Question for christians here

[ShiningBecky]

This is an area I'd like to look into more myself. On what do you base this year 133 conclusion?



My convictions are mine, and I certainly don't wish to deprive you of the process of forming your own; but I will point out there are some flaws in this thinking here. I would ask you where you come up with these ideas? That's more of an introspective question, but if you feel like discussing it here it might prove interesting.

We can establish Paul. We can establish the 4 Gospels. We can establish the contents of our 66 book Bible. Less certain is trying to eliminate other books from it, that others accept. Let me spell out how:

we know the Church met in the Temple, daily, from the first Pentecost to it's destruction 70AD. We know they worshiped Liturgically; i.e., what you're calling "dead Churches." We know the primary criteria for what later got termed "the Bible," was what was read in Church, during Liturgical worship. We know different Churches read different scrolls, that we now call books of the Bible, and that no one Church had our entire NT.

From this we can logically conclude that anybody trying to alter the Gospels, would've been called on the carpet by the whole crowd, because everybody knew it by heart. Ok so we do have a later addition here and there. Doesn't that tell us it was no significant change to what was taught anyway? Or just ignore those small portions of text added later if you want, big deal.

Paul was accepted by the other Apostles, specifically because he knew what they knew, which he could only have learned from the Lord Himself. Quite the commendation, don't you think? PLUS, everything Paul taught is established in the Law of Moses. I have a thread that would give you an intro to that, but it sure is long, and dry, and dusty. Lots of little details to put together before you can form a picture out of it, but when you do you see Paul's message right there, way back in Moses!

So who actually penned what book of the NT is irrelevant, and when it was Canonized is too. In fact, the EO never did. Why would they? (How's that for a perspective?) A little tidbit you might find interesting: Hebrews was most likely written by a woman. It's also the most intellectual book of the NT.

Now about this crazy notion of Paul having been a misogynist ... someday we should straighten that out, but I'd say that's not your primary concern right now. Or is it? Do you truly not see G-d continuously advancing our species closer to equal rights, for all? And we're not there yet, you'll notice ...

The early church was dead? First I've heard of it. If Acts is accurate, then they were anything but. And I'm pretty sure early christianity met in homes for worship mostly. No way Gentiles were pilgramiging all the way to the Jewish HQ every Sunday, or Saturday for Shabbat.

I find a lot of weird things in the bible, sexism is something big for me because I'm a woman. I reject the idea that women are inferior and the God who supposedly made us (women) is prejudiced against us. That is pretty ridiculous from a spiritual perspective.

 

[ChristianT]

I didn't say it was unattainable. Just that we can't use the bible alone (sola scriptura) to determine the truth. And I don't think tradition is the answer either.

At least it's nice to hear that not all christians are married to bible literalism and "turn or burn" threats. I mean theology. LOL

Sure, some churchians have turned theology into death threats, but pure theology is just the study of God an His character. So.. Just clearing that up

 

[ShiningBecky]

Sure, some churchians have turned theology into death threats, but pure theology is just the study of God an His character. So.. Just clearing that up

And people wonder why no one likes christians?

 

[razeontherock]

I like your attitude

Praise God for that!

but from my experience here, most christians are very much literalists and inerrantists who worship the Bible, not God.

2 points:

We've had a LOT of threads titled something along the lines of worshiping the Bible, instead of God. Obviously that means we have plenty of people on both side of that issue. When I was first presented with the term, I thought it was nuts. Let me just say it was good for me to be exposed to it. I don't think I've fallen into that trap, but I see how I could; the ol' ounce of prevention ...

2) We have some literalists here, to be sure; but they are being confronted with the shortcomings of that, AND the fact that they really aren't as literal as they always thought they were. And you'll notice that most of those interacting with you here, have a much more mature view. Becky, I really think G-d is nudging you along, calling you higher, pruning you, however you want to put it. It's a painful experience yes, but SO worth it!

Last I heard, tongues were of the devil, prophecy died when God did... I mean, when the Bible was finished.

You don't really believe any of that, do you? And fwiw, EO (that you call dead) practices the gifts, and boasts of their miracles, pretty openly challenging anyone else to compare. Again, I've never been to one of their buildings anywhere, not even just driving past that I was aware of. Like anyplace else, I'm sure one congregation differs from another. You might take some of your questions to their congregational area, and just see what kind of responses you get?

