I am a good person.

[Ceridwen]

If you heard a Christian tell you that she is a good person, how would you respond to this? Would you agree with her or disagree with her? What would you explain to her? :confused:

Thanks! :hug:

http://img2.travelblog.org/Photos/5107/111675/f/760366-Sunrise-1.jpg

[Jacob4707]

If you heard a Christian tell you that she is a good person, how would you respond to this? Would you agree with her or disagree with her? What would you explain to her? :confused:


Thanks! :hug:


I would thank her and tell her to keep on being a good person, because the world already has enough bad persons in it.

Then, if she was a Protestant, I'd invite her to attend a Divine Liturgy at our church. The ensuing discussion would bring up whatever is necessary to bring up, for it's pretty clear to any Orthodox Christian who says the prayers of the Liturgy and the Eucharist prayers, as well as the daily prayers, that "a good person" is not how a Christian would describe himself or herself. "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, the sinner." :)

To disagree with her would not be to judge her, but to say what the Church says about her - which is what the Church says about each one of us here.

Of course, I could instead give her the Gerhard Dirks test (i.e., the "test" that Gerhard Dirks took that converted him).

The following is adapted from the book THE DIRKS ESCAPE (I added in [ ] what I remember from the book that this Webpage excerpt omitted):Another man named Gerhard Dirks, the "father of the modern computer," was one who had to face up to life's most important question. During the years of the Second World War he made many inventions that led to the development of the first computers. He and his family escaped from Hitler's Germany and later Russian occupation to the west. He was a brilliant man, reported to have an IQ of 208. He had over 140 patents with IBM and even attempted theoretically to reconstruct the human brain. But he became completely bewildered and shaken when confronted with the complexity and utter impossibility of such a reconstruction. He didn't know what to do or where to run. He had to face a choice: Either the human brain came about by a fantastic chance or by intelligent planning.Dirks re-established contact with an old friend and found out this friend had become a true Christian. He saw the change in this man from being selfish and impatient to being patient and at peace. But, Dirks clung to his atheism because he could not understand how God can know all about us, every person in the entire world. He couldn't understand where God could possibly store all the information about every person that ever lived. [He also didn't believe that people could really change, which was his other reason for not believing in God.]Dirks went with his friend to a discussion group where a man talked about God. Someone asked "What do you say to someone who thinks they are not a sinner?"The leader of the meeting told the man to take four pieces of paper and number them 1 to 4 and write a list of things on each piece of paper.On page 1,he said: write down every time you can remember when you said "yes" and meant "no" or said "no" and meant "yes." Write down every time you can remember when you told an outright lie. Write down every time you gave someone a shady answer, every time you made a promise and broke it and every time you made a promise and never intended to keep it.On page 2 write what it is that you hide from everybody. You don't have to show this to anyone, but to yourself. Write down something that, if anyone found out about it, something inside you would wither.On page 3 he said make a list of friends or people to whom you have done something that you would not want them to do to you. Never mind if they did something to provoke you, just put down your part.On page 4, write the names of the people for whom you have done something good, and done it without hope of any compensation or reward of any kind.He then said, "I think that any man who does that honestly will see that he is a sinner and that he is desperately in the need of salvation. He will know that the sin and the wrong he has written down is only the tip of an iceberg."Dirks went home and did all that.[He struggled with the test, especially because he found that he could write a lot of things on the first three pages, and nothing on the fourth page. At one point he became very frustrated, saying: "But what about the good things? Why would God only be looking for the bad things?" And then he recalled that when he tested or debugged a computer program, he wasn't interested in what was right, only in what was wrong. Dirks thought: "Why should God be any different?" Dirks realized that he was being "debugged" by God.]And he realised that he was a sinner. And, suddenly it hit him. He knew where God stored data. He got his answer without even looking for it. God stored the information about Dirks IN DIRKS [although God knows everything about everything anyway]. Everything he had ever thought, seen, heard, said, done - everything was there in his own mind. He was his own "file." Every human being was his own "file." Now, he lost all his excuses for not believing in the Saviour. People CAN change, because he saw the real changes in his friend. And, there is information for a final judgment - because every person carries his own data. He realized that he did not like himself and the way he lived. Just like when a computer has errors he needed to be "debugged." He fell onto his knees and prayed "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me and wash me in your blood."In a few minutes he stopped crying. He knew that something had happened. A wall had come down, the wall that had stood between him and his Creator. He hadn't known the wall was there, until it came down. It was the wall that Christ had demolished. Now, for the first time in his life, he knew what it meant to have fellowship with his Heavenly Father. Then he thought, It wasn't a wall, it was more like a sphere made of stone - a sphere that formed a prison. It had kept him in, and God out. He was now free of that prison!

[Orthosdoxa]

Neither. It's not my job to judge who is good or not.

[Jacob4707]

If you heard a Christian tell you that she is a good person, how would you respond to this? Would you agree with her or disagree with her? What would you explain to her? :confused:


Thanks! :hug:


Neither. It's not my job to judge who is good or not.



As I noted/added in my post above:... it's pretty clear to any Orthodox Christian who says the prayers of the Liturgy and the Eucharist prayers, as well as the daily prayers, that "a good person" is not how a Christian would describe himself or herself. "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, the sinner." :)
To disagree with her would not be to judge her, but to say what the Church says about her - which is what the Church says about each one of us here.

[icxn]

Of course! Everybody is a good person... ;)

When Banzan was walking through a market he overheard a conversation between a butcher and his customer.
"Give me the best piece of meat you have," said the customer.
"Everything in my shop is the best," replied the butcher. "You cannot find here any piece of meat that is not the best."
At these words Banzan became enlightened. - Zen WisdomExcept me of course... or such is my wishful thinking: It once passed through the mind of Antonios the Great to wonder what measure of holiness he had attained. God, however, Who wished to humble his mind, showed him in a dream one night that a certain cobbler, who had a shop on one of the out-of-the-way streets of Alexandria, was better than he.
As soon as day broke, the Saint took his staff and set out for the city. He wanted to meet this renown cobbler himself and to see his virtues. With great difficulty, he found his shop, went inside, sat down beside him on his bench, and began to ask about his life.
The simple man, who could not figure out who this old monk who came so suddenly to interrogate him was, answered him ever so slowly and calmly, without taking his eyes from the shoe that he was mending.
“I do not know, Abba, if I have ever done any good. Every morning I get up and do my prayers and then I begin my work. However, I first say to myself that all the people in this city, from the very least to the very greatest, are very good and will be saved, and only I will be condemned for my many sins. And in the evening when I lie down, again I think about the same thing.”
The Saint stood up in wonderment, embraced the cobbler, kissed him, and said to him with emotion: “You, my brother, like a good merchant, have easily gained the precious pearl. I have grown old in the desert, toiling and sweating, but I have not attained to your humility.” - The Desert Fathers

[Anhelyna]

I would start by asking her what she meant as a 'good person '

The I would explain that I could not help - I can't make judgements like that

[Jacob4707]

I would start by asking her what she meant as a 'good person '

The I would explain that I could not help - I can't make judgements like that

Why couldn't you help her? Can't you help point her to Christ, or to Christ and His Church and His teachings?

[hungrytiger]

If you heard a Christian tell you that she is a good person, how would you respond to this? Would you agree with her or disagree with her? What would you explain to her? :confused:
She is a good person, but she can be a better one. :)

God made us and sustains us. So there must be good in us. But I know I for one don't live up to it. And, even if I didn't sin, because of God good is infinite. We can always grow closer to Him. I think that for us as created and finite persons part of being good is ever growing to be better. Life's beautiful like that.
Thanks! :hug:

You're welcome :hug: Hope it helped, though I fear that I don't really know what I'm talking about. :sorry:
Thanks for the lovely picture by the way.

[eoe]

May God bless you forever. I on the other hand and a wretch and my sins go out behind me like a wave of filth. Pray for me.

You may be a good person indeed but you are not immortal. Christ came to save us from death and corruption. Are you immune to those?

Many people will say things like "If the Virgin Mary was so good why does she need a savior?" The reason this does not make sense to them is that they do not understand what salvation is. To them it is black and white - good or evil - guilty or innocent.

Salvation is being saved from sin and death. It goes far beyond "I am a good person".

[Thekla]

"One is the Holy, One is the Lord, Jesus Christ ..."
from the Liturgy

[Dewi Sant]

There is of course the difference between being a "good person" and being a "faithful Christian".

In this same sense, Churches are not to be "self help groups" but rather, hospitals for the spiritually infirm.

[Anhelyna]

another point is

How do you know you are a good person ?

To be able to say that makes me wonder

[Ceridwen]

In the Orthodox anthropology, is it correct to say that it is possible for a Christian to be a "good human"? Is every person a "good person"? Or is no human a "good human"? What is the proper answer to these questions according to the Orthodox? Is there authoritative doctrine on this issue?

(I am referring to human existence on this side of the grave.)

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/eeeb/shapiro/v1010/humanspecies_pics/icon_davinci_man_small.jpg

[Orthosdoxa]

We don't believe in total depravity. The fall blurred the image of God within us, but did not obliterate it. To have the image of God within us means there is some good simply by default. God's doing, not ours.

[Ceridwen]

We don't believe in total depravity. The fall blurred the image of God within us, but did not obliterate it. To have the image of God within us means there is some good simply by default. God's doing, not ours.
Do you mean to say that it is correct to say about every person that they are a good person? Regardless of their religion and regardless of their character? Is it wrong to say that a person is not a good person?

[Orthosdoxa]

I think this digs too deep into semantics and possibly different definitions of basic concepts.

I feel like you're trying to drive at a larger point here. Perhaps if you'd share exactly what it is, I could answer your question better.

From what I understand of what you're asking now, my answer is this: God is all good. What God has made is good. Fallen Creation has been redeemed by the glorious resurrection.

Yes, we all the know the verse, "There is none good..." etc etc. That refers, AFAIK, to no one can save themselves, we do not have the capacity in and of ourselves, to save ourselves. We are not THAT type of good. Only God is. But because we were created for communion with Him and to share in His divine life, and even the Fall did not obliterate that completely, God's goodness is still within us. But we have free will. We can either cooperate with it, or choose to spit on it and live evil lives.

No, I am not an authoritative source. This is merely my understanding.

[Ceridwen]

Orthosdoxa, I am not trying to make a point or understand a different issue. I am just trying to get a sense of the Orthodox anthropology. Thanks for your answer!

