Is it possible?

[Reformationist]

One definition of sin:
2. To violate a religious or moral law.

Well, that may be "one definition of sin." I'm not exactly sure where you got that definition. There is a verse that I can't seem to find, maybe it is somewhere in Romans 14, that speaks of an act being a sin if it violates our conscience. Is that the verse to which you're referring? And, I'll assume, for the sake of discussion, that you mean a Christian religious or moral law. If I'm wrong feel free to correct me.

I elaborated, with Romans in mind, to say that one need not necessarily violate a moral law, just to be morally unsure about one's actions is 'bad' enough

Amleto, while all of this conjecture is good for random discussion, how is this based on God's Word? Where do you read that our insecurity about the righteousness of our works is, in itself, sinful? I can get onboard with the belief that violating our conscience is sinful but the idea that our being unsure about our actions makes them sinful does not seem biblical to me.Maybe I'm still just missing your point. Could you create a mock scenario perhaps? Or maybe even just reword your point?

When I talk of faith I mean:
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Under such a premise I propose that not all people have such faith

So would any belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence suffice as faith, in your opinion?

I never said that, I said:

If a non-believers actions don't go against their morals or the word of God, then it is not a sin

If you'll notice, that comment was not a reply to your above statement. It was in response to this statement:

"I don't think this is applicable to people without faith, as they have nothing to contradict, and therefore cannot sin by the act of contradicting their faith."

This, to me, seems to imply that if a person has no faith in God then their actions are not sinful just because their actions don't contradict their faith.

No. I mean or. If either condition is satisfied, then it is a sin.

I see. My mistake. I understand that now.

If the act of giving to the homeless person can be accepeted as loving your neighbour as yourself, and therefore righteous for a Christian, then I believe the act to be also righteous for a non-believer.

Accepted by who? God sees the heart as well as the action. If the action is not motivated by our desire to be obedient to God then the action is sinful, regardless of it's civil virtue and outward appearance of conformity to God's Law.

This is a point that I was alluding to, (by trying to allow non believers to be capable of not sinning by actions): Should the same act, done by two people (one a believer, one not) with equally good intent, not receive the same 'credit'?

Of course it should. However, the "good intent" is not "good" because of man's opinion of it's virtue. As I said, we cannot see the heart as God can. If one gives money to the homeless to ease their own guilty conscience and then tells you that he gave the money because he cares about the welfare of others does that make the act righteous or sinful? How would you differentiate? There is a standard for righteousness. That standard is not subjective. If one does not come to the aid of their fellow man because of their faith in God then they do so for a self serving reason an thus it is sinful.

I think so. I do not think that one (of the identical) action(s) should be labelled sinful, whilst the other righteous.

Amleto

The carnal mind does not, in fact it cannot, do something righteous because the carnal mind considers God's Law as foolish. Our actions have no intrinsic value. It is the motivation for our actions that determines their righteousness, or lack thereof. So, the idea of a non-believer doing something for the same reason that a Christian, who is motivated by their love for God, does it is unbiblical.

 

[Amleto]

Well, that may be "one definition of sin." I'm not exactly sure where you got that definition.

I got the definition from an online dictionary which can be found without much forethought going into the URL

There is a verse that I can't seem to find, maybe it is somewhere in Romans 14, that speaks of an act being a sin if it violates our conscience. Is that the verse to which you're referring? And, I'll assume, for the sake of discussion, that you mean a Christian religious or moral law. If I'm wrong feel free to correct me.

My interpretation of Romans 14 is that faith/morals/conscience are all rolled up. If a believer does something not from faith, then it as akin to saying they are not morallly certain of the correctness oh their actions.

From the same dictionary that I have been using, this is one definition of conscience:
The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong

I thought Christian religious or moral law was implicit, but I shall try to be more explicit from now on

Amleto, while all of this conjecture is good for random discussion, how is this based on God's Word? Where do you read that our insecurity about the righteousness of our works is, in itself, sinful? I can get onboard with the belief that violating our conscience is sinful but the idea that our being unsure about our actions makes them sinful does not seem biblical to me.Maybe I'm still just missing your point. Could you create a mock scenario perhaps? Or maybe even just reword your point?

