To me, speaking as a non-Christian, the thing that's bad about sin and sinning is that your actions, however convenient or even well-intentioned they are, have a detrimental effect, however removed and however indirect, on someone, something, someplace, else.
In Buddhist spirituality as I understand it our fundamental problem is that our desires continually create for us more dissatisfaction while desiring than the satisfaction we get from their fulfilment. To desire is to be out of fit with reality as it is.
I think the concept of sin is not disanalogous to the Buddhist concept of desire: there is an element of personal spiritual displacement in it that is missing from a non-spiritual concept of morality as the ruleswe obey to restrain the detrimental effects our actions might otherwise have on each other. It is true that Christianity prefers to see fundamental reality as a sentient being(*) who enforces laws but that isn't the whole of Christian spirituality.
(*) I'd say metaphorically, but that's not quite right, as metaphorically suggests that there is a literal way of expressing the same thing that is clearer if less deep; and Christian theology doesn't think that there's any more literally accurate way of taking about God.
If I've understood you, you're making a connection between Christian sinning and Buddhist desiring. But surely not all forms of desire are sinful. I desire to finish my novel. I desire to know more about the universe. A Christian, and indeed a Buddhist, desires a closer relationship with the Divine/Enlightenment. Plus an obvious issue is that if all forms of desire are bad because to desire something is to be out of kilter with your present reality then even wishing to sit in a cave to get out of the rain is bad, let alone making a fire to dry your clothes. Even the least intelligent of animals desires to eat, to procreate, and not be eaten.
It may be that Desire in a Buddhist sense means something different from the word as commonly used--perhaps closer to greed or acquisitiveness--but wishing to alter our current reality is the driver for everything humanity has created.
Buddhists AIUI believe all reality is illusory and so all desire that is based on taking the object of the desire to be real is spiritually anti-constructive. That's one of the differences between Christian spirituality and the Indian spiritual traditions. Christianity believes things actually exist, in God. (Jewish and Islamic spirituality I believe it depends on the tradition.) So Christian spirituality does allow for desire as such, while Buddhism on the surface does not. (I am now rapidly approaching the limits of my knowledge.)
In Christian psychology all desire is ultimately for goodness, truth, beauty, (which three are in fact a desire for God) or for the aggrandisement of the person's ego (the latter traditionally broken down under seven subheadings). The former are spiritually constructive; the latter not.
tl;dr
I think what I'm arguing is that sin is better seen in a framework of what is spiritually destructive than in a framework of what is morally worthy of condemnation (the latter being a subset of the former). That Christianity generally thinks the best way to conceptualise God is as a person or ruler tends to push towards the latter understanding, but that's not inevitable.
Buddhists AIUI believe all reality is illusory and so all desire that is based on taking the object of the desire to be real is spiritually anti-constructive. That's one of the differences between Christian spirituality and the Indian spiritual traditions. Christianity believes things actually exist, in God. (Jewish and Islamic spirituality I believe it depends on the tradition.) So Christian spirituality does allow for desire as such, while Buddhism on the surface does not. (I am now rapidly approaching the limits of my knowledge.)
In Christian psychology all desire is ultimately for goodness, truth, beauty, (which three are in fact a desire for God) or for the aggrandisement of the person's ego (the latter traditionally broken down under seven subheadings). The former are spiritually constructive; the latter not.
tl;dr
I think what I'm arguing is that sin is better seen in a framework of what is spiritually destructive than in a framework of what is morally worthy of condemnation (the latter being a subset of the former). That Christianity generally thinks the best way to conceptualise God is as a person or ruler tends to push towards the latter understanding, but that's not inevitable.
It appears to me that believing reality is illusory is a luxury which depends on others treating reality as real and trying to improve it. Otherwise we really are all sitting in the rain trying to pretend we're not wet.
As for your seven traditional subheadings, I assume you mean the seven deadly sins. But surely it is excess of desire, not desire itself that is the sin. Eating when hungry is not the same as gluttony. Desiring rest after labour is not slothfulness. And so on. Even monks must eat and take rest.
Spirituality which is at odds with physical needs is counter-productive to the well-being of body and soul.
I'd go with Alan on this, providing that the climate change theme was introduced in a way which made a conscious link to Christianity, penitence and Lent. I know that the person who posted the OP felt that it was inappropriate; presumably that was because they were expecting something to do with personal spirituality - which isn't what they got. There is, I think, some benefit in occasionally given the "unexpected" if it makes one think!