[MariaRegina]

What God has created is good.

Read Genesis.


Ceridwen, I get the strange impression that you are a 'he' is that correct?

[Ceridwen]

What God has created is good.

Read Genesis.


Ceridwen, I get the strange impression that you are a 'he' is that correct?
I am definitely female! Ha! What would make you think I am male? I do have a personality profile which is very uncommon amongst women. I am unique, I guess.

Back to the topic...

If a human is a good human and no human is a bad human, then isn't it incorrect to refer to people by the label "sinner"? How can a person be a sinner if she is a good person? Obviously every human sins, but doesn't that make her a human who sins rather than make her a word or label?

This seems like an incorrect and inconsistent use of language.

[MariaRegina]

God created the world and everything in it was good.

Evil was introduced by Satan and his angels.

We are sinners because we live in a fallen world. We are to be light and goodness because we are created in the image and likeness of God, but it is a struggle to be good.

St. John says that we are all sinners and if we say that we do not sin, then we make ourselves liars.

But we are certainly not depraved. There is hope that with the grace of God we can rise above our sinful passions and truly reach Theosis -- divinization.

[Ceridwen]

Aria,
To be precise, the passage you referred to from St. John does not say that humans are "sinners." Rather, it says that humans sin:
1 John 1:8 (King James Version)
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
It seems to me that there is a difference -- a person can sin without becoming a "sinner." It seems to be inconsistent to say that a person is at the same time a good person and a negative label like "sinner." If it means anything to say that a person is a good person, then it means at least that he is not a bad person.

It seems that it is inconsistent to say at the same time that a person is a "good person" and a "sinner." At least one of these statements is technically incorrect.

It appeared that Jacob recognized this inconsistency when he wrote:
It's pretty clear to any Orthodox Christian who says the prayers of the Liturgy and the Eucharist prayers, as well as the daily prayers, that "a good person" is not how a Christian would describe himself or herself. "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, the sinner."

[MariaRegina]

Only God is Good.

One is Holy, one is the Lord, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Amen.

We share in the goodness of God if we cooperate with His Graces which He freely bestows on all mankind, like the rain and the sun which shines on all mankind.

We all are sinners, none of us is without sin.

This takes humility to acknowledge, but our great saints recognize this fact. Even St. John the Baptist, the greatest man who was ever born according to Christ, said that he was unworthy to untie the sandals of Christ. He asked that Christ baptize him ... and this was a baptism of repentance and an acknowledgement that John recognized his own need as a sinner for the saving work of Christ.

[Ceridwen]

Only God is Good.

One is Holy, one is the Lord, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Amen.

We share in the goodness of God if we cooperate with His Graces which He freely bestows on all mankind, like the rain and the sun which shines on all mankind.

We all are sinners, none of us is without sin.

This takes humility to acknowledge, but our great saints recognize this fact. Even St. John the Baptist, the greatest man who was ever born according to Christ, said that he was unworthy to untie the sandals of Christ. He asked that Christ baptize him ... and this was a baptism of repentance and an acknowledgement that John recognized his own need as a sinner for the saving work of Christ.
This is a good answer, and I thank you for it. I know that the question-and-answer is not always fun or interesting for all people at all times. So feel free to leave it at any time. I find it very helpful for sorting out inconsistent ideas.

George Florovsky says nothing can be evil but in virtue of a good hypostasis:
One defines evil as nothingness. Certainly evil never exists by itself but only inside of Goodness. Evil is a pure negation, a privation or a mutilation. Undoubtedly evil is a lack, a defect, defectus. But the structure of evil is rather antinomic. Evil is a void of nothingness; but it is a void which exists, swallowing and devouring beings. Evil is a powerlessness; it never creates--but its destructive energy is enormous. Evil never ascends; it always descends--but the very debasement of being which it produces is frightening. Nevertheless, there is an illusory grandeur even in this baseness of evil. Occasionally there is something of genius in sin and in evil. Evil is chaotic; it is a separation, a decomposition constantly in progress, a disorganization of the entire structure of being. But evil is also, without doubt, vigorously organized. Everything in this sad domain of deception and illusion is amphibolic and ambiguous. Undoubtedly, evil only lives through the Good which it deforms, but it also adapts it to its needs. But this deformed "Universe" is a reality which asserts itself.
The Darkness of Night “Evil Is among Us” Archpriest George Florovsky. (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/darkness_florovsky.htm)
If a person -- to the degree he exists as a person at all -- is good, then where is the accuracy in referring to him or thinking about him categorically as a negative label like "sinner"?

[Ceridwen]

I came across this quote from St. Maximos:Thus nothing of nature opposes God, for all natural things were clearly produced and generated by Him. We are not subject to any accusation because of any of the things that exist in us essentially; but we are clearly subject to accusation because of our perversion of those natural things.
It seems that when you refer to a human with a negative word -- loser, addict, sinner, idiot, bully -- you go beyond accusing a person of a perversion of their humanity, and you move into the territory of accusing them of a defect of their essential nature. We incorrectly name them by the evil thing that they do or the evil character they have. Thus, it may be true to call someone a "person who sins" but not a "sinner." In this way you keep in sight what they are and do not misrepresent the state of affairs. But, confusingly, Orthodoxy seems to say two different things.

[MariaRegina]

The term sinner is a fact, not an accusation or a judgment call like drug addict or murderer.

Yet, in a since we are all murderers because most of us have had angry thoughts directed against another.

And when you seriously understand that we all sin in thought, word, and deed, deliberately and indeliberately, knowingly and unknowingly, then yes, we are all guilty of all of the Ten Commandments.

[Dust and Ashes]

In the East, it is usually understood that sin means "missing the mark" of being the perfect image of God that we were created to be rather than a purely juridical term. Maybe someone more articulate can explain it better than I.

[Orthosdoxa]

How about this:

I am not good.

God's goodness is in me, simply by virtue of His having stamped His image on me.

I will not call myself good, bc that suggests the work is done. It will never be done in my lifetime.

It is not an inconsistency.

I am loathe to buy into total depravity for many reasons, one being bc it suggests that MY sin is stronger than God, Who declared His creation good.

So, to sum up:

God's goodness lives in everyone. But we are all sinners bc of the Fall. I will not call myself good. I will not make comments about the goodness of others bc it's none of my business. I also like the way icxn put it.

Bishop Ware discusses good and evil in The Orthodox Way. You should read, or re-read it.

[MariaRegina]

In the East, it is usually understood that sin means "missing the mark" of being the perfect image of God that we were created to be rather than a purely juridical term. Maybe someone more articulate can explain it better than I.

Exactly, Seraphim

Sin is hamartia = missing the mark

None of us are perfect; only God is perfect.

We are the creatures; God is the Creator.

We are the sinners; God is incomprehensible, indescribable, infinite, incircumscribable, immortal, and totally beyond us (i.e. HOLY).

[Kristos]

I think what they are saying is that, yes God is good. His creation is good. We are created in God's image and are good in essence. God did not creat evil - therefore evil does not exist. It's a parasite. It's a by-product of man's disobedience. So we are all good, but we are also all sinners.

[icxn]

I came across this quote from St. Maximos:Thus nothing of nature opposes God, for all natural things were clearly produced and generated by Him. We are not subject to any accusation because of any of the things that exist in us essentially; but we are clearly subject to accusation because of our perversion of those natural things.It seems that when you refer to a human with a negative word -- loser, addict, sinner, idiot, bully -- you go beyond accusing a person of a perversion of their humanity, and you move into the territory of accusing them of a defect of their essential nature. We incorrectly name them by the evil thing that they do or the evil character they have. Thus, it may be true to call someone a "person who sins" but not a "sinner." In this way you keep in sight what they are and do not misrepresent the state of affairs. But, confusingly, Orthodoxy seems to say two different things.
Your assumption is incorrect. Labels do not always name nature and scripture attests to this, so I can call you flesh if you are like those in Genesis 6:3 or a daughter of God if you follow after the example of Seth. Also another thing we need to distinguish is that human nature and person are not the same thing. There's only one human nature of which we all share and was created very good, but many persons.

[Jacob4707]

Exactly, Seraphim

Sin is hamartia = missing the mark

Just because the Greek translators of the LXX, and the NT authors following them, used hamartia for the Hebrew word (or one of the Hebrew words) for "sin," does that mean that hamartia should have the Attic/Classical/Homeric(?) meaning of "missing the mark"? No language maps 1:1 to another language, and some Hebrew words didn't have exact Greek equivalents, and vice-versa - and the same is true of English.

The Hebrew/OT concept of "sin" was more than simply "missing the mark," wasn't it (hence, all the Levitical impurity laws, and offerings for sin, etc.)? I.e., there were other concepts/ideas attached to it than simply an archer's bad aim. I.e., it wasn't simply a "mistake," but also implied guilt of some sort.

Similarly, translating "torah" as "nomos"/law can give rise to misunderstandings of what "torah" means in Hebrew because "torah" doesn't exactly semantically equate to what we mean by the word "law" or what the Greeks meant by "nomos," or so I believe I've read. However, a translator must work with the receptor/target language he has. Sometimes he'll simply transliterate and in a sense create a new word. At other times, though, he picks the best word he has. An example is our English word "word" to translate the Greek word "logos." Anyone who has studied "logos" knows that translating John 1:1 as "In the beginning was the word" does not do justice to what "logos" means. Since the alternative, though, would be to say "In the beginning was the logos" and then give several pages of footnotes explaining what "logos" meant in Greek, it's understandable why most translations simply use "word" and leave it at that.

According to Hatch and Redpath, hamartia translates 15 different Hebrew words or root-clusters in the LXX.

Kittel seems to address my question better than the NIDNTT, so I'm deleting that extract in my posts.

[Jacob4707]

See Kittel in next post. Maybe this touches on my question.