And you're going to hell if you're a woman preacher.

While EO isn't going along with that, we have more than a few women preachers on CF, and at least one in particular that's very outspoken on this particular issue is a dynamite poster. And not only is she young, but there are others in your demographic that are just rock-solid, and very supportive. I don't keep track of the poster names of young ladies cuz that would be just creepy, but you should stick around and make a point of interacting with them. Congregational areas, GT (general theology) you might find it a very valid part of a healing process?

Did I mention suffering being godliness and poverty being a blessing, while God hates prosperity?

My own Pastor, who is a GREAT preacher, preached on this recently. We here in the states have come up with some very mixed up ideas, and the roots of our theology along these lines can be traced back to about 1950, when the standard of living starting going through the roof. I won't try to tackle these issues in this post, I'll just say they deserve a closer look ...

Summary: Christianity is bringing the Blessing of Abraham to us all. That statement challenged my Pastor, who initially replied with a "no, it's being united with God through the Holy Spirit." To which I of course replied - what's the difference? And he had to agree There are some very interesting things about the Blessing of Abraham!

 

[ChristianT]

And you'll notice that most of those interacting with you here, have a much more mature view.

I can't be included into that bunch.

Becky, I really think G-d is nudging you along, calling you higher, pruning you, however you want to put it. It's a painful experience yes, but SO worth it!

I completely agree!

 

[razeontherock]

I didn't say it was unattainable. Just that we can't use the bible alone (sola scriptura) to determine the truth. And I don't think tradition is the answer either.

You can probably imagine that this is another topic that comes up frequently on GT. I've never really voiced my stance, but sola anything just doesn't sound like Jesus, does it? I don't buy into tradition either. But what I DO, is bounce my ideas off respected elders, leaders, peers in the Church, use them as a sounding board, etc. IOW, I check what I perceive to be the Holy Spirit, against those I know.

And I think that's what "tradition" was intended to imply:

Proverbs 11:14 Where no counsel [is], the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors [there is] safety.

 

[razeontherock]

The early church was dead? First I've heard of it. If Acts is accurate, then they were anything but. And I'm pretty sure early christianity met in homes for worship mostly. No way Gentiles were pilgramiging all the way to the Jewish HQ every Sunday, or Saturday for Shabbat.

The early Church wasn't dead at all, but they were Liturgical, which is pretty much modern Church lingo for "dead." How much do you think Christianity spread out from Jerusalem prior to the destruction of the Temple? The Apostles started Churches elsewhere, but at Jerusalem they were content to keep it to themselves. There wasn't a lot of "pilgramiging" to do to get to the Temple! The "home Church movement" in Jerusalem grew mainly to counter the persecution they got from the Jews.

I find a lot of weird things in the bible, sexism is something big for me because I'm a woman. I reject the idea that women are inferior and the God who supposedly made us (women) is prejudiced against us. That is pretty ridiculous from a spiritual perspective.

Those "weird things" are G-d pricking your conscience. Iron them out! Sexism / mysogeny / prejudice is NOT supported Biblically! (Iron that out too)

 

[ebia]

The early church was dead? First I've heard of it. If Acts is accurate, then they were anything but. And I'm pretty sure early christianity met in homes for worship mostly. No way Gentiles were pilgramiging all the way to the Jewish HQ every Sunday, or Saturday for Shabbat.

I find a lot of weird things in the bible, sexism is something big for me because I'm a woman. I reject the idea that women are inferior and the God who supposedly made us (women) is prejudiced against us. That is pretty ridiculous from a spiritual perspective.

The bible does not say women are inferior or that God is prejudiced against them.

At times it lives with the gender stereotypes, at other points it challenges and demolishes them.

Don't confuse "God works with" with "God endorses"

 

[day time]

Getting rid of all religions, cults, labels, and "holy books" ..... I find my world is full of the beautiful and the terrible. I also experience supernatural things, things that are living, things that are dying ... and what I call God and the spiritual. I've found that some of us can "smell it out" instinctually almost. Like creatures that recognize other creatures.

Again .... getting rid of all religions, cults, labels, and books.

At times, God has shown me power, love, mercy. At other times, I've been left vulnerable, abused, used. Sometimes in extreme ways of course. Existence has those extremes.

