ established the Church as the vehicle through which the "faith" - as opposed to your "fath [sic]" - would be transmitted through the proclamation of the Gospel and the continuation of the Sacraments. How very dare God, the Creator of all things, be so autocratic. Must we vote him down at the next AGM?

Salvation is so important to God that the last thing that is required is your 'opinion' or your 'choice.' We really ought to be grateful about that.

aaakev

Did he tell you all that himself?

UrFhasaidh

No. That was just an observation of the facts. Free of charge to you guys.

aaakev

UrFhasaidh wrote: »

No. That was just an observation of the facts. Free of charge to you guys.

You may want to check the definition of fact.....

UrFhasaidh

I really am playing chess with the chimps here aren't I? God has said as much to me about all of this as he has said to you - nothing. That I shall take as the fact. I shall also safely assume that God did not ask for your opinion or require your consent. This being the foundation of my argument, I will continue to refute your reasoning that since no one gave you a choice, your baptism into the Christian faith was somehow invalid. Not even Fr. Luther in all his wisdom denied such a transmission of the faith.

hinault

UrFhasaidh wrote: »

This isn't good reasoning at all. Your Creator didn't give you a choice in your creation. Your thoughts were not sought when God entered into humanity in the person of Jesus of Nazareth as the Incarnation of God. The Lord himself did not seek your opinion when he, in an act of divine solidarity with humanity, laid down his life and rose again. Your consent was not asked for when Christ established the Church as the vehicle through which the "faith" - as opposed to your "fath [sic]" - would be transmitted through the proclamation of the Gospel and the continuation of the Sacraments. How very dare God, the Creator of all things, be so autocratic. Must we vote him down at the next AGM?

Salvation is so important to God that the last thing that is required is your 'opinion' or your 'choice.' We really ought to be grateful about that.

"God didn't choose me because I'm good, He chose me because He is good"

UrFhasaidh

I said nothing about God choosing you. Stop quoting cheap ten cent Jesus-enthusiasm, and read what I wrote hinault! I had written about God not giving us a choice in creation. Did you just see a trigger word, open your mouth and let something you vaguely understand roll out?

hinault

UrFhasaidh wrote: »

I said nothing about God choosing you. Stop quoting cheap ten cent Jesus-enthusiasm, and read what I wrote hinault! I had written about God not giving us a choice in creation. Did you just see a trigger word, open your mouth and let something you vaguely understand roll out?

I couldn't care less what you said.

I won't be replying further to you on this thread.

UrFhasaidh

...and that is precisely your problem. Ignorance is the key to your so-called faith. You are an embarrassment to the Christian faith and a blister on the Body of Christ.

Mark Tapley

noelfitz wrote: »

Carlowbruiser,
thank you for initiating the debate here. Not all who reply agree with you, but all the views are respectful and courteous, and many fundamental points are raised.

You say sins such as not-recycling are new. My favourite example of a new sin is smoking where it is not allowed. But sin is used in these circumstances as anti-social behaviour. You talk about 'isms' sometimes being sinful, this is not new. Also the condemnation of 'sins of the flesh' has not been abolished, and I do not think Church fundamental teaching has changed. Catholics have two of the 10 commandments against these (6th and 9th), other religion have one. I learned in school that sex outside marriage is wrong, Catholic teaching has not altered this. But I think of the Pope's words "who am I to judge". Finally Opus Dei holds to Church teaching.

So once again, thanks to all who contribute here. Honest and sincere debates are healthy.

Is being patronising one of the the new sins?
Thou shalt only smoke in the designated area. Who exactly are these people who believe such rubbish?

homer911

UrFhasaidh wrote: »

...and that is precisely your problem. Ignorance is the key to your so-called faith. You are an embarrassment to the Christian faith and a blister on the Body of Christ.

Wow, what a fantastic witness to the Christian faith :rolleyes:

Attitude adjustment needed..

Delirium

UrFhasaidh wrote: »

I really am playing chess with the chimps here aren't I? God has said as much to me about all of this as he has said to you - nothing. That I shall take as the fact. I shall also safely assume that God did not ask for your opinion or require your consent. This being the foundation of my argument, I will continue to refute your reasoning that since no one gave you a choice, your baptism into the Christian faith was somehow invalid. Not even Fr. Luther in all his wisdom denied such a transmission of the faith.

UrFhasaidh wrote: »

...and that is precisely your problem. Ignorance is the key to your so-called faith. You are an embarrassment to the Christian faith and a blister on the Body of Christ.

MOD NOTE

Less of the antagonistic / personal comments please.

Try to remember to "attack the post, not the poster".

Thanks for your attention.

aaakev

UrFhasaidh wrote: »

God has said as much to me about all of this as he has said to you - nothing. That I shall take as the fact. I shall also safely assume that God did not ask for your opinion or require your consent. This being the foundation of my argument, I will continue to refute your reasoning that since no one gave you a choice, your baptism into the Christian faith was somehow invalid. Not even Fr. Luther in all his wisdom denied such a transmission of the faith.

At least we agree on something.... but im still confused as to how you claim to know so much about a mythical being you have never spoken to?

When i said no one gave me a choice i was referring to my parents, not a god. I consider my baptism invalid, i neither asked for it or accept it and when asked i am atheist.

Peregrinus

aaakev wrote: »

At least we agree on something.... but im still confused as to how you claim to know so much about a mythical being you have never spoken to?

When i said no one gave me a choice i was referring to my parents, not a god. I consider my baptism invalid, i neither asked for it or accept it and when asked i am atheist.

Presumably you're an atheist even when you're not asked. But if you entered a thread on how the understanding of sin varies over the generations purely to let us know that you don't believe in God and consider him mythical, you plainly haven't read the Christianity Forum Charter.

And you a Mod! You should know better!:D

Delirium

aaakev wrote: »

At least we agree on something.... but im still confused as to how you claim to know so much about a mythical being you have never spoken to?

When i said no one gave me a choice i was referring to my parents, not a god. I consider my baptism invalid, i neither asked for it or accept it and when asked i am atheist.

MOD NOTE

If you wish to discuss the existence of God, please use the Atheism/ Existence of God superthread.

Outside of that thread, God is accepted as existing as stated in the charter (vis-a-vis the Apostles Creed).

Please bear this in mind in any future postings.

Thanks for your attention.

aaakev

Peregrinus wrote: »

Presumably you're an atheist even when you're not asked. But if you entered a thread on how the understanding of sin varies over the generations purely to let us know that you don't believe in God and consider him mythical, you plainly haven't read the Christianity Forum Charter.

And you a Mod! You should know better!:D

I entered into thinthread to say what i said in my first post. May have got side tracked with another poster along the way but it's all relevant. Im giving my opinion in a discussion, that is after all what we are here for

aaakev wrote: »

I think people's time would be better spent worrying about their own sins than the "sins" of others

JohnBee

I don't think anything is different, wearing clothing of mixed fabric is as much a sin today as it was 2000 years ago.