Approaches to Sin

[High Castle]

Hi everyone,

I'm brand new here. If this subject is on the wrong board for this thread, please move it.

Even though I've nominally been a Catholic all my life, I'm only now at a late stage properly developing faith.


Got so many questions and the ones around sin bother me. Sin can be conceived of in significantly different ways. Some hypothetical examples below. I've made all 5 examples about adultery but they could apply to all different types of sin:

1) George has never committed adultery despite there being several intense situations whereby some beautiful women attempted luring him. He held strong. Mike also has never committed adultery. However, this is primarily because he's very unattractive and the situation has never arisen. In a parallel world he would have. Mike is not sure he gets full marks here.

2) Lucy always emphatically desired to sleep with her friend's partner most of her adult life. At a party the man was drunk and Lucy, also tipsy, saw her opportunity. The next day, although she finally felt so satisfied as a decades-long desire was now over, she was also riddled with guilt and asked God to forgive her. However, Lucy also knew that she can only now move on because the sin had been committed. The sin resolved and satisfied something. She had gained from her misdeeds in a way that couldn't be undone. She also felt it far easier to resist in future as the desire had already been fulfilled. This somehow tainted the request for God's forgiveness.

3) Harry lusted after his wife's friend Maggie. He feared the problem was starting to get out of hand and that committing adultery was going to happen one of the times she would visit their apartment. Harry convinced his wife to move to another city for made up reasons. The real reason was so that Maggie couldn't visit and therefore the adultery wouldn't happen. Harry found it impossible to stop wanting the sin but found a way to stop himself from committing it. However, he was not sure if he was completly free of the sin of adultery as he had circumvented it rather than resisted it or otherwise. Harry felt though that he had at least done something about it and God would recognise that.

4) Jake desired his wife's friend Vicky but knew nothing would ever happen as he would never commit adultery as he loved his wife too much. However, his body and mind seemed to automatically and overwhelmingly respond to the idea of such a sin. Jake did not ask God for forgiveness as he felt that firstly, he hadn't committed adultery, and secondly, his thoughts and lust couldn't really be his responsibility as they were usually not consious decisions - just knee-jerk spontanious reactions mostly and when they did happen they were far too overwhelming for him to realistically stop them or getting satisifaction from them.

5) Tom started having thoughts and feelings of adultery in respect to a woman he found attractive at work who flirted with him. In combatting this sin he decided that it was not okay to simply avoid the situation. He decided it was not okay to simply resist the act of adultery happening either as resistence meant there were still feelings that one was resisting. He decided it was essentially not okay to have these feelings at all and so he worked on/through those feeling until he didn't feel them anymore and thus recieved God's fullest forgiveness - a forgiveness that was deeper than other forgiveness being that Tom did not allow himself any form of sin at all.

Again, just made these all up. Was going to use a different sin but they work well enough with adultery. I'm sure we can all recognise them and apply them across the varied sin spectrum though.

To me there is a lot going on above. Sin seems not that straightforward. Not always sure where God stands on different types/levels of sin and resistence/avoidance, etc. Your thoughts on any of the examples would be interesting for me to read. Thanks.

 

[Jo555]

Hi everyone,

I'm brand new here. If this subject is on the wrong board for this thread, please move it.

Even though I've nominally been a Catholic all my life, I'm only now at a late stage properly developing faith.


Got so many questions and the ones around sin bother me. Sin can be conceived of in significantly different ways. Some hypothetical examples below. I've made all 5 examples about adultery but they could apply to all different types of sin:

1) George has never committed adultery despite there being several intense situations whereby some beautiful women attempted luring him. He held strong. Mike also has never committed adultery. However, this is primarily because he's very unattractive and the situation has never arisen. In a parallel world he would have. Mike is not sure he gets full marks here.

2) Lucy always emphatically desired to sleep with her friend's partner most of her adult life. At a party the man was drunk and Lucy, also tipsy, saw her opportunity. The next day, although she finally felt so satisfied as a decades-long desire was now over, she was also riddled with guilt and asked God to forgive her. However, Lucy also knew that she can only now move on because the sin had been committed. The sin resolved and satisfied something. She had gained from her misdeeds in a way that couldn't be undone. She also felt it far easier to resist in future as the desire had already been fulfilled. This somehow tainted the request for God's forgiveness.

3) Harry lusted after his wife's friend Maggie. He feared the problem was starting to get out of hand and that committing adultery was going to happen one of the times she would visit their apartment. Harry convinced his wife to move to another city for made up reasons. The real reason was so that Maggie couldn't visit and therefore the adultery wouldn't happen. Harry found it impossible to stop wanting the sin but found a way to stop himself from committing it. However, he was not sure if he was completly free of the sin of adultery as he had circumvented it rather than resisted it or otherwise. Harry felt though that he had at least done something about it and God would recognise that.

4) Jake desired his wife's friend Vicky but knew nothing would ever happen as he would never commit adultery as he loved his wife too much. However, his body and mind seemed to automatically and overwhelmingly respond to the idea of such a sin. Jake did not ask God for forgiveness as he felt that firstly, he hadn't committed adultery, and secondly, his thoughts and lust couldn't really be his responsibility as they were usually not consious decisions - just knee-jerk spontanious reactions mostly and when they did happen they were far too overwhelming for him to realistically stop them or getting satisifaction from them.

5) Tom started having thoughts and feelings of adultery in respect to a woman he found attractive at work who flirted with him. In combatting this sin he decided that it was not okay to simply avoid the situation. He decided it was not okay to simply resist the act of adultery happening either as resistence meant there were still feelings that one was resisting. He decided it was essentially not okay to have these feelings at all and so he worked on/through those feeling until he didn't feel them anymore and thus recieved God's fullest forgiveness - a forgiveness that was deeper than other forgiveness being that Tom did not allow himself any form of sin at all.