I go back and forth between trusting God sometimes, and not trusting God. I don't view God as "perfect". Ironically, it is through not viewing God as "perfect" that I've found I do trust God in the areas I trust God in. Because it's given me the chance to watch God either prove Himself, or not. In other words .... "earn" trust. Trust just blindly given away .... is one way people get violated and violate each other.

I would say that I love God, and I believe God would say that I love Him if you were to ask Him if I did. But not always. Sometimes I hate God, and the choices I wish He would make, not make, etc.

However this is one of the reasons I have respect for Jesus Christ and what Jesus did. It took me the longest time to understand some of the purposes of Jesus hanging on a cross. When I first envisioned the story, I envisioned a man who died for others .... suffered for others. THAT is something I am intimately familiar with .... suffering for others. I could relate to that. I won't go into detail about my childhood, but it's one of the main things I knew as a child. I was taught how to do it. My earliest memories. How to suffer for others. It's as though I was created by my parents for that purpose. But I won't go into detail here ... it's too graphic.

Interestingly, I related to the cross that Jesus hung on, more than Jesus in some ways. It's as though I could feel what it would have felt like, to have him hanging on *me*. But it would be later in life, through loving others, that I would understand how Jesus let humans take out their wrath upon Him. And that was something that I needed ... I needed to be able to take out my wrath on the Creator. It's one of the ways I dealt with my own victimization, and learning to actually break free of some things. God let me use His son, to lash out upon, and harm in the ways I was harmed :~(

It broke my heart ..... for myself, for God. Both of us. But through some of that ... through working through some of the horrid things that can happen to a person, and human beings ... through some of the horrible things we consider "normal" :~( .... by God getting on my level, and getting right up next to me .... and taking my blows, and taking my pain which I tried to put on Him .... I began to respect Jesus. I began to see that as loving, in a twisted way. Not because I wanted that kind of twisted existence to be equal to love .... where understanding torture would equate to love ..... I wanted love to be safe, free, a haven where the injured can go to recover. But that's not what I was born into .... I wasn't born into a safe, free, haven. And by seeing God get on my level, and allow me to blame God .... to take the blame for things. I needed that.

It was a start for me. Not an end ... but a beginning. A beginning to where I would learn to trust Jesus and God on certain levels. Not blindly or out of fear ... out of respect and relating.

I didn't need Bibles or books or religion for any of that .... rather, "reality" and experience. I don't want to love, hate, suffer, or enjoy mere stories and postcards. I needed, and still need, living things in the here and now. When I want to blame .... I still want to blame God directly. When I want to rejoice .... I still stand in awe at the Spirit and Love I have experienced.

So in answer to the OP ... I don't know. I probably wouldn't have loved God, had it not been for Jesus. But it's not because I would have perhaps even been capable of "love". I understood suffering first .... and it was through suffering I first related to God in a meaningful way. Love .... began to come later. It's an elixir I still seek, still want, still covet.

 

[ShiningBecky]

The bible does not say women are inferior or that God is prejudiced against them.

At times it lives with the gender stereotypes, at other points it challenges and demolishes them.

Don't confuse "God works with" with "God endorses"

The bible says a female is worth half as much as a male in the OT, women are forbidden from being preachers, women are not allowed to speak in church, women are to be doormats for their husbands to rule over, women are the weaker sex, women are the cause of the Fall of humanity according to Paul and more.

If those things do not count as being inferior or prejudiced, what does?

 

[ShiningBecky]

Those "weird things" are G-d pricking your conscience. Iron them out! Sexism / mysogeny / prejudice is NOT supported Biblically! (Iron that out too)

See my response to ebia.

 

[lucaspa]

Would you still love God if Jesus did not die for you? Yes or no is fine.

Yes. Jesus is a sign of that love, but there is no evidence that Jesus loved Moses, David or any of the Jews in the OT less because Jesus had not yet died for them.

 

[lucaspa]

I find a lot of weird things in the bible, sexism is something big for me because I'm a woman. I reject the idea that women are inferior and the God who supposedly made us (women) is prejudiced against us. That is pretty ridiculous from a spiritual perspective.

