How can we get rid of our sinfulness?

[m_levesque]

It's far from clear to me what sin means, but I can tell you this with certainty: I have done my best all my life to be a good and decent man and to live a good and decent life, and the evidence strongly suggests I've made a pretty good job of it so far. And I've managed that without any belief in any god. I will never concede that I am a sinner in the sense you appear to mean. I don't share your beliefs, and probably never will, as you know, and frankly I resent being told I'm a sinner. I am not, in any way that makes sense to me.

1)Christ died to save all - Sacred Scripture tells us that. We also have free will; the ability to choose or reject God. Christ died to save us, but we don't have to accept his salvation; we can reject it (that is ultimately what sin is). Salvation is not automatic; it must be applied. If salvation were automatic, it would either over-ride free will, or become an oxymoron - it would have no meaning, because it was forced on us; but if it is forced on one who doesn't want it, it denies free will.

2) The concept of the "book of life" is another way of speaking of God's infinite and all encompassing knowledge. Because we are in time - everything we do is done in time - we think in terms of time. However, with God there is no time; all is simply present. If God were in time, then God would change, because time is a measure of change. But God is not changeable; God simply "is".

Therefore, all past, present and future simply is, to God; there is no before or after. Thus, it can be said that God knew from all time who would be saved; but that knowledge is different than ours, as we work our knowledge out minute by day by lifetime. Speaking of the book of life makes it seem that it has already occured (He knows the answer), but that implies that He is waiting for the play of life to play itself out. But He isn't, because there is not time with God.

God is not outside of time waiting for it to finish; God is simply outside of time. We still have free will; we can still accept or reject God; we won't know the results until we are all done and judged, but we make choices all along the way.

 

[m_levesque]

I resent it too! Though even in resenting it, I know I am a sinner. Sin, in the classic defintion is anything that causes harm and removes us from unity with God. In a practical, modern interpretation, the classic defintion still works, but is enhanced with the ideology that through sinful behaviour we bring harm to ourselves and to others.

It seems to me a way of understanding the nature of original sin and its impact on every individual is to think of a child being born into a world where the dices are simply loaded against all efforts to live virtuously.

The church community in its ideal form would be a protective milieu...into which we are baptised. The extent to which we all fail to live lives of holiness is in part due to the ongoing effects of original sin and the failure of the church community to guard us from the sin of the world.

 

[m_levesque]

Or, if you look at it another way, the emphasis of the faith is to purify self, to be the Good Samaritan if you will. To do so, we must free ourselves from those things which hinder us progressing both spiritually and emotionally, sin being a chief factor of that.

The Question and Answer booklet on Catholic Catechism by Fr. M. Guzman (Imprimatur: Jaime Cardinal L. Sin - Archbishop of Manila) has this item:

Art 129:
Q. On what will the living and the dead be judged?
A. The living and the dead will be judged on the moral good and evil that they have done, including the chain of consequences of their actions, even long after the actions were done, up to the end of time.

I am uncomfortable with the phrase "up to the end of time". The cross references in The Catholic Catechism are articles 1039 and 1059 but they do not mention "up to the end of time".

I can accept that I am liable for the direct consequence of my sin but if someone else comits an evil as a result of my sin, surely I cannot be liable for it? If the resulting evil is amplified will my sin be greater?

 

[sanctus]

Dear Sanctus

And finally is "perfection" the goal or should it be rather "acceptance of self" for some "sins" may never change.

Is perfection a goal? I think not. We have to presuppose that we are never going to be perfect..that is only reserved for God!. What we can hope for is acceptance AND change of self. The only reason sins may not change is because, in reality, we do not wish to change them. Sin, by defintion, is not only something that seperates us from God, but also seperates us from other people. For what is a sin if not the cuasing of pain to ourseleves or to other people?

 

[sanctus]

The church community in its ideal form would be a protective milieu...into which we are baptised. The extent to which we all fail to live lives of holiness is in part due to the ongoing effects of original sin and the failure of the church community to guard us from the sin of the world.

The Church, as holder of the faith and dispenser of God's Sacraments, is the normative way to achieve true sense of self and holiness.

 

[sanctus]

Dear Sanctus

The question: How can we get rid of our sinfulness?

What I read here is that attending religious services or allowing faith into our lives will show us the way?

Is that the only method we can define what our "sins" are - those outlined by a religious organization?

What about the gut inner voices we all have knowing we haved crossed the line - simply because we are flawed creatures and the message isn't inspired by religious doctrine or teaching whatsoever?
.

The inner voices are fine if we are strong in our faith, but even those strong in the faith must receive the Sacraments. The problem with us as people, in gneral, is that we seek too often to accomodate ourselves to our selves. In other words, we seek that which pleases us. But pleasing our inner selves is not always a good thing, for often what pleases our selves causes pain to ourselves and to others.

