Coming Clean

12/11/2005

What’s really the problem with Sin?

Filed under: Theology — AnotherCoward @ 11:24 pm

Alright, I think I’ve beaten the differences between Original Sin and Total Depravity to death. If there are still more questions or clarifications, I’d love an opportunity to answer them.

Next thing I’ve been thinking about lately is sin in the more general sense. What is sin and why is it such a problem?

At first blush, this is a pretty stupid question - sin is what God doesn’t want you to do, and so He’s gonna beat you senseless if you do it. But I think that’s more of a human (the fallen variety) way of seeing sin - it certainly sums up my fist inclinations in being a father of a 3 year old. God seems like a pretty big guy … so much so that it doesn’t make a lot of sense that He would truly be offended by the stupid things I do - He did, after all, create me and allow me to get into the position to sin … what, then, can really be so bad about it?

And so, we’re brought back to one of Christ’s simplest and yet perhaps most profound teachings: the Law is summed up in two commandments. The first is to love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. The second is like the first: love your neighbor as yourself.

The root of the Law, these two commandments, are rooted in love. And, in case you missed it, being rooted in love means that obedience and thus sin has everything to do with relationship and not so much about doing as you’re told.

So, that’s what I’ve been thinking about … and what I’ll probably be blogging more about for a while. I hope it interests you, oh silent readership.

11 Comments »

Only as silent as you are… (and as silent as my server is/was…)

I should probably bite the bullet and just ask Geof for a slice…

–Jason

Comment by Jason — 12/12/2005 @ 11:52 pm
My slices come cheap. Giving your money to a Methodist is probably only a venial sin anyway.

Comment by Geof F. Morris — 12/13/2005 @ 1:42 pm
ahh… but will you tithe off of it… giving to a Methodist might not be a sin at all… however, if he’ll give it to the Methodist church…

Comment by Jason — 12/14/2005 @ 5:42 pm
Yes, I tithe.

But hey … we have apostolic succession!

Comment by Geof F. Morris — 12/15/2005 @ 2:23 pm
??

I thought Wesley was only a Priest in the Church of England.

Comment by AC — 12/15/2005 @ 4:55 pm
I’ll let Wikipedia elaborate. I don’t expect you two to agree.

Comment by Geof F. Morris — 12/16/2005 @ 1:01 pm
Huh. I went and did more reading in Wikipedia, and I found that the Council on Bishops says we don’t have it. Funny, because I’ve read many—Greg Neal chief among them—who argue that we do. But yes, Wesley was never a bishop, so if your argument is that you have to pass it through the bishops, I won’t argue the point.

Now I have a new entry for today!

Comment by Geof F. Morris — 12/16/2005 @ 1:14 pm
Methodist Apostolic Succession

I was joking with Jason and Spencer about Jason wondering if it was a sin for him to host his Weblog on [rocksmyfaceoff.net]; I joked that it would only be a venial sin to give me money. [And actually, while I do tithe, I don’t consider the .ne…

Trackback by Imperfect Mirror — 12/16/2005 @ 1:24 pm
Yeah, only bishops are allowed to confer any of the 3 levels of ‘Holy Orders’ (deacon, priest, bishop), and traditionally, only the Pope (the bishop of Rome) does the later, though I believe 3 bishops can ordain a new one… hrm…[1] But Spencer is right, if Wesley was only a Catholic priest, he can not legitimatly name new priests or bishops (or even deacons).

[1] this one is fuzzy… I know 3 bishops showed up for the instalation of ArchBishop Gregory in Atlanta almost a year ago…

Comment by Jason — 12/16/2005 @ 7:33 pm
I believe canon law is written such that you’ve got to have an undeniable reason for ordaining a bishop without 3 bishops present. And then, you should use 2 bishops; only exception being that you’ve got an undeniable reason for not having 2 bishops; and then you have to have one bishop. And if you don’t have one bishop … then NO NEW BISHOP FOR YOU!!

Comment by AnotherCoward — 12/17/2005 @ 1:23 am
Well, if you read through all the muck I proposed, you’d see that there’s a way that the church has already decided that a break is okay, in contravention of canon law.

But maybe Wesley should have just come back in one year.

Comment by Geof F. Morris — 12/17/2005 @ 5:02 pm