Again, just made these all up. Was going to use a different sin but they work well enough with adultery. I'm sure we can all recognise them and apply them across the varied sin spectrum though.

To me there is a lot going on above. Sin seems not that straightforward. Not always sure where God stands on different types/levels of sin and resistence/avoidance, etc. Your thoughts on any of the examples would be interesting for me to read. Thanks.

I got to read about half as a bit short on time now, but will return with more time.

Either way i saw a common denominator, the adultery had already been committed in the heart as the heart of the matter is always the matter of the heart. As Jesus said, if you've lusted with her in your heart, adultery.

But let us not think because we have done it at heart we should fulfill it in the natural for the act of sinning has far reaching effects and hurts the ones it touches. If putting distance between the two parties work, go for it. At the least, until we have grown.

They all need to grow in the love of God. Even so, even for the believer the carnal nature will rear its ugly head at times. Don't indulge it. It can't be reformed. It is crucified with Christ. This part we must do and we can by the power of God's Spirit.

 

[Paleouss]

I'm brand new here.

Greetings High Castle. I hope your week was a blessed one. Many blessings in my life, praise be to God!

Sin can be conceived of in significantly different ways.

Im not sure what you mean here. The two options appear to be (a) there are many types of sins or many situations that lead to sin ... or... (b) sin can be sin in one instance and not sin in another. Imo, (b) is most often false (although I can devise some situations).

What sin is today will be sin tomorrow and even after the new heavens and earth. Why? Because God is faithful, consistent, eternal. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow (Heb 13:8). Therefore, sin today in this world will not then be decreed by God to be ok in the next. God is who He is, eternally and consistently. That's why we can have confidence and faith.

1) George has never committed adultery despite there being several intense situations whereby some beautiful women attempted luring him. He held strong. Mike also has never committed adultery. However, this is primarily because he's very unattractive and the situation has never arisen. In a parallel world he would have. Mike is not sure he gets full marks here.

In your example #1, it is unclear what "several intense situations" means. Without more details that answer questions like, did George put himself in a bad situation knowing it might be a bad situation? How long did he choose to stay in the situation? What mixed messages did George send because he wanted more temptation, if any? Was he sinning by envisioning himself with these woman? Were these situations "intense" because he desired these women? If so, then he sinned.

2) Lucy always emphatically desired to sleep with her friend's partner most of her adult life.

Definitely sinned already (Deu 5:21; coveting is sin). Matt 5:28, "whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

You then wrote regarding example #2, "The next day, although she finally felt so satisfied as a decades-long desire was now over." This actually made me grin. Because this isn't how it works, in my experience. Although it might be true that the lust one was having is less intense the morning after. That beast, that is lust, is most certainly never "satisfied". In fact, it is like a drug in which the more you feed it the more intense and insatiable it becomes. And therefore the more enslaved one becomes.

So even if Lucy had "checked off this desire", she fed the beast that then seeks to be fed elsewhere, if not the same place again. Paul tells us in Romans, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?" (Rom 6:1-2).

3) Harry lusted after his wife's friend Maggie.

Sinned already (Deu 5:21, Matt 5:28).

You then went on in your #3 example...

However, he was not sure if he was completly free of the sin of adultery as he had circumvented it rather than resisted it or otherwise. Harry felt though that he had at least done something about it and God would recognise that.

Is Harry completely free from the "sin of adultery"? No! In this life, before the resurrection, the possibility of the sin of adultery is always present and must be guarded against.

In regard to the steps Harry took, they seem to be attempts to remove himself from a bad situations. So I would have commended Harry for this. Might be better measures than moving, but he wants to remove himself from any situations. That's a good thing.

4) Jake desired his wife's friend Vicky but knew nothing would ever happen as he would never commit adultery as he loved his wife too much.

Most likely, these are the thoughts of over half the people that commit adultery. That is thinking, "I'd never commit adultery."

However, his body and mind seemed to automatically and overwhelmingly respond to the idea of such a sin.

Exactly.

Jake did not ask God for forgiveness as he felt that firstly, he hadn't committed adultery,

This is false, he had committed adultery with his "mind" (as you stated). And as the Bible tells us(Deu 5:21, Matt 5:28).

The probability of the physical act of adultery is fueled by the excelerant that is the thoughts of it. The thought of the act, which is sin itself according to the Bible, is the equivalent of throwing gas on the fire called lust. Eventually the flames become so large and out of control that the thoughts become a physical act.

secondly, his thoughts and lust couldn't really be his responsibility as they were usually not consious decisions - just knee-jerk spontanious reactions mostly and when they did happen they were far too overwhelming for him to realistically stop them or getting satisifaction from them.

This is also false. In my former life, I counseled many people. This is a common excuse that is simply self deception. It's like saying, I'm not responsible for my mind wanting this drug that I keep taking.

It is true that after taking a drug for so long, it would seem the one cannot control the desires and thoughts to have more of the drug. Those desires and thoughts just "pop up". Seemingly out of nowhere. However, we find that the more we refrain from the drug the less intense the desires become. And also the less frequent the desires. However, one will always have to guard oneself from the drug, for one is now a former addict. The temptation and the possibility is always lurking around the next corner.

This can be likened unto sin. Sin is the drug that we all have taken for years and years because we have been born into this fallen world. But there is hope!! Christ died so that through His sacrifice the bondage of sin might be broken in our lives. And the path from glory to glory might by ours. Until the resurrection and the transformation to glorified man, we must always guard against the temptation of our former addiction, that is sin.

We must be vigilant to guard our hearts and minds from that which is sin with the continued renewal of the mind through the study of God's word. The more good we put in, the more bad that stops just "popping up" in our minds. But this cannot just be head knowledge but heart knowledge also.