[Jacob4707]

Abridged Kittel:

hamartánō [to sin], hamártēma [sin], hamartía [sin]
A. Sin in the OT (http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftn1).
1. The Words Used in the OT.
a. The LXX (http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftn2) with its summary use of hamartía, adikía, anomía, etc. hardly does justice to the rich and flexible Hebrew original and often misses the point, e.g. (http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftn3), when “guilt” is in view. The Hebrew terms translated by hamartía and the like (for a full list see TDNT, I, 268-69) do not have an exclusive religious use, so that it is easy in translation either to import this or to weaken it. No uniform or self-contained concept of sin is present in the OT authors, and detailed questions of linguistic history further complicate the matter.
b. The four main roots which carry the idea of sin have the varied senses of “sin or negligence,” “rebelling,” “guilt,” and “error,” enough to show the variety of thinking about sin quite apart from the many other roots.
2. The Legal and Theological Content of the OT Concept of Sin.
a. Statistically the root ḥṭ’ (with derivatives) is the main term, and this harmonizes with the fact that it offers the best definition. It is basically metaphorical and has the sense of “missing,” e.g., the way (Prov. 19:2), what is sought (Prov. 8:36), the mark (Judg. 20:16). While predominantly used for wrong action, the word thus suggests always the idea of going astray. The legal use, of which there are many examples, strengthens the conjecture that the Hebrew term does not have the primary sense of “sin,” for what is often in view is transgression of custom, or law, or a treaty, or obligation, with the guilt that this implies (cf. (http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftn4) Gen. 43:9).
b. The shift from the legal to the religious use is important inasmuch as it shows that the religious life, too, is seen to be ordered, i.e. (http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftn5), that dealings with God must follow a pattern. Yet a root like the term for “to rebel” warns us that a volitional element is involved. In the secular sphere Israel revolts against David’s dynasty (1 Kgs. 12:19). As sons rebel against their fathers, so Israel revolts against God (Is. 1:2). What is denoted is a human reaction against the holy and divine. Erring has something of the same dimension, though in its mainly ritual use it describes negligence through ignorance rather than willful transgression (cf. Lev. 4:13). Yet when applied religiously (cf. Job 12:16) it carries the thought that we do not attain to God because we cannot do so. False seers in their quasi-drunken wandering are partly culpable and partly clouded in their minds by God himself (Is. 28:7-8). Seeing no way out of their error, they must suffer the pain of the divine enigma (Job 19:4). For Ps. 119 only study of the law can bring us out of error and its affliction (Ps. 119:67). This darker aspect, however, is not predominant in the OT concept of sin. From a more rational, theological standpoint, sin is what is “unclean.” If personal feeling lies behind this concept too, its essential content is failure to keep a norm. The phrase “with a high hand” (e.g., Num. 15:30) assumes that the norm is known (as it was not known, e.g., by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, Gen. 18:20). Thus in Ps. 32 the one who prays is led to see and confess sin through suffering, i.e., to recognize that even breaches of the ritual, which might not seem to be sin, are really sin against God.
c. The wisdom writings usually have a more intellectual than religious view of sin. By instruction we come to know what is fitting in relation to God and how to apply it to life (as distinct from the fool, Ps. 14:1). Sin is thus folly, to which the righteous are superior. A deeper view occurs in Ex. 20:5; Dt. 5:9, where resistance to God’s commands is defined as hatred, and sin is thus an inexplicable process involving such things as abomination, violence, and deception. All this tends to suggest that a theological concept of sin was a later construction. On the other hand, it was also a correct one grounded in firm categories whose validity no one in ancient Israel could contest. Censure, the assertion of guilt, and the knowledge of God’s demanding will all meet in it to offer an interpretation of human experience and destiny. If God’s will is the supreme law of life, apostasy from God has to come to expression in error, i.e., in terms of what life ought to be and digression from this norm. A connection with the covenant may be discerned at this point. Moreover, whether we regard the aberration as serious or trivial, its character as transgression is established by the concept of God and his order, to which account must be rendered. Violation of God’s norm is the substance of the knowledge of sin. In a very bold insight, sin is even seen to serve a purpose by leading to a recognition of the unconditional validity of the divine norm. Human failure is thus ruthlessly set in the divine order and given a religious interpretation as sin (Ps. 51).
d. For the OT as a whole, then, sin is a legal and theological term for what is against the norm. The theological use is prominent but not exclusive. In its rational form it is less a matter of experience than of its theological clarification. The different formulas mediate different theological insights in an attempt to express the underlying religious phenomenon. The concept has many nuances but is not without a certain unity, both being illustrated by the heaping up of synonyms (cf., e.g., Ps. 32:5; Job 34:37; Lev. 16:21). At its root is aberration from the norm, but this may be viewed as either the inner process, the act, or the resultant state. The context rather than the selected root usually shows where the accent lies. In analysis, then, we have to reckon with possibilities ranging from sober intellectual assertion to divine conviction. Yet there will always be a theoretical element which, although of pedagogical value, may tend to reduce multiple religious phenomena to a common denominator. The terms denoting aberration always have a figurative aspect, and it is perhaps the root “to rebel” that brings us closest to the heart of the matter with its stress on motive. Even this, however, imposes a certain intellectual order on the irrational experience. It is thus in prayers that the irrational problem comes out best with their vocabulary of confession or complaint. Significantly, too, the story of the fall avoids the customary terms for sin.
3. Sin and Guilt. Often the terms for sin allude to it in such a way that the translation “guilt” is justifiable or necessary. This is always so when the reference is to the resultant state. Abnormal action and abnormal state are so related that no sharp distinction of vocabulary exists between sin and guilt. The more specific words for guilt belong first to the area of sacral law and bring out its objective character. One could incur guilt unintentionally but the resultant uncleanness (even if not recognized) would be no less a fact than in the case of sin with a high hand, and would need to be set aside by the same ritual as that employed to restore cleanness. Other terms (cf. Ps. 32:1) focus on guilt itself. Emphasis now falls on its intolerable burden (Ps. 38:4). It is the sum of the debts incurred by acts of sin and is manifested in afflictions, which are viewed as punishment for it. The rational or theological character of the OT concept of sin and guilt comes out strongly in the doctrines of expiation and retribution which rest on this basis, though the basis itself is religious.
4. The Story of the Fall (Gen. 3). This story stands aloof from legal concepts and does not influence them. Perhaps using and bending mythological materials, the author depicts the origin and results of sin with childlike force. He does not use the common terms, since these would be out of place in this portrayal of life. Apart from a few hints he lets readers draw their own conclusions, focusing on the events that the terms are meant to explain. He thus brings out far more clearly the sinister reality with which theology and cultus deal.
The basic ideas of the story are the prohibition that expresses the divine will, the clever serpent that sees the apparent disproportion between the transgression and its consequence, the question put to the woman, her readiness for scepticism, the suggestion that the warning is not serious and is only in the divine interest and against human interests, the attractiveness of the fruit, the foolish violation by the woman and the compliance of the man, and the four results: shame at nakedness, hiding from God, subterfuges to excuse the action, and punishment by God.
The stress in this chain of events lies on what is mysteriously indicated by the phrases “being as God” and “knowing good and evil.” “Being as God” involves doubt that God’s rule is really in the human interest and unconditionally binding. Helped by the serpent, the man and woman see that they can transgress the divine order. Indeed, they believe that practical reason, exalting itself as lord and God, impels them to do so without bothering about religious correctives or divine judgment.
Yet the story also points out that there is no escaping divine accountability. Those who try to be as God finally stand before God like children who have been found out and are full of evasions. The author thus brings out the full absurdity of the Prometheus motif. But he does so with insight into the tragic human situation in which it seems that there is immanent justification—in the desire for culture, the work of thought, and sensual longing—for human hostility to God and the attempt to break free from the divine prohibition. The true reality of sin can be grasped only when one perceives that the divine likeness itself opens up the possibilities of deviation and the unfathomable distress which every act of deviation causes when it comes under the pitiless divine glance.
In spite of aetiological features, then, the story in its totality offers a perspective on human existence as a whole. The curses undoubtedly explain common features of human life, just as the realization of nakedness explains the general use of clothing. Nevertheless, the explanations carry weight only because they relate, not to an isolated act, but to an act that is typical of the way that all of us act toward God and incur guilt before him. The aetiology thus extends beyond details—even such momentous details as sorrow, work, shame, and death—to the reality of sin as the real force behind all human unrest and unhappiness. Incidentally, shame at nakedness serves very well to express the shame, the insecurity, and the secretiveness that result from sin, quite apart from the problem of sexuality which it also involves.
A more general aetiological explanation justifies us in building on the story a doctrine of original sin in the sense of universal sinfulness. Sin is motivated by a human impulse that is present in all of us, so that in thousands of variations we will all be tempted similarly and sin similarly. The uncontrolled intellect is in conflict with religion, and freedom of will and thought prepares the ground for sin. By making the serpent the representative of the uncontrolled intellect, the author stresses the demonic character of the thinking which derives from doubt and engages in fanatical striving. This comes over us like an outside force, strengthens existing desires, and thus overpowers uncritical obedience. Our experienced inability to resist at this point compels us to recognize the general validity of the phenomenon. Wishing and to some extent able to be wiser than God and to pierce behind his thoughts, we open up a sphere of mistrust in which we renounce our proper attitude as creatures, regard the Creator with cynicism, and act as though we were ourselves God, responsible only to ourselves. Since reason and the power of judgment are native to us, the motive for sinning is present just as necessarily as life itself.
The author, however, is not trying to give a theological but a popular account. Piety rather than theology comes to expression in his simple presentation. An unsparing desire for truth gives it its unforgettable impress. Nowhere else in the OT do we find religious discussion that is so penetrating and yet so sustained by piety. The narrator is not spinning a theory but speaking out of the compelling experience of inner tension and trying to give his readers some sense of the serious situation which is inseparable from human existence. Why God made us thus, he does not try to say. His religion is to be found in this silence. [G. Quell, I, 267-86]

[Jacob4707]

Continued:

