Sin

Chapter 2 of the Principle describes various types of sin resulting from the fall. The basic definition of sin is very general: everything that violates the law of the cosmos is sin.

Sin is not primarily an action. The term more generally refers to a human condition that gives rise to actions. Thus, when the Principle states that mankind is sinful, the intention is to describe a state that all mankind has in common. In general the concept of sin is not an instrument to assign blame to compare one party to another or to attribute varying amounts of sin to the parties.

The Principle describes four types of sin. The fundamental sin, the root of all other sin, originates from the fact that the first human beings followed the unprincipled suggestions and guidance of an angel, which ultimately resulted in a (sexual) relationship that violated the laws of the cosmos. All their descendants thus came to live under the control of the angel.

This state is described as resulting from the ‘original sin’ that the first humans committed, by acting according to the plans of the archangel. As a result every human being has original sin and as a consequence is first of all a ‘property’ of Satan rather than God just because he/she exists. It is a sin common to all human beings.

The Principle also mentions three other types of sin: individual sin, inherited sin and collective sin. They are basically extensions of individual sin, resulting from sinful acts – actions whose motivations violated the laws of cosmos.

The whole concept of sin is highly controversial and emotionally charged. The main problem probably lies in its abuse for the sake of gaining control over people.

The idea that a person has sin without having done wrong on its own is very controversial – to say the least. Nobody feels comfortable at the thought of having sin. It implies some disadvantageous state of mind whose cause is beyond the control of the individual but which still has eternal consequences. It leads to feelings of guilt and fear, which in turn can make people submissive to authority. The mere mentioning of the word ‘sin’ often has a subduing effect on a ‘prepared’ audience.

One reaction to this misuse has been to completely reject the concept of sin, together with the idea of a transcendent origin and religion.

The Principle does not use ‘sin’ in this fashion. Its explanations on sin are the beginning of a solution. Its intention is to  offer an explanation for the fact that historically human beings have been unable to solve their fundamental problems or to maintain a certain standard of goodness over longer time periods – in spite of tremendous efforts.

The Principle then describes the solution for the fallen state of mankind in terms of removing ‘original sin’ for all eternity. That is synonymous with ‘removing Satan’s right of ownership’.

All this is not supposed to mean that the use of the concept for sake of inducing obedience is alien to the movement. As stated above, even the mere mentioning can have a coercive, dis-empowering effect ( which some people actually consider a good thing.) Guilt and fear has been an effective means for controlling people, although on the long term, the approach doesn’t lead far.

That, however, is true for all areas of human activity, not just religion.

Some pages on the reality of the movement deal with this issue.