sin and stuff

[The Nihilist]

Does it bother anyone else that (in the context of christian theology) the particulars of what is or is not sinful is a matter of judgment as often as not? It seems to me that if you'd burn in hell for all eternity for sinning, you'd want to be pretty damn sure what exactly was sinful. I mean, it seems like the Catholic Church can just invoke its own authority, but I think Protestants at least should have an issue here.

 

[Chesterton]

Morality is more art than science, which is probably why neither Jesus nor the apostles wrote a book of rules. Conscience should guide your actions and attitudes the way a sense of light and proportion guides an artist. In any given situation, your conscience will make you feel what is right. If not, if the area is so grey you truly can't tell, God will not hold that against you.

You don't really burn in hell for any sin, so much as for being the type of being that would commit any sin. The standard for avoiding hell is being perfect, and we can't be perfect, but Jesus is perfect on our behalf.

 

[Inviolable]

Is the point of the OP that, Christians should be so concerned with sin that any and all sin needs to be narrowed down?

I think the OP is missing the bigger picture in regards to Christian fundamentals.
"We are all born sinners"
The essence of those 5 words extends to the meaning of mortality.
We couldn't stop sinning any more then we could keep ourselves from dieing.
So even if we had a list of every sin, it wouldn't do any good.
That's why we need God.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Does it bother anyone else that (in the context of christian theology) the particulars of what is or is not sinful is a matter of judgment as often as not? It seems to me that if you'd burn in hell for all eternity for sinning, you'd want to be pretty damn sure what exactly was sinful. I mean, it seems like the Catholic Church can just invoke its own authority, but I think Protestants at least should have an issue here.

This is one of the reasons that the Catholic Church has such a ridiculously deep definition of sin, and how to figure out if something is a sin or not. There are mortal and venial sins, and mortal sins have several conditions that must be met.

 

[fire flies]

In is any breach of moral law and any deviance from the will of God for your life so,

It's wrong to smack children because morally, they don't deserve it. similarly it s wrong for me to go off and become an accountant not because there is anything wrong with being an accountant,but because God has directed me personally elsewhere.

these two concepts fall into the same category theologically and literally:

Theologically because the bible deals directly with these two aspects and even list consequences (note most of proverbs)

and literally because sin makes you miserable and causes you to believe you cannot go back

so if i smacked a child, that child will hate me, his parents will probably deal me a pretty good smack down and i would feel guilty.

If i become an accountant i would not enjoy my job because i am outside the will of God and would not have the efect of his preasence in my life. God did not make me to be an accountant he wired my brain for a more social role in life. so i would get fired, ruin the finances of a number of clients and perhaps receive a similar smack down to the one i would have received for the child slapping.

By the way, a single sin does disqualify you from heaven, and sends you on down to hell. i believe that your sin will be as the fat of lambs (which in biblical times when the example was given was burned for light because it burns brightly and for a long time) and so those who knowingly have been killing people or something (ie jack the ripper) will burn for along time before they are consumed, whereas a kind old atheist will be burned up fairly quickly and painlessly.

 

[The Nihilist]

Is the point of the OP that, Christians should be so concerned with sin that any and all sin needs to be narrowed down?

I think the OP is missing the bigger picture in regards to Christian fundamentals.
"We are all born sinners"
The essence of those 5 words extends to the meaning of mortality.
We couldn't stop sinning any more then we could keep ourselves from dieing.
So even if we had a list of every sin, it wouldn't do any good.
That's why we need God.

Then why is sin a concern for christians at all? Why not just acknowledge your sinful nature, live it up, and let God pick up the pieces? Because it seems to me that that's the logical conclusion of your position.

 

[Subdood]

Does it bother anyone else that (in the context of christian theology) the particulars of what is or is not sinful is a matter of judgment as often as not? It seems to me that if you'd burn in hell for all eternity for sinning, you'd want to be pretty damn sure what exactly was sinful. I mean, it seems like the Catholic Church can just invoke its own authority, but I think Protestants at least should have an issue here.

I guess I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say sin is a matter of judgment, or I guess what's causing you to say that. Missing the Catholic church/Protestant point.

It *sounds* like you're suggesting sin is subjectively defined - up to the church? Or, do you acknowledge the notion that, for example, "adultery" is sin, but what constitutes "adultery" (the particulars?) is subjective?

 

[The Nihilist]

I guess I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say sin is a matter of judgment, or I guess what's causing you to say that. Missing the Catholic church/Protestant point.

It *sounds* like you're suggesting sin is subjectively defined - up to the church? Or, do you acknowledge the notion that, for example, "adultery" is sin, but what constitutes "adultery" (the particulars?) is subjective?

In this case, I find any degree of subjectivity bothersome.