B. Theological nuances of hamartía in the LXX. This section supplements A. and D. of this article and B. of the article on hamartōlós by pointing out some important nuances that are partly deliberate and partly due to difficulties of translation. First of all, the LXX gives greater prominence to arrogance as the chief sin by rendering arrogant as hamartōlós (Sir. 11:9). Sin is also identified with wealth (Hab. 3:14). Again, it is sickness (Is. 53:4; Dt. 30:3). In Job 42 the LXX stresses the thought of forgiveness, which is only hinted at in the Hebrew, i.e., by substituting the idea of Job’s sin for God’s wrath in v. (http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftn6) 7 and bringing in the idea of remission in v. 9. A similar replacement of God’s wrath by human transgression occurs in Judg. 1:18 (cf. Is. 57:17). Sin is equated with apostasy in 2 Chr. 12:2 (cf. 30:7). Folly or ignorance can also be rendered hamartía according to the familiar OT thought that folly is sin. The idea of sin is introduced into Is. 66:4 with its reference to the cause of punishment rather than the punishment itself (cf. 24:6). A spiritualization may be found in Ezek. 23:49. The thought of the school of suffering, which presupposes a strong sense of sin, is read into Job 15:11. The thrust of the LXX, then, is to make hamartía a general term for sin. In so doing it brings individual sins under the concept of the basic sin which separates us from God and controls us so long as we do not receive God’s saving work. For linguistic details, see TDNT, I, 286ff. [G. Bertram, I, 286-89]
C. The Concept of Sin in Judaism.
1. The concept of the law is determinative in Judaism. The law as a whole, legal as well as cultic and moral, reveals God’s will. Hence every transgression is sin. Two trends develop: one to level down, since even minor infringements are still sin; the other to differentiate, e.g., between flagrant misdeeds, acts of rebellion, and unwitting offenses. Based on this distinction such sins as violence, licentiousness, and especially idolatry are seen to be mortal, since to commit them is to commit every sin, whereas less serious offenses can be expiated by good works, purifications, and sufferings.
2. The tendency in Judaism is to regard sin as individual rather than collective (cf. Ezek. 18:2ff.). Sin as the individual’s transgression has individual consequences. The commandment is taken to mean that God visits the fathers’ sins on their refractory children to the third and fourth generation. Yet a sense of the general effects of even individual sins remains. The universality of sin finds no opponents. If Israelites sin by breaking the law, the Gentiles sin by breaking the Adamic and Noachic covenants, or even by refusing the law when it is offered to them. Exceptions to universal sinfulness are seen in such saints as Moses and Elijah, and avoidance of sin is possible through freedom and the gift of the law. Furthermore, it is fully expected both that the Messiah will be sinless and that sin will be set aside and sinlessness established in the messianic kingdom.
3. As for the rise of sin, it is traced to Adam and Eve, or at times to the fallen angels (Gen. 6:1ff.). More basically, sin has its origin in the evil impulse which is implanted by God, which entices to sin, and which may and must be overthrown by observance of the law. If it is not, sin brings such consequences as further sinning, separation from God, disruption of God’s gracious purpose, and the punishments of sickness, death, and eternal damnation. But in respect of all these penalties we have the opportunity to repent and return to God. We sin, but God shows us the way of conversion before we die. [G. Stählin and W. Grundmann, I, 289-93]
D. The Linguistic Usage and History of hamartánō, hamártēma, and hamartía before and in the NT (http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftn7).
1. hamartánō, meaning “not to hit,” “to miss,” occurs from Homer and is also used figuratively for “to fall short intellectually,” “to err,” or “‘to fall short morally,” “to do wrong.” In the LXX the moral sense is predominant.
2. hamártēma denotes the result of hamartánō, “fault,” first due to folly, later, especially in law, in the sense of “offense.” In the LXX it usually has a moral or religious sense, “sin,” or “punishment of sin.” It is rare in the NT.
3. hamartía, also used figuratively from the first, refers more to the nature of the act. It is a comprehensive term with intellectual and legal as well as ethical applications, and it can cover all wrong actions from simple errors to crimes. Aristotle defines it as missing virtue because of weakness, accident, or defective knowledge. Later, guilt is associated with it. In the LXX it is synonymous with hamártēma and carries the full sense of moral guilt and conscious opposition to God, expressing the Godward reference more clearly and fully than adikía or kakía. In the NT it stands for “offense against God with a stress on guilt” and is used a. for the individual act (e.g., Acts 2:38; 1 Tim. 5:22; Rev. 1:5; 1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 1:3), often with the remission of sins in view (Mk. 2:5; Acts 7:60), in Paul usually only in quotations (e.g., Rom. 4:7-8, though cf. Rom. 7:5); b. for sin as human nature in its hostility to God (e.g., Jn. 9:41; 1 Jn. 3:5; 1 Cor. 15:17; Rom. 3:20; Heb. 4:15; and c. for personified sin (e.g., Rom. 5-7; Heb. 12:1. Behind the third use stands the idea of a demon “sin,” but what we have in the NT is probably poetic imagery. [G. Stählin, I, 293-96]
E. Sin and Guilt in Classical Greek and Hellenism.
1. Classical Greek does not have the thought of sin as enmity against God, but only of defect and guilt, i.e., missing the mark by error or by guilt. In view are intellectual and artistic as well as moral senses, i.e., all failures to do what is right. Other terms had to be added to express the idea of guilt.
2. Guilt arises through individual acts, ranging earlier from cultic neglect or perjury to social injustices. It is known by way of misfortunes inflicted by the gods as guardians of law and order.
3. By the sixth century the Greek world becomes aware of the riddle of human destiny and the inevitability of guilt. The mysteries express this with the ideas of original guilt (the soul’s exile in the body) and the threat of death. Guilt is now seen as a disruption of order that must be made good by suffering. Guilt is associated with human limitation (e.g., of knowledge) and is thus posited by life itself. It has to be accepted and confessed. To this unavoidable guilt is added personal guilt through failure to heed divine warnings and ultimately through ignorance. Right understanding will thus lead to right action (cf. Socrates and Greek tragedy), although understanding may come only through suffering or paradigms of suffering. Plato, however, lays a greater stress on individual choice, while Aristotle uses the hamartía group for mistakes, or for deviations from the mean, and divests it of the association with moral guilt.
4. After Aristotle rationalism destroys the serious concept of guilt. But the idea of fate remains. In the mysteries and Hellenistic mysticism the hamartía group is used for predetermined destiny which is the cause of guilt but eliminates personal responsibility, redemption being offered by the rites or by gnṓsis.
5. Phrygian and Lydian religion offers an exception with the concept of omnipotent deity willing the good and punishing transgressions such as failing to give thanks, cultic violation, and a series of moral offenses. Sickness is a penalty for sin, which consists of the act, not an inner disposition, so that expiation aims at the restoration of health or cultic normalcy. [G. Stählin and W. Grundmann, I, 296-302]

[Jacob4707]

Continued and finished:

F. Sin in the NT.
1. The Synoptic Gospels and Acts.
a. In the Synoptics the role of the group is comparatively slight. Jesus does not speak about sin but acts in awareness of it, and is conscious of being the victor over it.
b. His mission is to proclaim the divine lordship in his word and work. This proclamation evokes a sense of distance from God and thus leads to confession and conversion (cf. Lk. 15:18, 21). Sin means guilt toward God and thus demands penitence. Knowing that he has come to call sinners to repentance (Mt. 9:13), Jesus accepts solidarity with them (Mt. 9:10), victoriously bringing forgiveness (cf. Lk. 5:8; 7:37ff.; 19:1-2). His attitude and word of forgiveness are the extraordinary, eschatological breaking in of the divine lordship, as emerges in the Lord’s Supper (cf. Mt. 26:28 and Jer. 31:31ff.). Jesus is the servant who by his death and resurrection carries away sin (cf. Is. 53:12). Sin is unforgivable only when people recognize the mission of Jesus by the Holy Spirit but defy and resist it (Mt. 12:31-32).
c. That Jesus is the victor over sin is expressed in his name (Mt. 1:21). The mission of the Baptist prepares his way with its call for confession (Mt. 3:6) and baptism with a view to remission (Mk. 1:4). Jesus himself brings fulfilment with the word and act of forgiveness. The apostles continue his ministry with proclamation of the accomplished salvation. Unlike Jesus, who confers it by fellowship, they summon their hearers to receive it by repentance (Acts 2:38), the difference from the Baptist being that they can now declare a completed, not an awaited basis of forgiveness. The usual sense of sin here is the individual act, hence the normal use in the plural.
2. John. John, too, presents Christ as the victor over sin, more specifically by taking it away in his death (cf. 1 Jn. 3:5). This atoning work has universal significance (1 Jn. 2:2). It rests on Christ’s own sinlessness as the one who does his Father’s will (Jn. 8:46). Sin here is action that contradicts the divine ordinance (1 Jn. 3:4). It derives from ungodliness, is universal, involves sins against others, and brings guilt and separation from God (Jn. 9:31; 1 Jn. 3:8) in servitude to demonic power (Jn. 8:34). The mission of Jesus ushers in a new situation expressed in the term krísis, i.e., division and decision. Christ’s coming shows sin to be hatred of God. In face of him the decision is made that divides people (Jn. 9:41). Those who reject Christ die in sin (1 Jn. 5:16-17). But those who receive him find forgiveness (1 Jn. 1:9) as they confess their sin. The Spirit continues the sifting work of Christ (Jn. 16:8-9). Deliverance from sin is achieved in the community as believers are born of God, receive faith and knowledge, and work out the new situation in love (cf. 1 Jn. 3:6, 9). Tension naturally arises as Christians do in fact sin, but they can maintain a basic sinlessness through the advocacy of Christ (1 Jn. 2:1) and reciprocal intercession (1 Jn. 5:16). In Revelation Christ’s loving work delivers us from the sinful world order (1:5). His blood has atoning power. Our task in the end-time is to keep ourselves from the increasing power of sin (18:4-5). By a final and definitive act God will destroy the universal dominion of sin from which we are already liberated.
3. Paul.
a. Paul’s view is oriented to God’s work in Christ, which (1) comes on us in the specific reality of sin, and (2) rescues us from this reality and reshapes us.
b. Paul’s view of sin arises out of his own experience under revelation. From legal blamelessness (Phil. 3:6) he is driven to see and confess the sin of persecuting the church (1 Cor. 15:9) which resulted from attempted self-righteousness and hence from opposition to God even in zeal for his law. Sin for him is thus at its root hostility to God. It entered the world through Adam (Rom. 5) and therefore through freedom, but it subjected us to itself and brought death as its wages (Rom. 6:23). Paul thus connects sin with universal destiny, but does not depict it as a necessity of creatureliness. The act of Adam, death, and the general state of sin are interconnected. Judgment, revealed in Christ, rests on our being as such. The state of sin exists from Adam, but it is made clear only by the law, which actualizes sin and reveals its character (cf. Rom. 8:7), namely, as responsible guilt in enmity against God. Our carnal reality is sinful, not in the sense that sin is equated with the body, but in the sense that we are determined by sin in our carnal being. The law leads to individual sins by stimulating desires that oppose the divine claim. The nerve of individual sins is the failure to acknowledge God (Rom. 1:21). This gives all sins the character of guilt before God and results in sinning as the penalty of sin (Rom. 1:24ff.). Using God’s holy will to enhance its power, sin has a demonic quality (Rom. 7:13), enslaving us (7:14) and handing us over to death, so that we cannot fulfil the law (7:15ff.; cf. Eph. 2:1). The law, however, still discharges its holy function by unmasking sin.
c. The Christ event strikes us in this reality of sin. Christ comes from God to judge and destroy sin (2 Cor. 5:21). The sinless Jesus became sin in vicarious atonement through crucifixion and resurrection. Christ can represent us because of our solidarity in sin. Thus the Christ event overcomes sin for us all. Its coming to us releases us from sin and constitutes us anew. Justified by faith, we have remission of sins (cf. Eph. 1:7). By fellowship with Christ in baptism, we are dead to sin (Rom. 6:2). Having died to it, we are free from it (6:7), we are no longer under the law (6:14), we are the servants of righteousness (6:14), and we need not continue in sin (6:1). Freedom from sin means the obedience of faith (cf. 14:23) and is expressed in love of the brethren (1 Cor. 8:12). But tension exists between the somatic life, which is given up to death, and the pneumatic life, which has overcome death (Rom. 8:10). This tension continues until Christ comes again and definitively abolishes sin and death (1 Cor. 15:26).
4. The Other NT Writings.
a. Hebrews views sin from the cultic standpoint, presenting Christ as the true and sinless high priest with the one offering for sin in contrast to human high priests with their repeated offerings for themselves and the people. Christ’s offering terminates the cultus by bringing forgiveness and initiating the messianic age (10:17-18). Believers in the present time of affliction are to resist sin (12:1) and to avoid especially the deliberate sin of apostasy (10:26).
b. James derives sin from desire, relates it to the will, and finds its end in death (1:14-15). Sin is an act (2:9) and includes failure to do good. Confession and prayer bring forgiveness (5:15-16). To rescue others from sin is a Christian ministry (5:19-20).
c. 1 Peter proclaims Christ as the victor over sin by his voluntary submission and atoning death as the servant of the Lord (2:22, 24; 3:18).
In the NT as a whole the decisive feature is the realization that Christ is victor and that the new age has dawned in and with him. His victory is a victory over sin, which is (1) a reality that determines humanity and (2) a rejection of God’s claim in human self-assertion. The victory consists of the saving action by which sin is forgiven and life is constituted anew. [W. Grundmann, I, 302-16]
hamartōlós [sinner, sinful], anamártētos [without sin]
OT (http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftnref1)Old Testament