Peace and live to you brother

 

[timf]

Your examples can all be summed up as "the flesh". One cannot keep a morality score and view "success" in terms of points.

Php 3:13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
Php 3:14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Rom_8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

The way to mortify (kill) the flesh is through starvation. If we feed the flesh (selfishness) we are a slave t the flesh. If we abandon selfishness for the selflessness of love, we are free.

 

[High Castle]

Thank you timf, Paleouss and Jo555.

It's very good of you all to take some time to look and respond as I realised afterwards that, as my post is lengthy and multi-layered, it can be off-putting. Again for me it’s not straightforward and reading your responses is interesting, thanks.

(Note, to be clear, for the first example, George doesn’t lead anyone on. That wasn’t the point of the example at all. Just take it that George is exceptionally dishy so ends up with more female attention than the average man just going about his business. George is just there for contrast; Mike is the important one here. Mike doesn’t think about adultery, just that the situation has never arisen. If it had he would be too weak to stop it)

I believe the narratives were very necessary but, now they are out of the way, I want to be clearer on the meta questions intended (*I know at least some have been already addressed in your replies):

Meta Questions

Example 1: George was able to resist the act of adultery whereas Mike wouldn’t have been able to if the situation had arisen. Both men did not commit adultery. Question: Is Mike in sin for something that never happened and that he doesn’t even really think about?

Example 2: Can Lucy ask for forgiveness for a sin that she felt had to take place for her to move on. Like for instance an old virgin man who feels that if he has sex with a prostitute he will at least expunge a lifetime of desire, need and mad curiosity of what sex is actually like and therefore will be far better able to move on. He feels one sin increases the likelihood of him settling into a more sin-free life thereafter than if the sin doesn’t take place at all as the temptation will be massively reduced (no novelty). Question: Knowing this can he then ask for forgiveness for the sin?

Example 3: Question: Does circumventing sin have a different value to God than resisting sin (meaning being strong-willed enough to not act on your feelings)?

Example 4: Questions: A. Is Jake responsible for feelings that arise before the conscious mind is even aware of them? Lots of things: attraction, desire, lust, compulsions, reactions, etc. can be produced or automated by the body and subconscious, and certainly not thought out or designed consciously? B. Can some things just be too much of an ask, like say waving a shot of vodka under the nose of an alcoholic and expecting them not to drink or just expecting someone with OCD not to tap his door 10 times before leaving, or in Jake’s case expecting cessation of regular, daily/nightly spontaneous overwhelming lust? Doesn’t God recognise people's limits?

Example 5: Tom thinks that there are levels to Gods forgiveness. For the sake of clarity lets just use points: Circumventing sin gets you 1 point. Resisting sin gets you 2 points. Dissolving mental sin (managing to somehow change your feelings and thoughts so you are not tempted) so as not to physically sin equals 3 points. Question: Is Tom correct?



Thanks

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hi everyone,

I'm brand new here. If this subject is on the wrong board for this thread, please move it.

Even though I've nominally been a Catholic all my life, I'm only now at a late stage properly developing faith.


Got so many questions and the ones around sin bother me. Sin can be conceived of in significantly different ways. Some hypothetical examples below. I've made all 5 examples about adultery but they could apply to all different types of sin:

1) George has never committed adultery despite there being several intense situations whereby some beautiful women attempted luring him. He held strong. Mike also has never committed adultery. However, this is primarily because he's very unattractive and the situation has never arisen. In a parallel world he would have. Mike is not sure he gets full marks here.

2) Lucy always emphatically desired to sleep with her friend's partner most of her adult life. At a party the man was drunk and Lucy, also tipsy, saw her opportunity. The next day, although she finally felt so satisfied as a decades-long desire was now over, she was also riddled with guilt and asked God to forgive her. However, Lucy also knew that she can only now move on because the sin had been committed. The sin resolved and satisfied something. She had gained from her misdeeds in a way that couldn't be undone. She also felt it far easier to resist in future as the desire had already been fulfilled. This somehow tainted the request for God's forgiveness.

3) Harry lusted after his wife's friend Maggie. He feared the problem was starting to get out of hand and that committing adultery was going to happen one of the times she would visit their apartment. Harry convinced his wife to move to another city for made up reasons. The real reason was so that Maggie couldn't visit and therefore the adultery wouldn't happen. Harry found it impossible to stop wanting the sin but found a way to stop himself from committing it. However, he was not sure if he was completly free of the sin of adultery as he had circumvented it rather than resisted it or otherwise. Harry felt though that he had at least done something about it and God would recognise that.

4) Jake desired his wife's friend Vicky but knew nothing would ever happen as he would never commit adultery as he loved his wife too much. However, his body and mind seemed to automatically and overwhelmingly respond to the idea of such a sin. Jake did not ask God for forgiveness as he felt that firstly, he hadn't committed adultery, and secondly, his thoughts and lust couldn't really be his responsibility as they were usually not consious decisions - just knee-jerk spontanious reactions mostly and when they did happen they were far too overwhelming for him to realistically stop them or getting satisifaction from them.

5) Tom started having thoughts and feelings of adultery in respect to a woman he found attractive at work who flirted with him. In combatting this sin he decided that it was not okay to simply avoid the situation. He decided it was not okay to simply resist the act of adultery happening either as resistence meant there were still feelings that one was resisting. He decided it was essentially not okay to have these feelings at all and so he worked on/through those feeling until he didn't feel them anymore and thus recieved God's fullest forgiveness - a forgiveness that was deeper than other forgiveness being that Tom did not allow himself any form of sin at all.

Again, just made these all up. Was going to use a different sin but they work well enough with adultery. I'm sure we can all recognise them and apply them across the varied sin spectrum though.

