Oooh...So irritated

Stringaling · Feb 12, 2006

I am not sure that this belongs exactly here in Marriage forum, but I have seen this enough here to frustrate me...I have read so many instances where people here say that what is sin for the husband may not be sin for the wife?... What is that? Huh? Does that mean that there is not a black and white when it comes to sin? Does that mean that God judges not whether HE detern=mines a thing to be sinful, but what the individual determines to be sin?

Come on people! Sin is sin. Black is black and white is white. There is no gray area when it comes to sin. Just because we don't feel that the behavior in question is sinful doesn't mean that it is not... Remember we are human and our feeling and emotions, our thoughts and convictions aren't necessarily on the right track.
In a marriage relationship there is no sin for her but not for him. It is sin for both parties and to categorize and shuffle in into that imaginary gray area is denying the plain truth that there is no relativity when it comes to rightr and wrong. As Christians we should all know and acknowledge that, but many of us here are creating a gray area to hide behind.

ugh!! Sorry to rant it just frustrates me to no end...

Mirelys · Feb 12, 2006

Go, String!
ProfessorMom, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong, Stringaling) she's talking about the submission threads, where some people say that a woman should obey her husband even if he asks her to do something she believes to be sin.

Autumnleaf · Feb 12, 2006

Sin is disobedience to God. What is so hard about applying that to a given situation?

Joykins · Feb 12, 2006

Autumnleaf said:
Sin is disobedience to God. What is so hard about applying that to a given situation?

If the submission thing above is true, then it's easy to fall into a situation where NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO you are disobeying God.

Ex. God says for wives to obey husbands
Husband tells the wife to sin.

If wife sins, she is disobeying God (in that sin). If wife does not sin, then she is disobeying her husband, which by rule #1 above is disobeying God.

Catch-22.

Joy

Autumnleaf · Feb 12, 2006

Joykins said:
If the submission thing above is true, then it's easy to fall into a situation where NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO you are disobeying God.

Ex. God says for wives to obey husbands
Husband tells the wife to sin.

If wife sins, she is disobeying God (in that sin). If wife does not sin, then she is disobeying her husband, which by rule #1 above is disobeying God.

Catch-22.

Joy

If a wife sins in obedience to her husband he is guilty of sin and she is not since she is acting under his God given authority over her. I have a hard time thinking of a situation where this would apply. Please define such a situation you are concerned about.

Joykins · Feb 12, 2006

Autumnleaf said:
If a wife sins in obedience to her husband he is guilty of sin and she is not since she is acting under his God given authority over her. I have a hard time thinking of a situation where this would apply. Please define such a situation you are concerned about.

There are situations where people obeying legitimate authorities do things they knew to be wrong, and at some point "I was just following orders" is no excuse...

If my husband tells me to kill someone and I do it, we are both going to be guilty of murder.

Autumnleaf · Feb 12, 2006

Joykins said:
There are situations where people obeying legitimate authorities do things they knew to be wrong, and at some point "I was just following orders" is no excuse...

If my husband tells me to kill someone and I do it, we are both going to be guilty of murder.

We are getting into crazy talk here.

Mirelys · Feb 12, 2006

Autumnleaf said:
We are getting into crazy talk here.

In order for ethics to be discussed, we do need to get into "crazy talk"... Except of course if you consider abortion murder, and then it's not so crazy. Not even so uncommon.

Joykins · Feb 12, 2006

Autumnleaf said:
We are getting into crazy talk here.

Are we really?

If abortion is murder and hormonal birth control is abortifacient, both commonly held positions by CF members, it crossreferences another thread on this forum.

bliz · Feb 12, 2006

Stringaling said:
I am not sure that this belongs exactly here in Marriage forum, but I have seen this enough here to frustrate me...I have read so many instances where people here say that what is sin for the husband may not be sin for the wife?... What is that? Huh? Does that mean that there is not a black and white when it comes to sin? Does that mean that God judges not whether HE detern=mines a thing to be sinful, but what the individual determines to be sin?