LXX (http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftnref2)Septuagint

e.g. (http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftnref3)exempli gratia, for example

cf. (http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftnref4)confer, compare

i.e. (http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftnref5)id est, that is

v. (http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftnref6)verse

NT (http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftnref7)New Testament

Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1995, c1985). Theological dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament. (44). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

[Dust and Ashes]

Perhaps Aria's = didn't mean "is completely the same as" but carried the more somethingicantpronounceian usage which carries a more "is a lot like" meaning but doesn't translate perfectly since = can carry subtle variances in meaning and connotation when you have lots of people from different backgrounds using it. :spockraiseeyebrowsmilie:

[Jacob4707]

Perhaps Aria's = didn't mean "is completely the same as" but carried the more somethingicantpronounceian usage which carries a more "is a lot like" meaning but doesn't translate perfectly since = can carry subtle variances in meaning and connotation when you have lots of people from different backgrounds using it. :spockraiseeyebrowsmilie:

I asked my question the way I did because I often hear that hamartia means simply "missing the mark," and the implication seems to be that the overriding meaning is "failure" with almost no sense of "guilt." There seems to be an aversion by some Orthodox (and I don't mean Aria or anyone in particular) to any sense of the (pejoratively-termed) "Western" idea that we are not just fallen but also guilty before God, and there seems to be much written to support the idea that the "Western" concept of sin = guilt is wrong/bad/evil, whereas the Orthodox idea that man is wounded/fallen/touched by ancestral "sin" (but not ancestral "guilt") is something that the "West" mistakenly abandoned, but the East rightly and properly kept. I ask my question because I wonder if the Orthodox who equate hamartia with just "missing the mark" might be somewhat "missing the mark" re: the Hebrew/Jewish/OT (and hence NT) background and meaning of what sin was, is and does.

[Dust and Ashes]

We don't carry any ancestral guilt. I don't need it, I have enough guilt of my own to worry about any from Adam. I'm sure you get around a lot more than I and know a lot more so I'll defer to your assertion that that is what a lot of Orthodox believe. I only know the folks here on TAW and the people at my parish and the very little I read or listen to on AFR.

I don't get that from any of the Orthodox folks I know or talk to about the issue. What I generally get from them is that the issue of ancestral guilt is not an issue because we don't have it. When we miss the mark, we fail and accrue guilt. That's why we have to repent and confess, so we can have our guilt removed and experience spiritual healing. No one I know places any kind of overemphasis on a lack of guilt so I can't really say much about it.

I probably shouldn't even be talking about this as I didn't read all of what you posted back there and so I don't really understand all the finer points of the issue.

Forgive me.

[Monica, child of God]

To the question in the OP:

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? --Job 1:8

"Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward Him, and said of him, 'Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!'" --John 1:47

I suppose it is possible. I wouldn't know, being the chief of all sinners.

M.

[MariaRegina]

Seraphim, you are correct in your assumption in my usage of hamartia.

Missing the mark doesn't mean failure.

It just means that try as we may our human condition is not perfect.

Even though there are scriptural references to Job and Nathanael as being perfect and without deceit, we are not God, and therefore, we can never be totally perfect as God is.

Take our language, as perfect as we try to construct our sentences, there is always someone somewhere who will misconstrue what we say into something that we did not intend. So, even a saint can fail. Is that a sin? No, but we still miss the mark in attaining perfect communication skills.


oh well, linguistic ramblings

And Christ is called the Word of God.
And our own words cannot even attempt to honor Him with the praise that is due.

[Jacob4707]

We don't carry any ancestral guilt. I don't need it, I have enough guilt of my own to worry about any from Adam. I'm sure you get around a lot more than I and know a lot more so I'll defer to your assertion that that is what a lot of Orthodox believe. I only know the folks here on TAW and the people at my parish and the very little I read or listen to on AFR.

I don't get that from any of the Orthodox folks I know or talk to about the issue. What I generally get from them is that the issue of ancestral guilt is not an issue because we don't have it. When we miss the mark, we fail and accrue guilt. That's why we have to repent and confess, so we can have our guilt removed and experience spiritual healing. No one I know places any kind of overemphasis on a lack of guilt so I can't really say much about it.

I probably shouldn't even be talking about this as I didn't read all of what you posted back there and so I don't really understand all the finer points of the issue.

Forgive me.

You may be right about "ancestral guilt" and I may have erred in even implying it (though there are Orthodox "catechisms" on the Internet that do, IIRC, affirm the common "Western" understanding of sin/guilt and our relationship to Adam and his act).

Hey, I didn't read all that I posted, either!! I just thought it might go into more depth about the relationship of hamartia to the Old Testament concept of "sin."

[MariaRegina]

Jacob,

I am sure that you gave our distinguished guest much to think about, and probably more than she can bite off at this time, but perhaps not.

[Jacob4707]

Jacob,

I am sure that you gave our distinguished guest much to think about, and probably more than she can bite off at this time, but perhaps not.

My mouth is already full. ^_^

[Dust and Ashes]

My mouth is already full. ^_^

Want a couple of beers to wash it down with? We have almost 2 cases left and it'll take me at least a day, maybe 2 to drink them all. :D

[Ceridwen]

It seems to me that there are better ways to refer to someone than "sinner." In the long run, this looks like sloppy usage that is not accurate or helpful. It is odd to refer to an existence (someone) according to its measure of nonexistence (sin) rather than to its measure of existence (the human herself). Someone exists only to the degree that they don't participate in evil. A fully completed "sinner" would have driven himself out of existence.

The word "sinner" seems like a backwards use of langauge for those, like the Orthodox, who believe in the privation theory of evil. When we use a word to refer to a being, it would seem more realistic if the word bore a closer relation to the being referred to rather than to its nonbeing. The more being that it has, the more it is God and the less it is sinner. What is wrong with backwards use of language? It is imprecise and can lead us to develop faulty attitudes and make bad decisions. The referant, to the degree that it can be referred to at all, is a human which should be treated as a human, and not as a void or as an object.

[Orthosdoxa]

What is your point?

[Thekla]

"Ancestral Sin" is another term (hey :) -- its the title of a book I'm reading). We don't have original sin, we were born into a fallen world, and our body will die. It makes life "tougher". We have not inherited guilt.

Being called "good or bad" is culturally loaded. Its hard to respond without knowing what "good" means. (ex. good = moral ... uh, not the mushroom though. Those ARE good ^_^ )

[Dust and Ashes]

It seems to me that there are better ways to refer to someone than "sinner." In the long run, this looks like sloppy usage that is not accurate or helpful. It is odd to refer to an existence (someone) according to its measure of nonexistence (sin) rather than to its measure of existence (the human herself). Someone exists only to the degree that they don't participate in evil. A fully completed "sinner" would have driven himself out of existence.

The word "sinner" seems like a backwards use of langauge for those, like the Orthodox, who believe in the privation theory of evil. When we use a word to refer to a being, it would seem more realistic if the word bore a closer relation to the being referred to rather than to its nonbeing. The more being that it has, the more it is God and the less it is sinner. What is wrong with backwards use of language? It is imprecise and can lead us to develop faulty attitudes and make bad decisions. The referant, to the degree that it can be referred to at all, is a human which should be treated as a human, and not as a void or as an object.


You are expressing a concept that, to my very limited mind, is quite Orthodox. What you have to remember is that you are dealing with people and we will let you down and we don't always live up to the standard we are called to live up to.

By Christ's teachings, we are called to look at our own sins and strive to drive them from our lives, to be strict with ourselves but lenient towards others. We don't call other people sinners, or we are not supposed to. I am a sinner. You? At worst, I can only say "I don't know" because I don't. I'm not called to judge you and I can't judge you or anyone else. I am riddled with sin, how can I judge you?

The consistent message of Orthodoxy is that sin is like a disease that corrupts us but healing medicine is available to us and we must live by certain standards to help that Medicine be more efficacious to our spiritual healing. We focus on sin so much because it is something we are striving to remove from our lives.

