Member (Idle past 804 days)
|Then tell me why it requires a real, physical event that affect other people in order for it to be a sin? What is that real, physical event?|
...I don't see where ICANT has ever made such a claim. I think you may be attacking a strawman.
ICANT does not claim that specific actions of any sort are sins - disobedience to God is a sin. Thus murder, theft, eating meat on Friday, or planting flowers in your yard can be sinful or not sinful depending on God's instruction.
The "unforgivable sin" of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit seems to be, in ICANT's view, ending your life denying God's existence and rejecting his offer of a full free pardon. Basically, allsins are pardonable and forgivable so long as you accept the gift of forgiveness.
Jesus instructed that even thinking lustfully about a woman is sinful because you disobey God's commandment against adultery in your heart. There's no physical act necessarily involved.
That about right, ICANT?
The idea that a sin must be a physical act that has a specifically detrimental effect on other people is not the Christian concept of sin. You're thinking about a very different, non-authoritarian, practicality-based system of ethics. The "love thy neighbor" and related commandments ensure that the two have a lot of overlap, but they aren't the same at all. Even the idea that God's commandments are intended to be what we would consider ethical (ie, reducing net harm to others, etc) is not Biblical.
The concept of sin is amorally authoritarian. It can resemble morality when the authority figure gives certain instructions (thou shalt not kill/steal/lie/etc), and can appear to be immoral when the authority figure gives other commands (kill all the firstborn). It's all about doing what God says, period. Disobedience to those commands is sin, whether that matches a reasonable system of ethics or not.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 136 by Phage0070, posted 07-24-2009 6:53 PM|| ||Phage0070 has responded|
Member (Idle past 1987 days)
Message 142 of 153 (518936)
08-09-2009 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Blue Jay
07-15-2009 7:45 AM
Re: Crouching Tiger ... Hidden Dragon
Thanks for the exchange Bluejay.
Apologies for the delay ...
Hope all is well for you.
In this way, the passages have, most often, been glossed over as though that is all there is to learn: offering the Father vegetables is a sin. It is at this point that one may consider in what way an offering towards the Father of vegetables, as opposed to livestock offerings, may be sinful ... if at all.
I don't think you quite said what about Cain's sacrifice you think was the sin. If you did, I missed it.
I didn't say there was anything sinful about Cain's offering (he made no sacrifice). The scripture text does not indicate that there was anything sinful about the vegetables either, which was more my point. It is simply expressed to the reader that the Father was 'not pleased' with Cain and his offering.
However, when verse 4:3 is placed back in context with verse 4:7, there are very strong indications that, at this point in the story, sin had yet to occur.
4:3 At the designated time Cain brought some of the fruit of the ground for an offering to the Lord.
4:4 But Abel brought some of the firstborn of his flock – even the fattest of them. And the Lord was pleased with Abel and his offering,
4:5 but with Cain and his offering he was not pleased. So Cain became very angry, and his expression was downcast.
In the story of the two offerings, it is as if Cain is being tested. There is the sense that he fails; but not, as he presumes, because the Father prefers Abel's offering over his. His failure, rather, seems to dwell within his inability, or perhaps disinterest, to distinguish between disapproval and rejection.
Offering vegetables, alone, does not appear to constitute sin. Furthermore, being angry, alone, does not appear to constitute sin according to Genesis.
However, this anger and resentment appears to be a catalyst of sorts which may soon incite the crouching one if left to its own devices.
Cain had not yet sinned, according to my understanding of scripture, as 'sin' was only 'crouching at the door' at this point in the story, desiring and awaiting to dominate him. Before sin occurs - yet, after the vegetable offering - Cain is encouraged by the Father to subdue the sin that is patiently awaiting him ...
4:6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why is your expression downcast?
4:7 Is it not true that if you do what is right, you will be fine? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at the door. It desires to dominate you, but you must subdue it."
So, it may become relatively clear that whatever actions Cain has crouching at the door embody his sin, rather than the unpleasing vegetable offering.
Yet, if the man has not yet sinned, then what are the specific actions crouching at Cain's door which may easily constitute such an accusation ...
4:8 Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.
Murder!! Murdering and ...
4:9 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” And he replied, “I don’t know! Am I my brother’s guardian?”
Lying!! Reasonably, greedy, murdererin' liars are certainly more sinful than honest farmhands.
I am no priest - that is for sure. Yet, I will go out on a limb and assert that growing brussel sprouts is not a sin. However, being thankless for them, or behaving as if you are the primary factor responsible for their fruition seems a bit rude. This is the type of arrogance I sense from Cain.
