If one covets a dog, does he deserve eternal torture fo that sin?

[doubtingmerle]

If a child who is old enough to know right from wrong covets his neighbor's dog for 3 seconds, does he then deserve eternal conscious torment in hell for this "sin", even if that is the only sin he ever committed? I think not.

 

[Faulty]

I think not.

What you think doesn't matter even a little, because you have no say in the matter.

The Word of God says that if we transgress even a single point of the Law, we are responsible for breaking all of it. It's never just one sin, but just one is enough because God requires sinless perfection. Your grade is either 100% A+ or a big fat 'F' and there is no extra credit.

It also tells us that we all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. That child needs to repent of his sin and trust in the finished work of Jesus to be forgiven and reconciled to God. It's by Him the child will be justified, or its by Him the child will be condemned.

You can seek to justify your own sin as "no big deal" all you want by these little ficticious stories, but it's all for nothing. You do have a judgment day coming, and if it's a single sin or many against you, it will not be well with you on that day.

He offers mercy and forgivness to whoever will come and take it. But you reject, and reject, and reject, and reject, and one day it will just simply be gone... and then it's too late.

We all need forgivness and the sinless perfection of Jesus, the spotless Lamb of God who was made sin for us who knew no sin, imputed to us, so we can stand on that day boldly, with not a single sin charged against us.

 

[drich0150]

If a child who is old enough to know right from wrong covets his neighbor's dog for 3 seconds, does he then deserve eternal conscious torment in hell for this "sin", even if that is the only sin he ever committed? I think not.

sin is sin, and requires atonement period.

Besides what person could live a life and this be his only sin?

 

[doubtingmerle]

sin is sin, and requires atonement period.

Interesting. I would have thought that coveting a dog was a rather minor infraction.

If a person who covets a dog deserves infinite conscious torture in hell for that "sin" , does that person also deserve the death penalty?

 

[drich0150]

Interesting. I would have thought that coveting a dog was a rather minor infraction.

The wages for sin is death. That is all and any sin. so that means All sin is the same, and their are no minor infractions of sin.
That is why Christ died, to take these sins away.

If a person who covets a dog deserves infinite conscious torture in hell for that "sin" , does that person also deserve the death penalty?

It depends on the society we live in, and what those laws say.

You all seem to want to focus on the sin and ignore the atonement that is offered by the very same God. why is that?

 

[bsd31]

The answer is yes. God makes the rules. Not you. Not I. Not societies moral compass, but God alone sets the standards.

Do you understand that?

Edit: And I won't even address this nonsense about eternal torture. The crime is the coveting not the justice visited against the criminal.

 

[ebia]

If a child who is old enough to know right from wrong covets his neighbor's dog for 3 seconds, does he then deserve eternal conscious torment in hell for this "sin", even if that is the only sin he ever committed? I think not.

It's the wrong framework. If someone suffers from covertessnesss, which we all do without exception, then that person needs putting to rights to be able to function in the Kingdom of God. Should they decline that putting-to-rights and Kingdom then ultimately God will respect that choice.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It's the wrong framework. If someone suffers from covertessnesss, which we all do without exception, then that person needs putting to rights to be able to function in the Kingdom of God. Should they decline that putting-to-rights and Kingdom then ultimately God will respect that choice.

The opening post was about one who coveted a dog for 3 seconds. If he covets for 3 seconds, does he deserve eternal torment as a consequence?

 

[doubtingmerle]

The answer is yes. God makes the rules. Not you. Not I. Not societies moral compass, but God alone sets the standards.

Do you understand that?

So God is the most powerful, and he makes the rules, and we are stuck with that, whether we agree or not?

If the ultimate authority of the universe were to sanction incest and murder, would you then also sanction incest and murder?

So we should just accept whatever the most powerful being says, and ask no questions?

That is not my nature. I ask questions.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If a person who covets a dog deserves infinite conscious torture in hell for that "sin" , does that person also deserve the death penalty?

It depends on the society we live in, and what those laws say.

No society issues the death penalty for coveting a dog. I can't imagine one thinking that would be good.

You all seem to want to focus on the sin and ignore the atonement that is offered by the very same God. why is that?

The atonement? I discussed that elsewhere: http://www.christianforums.com/t7594196/

 

[drich0150]

No society issues the death penalty for coveting a dog. I can't imagine one thinking that would be good.

then the answer to your question is no. God has separated his laws from those of man.

The atonement? I discussed that elsewhere: http://www.christianforums.com/t7594196/

My point was that atonement is part and parcel to this discussion. to separate them is folly.

 

[ebia]

The opening post was about one who coveted a dog for 3 seconds. If he covets for 3 seconds, does he deserve eternal torment as a consequence?

As a hypothetical abstract The answer is no, but the question has nothing to do with a good Christian understanding of the situation or what God is doing about that.

 

[bsd31]

So God is the most powerful, and he makes the rules, and we are stuck with that, whether we agree or not?

If the ultimate authority of the universe were to sanction incest and murder, would you then also sanction incest and murder?

So we should just accept whatever the most powerful being says, and ask no questions?

That is not my nature. I ask questions.

The ultimate authority of the universe does not sanction incest and murder. Which means there is no need to even consider the "what if" in a case like that. What He does sanction is spelled out very clearly in the Scriptures, not to mention on your own conscience.

 

[doubtingmerle]

As a hypothetical abstract The answer is no

Some Christians keep using such hypothetical abstracts. They say if a person commits a single sin, then he is guilty of the whole law, and deserves to be tortured for all eternity.

So your answer to the question is no, this person hasn't done anything to deserve eternal torture, but you won't click the button to submit your vote?

 

[doubtingmerle]

The ultimate authority of the universe does not sanction incest and murder. Which means there is no need to even consider the "what if" in a case like that. What He does sanction is spelled out very clearly in the Scriptures, not to mention on your own conscience.

But if the ultimate authority did sanction such things, would you say that might makes right, and follow whatever that ultimate authority asked, even if it meant incest and murder?

 

[ebia]

Some Christians keep using such hypothetical abstracts. They say if a person commits a single sin, then he is guilty of the whole law, and deserves to be tortured for all eternity.

tell me about it

So your answer to the question is no, this person hasn't done anything to deserve eternal torture, but you won't click the button to submit your vote?

ok, I've voted but on the proviso that I'm not accepting the premise implied by the question.

 

[Chaplain David]

If a child who is old enough to know right from wrong covets his neighbor's dog for 3 seconds, does he then deserve eternal conscious torment in hell for this "sin", even if that is the only sin he ever committed? I think not.

Sinning does not mean one goes to hell. Not accepting Christ results in that. God bless.

 

[bsd31]

But if the ultimate authority did sanction such things, would you say that might makes right, and follow whatever that ultimate authority asked, even if it meant incest and murder?

I won't play the "what if" game in regards to God's righteousness. He does not advocate or sanction such wickedness and therefore it is an entirely moot point. In fact God put entire nations to death for practicing things like incest and murder. That's how far separated God is from those kind of things. He hates them and those who practice them.

 

[bsd31]

Sinning does not mean one goes to hell. Not accepting Christ results in that. God bless.

Good point. Sometimes we forget to mention that most important of facts.

 

[doubtingmerle]

ok, I've voted but on the proviso that I'm not accepting the premise implied by the question.

What implied premise are you not accepting?

The question is very straight forward. If you think a person who covets a dog for 3 seconds deserves eternal conscious torment for that act, then vote yes. If you think that act is not sufficient to merit eternal conscious torment, then vote no.