Adam lived in perfect communion with God. God is life. When Adam sinned, he broke communion, he literally cut himself off from Life. What happens if you stop doing something that is necessary for you to live? You die. Sin is what was introduced which takes man from Life to death or non-life. Christ sanctified the creation and made it possible for us to be healed of our terminal condition.

I hope some of this makes sense, I'm just flying by the seat of my pants here.

Forgive me.

[Ceridwen]

What is your point?
Clear thinking and doing? It is true, as George MacDonald said, that "When the good man sees goodness, he thinks of his own evil." But if a man remains a "sinner" until the transfiguration is completed, then he will always be -- for, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa, the process does not end. We can never attain ultimate unity and stability in the divine good but simply expand towards it -- epektasis.

[Dust and Ashes]

We, who are finite, can only ever approach the Infinite, infinitely because we can never become infinite ourselves. We can share in God's energies but never in His essence because He is ineffable in His essence.

[Thekla]

Clear thinking and doing? It is true, as George MacDonald said, that "When the good man sees goodness, he thinks of his own evil." But if a man remains a "sinner" until the transfiguration is completed, then he will always be -- for, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa, the process does not end. We can never attain ultimate unity and stability in the divine good but simply expand towards it -- epektasis.
or did he say "in it" ... when speaking about spiritual growth

[Ceridwen]

or did he say "in it" ... when speaking about spiritual growth
Here is a passage where Gregory of Nyssa addresses epektasis:
To the Godhead it properly belongs to lack no conceivable thing which is regarded as good, while the creation attains excellence by partaking in something better than itself; and further, not only had a beginning of its being, but also is found to be constantly in a state of beginning to be in excellence, by its continual advance in improvement, since it never halts at what it has reached, but all that it has acquired becomes by participation a beginning of its ascent to something still greater, and it never ceases, in Paul's phrase, "reaching forth (epekteinomene) to the things that are before," and "forgetting the things that are behind" [Phil 3.14].
St. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius.
Bishop Kallistos Ware:
The soul possesses God, and yet still seeks him; her joy is full, and yet grows always more intense. God grows ever nearer to us, yet he still remains the Other; we behold him face to face, yet we still continue to advance further and further into the divine mystery. Although strangers no longer, we do not cease to be pilgrims. We go forward “from glory to glory “ (2 Cor. 3:18), and then to a glory that is greater still. Never, in all eternity, shall we reach a point where we have accomplished all that there is to do, or discovered all that there is to know. “Not only in this present age but also in the Age to come,” says St. Irenaeus, “God will always have something more to teach man, and man will always have something more to learn from God” [Against the Heresies II, xxviii, 3]
Bishop Kallistos Ware. The Orthodox Way.

[Thekla]

Here is a passage where Gregory of Nyssa addresses epektasis:To the Godhead it properly belongs to lack no conceivable thing which is regarded as good, while the creation attains excellence by partaking in something better than itself; and further, not only had a beginning of its being, but also is found to be constantly in a state of beginning to be in excellence, by its continual advance in improvement, since it never halts at what it has reached, but all that it has acquired becomes by participation a beginning of its ascent to something still greater, and it never ceases, in Paul's phrase, "reaching forth (epekteinomene) to the things that are before," and "forgetting the things that are behind" [Phil 3.14].
St. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius.
Bishop Kallistos Ware:The soul possesses God, and yet still seeks him; her joy is full, and yet grows always more intense. God grows ever nearer to us, yet he still remains the Other; we behold him face to face, yet we still continue to advance further and further into the divine mystery. Although strangers no longer, we do not cease to be pilgrims. We go forward “from glory to glory “ (2 Cor. 3:18), and then to a glory that is greater still. Never, in all eternity, shall we reach a point where we have accomplished all that there is to do, or discovered all that there is to know. “Not only in this present age but also in the Age to come,” says St. Irenaeus, “God will always have something more to teach man, and man will always have something more to learn from God” [Against the Heresies II, xxviii, 3]
Bishop Kallistos Ware. The Orthodox Way.


right, from glory to glory. virtue (?) can only be constrained by its opposite. God is good, and He can not be "constrained" by anything (He is infinite, etc). We participate in his energies (uncreated, energia) and move forward glory to glory as our capacity allows. Do I remember correctly ?

[MichaelArchangelos]

"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And [Jesus] said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." - Matthew 19:16-17

[buzuxi02]

hahahaha, most people who claim they are a "good person" tend to be really screwed up, thats from my experiences.

They try to show that the drug use and really bad decisions of their life, was simply bad luck

[icxn]

It seems to me that there are better ways to refer to someone than "sinner." In the long run, this looks like sloppy usage that is not accurate or helpful. It is odd to refer to an existence (someone) according to its measure of nonexistence (sin) rather than to its measure of existence (the human herself). Someone exists only to the degree that they don't participate in evil. A fully completed "sinner" would have driven himself out of existence.
The more we empty a room of furniture the more it is filled with air and so it is with us. The more we empty ourselves of our ego, the more we are filled with the Spirit of God. What you call as sloppy, inaccurate and useless has a very important function in our spiritual life:
I once caught this mad imposter (pride) as it was rising in my heart, bearing on its shoulders its mother, vainglory. Roping them with the noose of obedience and thrashing them with the whip of humility, I demanded how they got access to me. At last, when flogged, they said: “we have neither beginning nor birth, for we are progenitors and parents of all the passions. Contrition of heart that is born of obedience is our real enemy; we cannot bear to be subject to anyone; that is why we fell from Heaven, though we had authority there.

“In brief, we are the parents of all that opposes humility; for everything which furthers humility, opposes us. We hold sway everywhere, save in Heaven, so where will you run from our presence? We often accompany dishonors, and obedience, and freedom from anger, and lack of resentment, and service. Our offspring are the falls of spiritual men: anger, calumny, spite, irritability, shouting, blasphemy, hypocrisy, hatred, envy, disputation, self-will and disobedience.

There is only one thing in which we have no power to meddle; and we shall tell you this, for we cannot bear your blows: If you keep up a sincere condemnation of yourself as a sinner before the Lord, you can count us as weak as a cobweb. For pride’s saddlehorse, as you see, is vainglory, on which I am mounted.” But holy humility and self-accusation laugh at both the horse and its rider, happily singing the song of victory: Let us sing to the Lord, for gloriously is He glorified: horse and rider hath He hurled into the sea (Exodus 15:1) and into the abyss of humility. - St. John Climacus, "The Ladder of Divine Ascent"
The word "sinner" seems like a backwards use of langauge for those, like the Orthodox, who believe in the privation theory of evil. When we use a word to refer to a being, it would seem more realistic if the word bore a closer relation to the being referred to rather than to its nonbeing. The more being that it has, the more it is God and the less it is sinner. What is wrong with backwards use of language? It is imprecise and can lead us to develop faulty attitudes and make bad decisions. The referant, to the degree that it can be referred to at all, is a human which should be treated as a human, and not as a void or as an object.The problem is not with Orthodoxy or its use of language, but with the absolutist and abstract academic perspective of yours. The above quote from St. John provides one such perspective/context, where self-condemnation makes perfect sense. There are cases when the opposite is also true such as the following quote from the Desert Fathers portrays:
A brother at Scetis was preparing to go to the harvest and he went to see an old man and said to him, 'Tell me what I should do when I go harvesting.' The old man said to him, 'If I tell you, will you believe me?' The brother said, 'Yes I am listening to you.' The old man said to him, 'If you trust me, go and give up this harvesting, come here and I will tell you what to do.' So the brother gave up harvesting and came to live with the old man. The old man said to him, 'Go into your cell, spend fifty days eating dry bread and salt only once a day, and come back and I will tell you what else to do.' The brother went away, did this, then came back to the old man. The old man, seeing that he was a worker, taught him how to live in the cell. The brother went away to his cell and prostrated himself to the ground, weeping before God. After this, when his thoughts said to him, 'You are trained, you have become a great man', he placed his sins before his eyes, saying, 'And where are all my omissions?' But when his thoughts in the opposite sense said to him, 'You have committed many sins', he in his turn replied, 'Yet I say my few prayers to God, and I trust that God will have mercy on me.' Being overcome, the evil spirits appeared to him openly saying, 'We have been disturbed by you.' He asked them why. They said to him, 'When we exalt you, you run to humility; but when we humiliate you, then you exalt yourself.' - The Desert FatherOrthopraxis - not intellectual speculation - will teach you all these things and even more as God's wisdom provides.

Here's yet another perspective:

I remember once we were speaking about humiliation and one of the great lights of Gaza, hearing us say, "The nearer a man is to God the more he sees himself to be a sinner," was astonished, and said, "How is this possible?" He did not know, and wanted to know the answer. I said to him, "Tell me, how do you regard yourself in respect to the other citizens here?"
And he said, "I regard myself as great, and among the first of the citizens." I said then, "If you went away to Caesaraea, how would you regard yourself then?" "I would value myself somewhat less than the great folk there." So I said, "If you went away to Antioch, what then?" And he replied, I would regard myself as one of the common people." I said, "And if you went into the presence of the Emperor, what would you think of yourself then?" He replied, "I should think of myself as just one of the poor." Then I said to him, "There you are! In the same way, the saints, the nearer they approach to God, the more they see themselves as sinners." - Dorotheus of Gaza, "Discourses and Sayings"

[Thekla]

It seems to me that there are better ways to refer to someone than "sinner." In the long run, this looks like sloppy usage that is not accurate or helpful. It is odd to refer to an existence (someone) according to its measure of nonexistence (sin) rather than to its measure of existence (the human herself). Someone exists only to the degree that they don't participate in evil. A fully completed "sinner" would have driven himself out of existence.

The word "sinner" seems like a backwards use of langauge for those, like the Orthodox, who believe in the privation theory of evil. When we use a word to refer to a being, it would seem more realistic if the word bore a closer relation to the being referred to rather than to its nonbeing. The more being that it has, the more it is God and the less it is sinner. What is wrong with backwards use of language? It is imprecise and can lead us to develop faulty attitudes and make bad decisions. The referant, to the degree that it can be referred to at all, is a human which should be treated as a human, and not as a void or as an object.

In your first paragraph, you seem to confuse illumination with nirvana.

Losing self refers, if you will, to "losing" our sinfulness (selfishness, ego). God is love, God does not need anything - He is "unselfish".

