The Subjectivity of Sin

[trophy33]

But Paul is talking about the case where something is not an objective sin but it is a subjective sin.

Thats how I think it must be read, but Paul says it in a very objective way.

Its practically impossible to use the word "sin" in a subjective way, it does not make much sense, because the definition of sin excludes it being based on our personal faith or opinion. Its like saying "if you believe the circle is a triangle, then its a triangle."

 

[fhansen]

So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
R 14:22-23

What is Paul trying to say, here? It looks like sin can be dependent on our personal faith. Sin should be something objectively immoral/harmful though, independent of our personal feelings or approval.

Culpability for sin is based on knowledge. The more we know that something is wrong-and do it anyway-the more accountable we are for that sin.

 

[Fantine]

A sin is an action, but the culpability of the person committing the action is based on different factors, such as knowledge, coercion, and the circumstances and motivation surrounding the act.

Is an immigrant escaping persecution or trying to survive very "culpable" for crossing a sovereign border?

Some would say "deport him! Deport him!"

Others would recommend bringing his case for amnesty.

WWJD?

Duh...

 

[timothyu]

WWJD?

Most people ask WWSD.

 

[Fantine]

Who is S?

 

[timothyu]

Who is S?

Could be either Self or Satan

 

[Fantine]

The quality of mercy is more Christ like

 

[zippy2006]

Thats how I think it must be read, but Paul says it in a very objective way.

Its practically impossible to use the word "sin" in a subjective way, it does not make much sense, because the definition of sin excludes it being based on our personal faith or opinion. Its like saying "if you believe the circle is a triangle, then its a triangle."

Rather, it is like saying, "If you think it would be evil to do X, then you should not do X."

 

[stevevw]

So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
R 14:22-23

What is Paul trying to say, here? It looks like sin can be dependent on our personal faith. Sin should be something objectively immoral/harmful though, independent of our personal feelings or approval.

I think this is based on the fullfillment of the law by Christ. Sin is not just the outward act but begins with the state of the heart. Like how Christ condemned the the Pharisee who would point out the letter of the law while being corrupt on the inside. What a person eats doesn't corrupt them but what is in their hearts. So don't get caught up in the ritualistic laws but live in the Spirit of God through love in that everything you do is for God and helping others find God which means not letting ideological differences get in the way.

I can remember a verse by Paul I think that mentions when he was among others when spreading the Gospel he would become like those who he was mixing with so that Gods message could come through without getting bogged down in politics or differences about right and wrong religious practices.

So it seems to me that in some ways we can sin by not observing the basic tenet of Christainity which is in everything we do it in faith and love by connecting with others on their level and not allowing oursleves in get in the way. In some ways I think given the responsibility of representing God to others we are more accountable in how we do it.

There can be no greater sin than misrepresenting God to those in need as seen by some fundementalist just like the Pharisees who misrepresented God by condemining people by bogging them down with the letter of the law and not engaging with them in the spirit of love.

 

[Runningman]

So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
R 14:22-23

What is Paul trying to say, here? It looks like sin can be dependent on our personal faith. Sin should be something objectively immoral/harmful though, independent of our personal feelings or approval.

I feel inclined to confine it to the context Paul was referring to because, even though everyone needs to eat to survive, if it causes problems for other people then it isn't beneficial for the kingdom of God. However, eating anything isn't a sin, but in this case if someone eats something knowing it will cause problems for others then it isn't walking in love; there's the sin.

It can't apply to everything though. Like when Paul, formerly known as Saul, was persecuting the church believing he was serving God, for example. There was an objective sin Saul needed to repent of. Same for those who crucified Christ. Ignorance doesn't equal no condemnation in all circumstances.

If what Paul said in Romans 14:22-23 applies to all contexts then no repentance would be required for anything. It just applies to certain scenarios.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer had similar sentiments regarding Christian ethics, in some situations, lying would not only be permissible, but a duty. This lead to the development of the sometimes much-maligned or misunderstood notion of "Situation Ethics" in the 1960's, popularized by some Episcopalians and Anglicans.

In reality, all ethics are situational. Can any action be ethical or unethical without the surrounding circumstances that collectively form what we would call a "situation"?

 

[stevevw]

In reality, all ethics are situational. Can any action be ethical or unethical without the surrounding circumstances that collectively form what we would call a "situation"?

But I think though situational or contextual each and every situation can have an objectively right or wrong way to behave. Objective morality isn't absolute morality but rather seeking an objective moral truth that is beyond subjective thinking.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

But I think though situational or contextual each and every situation can have an objectively right or wrong way to behave. Objective morality isn't absolute morality but rather seeking an objective moral truth that is beyond subjective thinking.

Having ethics defined by situational factors would not necessarily mean ethics are subjective. I take this to mean ethics cannot necessarily be defined in terms that would work for some legal code. A biblical concept of ethics would likely be defined in terms of principles and not a boolean rule set.

 

[timothyu]

Having ethics defined by situational factors would not necessarily mean ethics are subjective

Does not the knowledge of good and evil mean there is no set standard considering 8 billion people at the moment self determine and self justify what is good or not. Ethics are in the eye of the beholder and even majorities change direction over time.

 

[stevevw]

Having ethics defined by situational factors would not necessarily mean ethics are subjective. I take this to mean ethics cannot necessarily be defined in terms that would work for some legal code. A biblical concept of ethics would likely be defined in terms of principles and not a boolean rule set.

I think there are still moral laws like 'Don't kill'. But that is a destict act in taking the life of another with intent and malice as opposed to self defence or taking a life without the intent of malice. So the law doesn't change but rather the context in which killing happens which then qualifies it or not against the moral law. So I think the intent is the important factor.

This is highlighted when Christ mentions in Mathew 5:21
“You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘YOU SHALL NOT MURDER,’ and ‘Whoever murders shall be guilty before the court.’ But I say to you that everyone who continues to be angry with his brother or harbors malice against him shall be guilty before the court

When Christ mentions that anyone who bears malice against his brother is guilty before the court this highlights the 'Intent' as murder is the end result of harboring malice and anger towards another.