Is all sin equal?

[mkgal1]

In order for this to be placed into the context of the conversation...here is what prompted me to begin this thread:

Quote from Jane--->Right. inappropriate content doesn't deal with sex between one faithful, married couple. inappropriate content is about multiple partners, homosexual sex - girls with girls - it's about bondage, and it's about the woman being entirely willing to do anything - including indulging in threesomes, anal sex, whatever, for the man's viewing pleasure. I have seen some inappropriate content, directly so that I would know what I was up against, and if that's what I'm up against? I already lost because I am not going to have sex with another girl (or another guy) to turn my husband on.
​

Quote from Antigrrrl--->I was thinking more about the average casual user than the addict/deviant type of user. I don't think the typical male user of inappropriate content is probably into the hurting/humiliating/dominating his partner and is more likely to view things that turn him on in the bedroom.


Quote from Root of Jesse----->It's funny how the coming of Jesus and inappropriate contentography are diametrically opposed. The Word became flesh, vs the flesh became word (so to speak). inappropriate contentography is a sickness. I used to think inappropriate content was ok, if the couple watched it together, even if we never would do some of those things. Sort of like watching Cirque du Soleil, ha! Nothign could be further from the truth. inappropriate content is not about sex at all. Not sex the way it's supposed to be, as Jane said.

Quote from Mk--->I don't think there's a difference between "casual user" and "deviant-type"....it *is* deviant to be a voyeur.
​

Quote from Antigrrl--->Then most women who read romances (of any type) must be "deviant" also because what is a romance novel if not a peek into someone else's intimate moments? How about gossip magazines, those are pretty voyeuristic as well, and many women have no problem picking those up in the check out line. Each gender has its preferential voyeuristic behavior. Not that I believe it is moral behavior, in the light of the Bible, but I can't go so far as to call all inappropriate content viewers and gossip mag readers as deviant.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So.....my immediate question is.....where do we draw the line on what's voyeuristic gossip? If it's simply wishing to know details about ones life.....doesn't that make FB (FaceBook) sinful? Chatting on the phone with your mother and asking how Aunt Jean is doing?.....Where?

In a macro view.....is ALL sin equal?

 

[JaneFW]

All sin is sin .. no exceptions, imo. There are just degrees of how a person interacts with their sinful nature. Some people sin, perceive and regret that sin, ask for forgiveness, then endeavor to stop. Some take to it like pigs in clover. They say they regret it, but it's just lip service - "I kinda stopped, but it's kinda hard, and it's kinda not all my fault anyway, so once that other person kinda does their part, then I'll kinda really stop .. maybe .. but it is kinda hard."

 

[chaz345]

Further context though, what brought up the idea that sin is sin is that MK said that she wouldn't put the reader of a gossip magazine in the same category as the "casual" inappropriate content user.

I still say why not? In terms of the person comitting the action, exactly what is the difference? What two different categories would they be put into and what is the scriptural basis for those different categories?

In terms of what is gossip, seeking information about someone's life so that you can judge them would be one aspect. Seeking information about someone's life who you wouldn't openly share the same information about your own life would be another. Seeking the information so that you can see how messed up they are so you don't feel as bad about your own life would be another. That's not meant to be an exhaustive definition, just some of what I consider to be key characteristics.

I also think that we need to define deviant. In the context that Paul was using, deviant simply means anything that doesn't conform to or deviates from God's Word and God's will. Today it tends to carry connotations of being dangerous, weird, abnormal and the like.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Because they're two different things. In Catholics, for a sin to be mortal, you have to know it's a sin, know that it's wrong, and do it anyway. If any of those three conditions don't exist, then it's not mortal sin. It's still sin, but the sinful act is to know it's wrong and still do it. Look at Original Sin. God said "You can eat anything but that." Eve knew she shouldn't eat it, and did it anyway, and they fell from grace.

So, in the case of a child who takes candy from the store, he doesn't know it's wrong, so it's not really serious. If the child knows because Mommy told him it's wrong, and takes it anyway, it's more serious.

Regarding gossip, it's the judgementalism that's wrong to me. It's trying to know something about someone you have no right to know, and then shaking your head in disgust. Also, when you have an attitude of "Well, I'm better than that", you're headed down the wrong path. I look at those rags in the checkout aisle, and say "There, but for the grace of God, go I".