A bit earlier in this post I have tried to explain how faith/morals/conscience are connected. If one is morally unsure/has pangs of conscience/ or is weak in faith about one's actions, then from Romans 14 I interpret the actions as a sin.

...but the idea that our being unsure about our actions makes them sinful does not seem biblical to me.
I'm not trying to say 'if one can't decide whether to go left or right' then its a sin because one is unsure. I have always tried to say 'if one is morally unsure, then it is a sin.

So would any belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence suffice as faith, in your opinion?

That would seem to fit in with the particular dictionary definition.

If you'll notice, that comment was not a reply to your above statement. It was in response to this statement:

"I don't think this is applicable to people without faith, as they have nothing to contradict, and therefore cannot sin by the act of contradicting their faith."

This, to me, seems to imply that if a person has no faith in God then their actions are not sinful just because their actions don't contradict their faith.

Yes. They cannot sin through the act of contradicting their faith, since they have none. This doesn't mean that the act cannot be sinful in, and of itself.

For example, some (athiest) psychopath may be perfectly happy to kill someone. It doesn't violate is morals/conscience/faith, and is thus not a sin because of any violation, but is a sin because killing in cold blood is a sin.

I hope that clears things up a bit

If the act of giving to the homeless person can be accepeted as loving your neighbour as yourself, and therefore righteous for a Christian, then I believe the act to be also righteous for a non-believer

Accepted by who? God sees the heart as well as the action. If the action is not motivated by our desire to be obedient to God then the action is sinful, regardless of it's civil virtue and outward appearance of conformity to God's Law.

Accepted as truth in God's eyes for the sake of argument. Your question had so many 'what-ifs' and ambiguous assumptions that I tried to ease the load, not knowing your intent for the question.


Thus, the following is negated by my assumption;

Of course it should. However, the "good intent" is not "good" because of man's opinion of it's virtue. As I said, we cannot see the heart as God can. If one gives money to the homeless to ease their own guilty conscience and then tells you that he gave the money because he cares about the welfare of others does that make the act righteous or sinful? How would you differentiate? There is a standard for righteousness. That standard is not subjective. If one does not come to the aid of their fellow man because of their faith in God then they do so for a self serving reason an thus it is sinful.

How would I differentiate? Why is it my job to obtain the motives of others? Do you pass judgement on another master's servant?

The carnal mind does not, in fact it cannot, do something righteous because the carnal mind considers God's Law as foolish. Our actions have no intrinsic value. It is the motivation for our actions that determines their righteousness, or lack thereof. So, the idea of a non-believer doing something for the same reason that a Christian, who is motivated by their love for God, does it is unbiblical.

Again, with my assumption that the sole reason for giving money is because "love your neighbour as thyself", then the reason can be the same.

This doesn't mean that it does happen, nor that it may. However your assertion that it is unbiblical is neither here nor there, because quantum tunneling is unbiblical, yet it surely happens

 

[Reformationist]

Before I continue responding to you I need to know if you are intentionally being sarcastic or if I am misperceiving you. I already have enough sarcastic people to deal with and have no desire to find more.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

It's strange. At this point we have 11 people saying that they believe that non-believers can do things that are motivated by faith in God and, unless I missed it, I've not seen anything more than a theoretical example.

Does anyone actually have an example of a non-believer doing something that was motivated by their faith in God?

God bless

 

[Amleto]

Before I continue responding to you I need to know if you are intentionally being sarcastic or if I am misperceiving you. I already have enough sarcastic people to deal with and have no desire to find more.
God bless

No, it is not my intention to come across as sarcastic. I am trying to answer honestly. My apologies if I came across that way.

T

 

[Reformationist]

No, it is not my intention to come across as sarcastic. I am trying to answer honestly. My apologies if I came across that way.

T

Glad to hear that. I have first hand knowledge that the written word can often come across differently than we mean it so it is always better to ask if there's a question as to someone's intent.

I'll respond to your post as soon as I can.

God bless