• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Is accepting Jesus as messiah a sin?

“Is it moral” and “Is it a sin” are two entirely separate and not necessarily related questions. To my mind a ‘sin’ is a transgression against something or someone. Most commonly God’s laws, most often as revealed and managed by the institutional Church. Though it is easy enough to sin against your fellow human beings also, though often that doubles up with transgressing God’s laws.

So the question “is accepting Jesus as saviour a sin?” begs the subsequent question: sin against who or what? I can’t see that it is a transgression again the laws of any Christian church (quite the opposite) and it is hard to imagine how accepting Jesus as one’s saviour is going to interfere in some sinful way with the life of anybody in your life. So that’s a flat out no to the way the question was first framed.

As to is it moral? Well that’s a typical how long is a piece of string question. There are multiple moral systems in the world unless you are a Kantian and believe a single set of absolute moral precepts can be arrived at through reason and the categorical imperative. So one may easily say “in my moral system outsourcing one’s failings to a scapegoat is considered morally weak” but another may easily say “admitting my failings to my God and doing penance for my sins and sinning no more” is the height of moral rectitude.

The original question omitted the fact that acceptance of Christ as redeemer requires: admission of guilt, the doing of penance, and sinning no more. Each of which seem pretty moral and definitely not sinful acts.

I don’t mean to be rude, and I like to engage on these topics, but it is kind of a daft question because respondents might inhabit competing or incompatible moral systems.
 
Neither is a sin. But at the same time both are sin. Jesus tried to awaken the divinity within humans to make them realize they could do whatever he can do and more. He was never meant to be worshipped or acknowledged as a moral superior. That was just a byproduct of people’s primitive interpretations regarding his way of being
 
Neither is a sin. But at the same time both are sin. Jesus tried to awaken the divinity within humans to make them realize they could do whatever he can do and more. He was never meant to be worshipped or acknowledged as a moral superior. That was just a byproduct of people’s primitive interpretations and reactions regarding his way of being.

You cannot expect anything that was written about Jesus to be an accurate representation of his motives and true purpose. At least not in a time when people have not reached that point of evolution to where they are able to perceive the totality of everything that spirituality entails and how it relates to the physical world.
 
ovenbakedskittles said:
Neither is a sin. But at the same time both are sin. Jesus tried to awaken the divinity within humans to make them realize they could do whatever he can do and more. He was never meant to be worshipped or acknowledged as a moral superior. That was just a byproduct of people’s primitive interpretations and reactions regarding his way of being.

You cannot expect anything that was written about Jesus to be an accurate representation of his motives and true purpose. At least not in a time when people have not reached that point of evolution to where they are able to perceive the totality of everything that spirituality entails and how it relates to the physical world.
Click to expand...
I think a fair part of his basic teachings as recorded in the Gospels and the Pauline Letters are likely an accurate representation of what Jesus was on about. It might miss of a bit of high level nuance, but the basic message of love and compassion was his core proposition.
 
OK I'm starting to theorize that OP is stuck in a psychosis/mental loop of some kind? I really don't want to be an ass, and actually it worries me, but he always repeats the same stuff. Always the Niemöller quote, and I told him 2 or 3 times already that Niemöller was himself a evangelic priest, and he always leaves out the part about catholics being persecuted by the Nazis which is also in the Niemöller quote. But OP just doesn't pick up that information, I'm at a loss. He always says the 3 words "homophobic" "misogynistic" and "genocidal", like it's a fucking mantra. There's something really off about it, and I apologize for any comments just thinking you were a jackass @Gnostic Bishop , I'm starting to think you're in some serious mental turmoil, and I'm very sorry. I will just tolerate your intolerance
 
Atelier3 said:
I think a fair part of his basic teachings as recorded in the Gospels and the Pauline Letters are likely an accurate representation of what Jesus was on about. It might miss of a bit of high level nuance, but the basic message of love and compassion was his core proposition.
Click to expand...
Yes but that higher level of nuance is what might have been necessary for them to implement this notion of love and compassion rather than create a religion that focus on how long your hair should be or how women should be submissive and how gays should be persecuted.

Taking the sanctity of Jesus s true words and meanings and deviating from that true essence and created a system of control and conflict up until this point.
 
Gnostic Bishop said:
I am always here to show my beliefs, but my gain of a convert is not as important as trying to reduce the harm the homophobic and misogynous religions are doing.

Priorities.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...
I did say and do personally believe you are a true believer in your form of Gnosticsm. And I don't think Christians ever consider that Jesus was our scapegoat. Rather he chose to do it for us and that plus the divinity given to Christ in every single branch of Christianity is why he is to be revered and worshipped. You asking a question that doesn't really exist.
 
Gnostic Bishop said:
I think that to use a scapegoat is a sin.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that the one transferring sin was to place their hand(s) on the "scapegoat" while it is sacrificed...?
According to Lev:

16:21. Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over it all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites, whatever their sins, putting them on the head of the goat; and it shall be sent off to the wilderness through a designated man.

16:22. Thus the goat shall carry on it all their iniquities to an inaccessible region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness.

Although this appears to be an early "law" I personally think it is abhorring that people use this rout to appease their suffering conscious. Over and over. It becomes an aid for others to do what they will without fear of repercussions. "Oh, shit; I just killed a hooker. What can I do?" - - "You cool, just transfer all your transgression(s) to the goat and chase it away to never return".
Guessing it is like penitence... just mutter a mantra for X number of times and all is well... go sin as needed.
MFs need to own who they are and what they do so that the innocent can be left alone. No aiding and abetting... harboring. lol
 
And I believe that looking to any man, woman or child for salvation is a cop out and a means for the lazy to not think for and govern themselves.
 
6am-64-14m said:
And I believe that looking to any man, woman or child for salvation is a cop out and a means for the lazy to not think for and govern themselves.
Click to expand...
People ask help of God, but do they not have feet, hands, a mind? We have medicine, housing, social services, ...
Isn't it enough of whatever entity has made this life happen that life exists?
Do people have to ask for more?! And that's not blasphemous, or what?
Christians weird me out, honestly. In my belief we're thankful for the sun, and the rain, and the harvest..
aand yeah.. that's pretty much it. We only know the Idisi, which are the weavers of fate,
we have no contact to the Gods, because they don't have names or form

Use what you have, and keep going.
Sure there's pain, but without pain, happiness would be worth nothing
 
December Flower said:
Use what you have, and keep going.
Sure there's pain, but without pain, happiness would be worth nothing
Click to expand...
That is actually the core philosophy of working class cultural Catholics the world over: from Ireland (especially) to Argentina. Except with the twist that you only get to appreciate that happiness after you are dead from your short life of endless drudgery at the bottom of the social heap.
 
Atomic_Decay said:
That is actually the core philosophy of working class cultural Catholics the world over: from Ireland (especially) to Argentina. Except with the twist that you only get to appreciate that happiness after you are dead from your short life of endless drudgery at the bottom of the social heap.
Click to expand...
It's a good philosophy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top