To me there is a lot going on above. Sin seems not that straightforward. Not always sure where God stands on different types/levels of sin and resistence/avoidance, etc. Your thoughts on any of the examples would be interesting for me to read. Thanks.

As far as temporal consequences go, there is obviously a big difference between wanting but not going through with adultery and wanting but then going through with adultery. Actually doing it has a serious consequence--you've been unfaithful, you've hurt someone through your actions, and it is probably going to result in at least one marriage falling apart.

Of course there's also the deeper issue--the want. The passions of the flesh themselves, whether we go through with an act or not, if we want to do something, that's still an obvious problem. And, let's be frank, there can be some serious temporal consequences there too--how would you feel if your significant other was wanting to be unfaithful to you? Even if they didn't, it'd still hurt, it would still cause problems.

In those temporal consequences we also catch a glimpse of the eternal consequences of sin. We see how sin closes us off, closes us off from one another and how we ought to be truly toward one another (in love, reflecting the beautiful and good image of God), but even more, it closes us off from God whose image we are bear and reflect in the world. The eternal consequence is that our own good humanity is being lost, or at least being resisted and distorted.

That's why Jesus when talking about the commandments doesn't just talk about the external obedience and disobedience, but the internal obedience and disobedience, saying if we are even angry with a brother we have committed murder in our heart; if we even so much as gaze at another person with lust we have been unfaithful in our heart. The problem begins right in the middle of ourselves, that deep wrongness that cuts right to the core of who and what we are--we are estranged from God, our human vocation has been distorted, and every dimension of human life is broken. Our relationship with God, our relationship with one another, and our relationship with the rest of God's creation.

We deny and resist God, we harm our fellow human beings, and we exploit God's good earth for selfish gain.

So we can talk about how, sure, if two people want to commit adultery but only one of them actually does it, the one who does it has done something worse. But such comparison doesn't really address the real problem: They want to cheat. That's the core problem of sin. That the genesis of every distorted, perverted, twisted, malicious thought, word, and action (and our inaction when it comes to what we ought to say, think, and do) lay within ourselves, in the deepest part of ourselves.

The Prophet Jeremiah reminds us, "The heart is deceitful above all else, and desperately sick, who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

In the Western theological tradition we've called this deep wrong, this distortion, by a couple of names. Original Sin is one, and the other is Concupiscence. Original Sin is a way we talk about how, as children of Adam, we bear the deep problem which Adam himself got himself into; and so we enter this world with the same sinful, broken, distorted humanity which Adam had after the fall. Concupiscence is a fancy theological term that means "desire", originally it meant sexual desire, but in Western Christian theology it is a way of talking about all our desires, our broken desires, that the hunger, appetites, passions, desires of our flesh is twisted, bent, it's broken--we are inclined toward that which is contrary to God, contrary to loving our neighbor, contrary to God's good creation and our own good created purpose (our very vocation as human beings to bear the image of God).

I'm a Lutheran, and we Lutherans also have another term: homo incurvatus in se, or "human beings curved inward upon themselves", "the inwardly bent man"; if we think of our desires as a line, the line of our desire curves into ourselves, it does not follow straight outward in agreement with God's commandments, with God's good purposes for the world. Instead of having our humanity orientated toward God and neighbor; we are orientated toward ourselves--to please ourselves, to satisfy ourselves, to do whatever we want even (and sometimes because) it hurt someone else.

This is why sin is not merely external, but is very much internal. It's why St. Paul in Romans 7 speaks of sin as being, as it were, in his very bones, like a predator waiting to strike--and horrifyingly, when God's own holy commandments are present, it doesn't result in lessening sin, but increasing sin. The "good I want to do I don't do; and the evil I don't want to do is what I do" Even with a mind and conscience aware of God's holy commandments doesn't change the fact that we do what we shouldn't, and we fail to do what we ought--we not only don't love God and neighbor, but we are malicious and antagonistic toward God and neighbor--in our very bones.

That's the deep deep problem of sin. It's not just in what we do, it's not even just in our thoughts and words--it's that distortion that exists right in the very middle of ourselves, and it distorts what it even means to be human.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

This is why sin is not merely external, but is very much internal.

I John 3:15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

I John 4:20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar.

The internal aspects of sin (in this case, hate) clearly transgresses both the Fifth Commandment but also the Eighth. Internalized sin must be taught to the lay people of our congregation otherwise one is going to have a whale of a time determining what is and what is not sin. For example take lust which Jesus equates (Mt. 5) with transgressing the Sixth Commandment: Synonyms would be: sexual desire, lust , sexuality, lechery, lecherousness, lasciviousness, lewdness, wantonness, carnality, licentiousness, salaciousness, prurience, horniness, raunchiness, salacity, nympholepsy.

If sin is NOT internalized some of these synonyms would not be sin. Try making that distinction to your confirmation class! Non internalized sin just causes confusion at the lay level....especially Jr. and High Schoolers.

 

[High Castle]

Of course there's also the deeper issue--the want. The passions of the flesh themselves, whether we go through with an act or not, if we want to do something, that's still an obvious problem. And, let's be frank, there can be some serious temporal consequences there too--how would you feel if your significant other was wanting to be unfaithful to you? Even if they didn't, it'd still hurt, it would still cause problems.

Hi ViaCrucis. I think you talk of 'want' in an oversimplified way. No one wants something 100% that they can also have but then not take it. We desire only aspects and parts of things, we fantasise, etc. If a woman sexually fantasises that she is being raped it doesn't mean she 'wants' to be raped; If the idea of throwing a brick through your bosses' car satisfies you, it doesn't mean you want to do it. So it's not simply about just 'wanting' to be unfaithful. As said, if you 100% want something that is available to you then you will 100% take it. If only a black and white binary version of desire existed I wouldn't be able to pose any examples.

