« From the future back to the past | Main | The first biographical treatment »



Craig Beardsley

I'd like to contribute one idea to this discussion and hope that others follow suit. The one idea in particular that comes to me first regarding sin, on which we might probably agree, is paramount--the quest for at-one-ment with God that Mrs. Eddy so defines, not as a play on words with respect to an enlighted step-by-step progression in the warfare with sin theologically considered as atonement--but that which spells out plainly that we are alone with with God, and that working out the problem of being begins in this manner. Each of us individually must reform as a prerequisite to finding the ability to heal. No one has the right to condemn sin if unable to heal it, and its destruction is contingent on the understanding that it is unreal. Mrs. Eddy's writings abound with such reasoning, of course. If condemnatory Christians loved instead of hated, it wouldn't make headlines. Perhaps millions quietly seek the salvation of themselves and others, but we must all begin with ourselves.

Bliss Knapp

In my estimation, it is vital to understand where the idea of "sin" comes from in order to know how to address it. The Hebrew root of the word is chata' which means: to miss, miss the goal or path of right and duty, to incur guilt, incur penalty by sin, forfeit, to miss the mark, to miss oneself, lose oneself, wander from the way

The first instance of the word in the KJV of the Bible is in chapter 4 right before Cain kills his brother. "if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door" For me, this verse and story is a continuation of the Adam dream, which starts at 2:4 and ends 4:26. This is classic human vs. divine. It is our choice daily to claim our inheritance as divine as in Gen 1, or "of the ground." Cain does not understand that God's blessings are for everyone. He is buying into life from the dust, and therefore he is subject to "sin"(missing the mark) and he continues to sin as he becomes a vagabond (wander from the way). Just look at the progression of sin throughout the Adam dream: Knowledge of evil, loneliness, deceipt, blame, lack of responsibility, nakedness, shame, curse, enmity, child pains, sorrow, lack of respect, wroth, jealousy, murder, and death.

There are many ways to sin and miss the mark if we believe ourselves to be from Adam "of the ground" and we are accepting that humanly we are capable of the attributes expressed in the Adam dream. The image and likeness of God cannot and never does express anything unlike its source. Sin is nothing, and becomes nothing to us humanly as we get closer to God in the understanding of our true nature and inheritance.


Very interesting question.
One time I asked a Christian Science practitioner what does sin mean in CS, and she told me "Sin is everything what is in opposition to God." That's what she said. Not more not less. I thought, so I have to find out through studying Science and Health and the Bible what is in opposition to God, and really understand that, and let go of it.

1. When I think about the first commandment "Do not have any other gods before me". That does mean to me that I have to be careful to worship nothing else but God alone. To make no God out of material stuff like money, work, sex, food, luxury ect.. Not to worship violence, hate, envy or gilt ...
A sex addict, a workaholic, a debauchee ect. does sin and is a sinner, because he worship sex, porn, work ect. instead of God. And I don't meant that I condemn those people, because the sin itself is the punishment, like CS teaches, and if a sinner realizes how untrue sin is, he looses it and with loosing the sin, the punishment has gone too. Well, so far the theory ... or what I think to understand until now.

2. There are a lot statements of condemning in the bible, like for example Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination."
So, if I take the bible serious, I think that means, being homosexual or at least having sexual intercourse between two men is a sin. And a very serious one, if it is mentioned especially ...

While I do understand that killing, raping, being a addict to whatever, lying ect. is sinning, because it is in opposition to the one God Love, we worship in Christian Science, I honestly I can't find something wrong with to men or woman, expressing their love in human relationship, gay marriage and of course sexuality. Also if I try to look from Gods perspective (perhaps that sounds insolent, but it is not meant that way) it just makes not sense to me.

To recognize what sin is, should make us free and not feel damned.
As far I understand CS, it is all about understanding God (described as the seven synonyms) better and to express Gods goodness and Love, and as much of all the other godlike qualities, and this leads us automatically to sinlessness.

Best Regards, uwepes


Thanks everyone for the comments, and I hope we get more. I believe the lesson of Jesus and the adulteress is partly that we all have a lot of things to improve in our own lives without focusing on the alleged sins of others. That does not mean that we do not condemn the generic concept of sin—we are against murder, rape, etc., and there is nothing wrong in working to lessen them in the human experience—but when we attach the name of sinner to others, we risk going against the parable of Jesus.

The comments to this entry are closed.