Are you a sinner saint or somewhere in between?

   What does one think of when one thinks of the concept of sin?  Perhaps a judgemental fickle Judaeo Christian Sky deity casting his judgement?  Maybe not if you are an atheist.  Sin has been described as a state of man but how could such a broad thing come down to a mere dualism?  Thinking of sin in terms of justice is uncompassionate and destructive.  It is also doubtful that it is wise, productive, and good for everybody.  Despite the qualms there are for sin,  perhaps it could have a more broader application.

  Sin could mean the certain challenges, trails, and tribulations one has had to undergo thus far in life.  Sort of how the cards were stacked.  Although this is not how individuals use the term for usually it is framed in terms of victim and perpetrator which often casts a blind eye in the direction of how the "victim" may have played a role in a certain situation such as how one reacts.  

  For example, a certain male person once kept getting into these disturbing situations with women where he would act oddly or in a perhaps overly friendly way crossing boundaries perhaps and then rather than the given woman vocalizing her feelings about not "feeling comfortable" she would instead go to a person in a position of authority and then this would create problems with authority for the male when being confronted about the given situation.  He would offer candy and then the woman would accuse him of coming onto her in the workplace and before he would know it would wind up in court.  He would offer a grape and then before he would know it he would be threatened by the head pastor of the church for "walking around" and bothering people or whatever.  He would offer a poem to several people one of them being a female and then be brought into some legalistic dispute for "coming onto an underage girl."  He would compliment a fellow cashier at her job by saying she was a "fast woman" and then he would be threatened by the employer for sexual harassment.  If it sounds like these are trivial its because they are.  The reason for writing about them is because there is a wish to highlight how the egomind takes the concept of sin and makes it "all about it" running with the concept making mountains out of molehills in attempts to make compound suffering.  The ego is a very divisive power and the sole agenda of the ego is self perpetuation.  It wishes to uphold the way it imagines itself to be.  For example, the woman offered candy may have imagined herself as sweet and innocent without a wish to cheat on her significant other but she may have had a desire to cheat which she repressed because of society (women in society often repress their sexual desires because they are supposed to be lady like).  She simply denies that she wished to and projects the blame onto the male demonizing him for wishing to give her a treat.  Same with the grape and poem... granted the male shouldn't have called anyone a fast woman but she still didn't need to snitch on him like that.

So Why all this hoop la over these events?  Simply because all events involve the concept of sin and how the ego personalizes sin in terms of victim and perpetrator.  When Christ is believed to save people from sin it is more aimed at sin as a collective baggage that one holds for all the challenges one has had to undergo in life thus far.  Still,  even this view doesn't hold up because life is still a challenge if one believes in Christ or not.  All of the examples of sin in the above paragraph represent sin being thought of in terms of justice... which is destructive and uncompassionate and therefore problematic.

  One may believe that one has a nature that is inclined to sin.... a sinful nature as it were.  However, a sin is a mistake and mistakes are not who a person is.  Instead consider each person having a pure nature that is imperfect and still makes mistakes while the mistake is not what makes the person.   Therefore,  christian notions of sinful natures and states are erroneous.  It may really seem like people are doomed to sin without Christ but that is an illusion.  After all, Christ was a Buddhist anyway because he was at the second council.