There are weird things in the Bible. BUT, you need to look at those in the historical and social context. Most of humanity thru all of history has been sexist! Nearly every society in history is patriarchal. This is a human thing, not necessarily a God thing.

Becky, God has a limitation in communicating with people: people. Humans are somewhat limited in the concepts they can absorb and they are limited by their language. If God wants to be heard and not dismissed totally, He has to work with those limitations. Think of humanity as spiritual children and history as us "growing up". As our children grow up, we expose them to more and more complicated concepts. It is very difficult to tell 7 year old boys that girls don't have cooties. It's just part of their mindset. Now, when they get to be 14, they are much more open to the truth of equality of men and women.

Israelite society was patriarchal. It was sexist. Part of that arises from biology:
1. When you lack power tools, women are pretty helpless during the last stages of pregnancy and right after childbirth. They need protection.
2. Human babies are pretty helpless for the first several years of life; they need looking after.
3. When you lack power tools, upper body strength matters. Women have less upper body strength.

All this tends to put men in a position of power. When human technology advances to the point where these points are no longer important, then it become crystal clear that women are as intelligent, ambitious, rescourceful, brave, etc. as men. When you are fighting with swords, women in combat is disastrous for the women. When you have guns ...

It also helps when technology produces cheap reliable birth control. That also empowers women. With all that, then it becomes easy to see the essential equality of men and women and sexism has no place. BUT, in the absence of that technology, men have advantages and thus you get patriarchal societies.

Notice in Mark 10 and Matthew 14 that Jesus is trying to level the playing field in one area between men and women: marriage and divorce. Also notice in John that Jesus is protecting a woman from stoning due to adultery. In both cases, Jesus is doing what he can to fight sexism! It's not the solution we would apply today, but it's the best he can get for that society.

 

[lucaspa]

I don't think sin is as bad as you make it out to be. Again you're just going by what you're taught, but I have no reason to believe it. What is sin? It's a mistake.

Sin is disobedience of God. Yes, it's a mistake. But it's not just a mistake, as in "oops, I didn't know". It's a choice to disobey. Just like you chose to disobey your parents. They told you what they expected, you chose to do something different.

To say that God, whom you (probably) say is "all-loving and forgiving" is going to torture someone in hell for all eternity because of a few finite mistakes shows that your god cannot be loving or forgiving at all. It would actually make it the exact opposite of what you profess!! How is that for logic?

That depends on whether hell is there just for torment. Becky, you need to look at the history. The concept of Hell for Christians arose out of a sense of justice. Human justice. Remember that early Christians were being unfairly persecuted and horribly killed simply because they were Christian. It is very human to want justice for injustices. The early Christians could see that not only were their tormentors not being punished, they were prospering! How could a God of justice allow that? Their solution was that God would punish them after life. Considering what their tormentors had done to them, early Christians (humanly) felt that punishment for all eternity was just for the people who had them torn apart by wild beasts, gang raped, burned alive, etc.

Now, what if the purpose of Hell is not eternal punishment? Remember, sin is a choice to disobey God. Without repentence, it is not "finite", but indicates a permanent rejection of God. If you never said "I'm sorry" to your parents, wouldn't that indicate a permanent rejection of what they wanted? Isn't it a permanent rejection? For instance, if you never said "I'm sorry" for staying out on a date past the time your parents selected, isn't that a permanent rejection of the concept that dates should not last as long as you want?

So, instead, what if Hell is God's attempt to get your attention? You rejected God before and often. The consequences in life were not enough to get you to see the error of your ways. So now God tries to get your attention by ramping up the consequences. I suspect your parents did the same thing. First grounded for a week, then 2 weeks, then perhaps something else. Finally, if forced, they may perhaps have imposed something permanent. Look at Hell as God's way of trying to get your attention. He will keep trying for all eternity if He must.

Since your god demands perfection, you must be perfect right?

Wrong. God doesn't "demand" perfection, anymore than your parents do. That's why both God and parents have forgiveness. God loves us even when we are imperfect. But both God and parents demand that we try.

But knowing that your god is displeased with you all the time must really drive you crazy.

Who says He is displeased all the time and with everything. Couldn't your parents be displeased with your grades but pleased with, say, your performance in sports? Or displeased with your grades but pleased with the caring you showed your brothers or sisters?

God is the same way. We don't screw up all the time with everything. We do please God, too.