 

[sanctus]

Is that the only method we can define what our "sins" are - those outlined by a religious organization?

What about the gut inner voices we all have knowing we haved crossed the line - simply because we are flawed creatures and the message isn't inspired by religious doctrine or teaching whatsoever?

And "sin" to some is "not sin" to others.
.

I must, in answer to these points, refer you to the cathechism, which best explains what I would want to share with you:

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55


1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.


1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

 

[sanctus]

hey thats some good questions curiosity. that is kind of what i have been saying,t hat some people just seem bad no matter what and never change, even if they say they are trying. i keep using hitler as my example, but the poiint is it could be anyone. and my other question i just thought-who says it is a sin --the churches? what exactly would be a sin to you might not be one to me..right?

Sin is anything that causes pain to ouselves or to others, and seperates us from the presence of God. There are not variations of sin, as much as we would like to think otherwise.

 

[sanctus]

And "sin" to some is "not sin" to others.
.

An interesting statement. I wonder how true it is, really? Can you perhaps provide some examples where sin would not be sin? I ask, because maybe one of the worst qualities of contemporary society is this blending of everything into grey areas. We really do not like absolutes anymore! But where is the logic here? Is it right to steal for some, to kill, to cause emotional or physical pain to others? Are there really grey areas here? Would it really matter what we thought on these issues? And that goes to your other point about the Church. Maybe that is why we need Church, to remind us of something outside of ourselves, to connect us to God who clearly has strong black and white ideas on what is and is not a sin.

 

[Curiosity]

An interesting statement. I wonder how true it is, really? Can you perhaps provide some examples where sin would not be sin? I ask, because maybe one of the worst qualities of contemporary society is this blending of everything into grey areas. We really do not like absolutes anymore! But where is the logic here? Is it right to steal for some, to kill, to cause emotional or physical pain to others? Are there really grey areas here? Would it really matter what we thought on these issues? And that goes to your other point about the Church. Maybe that is why we need Church, to remind us of something outside of ourselves, to connect us to God who clearly has strong black and white ideas on what is and is not a sin.

Morning Sanctus - wow you wrote some powerful things today....

I'll just respond to the last one for now - most of your other answers are for reading and not for me to think of reply right now.

The one example of "sin" I can give and it has to be fabricated because I have no children... but...:

I would think nothing of stealing to feed and comfort a child of mine or even other loved ones if I were in such extreme poverty.

What I am trying to say is "sin" can be converted to "survival" or even "love" - therefore is it sin or something else?

Thank you for all your other responses - I'll take my time to read them. Curio

 

[sanctus]

Morning Sanctus - wow you wrote some powerful things today....

I'll just respond to the last one for now - most of your other answers are for reading and not for me to think of reply right now.

The one example of "sin" I can give and it has to be fabricated because I have no children... but...:

I would think nothing of stealing to feed and comfort a child of mine or even other eloved ones if I were in such extreme poverty.

What I am trying to say is "sin" can be converted to "survival" or even "love" - therefore is it sin or something else?

Thank you for all your other responses - I'll take my time to read them. Curio

Hmmm. A seemingly tough one, eh!? But still, do the ends justify the means? The eternal question. I would suggest that stealing is still a sin, regardless of the justification for doing so. Especially when there are so many other avenues for finding food if your children were starving, namely food banks, Churches, government agencies. Or if you are more comfortable with the word, replace sin with "wrong". It is wrong to steal because in doing so you hurt someone else, and yourself. What if the people you stole the food from equally was in need of that food? You would than be removing their only means to eat that day perhaps! Would that still make it right because you have a need? Or think of this one. What if I wanted sex, but could not bother finding a partner. Would it be ok for me to force myself upon a woman? We know society says NO, but what if I said I wanted to because I needed it! My point is, anything wrong can be justified, but is it ethical and/or moral to do so?

 

[Curiosity]

Sanctus - appreciate your quick response and your answer

You pointed out that society has allowed people alternatives and perhaps my example of poverty in extremis was inappropriate, that no child would ever have to reach that point... but some places in
our world such poverty is a reality.

Remember we are not far evolved from our animal instincts and when basic needs are unmet, we revert
to physicality rather than intellect and sin is invited because it no longer matters... and yes I repeat I
would steal to feed and worse, kill to survive. I hope I never have to make that decision, but even in 2006 some are having to choose those "sins".

Knowing is when needs are met - choosing to abstain is when needs are met - and if we are forced into a survival of self - would it not be a "sin" to choose death over survival for ourself and loved ones?

 

[china]

How can we get rid of our sinfulness?

We can,t ,Christ did it for us.

 

[sanctus]

How can we get rid of our sinfulness?