As we progress, we lose ego and become person ( a true human being as we were created to be - like Adam before the fall). We are a creation, it is the Creator who truly knows us ... who calls our name because He alone knows our "true" name (compare TS Eliot: every cat has 3 names... the one others call him, the one he calls himself and the one that he is -- it is the 3rd name God calls us by ...).

In becoming a person, we progress from selfish (ego) love to unselfish love, Godlike love.

It is not self that we lose, but selfishness.

[Ceridwen]

icxn,
I think you are right -- that the use of the word "sinner" in religious language is intended to appeal to one's conscience and not one's intellect. It is intended to provoke a kind of feeling in a person and not a kind of knowledge. Surely, it is better to have a repentant will than to know the true doctrine. It is appropriate to reflect on the proper realm in which this kind of word belongs.

But I would not say that learning more about the moral structure of the universe with clarity and truth is not worthwhile. If it were unworthy to learn, we would leave unread much of what is written by St. Maximos and St. Gregory of Nyssa! The difficulty, I think, comes when the word "sinner" that pricks our conscience, also confuses our ideas.

[Ceridwen]

In your first paragraph, you seem to confuse illumination with nirvana.
What I was describing was the perspective that salvation is ontological reconstruction and that damnation is ontological decomposition. What is cast (or casts itself) into Hell is not a man: it is 'remains.' When there is nothing to say about a man but "sinner," the man no longer exists to refer to by that word or any other.
"The whole difficulty of understanding Hell is that the thing to be understood is so nearly Nothing. But ye'll have had experiences ... it begins with a grumbling mood, and yourself still distinct from it: perhaps criticising it. And yourself, in a dark hour, may will that mood, embrace it. Ye can repent and come out of it again. But there may come a day when you can do that no longer. Then there will be no 'you' left to criticise the mood, nor even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself going on forever like a machine."
C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce.

[Thekla]

What I was describing was the perspective that salvation is ontological reconstruction and that damnation is ontological decomposition. What is cast (or casts itself) into Hell is not a man: it is 'remains.' When there is nothing to say about a man but "sinner," the man no longer exists to refer to by that word or any other.
"The whole difficulty of understanding Hell is that the thing to be understood is so nearly Nothing. But ye'll have had experiences ... it begins with a grumbling mood, and yourself still distinct from it: perhaps criticising it. And yourself, in a dark hour, may will that mood, embrace it. Ye can repent and come out of it again. But there may come a day when you can do that no longer. Then there will be no 'you' left to criticise the mood, nor even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself going on forever like a machine."
C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce.

rather, salvation could be described "ontological uncovering" -- as sin is burned away, we can reconstruct and deepen our relationship with God
and in this we are also increasingly energized to be in relationship with man (the 2 commandments given by Christ, which summarize the 10).

We are not reconstructed, but revealed by/in our relationship with God.

[icxn]

...But I would not say that learning more about the moral structure of the universe with clarity and truth is not worthwhile. If it were unworthy to learn, we would leave unread most of what is written by St. Maximos and St. Gregory of Nyssa! The difficulty, I think, comes when the word "sinner" that pricks our conscience, also confuses our ideas.Of course, we are not shunning intelligent thinking, we are just directing it to what is profitable. On the day of judgment, God is not going to ask us to present our theological ideas but He is certainly going to demand that we present the fruits of repentance. (cf. St. John Climacus)

Keep reading St. Maximus and St. Gregory and you will find that they were very humble and had a very lowly idea of themselves and for that reason God bestowed to them such a great wisdom and understanding. I do not see why lowliness should confuse our ideas, when in fact lowliness gives birth to lofty ideas.

Dispassion and humility lead to spiritual knowledge. Without them no one will see the Lord. - St. Maximus, "Fourth Century on Love"

[Ceridwen]

rather, salvation could be described "ontological uncovering" -- as sin is burned away, we can reconstruct and deepen our relationship with God
and in this we are also increasingly energized to be in relationship with man (the 2 commandments given by Christ, which summarize the 10).

We are not reconstructed, but revealed by/in our relationship with God.
God is fire and when He came into the world, and became man, He sent fire on the earth, as He Himself says; this fire turns about searching to find material — that is a disposition and an intention that is good — to fall into and to kindle; and for those in whom this fire will ignite, it becomes a great flame, which reaches Heaven.... this flame at first purifies us from the pollution of passions and then it becomes in us food and drink and light and joy, and renders us light ourselves because we participate in His light.
Saint Symeon the New Theologian (Discourse 78).

He is a consuming fire, that only that which cannot be consumed may stand forth eternal. It is the nature of God, so terribly pure that it destroys all that is not pure as fire, which demands like purity in our worship. He will have purity. It is not that the fire will burn us if we do not worship thus; yea, will go on burning within us after all that is foreign to it has yielded to its force, no longer with pain and consuming, but as the highest consciousness of life, the presence of God.
George MacDonald, UNSPOKEN SERMONS, First Series, The Consuming Fire

[Ceridwen]

icxn,
I don't think accuracy in language and the virtue of humility conflict at all. A person could be very humble, while also recognizing that words like "sinner" can be used in an exhortatory but not scientific way. According to the privation theory of evil, evil is not, the verb "to be" does not apply to it. When you are fishing for a word to follow "He is...", then "sinner" doesn't quite fit in a scientific way, because the word does not speak of his "is-ness" but his "is-not-ness."

For all their humility, the Christian theologians/philosophers never gave up the privation theory of evil which affirms the goodness of every existing thing, including themselves:
This is the exceeding greatness of the power of the Good, that It empowers, both things deprived, and the deprivation of Itself, with a view to the entire participation of itself. And, if one must make bold to speak the truth, even the things fighting against It, both are, and are able to fight, by Its power. Yea rather, in order that I may speak summarily, all things which are, in so far as they are, both are good, and from the Good; but, in so far as they are deprived of the Good, are neither good, nor do they exist.
DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE, ON DIVINE NAMES. IV, 20.

[icxn]

icxn,
I don't think accuracy in language and the virtue of humility conflict at all...
Linguistic accuracy is good - I do not argue about that - but knowing how to swim is better...
Once upon a time there was a man, who had become so learned that he was called a philosopher; but who had not paid proper attention to other things. He was crossing a river in a ferry-boat, at a place where the passage was not safe; but he was thinking only of his books, and of the pleasure which they gave him.

On the way across the river, the philosopher asked the ferryman, if he understood philology. The man answered, that he had never heard of such a thing before. The philosopher told him he was very sorry, for he had lost a quarter of his life by his ignorance.

The philosopher then asked him, if he had learned linguistics. The boatman smiled, and said he knew nothing about it. The philosopher told him another quarter of his life had been lost.

The philosopher then put a third question to the boatman, and asked him if he understood astronomy and the moral structure of the Universe. The boatman told him no; that he had never head of it before. The philosopher replied, that another quarter of his life had been lost.

Just at this moment the boat ran on a snag, and began to sink. The ferryman threw off his coat, and got ready to save himself by swimming. He then turned to the philosopher and asked him if he had learned to swim. The philosopher told him he did not. "Then" said the boatman, "the whole of your life is lost, for the boat is going to the bottom.";)

PS. 300 blessings to whoever explains correctly the spiritual symbolism of the last paragraph.

[Thekla]

[

[Thekla]

God is fire and when He came into the world, and became man, He sent fire on the earth, as He Himself says; this fire turns about searching to find material — that is a disposition and an intention that is good — to fall into and to kindle; and for those in whom this fire will ignite, it becomes a great flame, which reaches Heaven.... this flame at first purifies us from the pollution of passions and then it becomes in us food and drink and light and joy, and renders us light ourselves because we participate in His light.
Saint Symeon the New Theologian (Discourse 78).

He is a consuming fire, that only that which cannot be consumed may stand forth eternal. It is the nature of God, so terribly pure that it destroys all that is not pure as fire, which demands like purity in our worship. He will have purity. It is not that the fire will burn us if we do not worship thus; yea, will go on burning within us after all that is foreign to it has yielded to its force, no longer with pain and consuming, but as the highest consciousness of life, the presence of God.
George MacDonald, UNSPOKEN SERMONS, First Series, The Consuming Fire

I don't understand what you're trying to convey ...

[buzuxi02]

I think this post went off on a tangent. Ceridwen what is it exactly that your trying to figure out?

Shouldnt a girl your age be more pre-occupied with getting your hair and nails done?

No need to overanalyze everything and dissect every word a Church Father may have spoken especially when we dont know in what context or situation it was meant in.

We are mostly simpletons here, just like many 'good" monks and many Spiritual Fathers, literally peasants from the countryside.
What is it with all these brain-teasers and brain busters?

We all sin, yet we subbornly and clumsily inch our way to an infinite perfection, that is, if our goodness finds mercy with God, since we all fall short of that perfection

[Ceridwen]

Shouldnt a girl your age be more pre-occupied with getting your hair and nails done?
Many people have philosophical orientations and find it stimulating to think about ideas. One of the advantages of the internet is that discussion forums like this exist to talk about such issues. It certainly is not my only interest. In point of fact, speaking of swimming, I am actually a very fine swimmer and practice distance swimming every day. I am also on a water polo team. People aren't either thinkers or doers as ICXN's story intimated -- many of us are both. But nails and hair? Sounds like you may have sexist attitudes. Pity for you.


Back to the philosophical discussion for people who are interested in them... It seems that, by using the word "sinners" to refer to sinning people, we treat sin incorrectly as a noun rather than as an adjective. This observation is only for people who care to think and speak in the strict sense:Evil, on the other hand, is in the strict sense non-being and unreality. Evil and sin have no substantive existence, for they are not a "thing" that God has made; they are a distortion of the good, a parasite -- not a noun but an adjective.
Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Inner Kingdom, p.211

[Ceridwen]

I don't understand what you're trying to convey ...
Your reference to sin being "burned away" reminded me of these passages from St. Symeon and George MacDonald where they speak of the fire of God lustrating and then nourishing those who would repent.

[MariaRegina]

<<<<>>>>There was a popular children's book that my son read in the mid 1990s

Anyway there was this ring of fire which people had to penetrate and they would be purified.

It was written by a protestant and was a fascinating read.

[MariaRegina]

<<<<>>>> Sorry for the string of <> but the CF system

is down and my text would otherwise be covered by the

CF character.

[buzuxi02]

<<<<>>>>There was a popular children's book that my son read in the mid 1990s

Anyway there was this ring of fire which people had to penetrate and they would be purified.