Well, sometimes. Sort of. Read the I Corinthians passages on the eating of meat - chapter 8 and part of 10. Paul makes it clear that eating meat offered to idols is not a sin in and of itself - but people who believe it is a sin, for them it is. And it would be a sin to eat said meat if you new it would cause someone to stumble, but not a sin if you could it it with others who do not have problems with the issue.
So, it could be a sin for one spouse, and not a sin for the other.

Click to expand...

Mary_Magdalene · Feb 12, 2006

Autumnleaf said:
If a wife sins in obedience to her husband he is guilty of sin and she is not since she is acting under his God given authority over her.

give scripture reference to back this up.

Mary_Magdalene · Feb 12, 2006

Stringaling said:
I am not sure that this belongs exactly here in Marriage forum, but I have seen this enough here to frustrate me...I have read so many instances where people here say that what is sin for the husband may not be sin for the wife?... What is that? Huh? Does that mean that there is not a black and white when it comes to sin? Does that mean that God judges not whether HE detern=mines a thing to be sinful, but what the individual determines to be sin?

Come on people! Sin is sin. Black is black and white is white. There is no gray area when it comes to sin. Just because we don't feel that the behavior in question is sinful doesn't mean that it is not... Remember we are human and our feeling and emotions, our thoughts and convictions aren't necessarily on the right track.
In a marriage relationship there is no sin for her but not for him. It is sin for both parties and to categorize and shuffle in into that imaginary gray area is denying the plain truth that there is no relativity when it comes to rightr and wrong. As Christians we should all know and acknowledge that, but many of us here are creating a gray area to hide behind.

ugh!! Sorry to rant it just frustrates me to no end...

actually, i have gotten into quite a number of discussions in the last few days here on CF on this exact topic (but not in the thread you are referring to).

i am finding that some Christians dont believe God's word is black and white. Even if it says in the word something is sinful, people like to still say it is relative to every persons situation. I guess it makes them feel better....

Joykins · Feb 12, 2006

Godschosengirl said:
actually, i have gotten into quite a number of discussions in the last few days here on CF on this exact topic (but not in the thread you are referring to).

i am finding that some Christians dont believe God's word is black and white. Even if it says in the word something is sinful, people like to still say it is relative to every persons situation. I guess it makes them feel better....

I. Cor. 8 seems to say that there are situations where one person's conscience may see sin where there actually may be no transgression, and that the conscience of such people is to be respected.

I. Cor. 8 said:
4As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
7Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
12But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

Also there is the example of the 1st council of Jerusalem, who had to come up with guidelines of conduct for Gentile converts:

Acts 15 said:
1But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." 2And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. 3So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers.

4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. 5But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."

6The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

12And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,

16"'After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant[b] of mankind may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
says the Lord, who makes these things 18known from of old.'
19Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.

Based on these scriptures, I would say that it is not always black-and-white what constitutes sin. BUT the standards we are set is always to do better, to live according to the Holy Spirit's guidance, and taking the life and cross of Christ as our model...

Stringaling · Feb 13, 2006

I haven't referred to a specific thread actually. There are many cases here in MM that states this idea of relativity of sin. The one mentioned above is just the most recent. I agree, Godschosengirl, that by justifying the scriptures as not being specific on sin, people are making themselves feel better. To acknowledge that we are committing sin without repentance would mean a total upheaval of lives and ideas, and as humans we would much rather stay in our comfort sone and rationalize our actions.

Joykins said:
I. Cor. 8 seems to say that there are situations where one person's conscience may see sin where there actually may be no transgression, and that the conscience of such people is to be respected.

Right. The passage does not say that it is sin for the one and not for the other, but the sin is causing the other to stumble because of their ignorance.

Joykins said:
Also there is the example of the 1st council of Jerusalem, who had to come up with guidelines of conduct for Gentile converts:

Based on these scriptures, I would say that it is not always black-and-white what constitutes sin. BUT the standards we are set is always to do better, to live according to the Holy Spirit's guidance, and taking the life and cross of Christ as our model...