Christ said "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees" who were hypocritical revisionists, & in the original of Matt.23.3, "to do all he [Mose] tells you, but not what they do, for they do not practice what they preach [i.e. his Torah]." Their modern equivalent are scientific religionists, viz. enviro-mentalists. If CO2 were a greenhouse gas, then they'd boycott flying on jets as the exhaust at cruising altitude is where it does the most damage. However, that isn't according to the original definition of 1W/sq.metre of reflectivity as set by physicists, who were displaced by said latter-day Pharisees so as to get funding for their pet research projects by redefining it 10x less. They thereby now place burdens on others via such false witness, even lying by omission: e.g. that [underwater] volcanos' CO2 emissions vastly drown out man's; that there isn't a runaway greenhouse effect on Mars, & that it's the pressure-cooker effect that explains Venus in perfect compliance w/the ideal gas law - the modern equivalent to one of Mose's laws. And during his prescribed Feast of Un*yeasted* Bread, we're also to giveup not only beer, but kombucha too! There's your link to Lent, esp. if you want to do penance for the yeast infection of our Scripture, so as to require " real" Christians to do what its Pharisees tell them.
I'd go with Alan on this, providing that the climate change theme was introduced in a way which made a conscious link to Christianity, penitence and Lent. I know that the person who posted the OP felt that it was inappropriate; presumably that was because they were expecting something to do with personal spirituality - which isn't what they got. There is, I think, some benefit in occasionally given the "unexpected" if it makes one think!
Christ said "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees" who were hypocritical revisionists, & in the original of Matt.23.3, "to do all he [Mose] tells you, but not what they do, for they do not practice what they preach [i.e. his Torah]." Their modern equivalent are scientific religionists, viz. enviro-mentalists. If CO2 were a greenhouse gas, then they'd boycott flying on jets as the exhaust at cruising altitude is where it does the most damage. However, that isn't according to the original definition of 1W/sq.metre of reflectivity as set by physicists, who were displaced by said latter-day Pharisees so as to get funding for their pet research projects by redefining it 10x less. They thereby now place burdens on others via such false witness, even lying by omission: e.g. that [underwater] volcanos' CO2 emissions vastly drown out man's; that there isn't a runaway greenhouse effect on Mars, & that it's the pressure-cooker effect that explains Venus in perfect compliance w/the ideal gas law - the modern equivalent to one of Mose's laws. And during his prescribed Feast of Un*yeasted* Bread, we're also to giveup not only beer, but kombucha too! There's your link to Lent, esp. if you want to do penance for the yeast infection of our Scripture, so as to require " real" Christians to do what its Pharisees tell them.
I'm afraid I'm not following you.
If CO2 were a greenhouse gas, then they'd boycott flying on jets as the exhaust at cruising altitude is where it does the most damage.
There's no 'if'. CO2 is a greenhouse gas - it absorbs infrared, slowing the movement of energy from the surface of the earth to outer space. This is an effect that occurs through the whole depth of the atmosphere. And, reducing air travel is an essential part of cutting our carbon emissions.
the original definition of 1W/sq.metre of reflectivity as set by physicists, who were displaced by said latter-day Pharisees so as to get funding for their pet research projects by redefining it 10x less
What reflectivity are you referring to? The obvious one in this context is the amount of solar energy reflected into space, the albedo. The sun delivers an average of 340W/m2 to the Earth's surface (this varies with latitude, more at the equator than poles, and also of course with time of day), approximately 100W/m2 is reflected back into space.
that [underwater] volcanos' CO2 emissions vastly drown out man's
Where do you get your figures? A recent paper (pdf) gives an annual volcanic CO2 emission from all sources of 51 ± 6 million tonnes. Energy related carbon emissions have flattened at about 33 billion tonnes per year - emissions from deforestation, cement production and other human sources will be on top of that. Your statement needs to be the other way around, human emissions vastly drown out volcanic sources by a factor of something around 1000.
Both aspects of sin are important - sin damages your relationship with others by causing them harm, and your relationship with God as it offends Him (because, at least in part, it harms others). There may be some things which offend God but cause no harm to others, which fall into the realm of "none of my business" - especially if I'm the preacher.
Don't get the last bit. If there are things that offend God (above and beyond things that we can know from natural reason are morally wrong) then it is for God's ministers who claim to preach God's word to say so. Because how will we know otherwise ?
I'm not sure I can think of anything that would offend God that cause no harm to others, so it was a hypothetical throw away line. But, if there was an example then (by definition) it would be something deeply personal between the individual and God - there would be scope there for a pastor to provide one to one counselling, but it would be deeply inappropriate for that to form part of a sermon preached to the whole congregation.