 

[soldier of light]

Having lust is not the problem but giving into lust is the problem. In my humble opinion

 

[soldier of light]

When lust rears it's head I pray. I do the same thing with sorrow, hurt, and fear

 

[High Castle]

In those temporal consequences we also catch a glimpse of the eternal consequences of sin. We see how sin closes us off, closes us off from one another and how we ought to be truly toward one another (in love, reflecting the beautiful and good image of God), but even more, it closes us off from God whose image we are bear and reflect in the world. The eternal consequence is that our own good humanity is being lost, or at least being resisted and distorted.

That's why Jesus when talking about the commandments doesn't just talk about the external obedience and disobedience, but the internal obedience and disobedience, saying if we are even angry with a brother we have committed murder in our heart; if we even so much as gaze at another person with lust we have been unfaithful in our heart. The problem begins right in the middle of ourselves, that deep wrongness that cuts right to the core of who and what we are--we are estranged from God, our human vocation has been distorted, and every dimension of human life is broken. Our relationship with God, our relationship with one another, and our relationship with the rest of God's creation.

We deny and resist God, we harm our fellow human beings, and we exploit God's good earth for selfish gain.

Thanks, I can agree with that.

So we can talk about how, sure, if two people want to commit adultery but only one of them actually does it, the one who does it has done something worse. But such comparison doesn't really address the real problem: They want to cheat. That's the core problem of sin. That the genesis of every distorted, perverted, twisted, malicious thought, word, and action (and our inaction when it comes to what we ought to say, think, and do) lay within ourselves, in the deepest part of ourselves.

The Prophet Jeremiah reminds us, "The heart is deceitful above all else, and desperately sick, who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

Like Paleouss did, if you map your thoughts on to my very examples, things would be clearer to me. It seems like you're simply saying 'be like Jesus'. However, unlike Jesus we are miles from perfect and never will be. Surely God's expectations and forgiveness is according to our level. Like God's children, one does not have the same expectations of a child as an adult.

ViaCrusis, once you acknowledge the above, that expectation is in accordance with our limits, then my examples come to life. They are examples that are fictitious but also universal: cicumventing vs resisting, hypothetical situations where you would have sinned but didn't it happen; commiting a sin to make it more likey that you won't sin, etc, etc.. The examples to my mind pose real-world issues regarding sin rather than appeals to idealistic standards that none of us could be expected to have. If we accept that we are human rather than Jesus then by what yardstick are these examples measured by God?

 

[High Castle]

Greetings High Castle. I hope your week was a blessed one. Many blessings in my life, praise be to God!

What a nice greeting, thank you. It wasn't that blessed as I was fired this week but thanks anyway.

Im not sure what you mean here. The two options appear to be (a) there are many types of sins or many situations that lead to sin ... or... (b) sin can be sin in one instance and not sin in another. Imo, (b) is most often false (although I can devise some situations).

Well, as illustrated by the examples, I meant more about questions on what constitutes sin. In a later post I formed some more direct questions concerning the examples.

 

[soldier of light]

What a nice greeting, thank you. It wasn't that blessed as I was fired this week but thanks anyway.


Well, as illustrated by the examples, I meant more about questions on what constitutes sin. In a later post I formed some more direct questions concerning the examples.

Not obeying God is sin. The new testament teaches us if we seek it's answers

 

[jacks]

Interesting question and I know that you want people to address each example, but I believe they are all basically the same. That is circumstances varied, but the sin (or thought of sin) was the same. I was told long ago that Circumstance and Character equals your Future. We all may have various circumstances but if our character is strong we don't succumb to the impulse. Are we this strong? No. Given the right circumstances there is probably no sin we wouldn't commit, however that is why we are encouraged to lean on the Lord for our strength. He can enable us to do what we can't do on our own. In essence He strengthens our Character.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thanks, I can agree with that.



Like Paleouss did, if you map your thoughts on to my very examples, things would be clearer to me. It seems like you're simply saying 'be like Jesus'. However, unlike Jesus we are miles from perfect and never will be. Surely God's expectations and forgiveness is according to our level. Like God's children, one does not have the same expectations of a child as an adult.

In a sense, though, it really does come down to be like Jesus. And you are also right, unlike Jesus we are miles from perfect and never will be. I'd say saying "miles apart" is a massive understatement. We are cosmic-scale distances apart, not just miles.

And that's the issue. There's what ought to be, and there is what is; and the gulf between those two is nearly infinitely wide. So in Matthew's Gospel Jesus says, "Be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect."

That's the bar. Be perfect even as God is perfect.

Anything less than that is unacceptable. If understand that, then we understand just how heavy and serious this sin thing is.

We can talk about degrees of severity in what we do, or don't do--and all of that is relevant in our day-to-day living. It's obviously better to not steal, even if we are envious of something our neighbor has. It's better to not cheat on our spouse, even if we are lusting after someone who is. But this is just a matter of degree. It's a bit like saying that, yeah, it'll hurt more if you touch something that's 500 degrees rather than something that's 400 degrees; but you're still getting burned.

And, we can talk about how there is a difference between someone who chooses not to do something, though it would be easy for them to do it; and someone who doesn't do something, though it is largely circumstance. Absolutely. If I have an easy opportunity to steal, but don't; that's good, if I don't steal because I'm worried more about the consequence than the harm itself--then yeah, I'm not exactly doing anything good.

And, yes, it is true that when we have to stand before God in Judgment, all variables will be in play.

And yet, the bar set for us is be like Jesus, be perfect. Which from our perspective seems perhaps crazy, but look at it from a different perspective. Another way to say this is "Be human, be human the way you're supposed to be human." Our experience of humanity is fundamentally broken, so when we see Jesus we see perfection, we see a real, true human being; and He looks like God (He is God, but He also is human, the way we all are supposed to be human).