I bellieve that they were not saying that what the converts do is not sin, but what they were saying is that they should not be as judgemental of the converts because those things were second nature to them and they needed to be advised that those things were sin. Even as those today will be judged more severly who have known and had the faith their entire lives, those who convert later in life and are not as knowledgable to the Truth and able to identify sin will not be held to as high a standard because it is not through their own fault that they are ignorant.

Sin is sin, regardless of our own opinions and wishes to minimize them. What is seen as wrong by God will be judged as a sin. The Bible does not say otherwise. What it is saying is that those who are ignorant of sin, will not be held to as high a standard as those who know the act is sin and do it anyway. And those of us who know a thing is sin or not a sin, should not commit an act in the presence of someone who is unknowledgeable of the nature of the thing(as being sin or not being sin) because we may cause them to stumble. We may cause them to sin through their own ignorance of sin. That is the sin--the causing of another to stumble.

On CF I am quite surprised to see so many Christians say that what is sin for one is a totally non sinful thing for another to do. THis is not true. I think that if non-believers read those things they will becme confused and deceived as to what sin is and may think it is okay to go ahead and do whatever it is they desire to do, not knowing that it is sin. We could be leading them into sin by saying that it is okay for some people to do that thing, yet not okay for others. It is wrong for us to lead the ignorant into sinning. I so wish that we could agree that sin is sin regardless of our feelings and opinions, which have been moulded by the presence of sin of this fallen world.

Sascha Fitzpatrick · Feb 13, 2006

I think it's like what Bliz was saying.

Like, some people on here think that it is sinful to drink alcohol, and some don't.

I think it's more to do with issues like that.

One I can think of from my life - I think swearing is a sin, my FH doesn't (although he doesn't all that much).

I think that is a respect thing - whoever doesn't belief said behaviour to be sinful (I'm thinking more along the 'grey' areas like birth control/alcohol/gambling/etc), should still reign in that behaviour, out of respect for the person who does.

I don't think should apply in every case (ie I wouldn't give up alcohol completely just cos my mother doesn't like it), but if you are around those people, it seems respectful to refrain from it.

With the swearing example - B has learnt to curb his tongue around me (good training for when we have children), like he has when around his friends.

Sasch

Addicted2~Jesus · Feb 13, 2006

Hmmm, I think it's a bit more basic really. Here's an example.

If say, I git on a puter an I look at porn is it sin? Yes. Though if by gittin on the puter wit the intent to look at porn is that sin? Yes. So sin for me would begin by gittin on the puter. But anyone else could git on puter an not worry bout lookin at porn, so is gittin on the puter sinful? To me it would be but to someone else it would not be. I think that's what the scripture was talkin bout more pointedly.

That is not to say it gives folks a free will to sin before God an then run back an stand on that scripture. As ppl we try to justify everthin an we simply can not do it.

In threads like submission, bc, etc when someone says that such an such isn't a sin to a man but is to a woman er sin to a woman an not the man you really need to git in deep to what's goin on. For example, if a husband believes birth control is sinful an his wife does not. Is it sin? If the husband believes it is then it is, because to know right an do wrong is sinful. Birth control is one of those where couples need to actually know what their talkin bout an not rely on all the hipe. Given the chance that they actually do resaerch, God will show them the truth.

To refute what some were sayin bout a man askin his wife to sin. A Godly man should not ask his wife to sin in the first place, but even if he does, he's already guilty of sin. Should a wife obey? To an extent I would say yes so that it will go well wit er. If she's expected to do sumthin to harm ersef er er husband etc then that's why God gave us common sense. You can not use bc=abortion=murder IF an only if, the husband er wife either one doesn't know that a hormonal pill "could" cause that to happen. That's where the ignorance comes in an that's where research needs to come in an folks earnestly pray.

Good job bliz for pointin that out.

daughterofzion · Feb 13, 2006

I cant think of any situation that a sin is only a sin to my Husband and not for me.

There are some instances in life in general that a sin could be a sin for one and not another.
Explanation : For one person it might be a sin to drink any wine whatsoever, because it could cause them to be violent, etc etc. Whereas for another God may have not convicted them to quit drinking wine period (He calls us all to moderation, wisdom etc).
There IS a scripture in Titus I believe that says women are not to be given to MUCH wine, and that the men are to be sober minded at ALL times.!

