tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post2227226170143356124..comments2024-03-28T21:32:26.550+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: The quantitative concept of sin - a deadly errorBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-72995213855048789982012-01-07T16:56:41.255+00:002012-01-07T16:56:41.255+00:00Dr Charlton,
while I perfectly agree with what yo...Dr Charlton,<br /><br />while I perfectly agree with what you write, I wonder whether your observation could not be seen as a direct consequence of the 'classical' (Catholic?) definition of sin by Augustine of Hippo as 'incurvatio in se ipsum' (curving inwards to oneself - thus away from God, like an embryo, gazing one's navel, etc)? Of course, it is maybe a more direct consequence of the Orthodox views on 'sin'. Sin (as well as virtue) is not a metric space.Alnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-22368940098563144692012-01-06T07:05:33.428+00:002012-01-06T07:05:33.428+00:00Sin is not about good and bad acts but about being...<i>Sin is not about good and bad acts but about being turned towards or away-from God.</i><br /><br />Excellent point. And yet how many catechists or religious teachers teach this these days - one in 100?<br /><br />Anything other than a 'utilitarian' presentation of sin (it's bad because it hurts other people) is either ignored or glossed over these days. It might be a product of quasi-atheism, but in practice I get the feeling that anything beyond the utilitarian model is viewed as too "grown up" or "mystical" for today's Christians, who are not to be presented with anything that is not already familiar to them in daily life.Catherinehttp://rodinah.livejournal.comnoreply@blogger.com