The appropriate sense we should get from this is terror, despair, fear, discomfort. None of this should make us feel okay, it should make us feel horrible, because we are horrible.

When the murderer stands accused, and sees all the pain and suffering he caused to a grieving family, and he feels like dirt, like worse than dirt--that's what happens when the plain truth of ourselves is laid bare. We are naked, our shame is exposed, and the guilt falls upon us like a million ton weight.

ViaCrusis, once you acknowledge the above, that expectation is in accordance with our limits, then my examples come to life. They are examples that are fictitious but also universal: cicumventing vs resisting, hypothetical situations where you would have sinned but didn't it happen; commiting a sin to make it more likey that you won't sin, etc, etc.. The examples to my mind pose real-world issues regarding sin rather than appeals to idealistic standards that none of us could be expected to have. If we accept that we are human rather than Jesus then by what yardstick are these examples measured by God?

We could go through endless permutations of real world messiness. But if we are going to carve a line right through all of it--which is what God does with His Law--then the cut goes right down and all of it ends up being because we're bad. In the narrative of cosmic history, human beings are the bad guys. We're also the victims, and we are also beloved of God who made us.

So when God comes down and meets us in Jesus, and bears the full sting of death, bearing all of our ugliness upon Himself--this is God loving His enemies. God isn't our enemy, but we are God's enemies; we hate God. Let that sink in. It's what the Bible says, while we were God's enemies, Christ died for us. That's how God shows His love toward us.

If we come to understand the problem. Then we can more fully appreciate the solution. Much like how a man who has spent a week in a desert can truly appreciate just how wonderful water is.

It is therefore necessary to really drive home the issue of sin and the law; because there is Good News here.

Note, I'm not saying all things are black and white. But I am saying that we can't really talk about sin unless we really talk about sin.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[High Castle]

Interesting question and I know that you want people to address each example, but I believe they are all basically the same. That is circumstances varied, but the sin (or thought of sin) was the same. I was told long ago that Circumstance and Character equals your Future. We all may have various circumstances but if our character is strong we don't succumb to the impulse. Are we this strong? No. Given the right circumstances there is probably no sin we wouldn't commit, however that is why we are encouraged to lean on the Lord for our strength. He can enable us to do what we can't do on our own. In essence He strengthens our Character.

Hi jacks. You said: ...I believe they are all basically the same...

Does that mean you believe all sin and attempts at combatting sin are the same? A man who averts his eyes from his neighbour's car so as to reduce the frequency and intensity of envy that he feels compared with a man who desires to rape and kill his neighbour, and manages to resist doing one of them and not the other. Please do not take this the wrong way but such eqivalency seems absolutely absurd to me.


...we don't succumb to the impulse...

Yet it seems you're saying that the impulse is also the sin and it is all equal. Seems, from what you've said, that we've commited the same sin anyway whether we resist the impulse or not - as everyone in my examples no matter what they thought or did and how they thought or did it was 'basically the same'.

 

[High Castle]

In a sense, though, it really does come down to be like Jesus. And you are also right, unlike Jesus we are miles from perfect and never will be. I'd say saying "miles apart" is a massive understatement. We are cosmic-scale distances apart, not just miles.

And that's the issue. There's what ought to be, and there is what is; and the gulf between those two is nearly infinitely wide. So in Matthew's Gospel Jesus says, "Be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect."

That's the bar. Be perfect even as God is perfect.

Anything less than that is unacceptable. If understand that, then we understand just how heavy and serious this sin thing is.

We can talk about degrees of severity in what we do, or don't do--and all of that is relevant in our day-to-day living. It's obviously better to not steal, even if we are envious of something our neighbor has. It's better to not cheat on our spouse, even if we are lusting after someone who is. But this is just a matter of degree. It's a bit like saying that, yeah, it'll hurt more if you touch something that's 500 degrees rather than something that's 400 degrees; but you're still getting burned.

And, we can talk about how there is a difference between someone who chooses not to do something, though it would be easy for them to do it; and someone who doesn't do something, though it is largely circumstance. Absolutely. If I have an easy opportunity to steal, but don't; that's good, if I don't steal because I'm worried more about the consequence than the harm itself--then yeah, I'm not exactly doing anything good.

And, yes, it is true that when we have to stand before God in Judgment, all variables will be in play.

And yet, the bar set for us is be like Jesus, be perfect. Which from our perspective seems perhaps crazy, but look at it from a different perspective. Another way to say this is "Be human, be human the way you're supposed to be human." Our experience of humanity is fundamentally broken, so when we see Jesus we see perfection, we see a real, true human being; and He looks like God (He is God, but He also is human, the way we all are supposed to be human).

The appropriate sense we should get from this is terror, despair, fear, discomfort. None of this should make us feel okay, it should make us feel horrible, because we are horrible.

When the murderer stands accused, and sees all the pain and suffering he caused to a grieving family, and he feels like dirt, like worse than dirt--that's what happens when the plain truth of ourselves is laid bare. We are naked, our shame is exposed, and the guilt falls upon us like a million ton weight.



We could go through endless permutations of real world messiness. But if we are going to carve a line right through all of it--which is what God does with His Law--then the cut goes right down and all of it ends up being because we're bad. In the narrative of cosmic history, human beings are the bad guys. We're also the victims, and we are also beloved of God who made us.

So when God comes down and meets us in Jesus, and bears the full sting of death, bearing all of our ugliness upon Himself--this is God loving His enemies. God isn't our enemy, but we are God's enemies; we hate God. Let that sink in. It's what the Bible says, while we were God's enemies, Christ died for us. That's how God shows His love toward us.