 

[Puptart]

In my opinion: All sin is equal, but not all deeds are equal.

What I mean is that I don't care in terms of God if you murdered someone or if you stole a candy bar from the store, if you've repented then you've repented and that's all there is to it. However, the punishment in the legal system for those deeds are very clearly different.

In essence I think all sin is equal before God (you don't have to pray harder or longer to get forgiveness for x-act or y-act), but the deeds behind the sin are not necessarily equal before man (the act of a spouse cheating will never be equal to the act of spouse gossiping about someone in terms of human society).

 

[chaz345]

Because they're two different things. In Catholics, for a sin to be mortal, you have to know it's a sin, know that it's wrong, and do it anyway. If any of those three conditions don't exist, then it's not mortal sin. It's still sin, but the sinful act is to know it's wrong and still do it. Look at Original Sin. God said "You can eat anything but that." Eve knew she shouldn't eat it, and did it anyway, and they fell from grace.

So, in the case of a child who takes candy from the store, he doesn't know it's wrong, so it's not really serious. If the child knows because Mommy told him it's wrong, and takes it anyway, it's more serious.

Regarding gossip, it's the judgementalism that's wrong to me. It's trying to know something about someone you have no right to know, and then shaking your head in disgust. Also, when you have an attitude of "Well, I'm better than that", you're headed down the wrong path. I look at those rags in the checkout aisle, and say "There, but for the grace of God, go I".

So a Christian knows something is gossip,knows it's a sin, knows it's wrong and does it anyway. So according to Catholic doctrine, that's a mortal sin. So what would be different about inappropriate content?

 

[Puptart]

Root of Jesse is leaving out one important detail for something to be a mortal sin (I used to be Catholic).

It also has to be considered a grave/serious matter. (The definition of "grave" is often defined as breaking one of the 10 commandments though I've seen lengthy debates on this alone)

Just thought I'd throw that out there

 

[JaneFW]

In my opinion: All sin is equal, but not all deeds are equal.

What I mean is that I don't care in terms of God if you murdered someone or if you stole a candy bar from the store, if you've repented then you've repented and that's all there is to it. However, the punishment in the legal system for those deeds are very clearly different.

In essence I think all sin is equal before God (you don't have to pray harder or longer to get forgiveness for x-act or y-act), but the deeds behind the sin are not necessarily equal before man (the act of a spouse cheating will never be equal to the act of spouse gossiping about someone in terms of human society).

Interesting thinking.

 

[WolfGate]

Similar to Puptart, I see all sin as equal, but not all sin is the same. It is equal from the standpoint that it all is offensive to God, is worthy of death and separation from Him. It is equal from the standpoint that the same grace, accepted by the believer, wipes away that separation and punishment regardless of what the sin was.

However, they are not the same. Certainy worldly consequances are different. Even on teh judgment day, I believe the differences will be pointed out to us.

2Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

 

[chaz345]

In my opinion: All sin is equal, but not all deeds are equal.

What I mean is that I don't care in terms of God if you murdered someone or if you stole a candy bar from the store, if you've repented then you've repented and that's all there is to it. However, the punishment in the legal system for those deeds are very clearly different.

In essence I think all sin is equal before God (you don't have to pray harder or longer to get forgiveness for x-act or y-act), but the deeds behind the sin are not necessarily equal before man (the act of a spouse cheating will never be equal to the act of spouse gossiping about someone in terms of human society).

This seems reasonable, but what about the case that sort of gave rise to the thread? Two actions, gossip and inappropriate content/lust, neither of which carry any punishment in the legal system. So it's strictly a sin/moral issue. On what basis would those two things be put in different categories?

 

[Puptart]

This seems reasonable, but what about the case that sort of gave rise to the thread? Two actions, gossip and inappropriate content/lust, neither of which carry any punishment in the legal system. So it's strictly a sin/moral issue. On what basis would those two things be put in different categories?

I made a similar case at the end of my post. I mentioned that a cheating spouse is not the same issue as a gossiping spouse in terms of "human society" (not law, but just people.. social interaction.. humanity).

The last question asked in the OP was "is all sin equal" and my answer is "Before God yes, before man no". The original case study doesn't really change my answer at all, but it's important to note that I'm not just talking about legal consequences, but social ones as well.

This is just how we operate as human beings. We often "punish" each other over things (without the law at all), and to varying degrees based on the offense.

 

[chaz345]

I made a similar case at the end of my post. I mentioned that a cheating spouse is not the same issue as a gossiping spouse in terms of "human society" (not law, but just people.. social interaction.. humanity).

The last question asked in the OP was "is all sin equal" and my answer is "Before God yes, before man no". The original case study doesn't really change my answer at all, but it's important to note that I'm not just talking about legal consequences, but social ones as well.

This is just how we operate as human beings. We often "punish" each other over things (without the law at all), and to varying degrees based on the offense.

So would you basically agree that the putting of different sins into different categories, especailly if neither causes any material harm to anyone, is an entirely man made concept and is not really Scriptural? I suppose that one could even argue that gossip, which may negatively affect other people's perception of the subject of the gossip thereby doing them harm especailly if they are a public figure whose livelihood is tied to public perception, is worse than inappropriate content which harms no one other than the person consuming it. NOTE: I'm NOT making that argument, I'm simply pointing out the problems inherent in trying to categorize sin.

 

[mkgal1]

Further context though, what brought up the idea that sin is sin is that MK said that she wouldn't put the reader of a gossip magazine in the same category as the "casual" inappropriate content user.

I still say why not? In terms of the person comitting the action, exactly what is the difference? What two different categories would they be put into and what is the scriptural basis for those different categories?

The main reason "why not" is because "gossip" hadn't been defined yet. I think that's important.

In terms of what is gossip, seeking information about someone's life so that you can judge them would be one aspect. Seeking information about someone's life who you wouldn't openly share the same information about your own life would be another. Seeking the information so that you can see how messed up they are so you don't feel as bad about your own life would be another. That's not meant to be an exhaustive definition, just some of what I consider to be key characteristics.

Normally.....the gossip is on the behalf of the one originating the story.....isn't it? Not in the hearing? I agree with something ROJ had said in the other thread, however---that if one is contributing to sin, they are sinning as well.

As far as magazines go, though.......what if they are true accounts? Not "juicy bits of gossip"....but, things like the true story behind the Vow.....or a story about someone's over seas adoption? Is that sin to read about? Is that gossip? (I don't believe so, personally).

I also think that we need to define deviant. In the context that Paul was using, deviant simply means anything that doesn't conform to or deviates from God's Word and God's will. Today it tends to carry connotations of being dangerous, weird, abnormal and the like.

If something deviates from God's word.....isn't that a counterfeit? If sex is being used for a different purpose than God created......isn't that sinful? Isn't that dangerous.....even "diabolical"?

Which takes me back to gossip. If information shared is to get to know someone (asking Mom how Aunt Jean is doing......reading about someone's experience with an over seas adoption)....isn't that Biblical...? Isn't that how we are to LOVE one another.....through KNOWING one another?

If the words in the magazine are lies that are meant to skew our perception of celebrities......to "knock them off their pedestal"---then I believe that is gossip. It's sinful for the one writing it.....the one selling it.....the one reading it.

I don't believe it's on the same "page" as inappropriate content, however. God seems particulary angry with sex being used against His will. (1st Corinthians 6:18)

 

[mkgal1]

So, in the case of a child who takes candy from the store, he doesn't know it's wrong, so it's not really serious. If the child knows because Mommy told him it's wrong, and takes it anyway, it's more serious.

I agree. In Exodus 34:7 sin is broken up into 3 categories: sin, transgression, and iniquity. Iniquity is a habitual pattern of sin.

Regarding gossip, it's the judgementalism that's wrong to me. It's trying to know something about someone you have no right to know, and then shaking your head in disgust. Also, when you have an attitude of "Well, I'm better than that", you're headed down the wrong path. I look at those rags in the checkout aisle, and say "There, but for the grace of God, go I".

Right.....that's having a haughty attitude. Hautiness is included in the list of things the LORD hates (Proverbs 6:16). That verse says He detests it....that it's an abomination to Him.

 

[mkgal1]

In my opinion: All sin is equal, but not all deeds are equal.