We can,t ,Christ did it for us.

Yes, but does that free us from being in a state of sinfulness?

 

[sanctus]

Sanctus - appreciate your quick response and your answer

Knowing is when needs are met - choosing to abstain is when needs are met - and if we are forced into a survival of self - would it not be a "sin" to choose death over survival for ourself and loved ones?

Even so, it is like that old adage "two wrongs do not make a right". In other words, regardless of what we use to justify our behaviour, if it is wrong, it is wrong. We may excuse that behaviour with all sorts of reasons, but in doing so we do not change a wrong into a right.

Another example, if you are married and your partner has refused to have sexual intercourse with you for some time, does that make it ok to have an affair?
I would hope you would agree with me that adultery would be wrong in this, as in any, situation.

We are discussing the actions, not the needs or the wants. Regardless of how we explain it away, what is wrong, a sin, is still indeed wrong(a sin).

 

[chound]

I was raised in a Christian home and and have made many attempts in my adult life to understand the faith, through Bible study groups and many discussions with clergy. I can't, however, get past the rhetoric to understand the basics, to grasp the concept of how Christ's death on the cross provides the opportunity for salvation. References to scripture don't help and I don't think I am the only one who would like it explained in plain English.

The complexities of the faith are what drive people to simpler forms of spirituality. And many of us have experienced the Christian threat since childhood: Repent or burn in hell. How can you force someone to believe based on consequences?

I gave up on going to church because it wasn't providing answers and it was a social club of intolerance. I still don't have answers, but at least I am removed from the environment of judgment to attempt to figure things out on my own.

 

[Curiosity]

Sanctus

Again you are talking in the here and now of modern and culturalized society of our western world.

Adultery is not an indicator of survival. That is a "no choice" kind of example.

I am talking about poverty of the body in extremis - of one's children and loved ones - starvation or death.

 

[m_levesque]

Even so, it is like that old adage "two wrongs do not make a right". In other words, regardless of what we use to justify our behaviour, if it is wrong, it is wrong. We may excuse that behaviour with all sorts of reasons, but in doing so we do not change a wrong into a right.

Another example, if you are married and your partner has refused to have sexual intercourse with you for some time, does that make it ok to have an affair?
I would hope you would agree with me that adultery would be wrong in this, as in any, situation.

We are discussing the actions, not the needs or the wants. Regardless of how we explain it away, what is wrong, a sin, is still indeed wrong(a sin).

. If something you see or hear is not something you would wish for God to hear in your presence, then let it not be heard. Impure thoughts are not so much a problem of mine as two other potentially sin-inspiring occasions: despair and anger. When I see violence and injustice, I despair and then become angry and feel helpless to do anything -- but I have to remember that the things shown on television are extremes. I have to remind myself constantly that they are mostly there for shock value to up ratings. For every evil unrighteous thing reported on the nightly news, there are hundreds of good things unreported. Still, it affects me, so I try not to watch at times, and not to dwell on it.
Avoid what leads you to sin. Listen to that guiding spirit within you and don't let anything make you feel isolated.

 

[m_levesque]

I was raised in a Christian home and and have made many attempts in my adult life to understand the faith, through Bible study groups and many discussions with clergy. I can't, however, get past the rhetoric to understand the basics, to grasp the concept of how Christ's death on the cross provides the opportunity for salvation. References to scripture don't help and I don't think I am the only one who would like it explained in plain English.

The complexities of the faith are what drive people to simpler forms of spirituality. And many of us have experienced the Christian threat since childhood: Repent or burn in hell. How can you force someone to believe based on consequences?

I gave up on going to church because it wasn't providing answers and it was a social club of intolerance. I still don't have answers, but at least I am removed from the environment of judgment to attempt to figure things out on my own.

Satan is doing a wonderful job poisoning the mind of children and adults.We need to be very careful with what we see and hear. Focus on things from above which is pure and holy.

 

[m_levesque]

Sanctus

Again you are talking in the here and now of modern and culturalized society of our western world.

Adultery is not an indicator of survival. That is a "no choice" kind of example.

I am talking about poverty of the body in extremis - of one's children and loved ones - starvation or death.

The Capital sins are:
Pride
Avarice
Envy
Wrath
Lust
Gluttony
Sloth

They are called "capital' because they engender other sins, and vices. CCC 1867

Rather than attempting to list sins, it is probably more useful to learn to recognize them from a principaled perspective. Ponder the principles. Begin by looking at the Catechism discussion of sin. § 1852 et. seq.

Also learn the Ten Commandments. Read the Catechism sections on them and consider how they serve as general principles from which practical details are extracted.

Also, learn the virtues and consider that their opposites are sin.

The variety of sins are more numerous than the catalogue of all the crimes of humanity.