If we come to understand the problem. Then we can more fully appreciate the solution. Much like how a man who has spent a week in a desert can truly appreciate just how wonderful water is.

It is therefore necessary to really drive home the issue of sin and the law; because there is Good News here.

Note, I'm not saying all things are black and white. But I am saying that we can't really talk about sin unless we really talk about sin.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks ViaCrusis. In one sense what you write is rich with conceptual depth; in another sense it's simply a struggle to square a circle: God will take into consideration all varieties and yet expects the exact same from us and treats all sin as the same. This is actually a contradiction.

If your four-year-old nephew rips out pages from your book he hasn’t done anything wrong; If your eight-year-old nephew rips out pages from your book he might well have done something wrong. We factor in things like capability and circumstance. Seems like you’re saying God does too and then you follow by saying He doesn’t.

Thanks

 

[High Castle]

You then wrote regarding example #2, "The next day, although she finally felt so satisfied as a decades-long desire was now over." This actually made me grin. Because this isn't how it works, in my experience. Although it might be true that the lust one was having is less intense the morning after. That beast, that is lust, is most certainly never "satisfied". In fact, it is like a drug in which the more you feed it the more intense and insatiable it becomes. And therefore the more enslaved one becomes.

So even if Lucy had "checked off this desire", she fed the beast that then seeks to be fed elsewhere, if not the same place again. Paul tells us in Romans, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?" (Rom 6:1-2).

Paleouss, in a way yes and in a way no. This is not about an alcoholic convincing himself it will be just one drink and then he finds himself down the same drunken and destitute path. Even though there is truth in what you say and applies to many addictions, we do not all have the same mental make-up and the same circumstances, and this is fundamentally not about the story of addiction.

An old-virgin man sleeping with a prostitute just once to know what he doesn't know; to expunge a life of mad curiosity of what it means to be with a woman; to not die without this fundamental experience even if it is somewhat artificial and under sinful conditions, he will - nonetheless - finally know what it is physically like. Afterwards he feels guilt about the sin but knows that he is in a different place now, that the instense situation is over. In fact he finds himself far less interested in it and certainly harbours tremendously less curiosity as a consequence. He then finds more peace without having this awful mental itch plaguing him.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thanks ViaCrusis. In one sense what you write is rich with conceptual depth; in another sense it's simply a struggle to square a circle: God will take into consideration all varieties and yet expects the exact same from us and treats all sin as the same. This is actually a contradiction.

If your four-year-old nephew rips out pages from your book he hasn’t done anything wrong; If your eight-year-old nephew rips out pages from your book he might well have done something wrong. We factor in things like capability and circumstance. Seems like you’re saying God does too and then you follow by saying He doesn’t.

Thanks

If the four year old hasn't done something wrong, that is analogous to saying no sin has occurred. Which, as I'd see it, renders this moot.

If we jump off a bridge, there are a lot of variables that are involved, how high is the bridge? Is the bridge over solid ground, or is it over water? Sure, there's a difference between if you jump off a bridge that's 20 feet off the ground over if you jump off a bridge that's 100 feet off the ground. It can be the difference between getting really badly hurt, or dying.

To that end, St. John reminds us that there is sin that is unto death, and there is sin that isn't. This is the basis for the idea of mortal sin vs. non-mortal (or venial) sin.

Not all Christian traditions/denominations talk about mortal/venial sin the same way. Both Catholicism and Lutheranism (to offer a relevant example here, as you mentioned you grew up Catholic, and I am a Lutheran) talk about mortal sin/venial sin. But we don't talk about it in exactly the same way; in the Lutheran tradition we do not typically categorize some sins as mortal and others as venial. We recognize, obviously, that certain sins are much more severe and horrendous than others--murder is far worse than lying on your work resume, for example--but in Lutheran thought mortal sin isn't so much what sin, as much as that it is sin left to fester and kill. All sin, without repentance, is mortal sin. As Christians when we sin we are to confess our sin, there is to be repentance; because the Christian lives only by the mercy of God. Without mercy, we die. When talking about Confession, Lutherans don't emphasize the need for a full recounting of all sins (because that's impossible), but obviously we should mention the ones we are aware of and which are truly severe--but we also need to always when coming into the presence of God confess that we are sinners, and be frank in our guilt and grief.

"Most merciful God,
we confess that we have sinned against You
in thought, word, and deed,
by what we have done, and by what we have left undone.
We have not loved You with our whole heart;
we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves.
We are truly sorry and we humbly repent.
For the sake of Your Son Jesus Christ,
have mercy on us and forgive us;
that we may delight in Your will, and walk in Your ways,
to the glory of Your Name. Amen."

When we don't, when we let sin fester, it's like a wound that progressively gets more diseased and infected, and as the wound gets worse, it's a poison that starts to slowly kill us. Such can result in the total shipwrecking of our faith.

Going back to the bridge jumping analogy, while jumping off a hundred foot bridge to solid ground probably will kill me; even if I jump off a 30 or 40 foot bridge can ultimately kill me--if I injure myself, the injury is left untreated, perhaps there is internal bleeding, or there is a wound that becomes infected, and it becomes necrotic. Without medical intervention even a non-lethal injury can become a lethal one.

Now it is a perfectly reasonable thing to say, "Well, don't jump off a bridge at all then". The problem? We're all jumping off bridges, all the time. Sometimes the bridge is 20 feet up, sometimes the bridge is a 100 feet up. Sometimes we walk to the edge of the bridge, look down, yell "YOLO" and jump with both feet like madmen. Sometimes we walk to the edge of the bridge, and we are tempted to keep edging closer and closer to the edge, and before we know it, we've lost our footing and we are hurtling down to the ground. Sometimes we stumble off the bridge and, fortunately, there was an overhang so we didn't fall the full distance. Sometimes it seems like someone shoved us off the bridge after we decided to take a nice long look down. Yet, all the same, we get hurt, and sometimes it kills us out right, and sometimes it kills us slowly.