Does Cain perceive that working, giving & sharing can be more beneficial, and more pleasing to the Father, than working, hoarding & competing?
|I think most Mormons think there was something wrong with Cain's attitude towards the sacrifice, but I still don't get it.|
There does appear to be some difficulty discerning the issue when those who are supposed to guide the learning process are so frequently gehinnom-bent on relegating Cain's vegetable offering as akin to denying the identification of Joshua's murder as a necessary Levitical animal sacrifice. This is most always accomplished, or at least attempted, through sleight of hand by projecting Able's offering, which makes no mention of blood - direct or otherwise, as the mechanism of the Father's appeasement, rather than Able's charitable heart. This is a syncretic doctrine that, although often promoted in Levitical circles, is directly and repeatedly confronted throughout the various canonized Prophetic booklets. Hoshea speaks to this directly at verse six, in the sixth chapter of his booklet ... "For the Father delights in faithfulness, not in sacrifice; the Father delights in acknowledging virtue, not in whole burnt offerings."
biblegateway Hos 6:6
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.
biblegateway Hos 6:6
For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, And in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
biblegateway Hos 6:6
I want you to be merciful; I don’t want your sacrifices. I want you to know God; that’s more important than burnt offerings.
biblegateway Hos 6:6
I'm after love that lasts, not more religion. I want you to know GOD, not go to more prayer meetings.
SABDAweb Hos 6:6
Because my desire is for mercy and not offerings; for the knowledge of God more than for burned offerings.
bibleoremus Hos 6:6
For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
biblegateway Hos 6:6
For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Of course, as can be evidenced by the continuous murders of the Prophets, the stifling and attempted absorption of their writings, as well as the free market capitalistic selling of their blood, Hoshea's criticism is in staunch contrast to Levitical doctrine, which demands the perfection of blood sacrifice.
For the subscribers to the Levite priesthood, nothing is more integral than that sweet & juicy blood sacrifice, least of all, acknowledging anything virtuous.
When putting aside the conjecture of precontrived dogma, it may become easier to consider whether it was indeed Cain's attitude - or 'countenance', that was found lacking in virtue. While the reader is given no indication of Cain's attitude towards charity initially, it is quickly disclosed that Cain is indeed the type that will murder you and then bold faced lie about it. So, is one supposed to think of him as a cheerful giver apart from those other minor blemishes?
Cain offered some of his vegetables and Able offered the first of his flock. Cain offered some of his vegetables and Able offered the fattest of his flock. The possibility that the Father may have been pleased with the first and fattest vegetable crops, providing Cain offered them with gladness in his heart, remains open to consideration. That his decision to murder and lie was classified as sin is not left to debate.
While considering the Yom Kippur periscope in Leviticus 16, there is the sense that, with Cain and Able being the first two born, they may naturally represent two distinct archetypes of priests; Anointed and otherwise. In that portion of scripture text (Lev. 16:7-10, 21-22) the reader should find that ...
* there was a High Priest to carry out the service.
(perhaps akin to the Almighty Father)
* there were two goats used for the atonement of Yisrael.
(perhaps akin to Able/Yudah/Yeshua and Cain/Levite/Vicar)
* one was presented as a typical sacrifice which was known as The LORD’s Goat.
(perhaps akin to Able/Yuhdah/Yeshua)
* one was presented alive to be banished into the wilderness which was known as Azazel (the Scapegoat).
(perhaps akin to Cain/Levite/Vicar)
* the High Priest would cast lots to determine which goat was to be sacrificed and which would be presented alive.
(perhaps akin to the Father's pleasure)
* the LORD’s Goat would be sacrificed first.
(perhaps akin to Cain/Levite/Vicar envy and willingness to murder)
* then the High Priest would transfer the sins of all of Yisrael on to the head of Azazel.
(perhaps akin to the sentence imposed on Cain/Levite/Vicar)
* then Azazel would be banished into the wilderness to die.
(perhaps akin to Cain/Levite/Vicar destiny)
One may even debate whether Cain/Levite/Vicar came to know/yada' sin (greed, murder, lying) in the same manner that Adam came to know/yada' his wife.
Unto the woman he said ... thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (Gen. 3:16)
And to Cain GOD said: ... if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. (Gen. 4:7)
Ultimately, Cain’s relationship to sin, even as a priest found lacking - the one that may purposefully murder an Anointed One, such as Able and Yeshua, or perhaps cause others to naively promote a necessity of innocent blood, is described in a strikingly similiar manner to Adam’s relationship with Eve.
Here is an interesting article which expounds on some of these points, called Cain and Abel: A new paradigm (pdf), although it is steeped in Levitical Messianic Yuhdaism, and so, it seems as a well poisoned twice, containing fine gems such as ...
|The fact that Azazel is left alive may represent GOD’s love towards us. It combined with the death of The LORD’s Goat may also be a shadow of Yeshua’s death (The LORD’s Goat) and resurrection (Azazel as living) because both goats bore iniquity .....|
The scapegoat was considered cursed because of the sins that were put upon its head. This is evident by its exile into the wilderness and its title “Azazel” which was a title for a Babylonian demon which is even used in the apocalyptic book of Enoch as a title for the chief fallen angel - possibly meaning satan (8:1-9:6, 10:8).
While taking it with a grain, it was still a decent, tho short, read. However, I enjoyed this article entitled 'the evolution of the blemished priest' as well.
Hope they are found to be interesting reads for someone else too ...
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : gr.
Edited by Bailey, : pnct.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 26 by Blue Jay, posted 07-15-2009 7:45 AM|| ||Blue Jay has not yet responded|