Also theoretically there could be things which harm others but which God is cool with ... and, I definitely can't think of anything in that category.
Both aspects of sin are important - sin damages your relationship with others by causing them harm, and your relationship with God as it offends Him (because, at least in part, it harms others). There may be some things which offend God but cause no harm to others, which fall into the realm of "none of my business" - especially if I'm the preacher.
Don't get the last bit. If there are things that offend God (above and beyond things that we can know from natural reason are morally wrong) then it is for God's ministers who claim to preach God's word to say so. Because how will we know otherwise ?
Surely the Holy Spirit is able to convict the heart of sin?
Both aspects of sin are important - sin damages your relationship with others by causing them harm, and your relationship with God as it offends Him (because, at least in part, it harms others). There may be some things which offend God but cause no harm to others, which fall into the realm of "none of my business" - especially if I'm the preacher.
Don't get the last bit. If there are things that offend God (above and beyond things that we can know from natural reason are morally wrong) then it is for God's ministers who claim to preach God's word to say so. Because how will we know otherwise ?
Surely the Holy Spirit is able to convict the heart of sin?
The Holy Spirit seems to communicate a remarkable variety of messages to different people. Possibly because people's own inner voices are adopting its guise.
Both aspects of sin are important - sin damages your relationship with others by causing them harm, and your relationship with God as it offends Him (because, at least in part, it harms others). There may be some things which offend God but cause no harm to others, which fall into the realm of "none of my business" - especially if I'm the preacher.
Don't get the last bit. If there are things that offend God (above and beyond things that we can know from natural reason are morally wrong) then it is for God's ministers who claim to preach God's word to say so. Because how will we know otherwise ?
Surely the Holy Spirit is able to convict the heart of sin?
Not sure there's any sound basis for deciding what God is or is not able to do.
But maybe we can observe that when someone shows signs of repenting of wrongdoing, that repentance has been triggered by something. Whether that's a sermon, or words read or spoken by another Christian, or just an experience that suggests a different perspective.
Implying that the Spirit works with what we do rather than being a sufficient cause.
I'm not sure I can think of anything that would offend God that cause no harm to others, so it was a hypothetical throw away line. But, if there was an example then (by definition) it would be something deeply personal between the individual and God - there would be scope there for a pastor to provide one to one counselling, but it would be deeply inappropriate for that to form part of a sermon preached to the whole congregation
Again, I don't see the logic. If God is offended by killing beetles, or by eating a calf cooked in its mothers milk, or by lovemaking other than the missionary position, why is that too personal for a sermon ?
I tend to identify God with goodness personified, and therefore suspect, as I think you do, that the category we're talking about is an empty set. That God has no accidental likes or dislikes.
But I'm still baffled as to where you're coming from on this one.
Simple. It's not the place of a preacher to pull out a single member of the congregation for some perceived sin that's not harming anyone else. It's probably not the place of a preacher to single out any member of a congregation, given that the sermon should be for the whole congregation (even if in practice there may be some who it's not as relevant to).
Alan, your final sentence acknowledges that there are two separate issues in the preceding sentence. One issue is about singling out individuals vs saying something relevant to the whole congregation, and I'm not disagreeing on that.
The other issue is about whether the preacher substitutes a do-no-harm ethic for the word of God.
It sounds like you have a particular Dead Horse in the back of your mind, and are casting around for reasons other than the content of such a belief to rule out preaching against it.
Whereas it seems obvious to me that if you truly serve a God who is offended by people killing beetles then you preach against the killing of beetles.
Whilst not wanting to discuss that or any other Dead Horse...
Comments
If I've understood you, you're making a connection between Christian sinning and Buddhist desiring. But surely not all forms of desire are sinful. I desire to finish my novel. I desire to know more about the universe. A Christian, and indeed a Buddhist, desires a closer relationship with the Divine/Enlightenment. Plus an obvious issue is that if all forms of desire are bad because to desire something is to be out of kilter with your present reality then even wishing to sit in a cave to get out of the rain is bad, let alone making a fire to dry your clothes. Even the least intelligent of animals desires to eat, to procreate, and not be eaten.
It may be that Desire in a Buddhist sense means something different from the word as commonly used--perhaps closer to greed or acquisitiveness--but wishing to alter our current reality is the driver for everything humanity has created.