 

[lucaspa]

I didn't say it was unattainable. Just that we can't use the bible alone (sola scriptura) to determine the truth. And I don't think tradition is the answer either.

OK, let's do some history here. Originally "sola scriptura" was used by Luther to mean that only what was in scripture could be called necessary for salvation. You couldn't add things not in scripture and say you had to do those things in order to be saved. For instance, the Catholic Church at the time was requiring the purchase of indulgences for salvation. Luther said that was wrong.

Now, Luther also made some statements that indicated the modern version of "sola scriptura" -- only scripture has truth. From about 1900 on we get the birth of a new religion that takes the original sola scriptura and puts it on crack and steroids. We end up with:

1. "Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;
2. Believes whatever the Bible says is so;
3. Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";" http://www.christianforums.com/t7396152/

That is not what most Christians believe. The Anglican tradition, of which my denomination (Methodist) is part, states instead
"The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church V-VIII

Methodists also use the "quadrilateral" when interpreting scripture. It means using all of scripture and not just an isolated verse, tradition, reason, and experience. Why Do United Methodists Ordain Women When the Bible Specifically Prohibits it?

ALL Christians also use extrabiblical evidence to some extent.

 

[ShiningBecky]

Sin is disobedience of God. Yes, it's a mistake. But it's not just a mistake, as in "oops, I didn't know". It's a choice to disobey. Just like you chose to disobey your parents. They told you what they expected, you chose to do something different.


That depends on whether hell is there just for torment. Becky, you need to look at the history. The concept of Hell for Christians arose out of a sense of justice. Human justice. Remember that early Christians were being unfairly persecuted and horribly killed simply because they were Christian. It is very human to want justice for injustices. The early Christians could see that not only were their tormentors not being punished, they were prospering! How could a God of justice allow that? Their solution was that God would punish them after life. Considering what their tormentors had done to them, early Christians (humanly) felt that punishment for all eternity was just for the people who had them torn apart by wild beasts, gang raped, burned alive, etc.

Now, what if the purpose of Hell is not eternal punishment? Remember, sin is a choice to disobey God. Without repentence, it is not "finite", but indicates a permanent rejection of God. If you never said "I'm sorry" to your parents, wouldn't that indicate a permanent rejection of what they wanted? Isn't it a permanent rejection? For instance, if you never said "I'm sorry" for staying out on a date past the time your parents selected, isn't that a permanent rejection of the concept that dates should not last as long as you want?

So, instead, what if Hell is God's attempt to get your attention? You rejected God before and often. The consequences in life were not enough to get you to see the error of your ways. So now God tries to get your attention by ramping up the consequences. I suspect your parents did the same thing. First grounded for a week, then 2 weeks, then perhaps something else. Finally, if forced, they may perhaps have imposed something permanent. Look at Hell as God's way of trying to get your attention. He will keep trying for all eternity if He must.


Wrong. God doesn't "demand" perfection, anymore than your parents do. That's why both God and parents have forgiveness. God loves us even when we are imperfect. But both God and parents demand that we try.


Who says He is displeased all the time and with everything. Couldn't your parents be displeased with your grades but pleased with, say, your performance in sports? Or displeased with your grades but pleased with the caring you showed your brothers or sisters?

God is the same way. We don't screw up all the time with everything. We do please God, too.

My take is "sin" is failure to love others. Maybe God too, I don't know about that part. But failing to love others involves sin. If that is where you're coming from, I agree that sin is a problem. If sin is keeping a bunch of archaic, religious commands that have no place in the modern world, then I reject the very notion of sin. We "sin" when we fail to love others as ourselves.

From what I've read about people who have met God, had near-death experiences and so on, hell is not eternal. It sounds to be a place where lost souls find themselves (God doesn't send them there) and they can escape by seeking God and in seeking to love others. Now not all do, and they remain there, some maybe even forever. But it's not God keeping them there because he can. That would be cruel and evil, which is impossible for God.

Christian doctrine teaches that God demands perfection. I don't think he does either, as he would clearly expect the impossible and for an all-knowing God, this is not feasible.

 

[lucaspa]

My take is "sin" is failure to love others.

That's one form of sin. The Great Commandment tells us to do 2 things: love God and love our neighbor. However, failure to love others is a sin because then we are disobeying that Commandment, isn't it? So sin is still disobedience of God. All you have done is state one form the disobedience may take.

