I’d never heard anybody call “sin” an imaginary disease, so when I saw this graphic posted on the Internet, it instantly grabbed my attention.
“Sin” has become a strange and cliched term in our culture. Either something is “sinful” (a favourite positive term in TV commercials for rich foods like chocolate) or it’s something most of us associate with annoying, badly dressed TV evangelists.
So I looked up the term. The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry website defines it this way:
Sin is the breaking of God’s law. If God says “Do not lie” and you lie, then you have broken His law and sinned. The reason God says to not lie, not cheat, etc., is because these laws reflect the moral purity of His nature. Therefore, the law is a reflection of the character of God.
Dictionary.com is a little briefer:
Any act regarded as such a transgression, especially a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle. Any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It’s a sin to waste time.
Maybe that’s not a “sin” to you. So let’s use less loaded words: Misdeed. Mistake. Error. Wrongdoing. Imperfection. Moral crime.
Whatever your preferred term, I can’t for a minute believe it’s an “imaginary disease”. Is there even a single person on this planet who hasn’t done or said something they regret? Or NOT done or said something and regretted that?
It seems crystal clear to me that this is a universal human condition. We “invented” it and, sadly, we live it out every day.
So what about the “imaginary” cure? The person who created this graphic is probably an atheist and so believes if the “disease” isn’t real, then there’s no need for a cure.
But if you’re comfortable in disagreeing with the former, then the latter is no longer imaginary.
For people like me, the cure is wonderfully simple: Jesus of Nazareth, who many people believe is the son of God. Jesus is God’s gift to humanity, given to all who believe that He died to make up for our sins. All we have to do is accept the gift.
Obviously, this doesn’t mean we will avoid the consequences of our actions (or inactions). But it does mean that, if we truly believe Jesus offers the way to eternal forgiveness and if we sincerely ask for that forgiveness, we will receive it from the creator and master of time, space and the universe. No matter what.
(Looking for an incredible example? Then read this Frank’s Cottage blog about the ‘Son of Sam’: http://wp.me/p2wzRb-6K)
So, does the cure for your “disease” interest you? Yes or no, post your answer below and let’s have a conversation.
Frank's Cottage 
Sin is a very real disease and the only cure is Jesus! People who avoid calling a sin “sin” are deluded.
Thanks for another thoughtful post, Frank!
I suspect there is really only one cure for the disease – death! As much as we have died is as much as we have been cured.
Great post … it’s certainly not an imaginary problem – it’s very real indeed. We are so very much UNLIKE God – a supremely morally perfect entity – we are reminded of this fact when we look in the mirror and see this “imaginary” problem that shows up from the root of our being.
It’s an imaginary disease because even if defined as “breaking God’s law” it would still fall under the category of “imaginary.” Hint: do you really know of any god other than the one in your imagination? (It can be easily demonstrated that this is the only ‘God’ you have access to.)
But supposing the Commandments are a “reflection of His character” as in your article; the first 5 are purely narcissistic, while the last 5 (actually referring to a moral position) are broken by the same God!
He murders, he commits adultery, he orders the army of Moses (et el) to abscond with the property of others, he deceives, and he covets! (i.e. “unblemished” animal sacrifices, worship, obedience, Sabbath – he killed a man for picking up stones on the Sabbath day, remember?).
Aren’t his *actions* more a reflection of his character than the commandments he imposes on others? God, apparently by his own standards, sins! I doubt, therefore, your assessment can be accurate.
Might it be more plausible that the sins you define by a supposed God’s character are really derived from the superstitious beliefs of ancient culture?
Thanks for your comments. The essay is written for people who are interested in spirituality. Are you an atheist?
(About me; because you asked): I have been keenly interested in spirituality for well over 40 years, and have studied many “spiritual” systems and paths. On religious or spiritual affairs, I do not define myself as an atheist, but as a truth seeker.
This is why I commented on your article. Your assessments cannot be true if it is assumed that the Bible is true. (They are in conflict, so both cannot be true, though both ‘can’ be false.)
But I also commented because if you are truly writing for a spiritual purpose, I would like to introduce to you some food for thought. Mainly, that the “divine” and “truth” should be of the same source. (Now, don’t get metaphorical on this, I’m speaking in literal terms.)
This is to say, that the divine and truth should be on the same side, and not in conflict. For, can a falsehood be considered “from the divine?” If yes, then there would be no more reason to trust “it” any more than anything else!
On the other hand, can a truth be from the divine? Obviously yes! So, though a truth may or may not be from the divine, a falsehood is not.
Therefore, one measure of “divinity” is whether it conflicts with fact – because that which is “fact” is literally “true.”
Long story short: How much of what you wrote is demonstrable fact? You see, faith accommodates a falsehood without question, because you’ve already committed to “belief.” But what path would you be taking if you followed only facts?
Thanks for your comment. Not everything I wrote is “demonstrable fact”, nor was it ever meant to be. Christianity is a mix of faith and fact. Always has been, always will be.
This blog (among others on Frank’s Cottage) address this: http://wp.me/p2wzRb-8c
You wrote, “Not everything I wrote is “demonstrable fact”, nor was it ever meant to be.”
Well Frank, that’s kind-of what I’m pointing out. If it’s not a demonstrable fact (aka, a known truth), what is it?
PS: Labeling it “faith” offers no legitimacy since a false belief held in faith, is still false. Is it not?
My response, if you care to read it: http://wp.me/p2wzRb-go
Hi Frank. Your article, THE MIX OF FAITH AND EVIDENCE, addresses the point exactly. The “mixing” of faith and evidence supports Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Buddhism, occultism, Mithraism, Satanism, Taoism, Voodoo, (you get the picture), and every other system of religious/spiritual belief.
Yet, while they cannot all be true, they can all be false! Why? Because they MIX faith with evidence.
On the other hand, what makes a fact “fact” is that it’s true! No fact requires the support of faith to make it true. It stands on its own as the “actual” state of affairs, independent of belief.
The result of mixing faith and evidence is a superb demonstration of Confirmation Bias. (I am confident that you’re aware of this.)
And so I ask a second time, if it’s not fact (true), what is it?
PS: In the context of our conversation, atheists call it “imaginary” because it’s a fabrication of the mind. Again, labeling it “faith” doesn’t change that fact, nor does the label offer epistemological value. A false belief, though held in faith, is still false. (Would you agree?)
By the way, these are not rhetorical questions. 🙂
Thanks for your thoughts, Dorian. I have neither the knowledge nor interest to write about any faith but Christianity. If people want to explore other faiths, that’s fine with me. Frank’s Cottage is here to tell them about following Jesus, without the misconceptions of our culture.
You are certainly not addressing anything that I am writing. So I’ll part with one simple question. Does “truth” play a role in spirituality?
Yes, truth plays a role in spirituality. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t bother with spirituality.