In Christian psychology all desire is ultimately for goodness, truth, beauty, (which three are in fact a desire for God) or for the aggrandisement of the person's ego (the latter traditionally broken down under seven subheadings). The former are spiritually constructive; the latter not.
tl;dr
I think what I'm arguing is that sin is better seen in a framework of what is spiritually destructive than in a framework of what is morally worthy of condemnation (the latter being a subset of the former). That Christianity generally thinks the best way to conceptualise God is as a person or ruler tends to push towards the latter understanding, but that's not inevitable.
It appears to me that believing reality is illusory is a luxury which depends on others treating reality as real and trying to improve it. Otherwise we really are all sitting in the rain trying to pretend we're not wet.
As for your seven traditional subheadings, I assume you mean the seven deadly sins. But surely it is excess of desire, not desire itself that is the sin. Eating when hungry is not the same as gluttony. Desiring rest after labour is not slothfulness. And so on. Even monks must eat and take rest.
Spirituality which is at odds with physical needs is counter-productive to the well-being of body and soul.
Christ said "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees" who were hypocritical revisionists, & in the original of Matt.23.3, "to do all he [Mose] tells you, but not what they do, for they do not practice what they preach [i.e. his Torah]." Their modern equivalent are scientific religionists, viz. enviro-mentalists. If CO2 were a greenhouse gas, then they'd boycott flying on jets as the exhaust at cruising altitude is where it does the most damage. However, that isn't according to the original definition of 1W/sq.metre of reflectivity as set by physicists, who were displaced by said latter-day Pharisees so as to get funding for their pet research projects by redefining it 10x less. They thereby now place burdens on others via such false witness, even lying by omission: e.g. that [underwater] volcanos' CO2 emissions vastly drown out man's; that there isn't a runaway greenhouse effect on Mars, & that it's the pressure-cooker effect that explains Venus in perfect compliance w/the ideal gas law - the modern equivalent to one of Mose's laws. And during his prescribed Feast of Un*yeasted* Bread, we're also to giveup not only beer, but kombucha too! There's your link to Lent, esp. if you want to do penance for the yeast infection of our Scripture, so as to require " real" Christians to do what its Pharisees tell them.
There's no 'if'. CO2 is a greenhouse gas - it absorbs infrared, slowing the movement of energy from the surface of the earth to outer space. This is an effect that occurs through the whole depth of the atmosphere. And, reducing air travel is an essential part of cutting our carbon emissions.
What reflectivity are you referring to? The obvious one in this context is the amount of solar energy reflected into space, the albedo. The sun delivers an average of 340W/m2 to the Earth's surface (this varies with latitude, more at the equator than poles, and also of course with time of day), approximately 100W/m2 is reflected back into space.
Where do you get your figures? A recent paper (pdf) gives an annual volcanic CO2 emission from all sources of 51 ± 6 million tonnes. Energy related carbon emissions have flattened at about 33 billion tonnes per year - emissions from deforestation, cement production and other human sources will be on top of that. Your statement needs to be the other way around, human emissions vastly drown out volcanic sources by a factor of something around 1000.
Don't get the last bit. If there are things that offend God (above and beyond things that we can know from natural reason are morally wrong) then it is for God's ministers who claim to preach God's word to say so. Because how will we know otherwise ?
Also theoretically there could be things which harm others but which God is cool with ... and, I definitely can't think of anything in that category.
Surely the Holy Spirit is able to convict the heart of sin?
The Holy Spirit seems to communicate a remarkable variety of messages to different people. Possibly because people's own inner voices are adopting its guise.
Not sure there's any sound basis for deciding what God is or is not able to do.
But maybe we can observe that when someone shows signs of repenting of wrongdoing, that repentance has been triggered by something. Whether that's a sermon, or words read or spoken by another Christian, or just an experience that suggests a different perspective.
Implying that the Spirit works with what we do rather than being a sufficient cause.
Again, I don't see the logic. If God is offended by killing beetles, or by eating a calf cooked in its mothers milk, or by lovemaking other than the missionary position, why is that too personal for a sermon ?
I tend to identify God with goodness personified, and therefore suspect, as I think you do, that the category we're talking about is an empty set. That God has no accidental likes or dislikes.
But I'm still baffled as to where you're coming from on this one.
The other issue is about whether the preacher substitutes a do-no-harm ethic for the word of God.
It sounds like you have a particular Dead Horse in the back of your mind, and are casting around for reasons other than the content of such a belief to rule out preaching against it.
Whereas it seems obvious to me that if you truly serve a God who is offended by people killing beetles then you preach against the killing of beetles.
Whilst not wanting to discuss that or any other Dead Horse...