Worshipping a false idol is also sin. That doesn't involve not loving other humans, but it is disobedience of God. It can also be looked at as a failure to love God.

If sin is keeping a bunch of archaic, religious commands that have no place in the modern world, then I reject the very notion of sin.

Can you provide examples of what you think these are? Thanks. That will help me better understand what you mean.

From what I've read about people who have met God, had near-death experiences and so on, hell is not eternal. It sounds to be a place where lost souls find themselves (God doesn't send them there) and they can escape by seeking God and in seeking to love others.

How did you get this? I've never heard any of your sources describe hell at all. People who have personal experience of God are living, so there is nothing about hell in their relationship. They describe their personal experience as an on-going dialogue with God, not a one-time meeting. NDEs describe a light and then being sent back, not hell and I've never seen any of them mention a temporal limit. So, what are your sources?

Now not all do, and they remain there, some maybe even forever. But it's not God keeping them there because he can.

As I described the idea, it would be the people themselves keeping themselves in Hell, as they continue to ignore God.

Christian doctrine teaches that God demands perfection.

Where? What Christian doctrine? What's your source? There is nothing in the doctrines of the UMC that says this, nor anything in the writings of John Wesley. Nothing in either the Nicene or Apostle's Creeds (the foundational doctrines of Christianity) says this. I can't even find in the Westminster Confession of Faith -- Westminster Confession of Faith -- where it says this.

Instead, what Christians hold is that humans are not perfect. Nor can they achieve perfection on their own. Some forms of Christianity -- like the reformed (see Westminster Confession of Faith) -- hold that humans are totally "depraved" and have no good in them at all. Be that as it may, God loves us anyway. Just as your parents love you even tho I am sure they would say you are not perfect. Did they demand perfection from you?

What Christianity says is that we cannot save ourselves. By ourselves, we cannot earn God's good graces. God's love and forgiveness are gifts (grace), and no matter what we do we cannot earn them.

 

[razeontherock]

The bible says a female is worth half as much as a male in the OT

I don't think it does. I think G-d was condescending to the culture, bringing them as far as they could accept at that time.

, women are forbidden from being preachers

The first preachers were women!! How do you think the rest of the Disciples heard He had risen?

(Now if you mean being ordained as Pastors, that may be different)

women are not allowed to speak in church

You really never learned any appropriate hermeneutics for that lone verse? This does not qualify as per your previous comment, that you know Christian doctrine quite well. You know a praxis; how things were practiced where you were. And it drove you away!

Women speak in Church all over, so you need to compare your idea here to that fact.

women are to be doormats for their husbands to rule over

No, the Bible doesn't say that Nor does it teach it. Christ Loves the Church like a doormat? That, is one song, I could not write.

women are the weaker sex

This is actually true. Physically, your joints just aren't designed to handle the same amount of stress, regardless of muscle mass. And women get stronger physically not by creating muscle mass as men do, but by forming more efficient neural pathways! You are different, to be sure; but not inferior. The Bible makes great strides in urging our species to recognize this. The military has done some interesting research on this ...

, women are the cause of the Fall of humanity according to Paul and more.

If those things do not count as being inferior or prejudiced, what does?

Every one of them are mis-statements, from a state of turmoil it seems. Nowhere does the Bible decree that "women are the cause of the Fall of humanity." If it did, Adam wouldn't have been cursed! Paul referenced that to drive a point home, and to garner co-operation on a tough issue. Things were out of order in a Church, and he needed to put some people back in their place. Since then people (read: men) have distorted that in a power and control struggle. Clearly, that is NOT the way of Godliness!

 

[razeontherock]

My take is "sin" is failure to love others. Maybe God too, I don't know about that part. But failing to love others involves sin. If that is where you're coming from, I agree that sin is a problem. If sin is keeping a bunch of archaic, religious commands that have no place in the modern world, then I reject the very notion of sin. We "sin" when we fail to love others as ourselves.

Question: how is it possible to be selfless, and sin?

 

[ShiningBecky]

Question: how is it possible to be selfless, and sin?

It's not.

I've never heard of such a thing. Whenever people act out of purely self interest, they are 'sinning' as far as that goes.