(Titus 2)

Mary_Magdalene · Feb 13, 2006

Stringaling said:
I haven't referred to a specific thread actually. There are many cases here in MM that states this idea of relativity of sin. The one mentioned above is just the most recent. I agree, Godschosengirl, that by justifying the scriptures as not being specific on sin, people are making themselves feel better. To acknowledge that we are committing sin without repentance would mean a total upheaval of lives and ideas, and as humans we would much rather stay in our comfort sone and rationalize our actions.

Right. The passage does not say that it is sin for the one and not for the other, but the sin is causing the other to stumble because of their ignorance.

I bellieve that they were not saying that what the converts do is not sin, but what they were saying is that they should not be as judgemental of the converts because those things were second nature to them and they needed to be advised that those things were sin. Even as those today will be judged more severly who have known and had the faith their entire lives, those who convert later in life and are not as knowledgable to the Truth and able to identify sin will not be held to as high a standard because it is not through their own fault that they are ignorant.

Sin is sin, regardless of our own opinions and wishes to minimize them. What is seen as wrong by God will be judged as a sin. The Bible does not say otherwise. What it is saying is that those who are ignorant of sin, will not be held to as high a standard as those who know the act is sin and do it anyway. And those of us who know a thing is sin or not a sin, should not commit an act in the presence of someone who is unknowledgeable of the nature of the thing(as being sin or not being sin) because we may cause them to stumble. We may cause them to sin through their own ignorance of sin. That is the sin--the causing of another to stumble.

On CF I am quite surprised to see so many Christians say that what is sin for one is a totally non sinful thing for another to do. THis is not true. I think that if non-believers read those things they will becme confused and deceived as to what sin is and may think it is okay to go ahead and do whatever it is they desire to do, not knowing that it is sin. We could be leading them into sin by saying that it is okay for some people to do that thing, yet not okay for others. It is wrong for us to lead the ignorant into sinning. I so wish that we could agree that sin is sin regardless of our feelings and opinions, which have been moulded by the presence of sin of this fallen world.

great post-reps coming your way!

rosiecotton · Feb 13, 2006

An example:
I don't believe it's a sin to have a glass of wine or a beer with dinner. It's getting drunk that is the sin.
However, I do not drink at all. There was a time in my life where I was away from God and did drink during that time--at times getting drunk. After I rededicated my life, I felt that God led me to give up drinking totally, for a couple different reasons.
So, though I don't think drinking (in moderation) is a sin, I don't drink at all, out of obedience to God. My husband doesn't drink at all either, he never did. But if he wanted a glass of wine, or a beer, I wouldn't have a problem with that, even though I wouldn't drink any. I guess in a way that would be something that would be sin for me but not for him.

Mary_Magdalene · Feb 13, 2006

daughterofzion said:
I cant think of any situation that a sin is only a sin to my Husband and not for me.

There are some instances in life in general that a sin could be a sin for one and not another.
Explanation : For one person it might be a sin to drink any wine whatsoever, because it could cause them to be violent, etc etc. Whereas for another God may have not convicted them to quit drinking wine period (He calls us all to moderation, wisdom etc).
There IS a scripture in Titus I believe that says women are not to be given to MUCH wine, and that the men are to be sober minded at ALL times.!

(Titus 2)

scripture warns us all over the place not to get drunk.

it is not just women or if God has convicted them or not. it is black and white. now, maybe one person can handle one glass of wine without getting drunk where another can have 2 glasses without getting drunk-that is where it will deviate. but God's word says - black and white-do not get drunk.

1 corinthians 5:11
ephesians 5:18

Oooh...So irritated

Stringaling

Well-Known Member

Legend

free Crazy Liz!

Legend

free Crazy Liz!

Legend

Well-Known Member

free Crazy Liz!

Contributor

AKA..Godschosengirl

AKA..Godschosengirl

free Crazy Liz!

Stringaling

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Love, Truth, Wisdom, Light, Understanding, Kindess

AKA..Godschosengirl

Veteran

AKA..Godschosengirl

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency