Is all sin equal?

[chaz345]

Post #39, I said this:


You then asked about "functional difference"....which is not what I was originally commenting on.

Actually in post 39 you quoted a post of mine where I was talking about functional difference so no I didn't ask about functional difference after you were already commenting on something else.

Functional difference, or difference that matters is the same thing. You really seem to be playing a word game here.

Bottom line, did you or didn't you say that erotic fiction and visual inappropriate content are basically the same?

It seems to me that before Dallas got her you said they are the same, and now you are saying something different. Why would you feel the need to do that? I mean if something she said caused you to change you mind, then simply say so, rather than trying to say you said something other than what you clearly did.

It doesn't matter anyway because this has gone well beyond pointless.

It's my opinion that there's about zero difference between erotic fiction and inappropriate content and that the huge majority of modern so called romantic fiction is in fact not all that far from full on erotic fiction. Others disagree and that's fine. What's not fine is the yelling, and the veiled accusation that I was being dishonest (your not fooling me) and then refusing to explain what was meant by it.

 

[chaz345]

Wow. I've been gone a while ...

I think that the only people who know about romantic novels are the people who have read them. Who here has regularly read romance novels? Raise your hand. Have you also viewed inappropriate content? Or read erotic novels? It would be extremely rare for someone to cross over all three. I would imagine that most people who would read romance are reading it for romance. Pride & Prejudice (which was mentioned by someone else) is not the same as Finding [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. (That's a real movie btw.) I don't need a PhD in The Studies of inappropriate contentography and Erotica vs. Romance Novels to figure that one out. One is an innocent depiction of romance/love/boy meets girl, the other features prostitutes having sex with each other. Hmmm, which should I watch tonight.

When I'm talking about romance novels I've specifically said MODERN romance novels several times so let's not pretend that I'm comparing classic romantic literature to erotic fiction or inappropriate content. Today's romantic fiction is about as different from Pride and Prejudice as you can get.

 

[chaz345]

Is all sin equal?

No, in terms of consequences by man and God.

As for severe consequences by man, how many times have we read about a man killing wife/girlfriend and children because wife/girlfriend was with another man? That does not happen all the time but when a woman cheats on a man it gets real ugly most of the time. Women don't usually get as violent as men when cheated on.

Now if that same woman was to read romance/erotic novels but not be with another man I doubt that the man would impose such harsh consequences on the woman.

Another very obvious example would be a child molester. Even the prison inmates will take out their own justice on those molesters. However, if an inmate is in prison for cheating the government out of lots of money he may be a hero to the other inmates. For sure the inmates will treat him better than a child molester.

As for the consequences by God. In the Old Testament, the most severe punishment that I have read was when a person or nation turned to the occult or foreign gods. Start with the Golden calf; lots (3,000) of God’s chosen Israelites were killed by their own people for turning to another god. Even after many were killed, God added a plague to them for their sin of turning to a false god.

The Israelites kingdoms of Judah and Israel were cast into slavery and death by other nations because they turned to the occult or foreign gods. That punishment did not last months or years but decades and in some cases centuries!

Abraham lied often, Jacob was a deceiver, and Moses killed an innocent man but none of them received the harsh consequences of those that turned to foreign gods.

Is all sin equal? NO WAY!!

Infidelity often gets the most harsh punishment. If it is infidelity with humans then horrible consequences are imposed by mankind. If it is spiritual infidelity then you better pray for mercy from God.

God says that the wages of sin is death. If some sin is different than others, then why does it no specify which sin leads to death and which doesn't?

 

[JaneFW]

I know, I was just defending the statement you said was opposite of scripture

by clarifying the first sentence in its context.

Yes, it was late and I was tired, and I mistook your meaning, but we are on the same page. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[chaz345]

zhttp://www.russellmoore.com/2011/05/18/can-romance-novels-hurt-your-heart/

 

[Tamara224]

God says that the wages of sin is death. If some sin is different than others, then why does it no specify which sin leads to death and which doesn't?

Well... in the Mosaic law, it does. Some transgressions carried the death penalty and others did not.

But, actually, Paul explained that death came to us all because of Adam's sin:

Romans 5:
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
​

 

[I Art Laughing]

So the sins that Jesus died for were worse than the sins He didn't die for?

I'd still like some clarification if anyone feels up to it.

 

[mkgal1]

I'd still like some clarification if anyone feels up to it.

It's been posted several times that ALL sins need our Savior's blood to cover them (not those exact words, but the same sentiment) and I previously quoted the verse that was God's own words that ALL sin will be forgiven (when it's acknowledged and confessed):

The LORD passed in front of Moses, calling out, "Yahweh! The LORD! The God of compassion and mercy! I am slow to anger and filled with unfailing love and faithfulness. I lavish unfailing love to a thousand generations. I forgive iniquity, rebellion, and sin. But I do not excuse the guilty.~Exodus 34:6-7 NLT

That there are 3 DIFFERENT kinds of sin mentioned there (iniquity; rebellion; and sin) says to me that not all sin *is* the same, but they all need God's forgiveness (and He is gracious to give it when one is repentant.)

 

[Tamara224]

I'd still like some clarification if anyone feels up to it.

He died for all sins, for everyone. See Romans 5.

 

[I Art Laughing]

He died for all sins, for everyone. See Romans 5.

So all sin contributed to His death on a cross? Even the "little" ones? Any one of them would have been enough for God to have sent Him?

 

[JaneFW]

Most of it is pointless to answer. Someone would need to prove that modern romance is the same as erotic fiction. I suspect the answer would be, uh, no it's not.

Erotic literature comprises fictional and factual stories and accounts of human sexual relationships which have the power to or are intended to arouse the reader sexually

Let's see Nicholas Sparks - not erotic - unless you are really weird. Yawnsome.
Helen Fielding - not erotic, from my recall
Sophie Kinsella - not erotic
Nora Roberts - ? hmmm, only read one of hers and it was all about witches so I didn't finish it
Jennifer Weiner - not erotic
Francine Rivers - not erotic
Gabriel Garcia Marquez - not erotic
Georgette Heyer - not erotic
Rosamund Pilcher - not erotic

Those were the only authors on the list I pulled up that I had read at all. There is a separate list for erotic novels. Why would there be two separate lists if they were all the same? Isn't even logical.

 

[Tamara224]

So all sin contributed to His death on a cross? Even the "little" ones? Any one of them would have been enough for God to have sent Him?

I'm not sure what you mean by "contributed to his death."

He died to save us from sin and to reconcile mankind to Himself.

Adam's one sin brought death to all (Romans 5) - even to those who did not transgress the law. Which means that even if someone were perfect and had no sin, that person would still be subject to death and in need of a redeemer (someone to buy him/her out of the slavery to sin and death).

God promised a redeemer way back in the beginning when it was just Adam and Eve and their one sin because it was that first sin that brought death to us all. It was that first sin that made us all in need of a redeemer. So, even if I, personally, had no sin at all, Jesus would still have needed to come and atone, to repair and to redeem.

Jesus was destined to come and die to set things right from before the foundation of the world.

IOW, I don't think the "Penal substitutionary atonement" doctrine is the full story or an accurate summation of the purpose of Jesus' sacrifice. So, I don't really subscribe to the "you are responsible for Christ's death because you told that white lie" line of thinking.

 

[I Art Laughing]

I'm not sure what you mean by "contributed to his death."

He died to save us from sin and to reconcile mankind to Himself.

Adam's one sin brought death to all (Romans 5) - even to those who did not transgress the law. Which means that even if someone were perfect and had no sin, that person would still be subject to death and in need of a redeemer (someone to buy him/her out of the slavery to sin and death).

God promised a redeemer way back in the beginning when it was just Adam and Eve and their one sin because it was that first sin that brought death to us all. It was that first sin that made us all in need of a redeemer. So, even if I, personally, had no sin at all, Jesus would still have needed to come and atone, to repair and to redeem.

Jesus was destined to come and die to set things right from before the foundation of the world.

IOW, I don't think the "Penal substitutionary atonement" doctrine is the full story or an accurate summation of the purpose of Jesus' sacrifice. So, I don't really subscribe to the "you are responsible for Christ's death because you told that white lie" line of thinking.

So he died for sin, but not because I sinned? Romans 8 covers this pretty well, we have to put to death OUR sin nature, Jesus provided a means for us to be free of the flesh, join Him in his death and ressurection by following His example.

What I'm getting at is that any one persons sin and all sin put Jesus on the Cross. All sin causes separation from God and death, and atonement needed to made for any and all sin if we are to have life. So in that sense, all sin equally separates us from God and leads us to the death that God warned Adam and Eve about in the garden.

 

[mkgal1]

So in that sense, all sin equally separates us from God and leads us to the death that God warned Adam and Eve about in the garden.

That's been said several times already....and everyone agrees with this aspect (as far as I know). I'm not sure why you are bringing it up again.

 

[I Art Laughing]

That's been said several times already....and everyone agrees with this aspect (as far as I know). I'm not sure why you are bringing it up again.

Because this esoteric argument about what sin causes death versus which ones don't is silly. All sins caused the death of Jesus, all our sin requires death, ours. If we don't repent and die to self all sin will separate us from God, from the littlest white lie to mass murder. What is the purpose in further compartmentilization, that just seems like legalism. Akin to straining and gnats and swallowing camels.

 

[mkgal1]

Because this esoteric argument about what sin causes death versus which ones don't is silly. All sins caused the death of Jesus, all our sin requires death, ours. If we don't repent and die to self all sin will separate us from God, from the littlest white lie to mass murder. What is the purpose in further compartmentilization, that just seems like legalism. Akin to straining and gnats and swallowing camels.

If you feel it's "silly" then I would invite you to not participate, then. Apparently God, Himself, found it important enough to distinguish between "iniquity"....."transgression"....and "sin".....as those words in Exodus came from HIM.

 

[I Art Laughing]

If you feel it's "silly" then I would invite you to not participate, then. Apparently God, Himself, found it important enough to distinguish between "iniquity"....."transgression"....and "sin".....as those words in Exodus came from HIM.

Oh, I see a distinction between the three, and I see why God classified them (although I know that I don't have complete understanding).

For example, inquity I think are those cases where we put our ways above God's ways and our thoughts above His thoughts, where we want to reason things out for oursleves and order our steps according to what makes sense to us. We can see that virtually everywhere, especially in those places where opinions are shared, and most ironically where they are shared in close proximity with the Word. Like when the Bible says something 15 times and we say, "Not everyone agrees with the common interpretation, so." That is iniquity IMO. A flaw of vain imagination.

Transgression is when He tells us not to do something and we do it anyway. Don't murder, and we murder, for example. A flaw of commission.

Sin, by my understanding is when we "miss the mark". God has a perfect will for us and because of our rebellion we decide to do things our own way. Knowing to do good, knowing to submit to the Holy Spirit and not doing it. A flaw of ommission.

All of these cause separation and death, all are rotted in our flesh and our at emnity with God. I could cite some scripture but I don't have access to my E-sword.

 

[mkgal1]

Oh, I see a distinction between the three, and I see why God classified them (although I know that I don't have complete understanding).

For example, inquity I think are those cases where we put our ways above God's ways and our thoughts above His thoughts, where we want to reason things out for oursleves and order our steps according to what makes sense to us. We can see that virtually everywhere, especially in those places where opinions are shared, and most ironically where they are shared in close proximity with the Word. Like when the Bible says something 15 times and we say, "Not everyone agrees with the common interpretation, so." That is iniquity IMO. A flaw of vain imagination.

Transgression is when He tells us not to do something and we do it anyway. Don't murder, and we murder, for example. A flaw of commission.

Sin, by my understanding is when we "miss the mark". God has a perfect will for us and because of our rebellion we decide to do things our own way. Knowing to do good, knowing to submit to the Holy Spirit and not doing it. A flaw of ommission.

All of these cause separation and death, all are rotted in our flesh and our at emnity with God. I could cite some scripture but I don't have access to my E-sword.

I agree with what you said about "sin" and "transgression".....but, not "iniquity".

This is what I believe about iniquity:

What is iniquity? Just the sound of the word sounds dirty. Most Christians, when asked would say that iniquity is sin. As I began to study out the word, I saw that iniquity is listed separate from sin but almost always along side sin leaving me with the conclusion that all iniquity is sin, but not all "sin" is necessarily iniquity (i.e. Iniquity is a certain type of sin). I don't want to split "doctrinal hairs" but I believe there is a truth here that will bring freedom to areas of our lives that we struggle to get victory over. As believers we know that the blood of Jesus was shed on the cross to take away our sin. But lets look at what the Bible says about iniquity. Isaiah 53 is a classic prophesy about Christ and the crucifixion. And it is a key verse in discovering what is iniquity. In verse five it says, "He was WOUNDED for our TRANSGRESSIONS and BRUISED (or crushed) for our INIQUITIES". The outward wounds were for our outward acts of rebellion towards God. The stripes were for healing. But a specific type of wound (bruises) Jesus took on his body for iniquity. This is significant. The word "bruised" is also translated "crushed". Have you ever sat on a package and crushed the contents? Then you try to fix the package so no one will know what's inside is broken. It may look good on the outside, but what is inside is still broken. That is what iniquity is like. When we think of sin, we think of the obvious and outward things that are against the law of God. The BIG 10 "Thou Shalt & Shalt Nots". But iniquity is a little more deviously hidden than overt sin. It may be the sin that you haven't committed but you would if you could and not get caught. The iniquity gets down to the hidden motives and the very root of why we do what we do. Have you ever wondered why one person is more prone to one area of sin, yet you have no real struggle in that area? Or why you have areas (sin) in your own life that you seem to struggle to get victory over? It is the iniquity that is deeply rooted in the fleshly carnal nature. Iniquity has more to do with the "why you sin" as much as the sin itself.

In Acts 8:19-23 we have a good example of this. Simon the sorcerer offered Peter money when he saw that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of hands. What he wanted was a good thing. Why he wanted it was quite another and Peter, led by the Spirit of God, dealt with his motive. "For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity."NKJV vs.23. The root of Simon the sorcerer's sin was bitterness which was the root cause of his iniquity. Now bitterness is not something that is always outward. It is inward. It usually comes from an offense from others, jealousy, greed, envy or pride, just to name a few. And if you do not deal with the hidden intent of the heart it will take root and become an iniquity. And like a bruise, we can cover it up with some pretty clothes, and we can put on our pretty little Christian smile, but let someone touch the sensitive or wounded part of your heart, and OUCH! "Who do they think they are..." blah, blah, blah... and out comes the sin produced by the iniquity.

 

[Romanseight2005]

I am scratching my head about what you are arguing over IAL. It was said many pages ago that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all people need a Savior. In the sense that we all need a savior for our sin, it is equal, but that is the foundation of our faith, not the ending of it. We build on our foundation, and from that point on, the conditions of our hearts matters. Not all sins come from the same condition of the heart, so it matters in that, we should all care about the condition of our hearts.

1 Corinthians 3:10-18

10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.


KJV

 

[mkgal1]

It's my opinion that there's about zero difference between erotic fiction and inappropriate content and that the huge majority of modern so called romantic fiction is in fact not all that far from full on erotic fiction. Others disagree and that's fine.

I'm not really sure how you are defining "erotic fiction".....especially since you are lumping it in with "romantic fiction". I don't believe that our sexuality is meant to be separated from how we love (within the proper context, I mean)-----otherwise, that equals lust and is a counterfeit to how God created us...IMO.

If you simply mean fiction that describes physical details is "erotic"........then, what about Song of Solomon? Do you see "about zero difference" there? Would you consider that....."not all that far from full on erotic fiction"?