That's sin. We are constantly jumping off bridges, and it always hurts us--sometimes it kills us, sometimes it kills us slowly, but it always hurts us.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[High Castle]

If the four year old hasn't done something wrong, that is analogous to saying no sin has occurred. Which, as I'd see it, renders this moot.

If we jump off a bridge, there are a lot of variables that are involved, how high is the bridge? Is the bridge over solid ground, or is it over water? Sure, there's a difference between if you jump off a bridge that's 20 feet off the ground over if you jump off a bridge that's 100 feet off the ground. It can be the difference between getting really badly hurt, or dying.

To that end, St. John reminds us that there is sin that is unto death, and there is sin that isn't. This is the basis for the idea of mortal sin vs. non-mortal (or venial) sin.

Not all Christian traditions/denominations talk about mortal/venial sin the same way. Both Catholicism and Lutheranism (to offer a relevant example here, as you mentioned you grew up Catholic, and I am a Lutheran) talk about mortal sin/venial sin. But we don't talk about it in exactly the same way; in the Lutheran tradition we do not typically categorize some sins as mortal and others as venial. We recognize, obviously, that certain sins are much more severe and horrendous than others--murder is far worse than lying on your work resume, for example--but in Lutheran thought mortal sin isn't so much what sin, as much as that it is sin left to fester and kill. All sin, without repentance, is mortal sin. As Christians when we sin we are to confess our sin, there is to be repentance; because the Christian lives only by the mercy of God. Without mercy, we die. When talking about Confession, Lutherans don't emphasize the need for a full recounting of all sins (because that's impossible), but obviously we should mention the ones we are aware of and which are truly severe--but we also need to always when coming into the presence of God confess that we are sinners, and be frank in our guilt and grief.

"Most merciful God,
we confess that we have sinned against You
in thought, word, and deed,
by what we have done, and by what we have left undone.
We have not loved You with our whole heart;
we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves.
We are truly sorry and we humbly repent.
For the sake of Your Son Jesus Christ,
have mercy on us and forgive us;
that we may delight in Your will, and walk in Your ways,
to the glory of Your Name. Amen."

When we don't, when we let sin fester, it's like a wound that progressively gets more diseased and infected, and as the wound gets worse, it's a poison that starts to slowly kill us. Such can result in the total shipwrecking of our faith.

Going back to the bridge jumping analogy, while jumping off a hundred foot bridge to solid ground probably will kill me; even if I jump off a 30 or 40 foot bridge can ultimately kill me--if I injure myself, the injury is left untreated, perhaps there is internal bleeding, or there is a wound that becomes infected, and it becomes necrotic. Without medical intervention even a non-lethal injury can become a lethal one.

Now it is a perfectly reasonable thing to say, "Well, don't jump off a bridge at all then". The problem? We're all jumping off bridges, all the time. Sometimes the bridge is 20 feet up, sometimes the bridge is a 100 feet up. Sometimes we walk to the edge of the bridge, look down, yell "YOLO" and jump with both feet like madmen. Sometimes we walk to the edge of the bridge, and we are tempted to keep edging closer and closer to the edge, and before we know it, we've lost our footing and we are hurtling down to the ground. Sometimes we stumble off the bridge and, fortunately, there was an overhang so we didn't fall the full distance. Sometimes it seems like someone shoved us off the bridge after we decided to take a nice long look down. Yet, all the same, we get hurt, and sometimes it kills us out right, and sometimes it kills us slowly.

That's sin. We are constantly jumping off bridges, and it always hurts us--sometimes it kills us, sometimes it kills us slowly, but it always hurts us.

-CryptoLutheran

Nice, I like the bridge analogy, thanks

I believe I get what you're saying. Lots of what we do or don't do constitutes sin, much of which can be more harmful than perhaps first appears.

But again I think you might be missing my point. My point isn't really about the various forms of harm, deceptive or otherwise, we can do to ourselves by falling from various 'bridges' in various ways.

Harm can be done without us even sinning. For argument sake, let's call this non-sin harm, like honestly making a mistake and giving somebody the wrong medicine, or picking the lesser of two evils where harm has to happen, etc. I'm sure you can think of loads of examples.

The point I was trying to make, and what my examples point to, are considerations around circumstances, environment, capabilities, genes, mental health, etc. etc. which mean that we might approach combating sin in various ways.

Wouldn't it be the case that, just as with the four-year-old tearing up pages from your book that God also would look at an adult's misdeeds and judge whether it was reasonable to expect this particular adult in these particular circumstances to do any different? God therefore in certain situations deciphers that, what you might refer to as harm from sin isn't really so but actually is non-sin harm given the unique circumstances. Just like not expecting the nephew to be able to understand enough so as that sin does not enter the picture and any harm from the action is actually non-sin harm.

For instance God might expect a father who is an alcoholic to take another route home from work so as not to pass the pub and so as not risk harm to himself and family through his alcoholism. If this father sticks with the same route knowingly and puts his family in unnecessary risk then this is sinning, as God sees that this man is quite capable of changing route despite inconvenience or temptations to wander towards the pub after work. Let's say that, that kind of request is pretty much realistically within his ability to fulfill.

However, when the same father is on a camping holiday with friends and in the evening everyone starts drinking around the campfire, someone waves a shot of vodka under his nose and the whole thing is too much for this alcoholic to resist and he takes the shot and drinks the night away - perhaps God would acknowledge that this alcoholic has no chance of resisting in such a situation and circumstances and therefore would identify the harm as non-sin harm.