(still getting a handle on this - excuse me, it may take a few days or weeks.) What I want to do here is comment on an aspect placed in the post in the "Commentaries." In this, I made a few cryptic comments and would like to elucidate on one aspect at the moment: that is, the nature of sin.
In the Commentary, I linked sin with an antithesis, "praise," as in "praise to God." What I meant by that is this: from what I understand, both from my own experience and from the accumulated wisdom of many others, genuine (traditional) religions believe all of creation is sacred. Although modern environmentalists credit Judeo-Christianity, as espoused in the Old Testament, with giving Man the right to "dominate"nature, this should not be understood as they understand it now; rather that nature, as the handiwork of God, has been given over to Man to be treated as such. In this way, the Biblical traditions join the other religions in their praise of all the works of God.
Which brings me to the point: how should one treat the sacred? We know how - with respect, dignity, reverence, and equability. Since all is sacred, all should be treated thus. The world, the cosmos, is a cathedral. To treat it otherwise, to profanize it, is to treat it poorly; that is, to sin. All sin may fall under this rubric: as treating what is created without the respect due to work of God (or the Absolute, if you prefer). Thus is sin offensive, and thus might it be seen in its global context. Sex, for instance, would most likely be sinful in a brothel; but is not in a sacred (as lived, license or no) marriage, or in a Siva temple. I do not see any sin that would fall out of this generalization: that is, as an act which disrespects works of creation.
Yet what is it in us that makes us do so? We have ritual to remind us of the sacred in life - but why is this necessary? Are not the forests or our fellow humans so obviously sacred in themselves? Food for thought for next time. Fred
In the Commentary, I linked sin with an antithesis, "praise," as in "praise to God." What I meant by that is this: from what I understand, both from my own experience and from the accumulated wisdom of many others, genuine (traditional) religions believe all of creation is sacred. Although modern environmentalists credit Judeo-Christianity, as espoused in the Old Testament, with giving Man the right to "dominate"nature, this should not be understood as they understand it now; rather that nature, as the handiwork of God, has been given over to Man to be treated as such. In this way, the Biblical traditions join the other religions in their praise of all the works of God.
Which brings me to the point: how should one treat the sacred? We know how - with respect, dignity, reverence, and equability. Since all is sacred, all should be treated thus. The world, the cosmos, is a cathedral. To treat it otherwise, to profanize it, is to treat it poorly; that is, to sin. All sin may fall under this rubric: as treating what is created without the respect due to work of God (or the Absolute, if you prefer). Thus is sin offensive, and thus might it be seen in its global context. Sex, for instance, would most likely be sinful in a brothel; but is not in a sacred (as lived, license or no) marriage, or in a Siva temple. I do not see any sin that would fall out of this generalization: that is, as an act which disrespects works of creation.
Yet what is it in us that makes us do so? We have ritual to remind us of the sacred in life - but why is this necessary? Are not the forests or our fellow humans so obviously sacred in themselves? Food for thought for next time. Fred
RSS Feed