It was written by a protestant and was a fascinating read.
Fascinating, the RC can use that as an apologetic work to prove to the prots of their purgatory dogma.

[buzuxi02]

Many people have philosophical orientations and find it stimulating to think about ideas. One of the advantages of the internet is that discussion forums like this exist to talk about such issues. It certainly is not my only interest. In point of fact, speaking of swimming, I am actually a very fine swimmer and practice distance swimming every day. I am also on a water polo team. People aren't either thinkers or doers as ICXN's story intimated -- many of us are both. But nails and hair? Sounds like you may have sexist attitudes. Pity for you.



Back to the philosophical discussion for people who are interested in them... It seems that, by using the word "sinners" to refer to sinning people, we treat sin incorrectly as a noun rather than as an adjective. This observation is only for people who care to think and speak in the strict sense:Evil, on the other hand, is in the strict sense non-being and unreality. Evil and sin have no substantive existence, for they are not a "thing" that God has made; they are a distortion of the good, a parasite -- not a noun but an adjective.

Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Inner Kingdom, p.211

In Orthodoxy, we tend to treat evil as the absence of good.
Likewise Darkness is the absence of Light. This is what Bishop Ware is trying to say. It is non-reality because Light exists but darkness does not, Genesis 1.3 God said let there be Light, God Never said "let their be darkness". And everything that exists, that has reality, that is not an illusion was created(Jn 1.3) That which was not created simply does not exist.

When we sin, we miss the mark, we fall short. Hamartia, greek for sin means precisely this.

Sin is a seperation from the divine Light, and the more you sin the further you place yourself from the source of Light and the source of Life.

We are called to perfection not mediocrity. We are called to attain the divine energies of God not simply be "once saved always saved, bare minimum to get into heaven"
Like a sword thrust into the fire, while it never turns into fire, for the essence of God is unattainable, it attains the properties of that fire and glows red. Thus the divine energy may burn inside us purifying us and transforming us towards holiness.(theosis).

But.....the further from the light (the fire), the darker it is, the colder it is because cold is the absence of heat, not only darkness engulfs you, but evil as well. Thats what happens when one chooses and decides to stay on the wrong path.

So i have no problem with the word 'sinner'

[gorion]

If a "sinner" is simply one who commits sins, then who on earth is not one? Can you point to anyone who commits no sins? I would love to meet this person.

Is your issue with the term sinner simply that it is just too negative for you to not be offended by? I have read your posts and cannot come to why you are trying to negate its use. It is a simple term, one which no christian should have any issue claiming for themselves.

Unless you have a different definition.

[Ceridwen]

I have read your posts and cannot come to why you are trying to negate its use. It is a simple term, one which no christian should have any issue claiming for themselves.
Obviously every human does evil things and has a corrupt will -- every human chooses a degree of non-being. The question is whether it is most accurate or most helpful to choose the word "sinner" as a description for this state of affairs.

Attaching a negative label to yourself or someone else prevents you from accurately and completely seeing reality. As soon as you label someone a jerk or label yourself as sinner, the whole of the person is reduced to the narrow confines of the label. It is dehumanizing. You or the other person becomes identified with the label.

Besides being dehumanizing, it is unscientific. It is imprecise to think or speak of a human in a way where a negative attribute (his non-being) is nominalized to function as an identification of their person (his being). If, as the theologians say, a person's being is only good and participates in the energies of the Good, then it is unrealistic to slap a negative noun upon the person. It fails as an accurate description.

It may sound very pious and humble to say that you are a negative word rather than a person, but it's not true. It would probably also sound very humble for a man to say he was a hamster -- but that wouldn't make him one!

http://marenfaren.files.wordpress.com/2006/02/hamster%20von%20oben.jpg

[Orthosdoxa]

You know, this thread is starting to remind me of this:

Let's say a guy named Roger is attracted to a woman named Elaine. He asks her out to a movie; she accepts; they have a pretty good time. A few nights later he asks her out to dinner, and again they enjoy themselves. They continue to see each other regularly, and after a while neither one of them is seeing anybody else.
And then, one evening when they're driving home, a thought occurs to Elaine, and, without really thinking, she says it aloud: "Do you realize that, as of tonight, we've been seeing each other for exactly six months?"
And then there is silence in the car. To Elaine, it seems like a very loud silence. She thinks to herself: Geez, I wonder if it bothers him that I said that. Maybe he's been feeling confined by our relationship; maybe he thinks I'm trying to push him into some kind of obligation that he doesn't want, or isn't sure of. And Roger is thinking: Gosh. Six months.
And Elaine is thinking: But, hey, I'm not so sure I want this kind of relationship, either. Sometimes I wish I had a little more space, so I'd have time to think about whether I really want us to keep going the way we are, moving steadily toward ...I mean, where are we going? Are we just going to keep seeing each other at this level of intimacy? Are we heading toward marriage? Toward children? Toward a lifetime together? Am I ready for that
level of commitment? Do I really even know this person?
And Roger is thinking...so that means it was...let's see...February when we started going out, which was right after I had the car at the dealer's, which means...lemme check the odometer...Whoa! I am way overdue for an oil change here.
And Elaine is thinking: He's upset. I can see it on his face. Maybe I'm reading this completely wrong. Maybe he wants more from our relationship, more intimacy, more commitment; maybe he has sensed it even before I sensed it, that I was feeling some reservations. Yes, I bet that's it. That's why he's so reluctant to say anything about his own feelings. He's afraid of being rejected.
And Roger is thinking: And I'm gonna have them look at the transmission again. I don't care what those morons say, it's still not shifting right. And they better not try to blame it on the cold weather this time. What cold weather? It's 87 degrees out, and this thing is shifting like a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] garbage truck, and I paid those incompetent thieves $600.
COMMUNICATIONS GAP
And Elaine is thinking: He's angry. And I don't blame him. I'd be angry, too. God, I feel so guilty, putting him through this, but I can't help the way I feel. I'm just not sure.
And Roger is thinking: They'll probably say it's only a 90-day warranty. That's exactly what they're gonna say, the scumballs.
And Elaine is thinking: Maybe I'm just too idealistic, waiting for a knight to come riding up on his white horse, when I'm sitting right next to a perfectly good person, a person I enjoy being with, a person I truly do care about, a person who seems to truly care about me. A person who is in pain because of my self-centered, schoolgirl romantic fantasy.
And Roger is thinking: Warranty? They want a warranty? I'll give them a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] warranty. I'll take their warranty and stick it right up their...
"Roger," Elaine says aloud.
"What?" says Roger, startled.
"Please don't torture yourself like this," she says, her eyes beginning to brim with tears. "Maybe I should never have...Oh God, I feel so..." (She breaks down, sobbing.)
"What?" says Roger.
"I'm such a fool," Elaine sobs. "I mean, I know there's no knight. I really know that. It's silly. There's no knight, and there's no horse."
"There's no horse?" says Roger.
"You think I'm a fool, don't you?" Elaine says.
"No!" says Roger, glad to finally know the correct answer.
"It's just that... It's that I...I need some time," Elaine says.
(There is a 15-second pause while Roger, thinking as fast as he can, tries to come up with a safe response. Finally he comes up with one that he thinks might work.)
"Yes," he says.
A BEFUDDLED BEAU
(Elaine, deeply moved, touches his hand.) "Oh, Roger, do you really feel that way?" she says.
"What way?" says Roger.
"That way about time," says Elaine.
"Oh," says Roger. "Yes."
(Elaine turns to face him and gazes deeply into his eyes, causing him to become very nervous about what she might say next, especially if it involves a horse. At last she speaks.)
"Thank you, Roger," she says.
"Thank you," says Roger.
Then he takes her home, and she lies on her bed, a conflicted,tortured soul, and weeps until dawn, whereas when Roger gets back to his place, he opens a bag of Doritos, turns on the TV, and immediately becomes deeply involved in a rerun of a tennis match between two Czechoslovakians he never heard of. A tiny voice in the far recesses of his mind tells him that something major was
going on back there in the car, but he is pretty sure there is no way he would ever understand what, and so he figures it's better if he doesn't think about it. (This is also Roger's policy regarding world hunger. )

You can make an issue about words not being acceptable, or you can just use them as Scripture clearly does, over and over (http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=sinner&qs_version=9), and get on with it.

If you said it dehumanizes people to refer to them as racial slurs like N*gger or the like, I'd agree. It takes away their personhood and reduces them to a stereotype. But sinner is a word used throughout Christian history. You can't philosophize it away, unless you want to say that 2000 years of Christian history is incorrect.

[gorion]

Obviously every human does evil things and has a corrupt will -- every human chooses a degree of non-being. The question is whether it is most accurate or most helpful to choose the word "sinner" as a description for this state of affairs.

Sinner simply means one who commits sins. If you do, you are. It's very simple really.

Attaching a negative label to yourself or someone else prevents you from accurately and completely seeing reality.

Rubbish. To say I cannot call myself a sinner and accurately see myself is nonsense. To the contrary it actually shows me what needs to be corrected. Of course if my only interest is to pat myself on the back for the "good" I do and ignore the bad I suppose it would help. But my goal is purification and no one can do that without an accurate asessment of ones true self.

As soon as you label someone a jerk or label yourself as sinner, the whole of the person is reduced to the narrow confines of the label. It is dehumanizing. You or the other person becomes identified with the label.

Again utter rubbish. Your comparison is no good. The term Jerk has no substantive meaning. It is thrust upon people purely to be derogatory. Sinner on the other hand is an acknowledgement of a state of being. Is it used as a deropgatory? Sure it is, but it is not the proper use of the term and a christian wouldn't (shouldn't) go around using the term in a manner to purely put someone down.

Besides being dehumanizing, it is unscientific. It is imprecise to think or speak of a human in a way where a negative attribute (his non-being) is nominalized to function as an identification of their person (his being). If, as the theologians say, a person's being is only good and participates in the energies of the Good, then it is unrealistic to slap a negative noun upon the person. It fails as an accurate description.

Lots of logic there that completely misses the point. The term is completely accurate. If you have a better term to describe someone who commits sins I'm all ears.

It may sound very pious and humble to say that you are a negative word rather than a person, but it's not true. It would probably also sound very humble for a man to say he was a hamster -- but that wouldn't make him one!

I understand the world of PC has determined that all words that carry negative connotations are "bad" but this is a lie.

The Truth is if one only uses positives in his self examination, then one will never get beyond where he is.