What I mean is that I don't care in terms of God if you murdered someone or if you stole a candy bar from the store, if you've repented then you've repented and that's all there is to it. However, the punishment in the legal system for those deeds are very clearly different.

In essence I think all sin is equal before God (you don't have to pray harder or longer to get forgiveness for x-act or y-act), but the deeds behind the sin are not necessarily equal before man (the act of a spouse cheating will never be equal to the act of spouse gossiping about someone in terms of human society).

I agree. All sin is death. If we refuse to acknowledge our sin---when we know the right and wrong about it---we cannot be forgiven. That is the only sin that's unforgiveable---the one that's not confessed and acknowledged.

 

[chaz345]

As far as magazines go, though.......what if they are true accounts? Not "juicy bits of gossip"....but, things like the true story behind the Vow.....or a story about someone's over seas adoption? Is that sin to read about? Is that gossip? (I don't believe so, personally).

I believe that even true information CAN be gossip, it depends on the motivation of the one providing the information AND the motivation of the one consuming it. Reports of a given celebrities latest drug use/arrest for example. There's no reason the person reading has to know that that affects their own life and the only reason the producer is doing it is personal gain, not providing vital information to the public.

If something deviates from God's word.....isn't that a counterfeit? If sex is being used for a different purpose than God created......isn't that sinful? Isn't that dangerous.....even "diabolical"?

Yes to an extent, but there is still a difference in meaning, a difference in the reaction of the person hearing the term.


In any case it is my opinion that the idea of putting sins that have similar physical world manifestations into different categories, bad/worse categories is unBiblical.

I know you didn't frame it as such but you would say that inappropriate content/lust is in some way worse than gossip, right? How about over eating? Is that worse than gossip? Or lying? Where exactly does that fit? See it quickly becomes a huge muddled mess when we start to look at sin other than how God does. Certainly the legal/societal implications for things that cause real harm to another have some reason to them, but even there it's pretty easy to make a muddled mess as we get further into A isn't as bad as B but it's worse than C. Heck even the same action, lying for example, can have huge legal consequenses in one case, in court or in front of Congress, and zero in other cases like lying to one's spouse or parents.

 

[mkgal1]

I believe that even true information CAN be gossip, it depends on the motivation of the one providing the information AND the motivation of the one consuming it. Reports of a given celebrities latest drug use/arrest for example. There's no reason the person reading has to know that that affects their own life and the only reason the producer is doing it is personal gain, not providing vital information to the public.

We can't know the motives of another person, though. That line of thinking would mean that reading the local newpaper would be sinful. I happen to disagree about that. Biographies would be sinful. History books........I think you get the picture, right?

 

[mkgal1]

Yes to an extent, but there is still a difference in meaning, a difference in the reaction of the person hearing the term.

God seems to take His symbolism very seriously. I don't think it's hyperbole to say that a distortion of God's love (inappropriate content and lust) is diabolical (extremely wicked; evil; vile; satanic; despicable; deplorable). In looking at the Bible.....the times that I see God's wrath is when His symbolic meanings were trampled on---like when Moses struck the rock instead of speaking to it; when the merchants were extorting the people that came to the Temple to worship--turning the Temple into a den of theives.

In any case it is my opinion that the idea of putting sins that have similar physical world manifestations into different categories, bad/worse categories is unBiblical.

See above.

 

[mkgal1]

I know you didn't frame it as such but you would say that inappropriate content/lust is in some way worse than gossip, right? How about over eating? Is that worse than gossip? Or lying? Where exactly does that fit? See it quickly becomes a huge muddled mess when we start to look at sin other than how God does. Certainly the legal/societal implications for things that cause real harm to another have some reason to them, but even there it's pretty easy to make a muddled mess as we get further into A isn't as bad as B but it's worse than C. Heck even the same action, lying for example, can have huge legal consequenses in one case, in court or in front of Congress, and zero in other cases like lying to one's spouse or parents.

Yes.....I do say that inappropriate content/lust is "worse" than gossip. I don't see it as a "muddled mess".....God's word differentiates between sins "outside the body" and sins "against" their own body. Sexual immorality is isolated. I think that's because it's a counterfeit to His love. It's distorting His main characteristic.

 

[Romanseight2005]

1 Corinthians 6:18-20

18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
NIV


This is just one passage that shows a distinction of sins.