 

[Inviolable]

Then why is sin a concern for christians at all? Why not just acknowledge your sinful nature, live it up, and let God pick up the pieces? Because it seems to me that that's the logical conclusion of your position.

In all honesty it's not a concern. Any more. It was before a became a Christian.
You pretty much described the Christian attitude. The proper Christian attitude.

Only, as seen through the eyes of someone who hasn't yet or will never acknowledge their sinful nature.
But you're still being held in the bondage of sin. Where as, I'm not.
Like the choice of words you used. "live it up".
Why do I have to sin to live it up? Besides that, you said we don't even know what sin is. So how would you even know how to live it up?

 

[The Nihilist]

In all honesty it's not a concern. Any more. It was before a became a Christian.
You pretty much described the Christian attitude. The proper Christian attitude.

Only, as seen through the eyes of someone who hasn't yet or will never acknowledge their sinful nature.
But you're still being held in the bondage of sin. Where as, I'm not.
Like the choice of words you used. "live it up".
Why do I have to sin to live it up? Besides that, you said we don't even know what sin is. So how would you even know how to live it up?

Don't talk down to me, sir. I was a christian for 22 years, and I have a degree in religious studies with a focus on christian theology. I am as close to an expert on your religion as anyone you know.
My response to you was intended to demonstrate an awkward consequence of your position, rather than to outline my own.
The main problem with your answer is that historically, christianity has been schizophrenic on this point. Paul seemed to think that once someone has converted, they won't sin again. This is obviously not the position that the catholic church has held (I'm thinking of confession specifically) for the last 2,000 years, nor is it the position of most contemporary churches.
I think Chesterton is actually pretty close on this. It seems to me that if the point of putting humanity through the trouble and turmoil of being alive is for them to choose him freely (which is an historically legitimate viewpoint), then following the dictates of one's conscience seems to be pretty close to that.
The problem is when we want to say that something is objectively wrong. Sure, there are some general guidelines, love thy neighbor and all that, but nothing terribly specific. Abortion is a good example (but let's not get into it here.) Sure, murder is wrong, but is this really murder? There are a hundred arguments either way, and ultimately, there's no good answer.
Is the real problem that we DO want to say that things are objectively right and wrong, or at least specific things? Is this perhaps why your Lord and Saviour tells you not to judge others, because it can't be done meaningfully?

 

[Inviolable]

Don't talk down to me, sir. I was a christian for 22 years, and I have a degree in religious studies with a focus on christian theology. I am as close to an expert on your religion as anyone you know.

Wasn't really my intention to talk down to you.
What denomination were you? It might help to make the conversation go more smoothly to know such things.

My response to you was intended to demonstrate an awkward consequence of your position, rather than to outline my own.

Yes, but to make such a response only leaves me with two conclusions.
One, you don't know what you're talking about.
Or two, you were under the impression I wouldn't know how to answer you.

The main problem with your answer is that historically, christianity has been schizophrenic on this point. Paul seemed to think that once someone has converted, they won't sin again.

If Paul thought that then he wouldn't have bothered to write the letters he wrote. Which were addressed to the churches.

This is obviously not the position that the catholic church has held (I'm thinking of confession specifically) for the last 2,000 years, nor is it the position of most contemporary churches.

Well, the catholic church, does always want Christians to be considering redemption. But to my knowledge they're under the same understanding as just about any Protestant church.
That is, Jesus Christ went to the cross for our sins.
Releasing us from the bondage of sin upon asking for forgiveness.
History shows that it's been that way since the 2nd century.
Christianity states earlier but I'm only going as far back as the Trinity.

I think Chesterton is actually pretty close on this. It seems to me that if the point of putting humanity through the trouble and turmoil of being alive is for them to choose him freely (which is an historically legitimate viewpoint), then following the dictates of one's conscience seems to be pretty close to that.

O.K.

The problem is when we want to say that something is objectively wrong. Sure, there are some general guidelines, love thy neighbor and all that, but nothing terribly specific. Abortion is a good example (but let's not get into it here.) Sure, murder is wrong, but is this really murder? There are a hundred arguments either way, and ultimately, there's no good answer.
Is the real problem that we DO want to say that things are objectively right and wrong, or at least specific things? Is this perhaps why your Lord and Saviour tells you not to judge others, because it can't be done meaningfully?

I believe he tells us not to judge others because he's the only one to know what's in your heart. Pathologically, we're not the ones to pick who we give Gods word to. We just spread it and God does the saving. Hence, everyone get's an equal chance at Heaven.

 

[The Nihilist]

Of course. I misread your intentions, and I apologize.
I'll get back to you tomorrow. I'm too tired and full to do any mental heavy lifting, but I did want to acknowledge your explanation. Happy Thanksgiving and all that.

 

[SonicBOOM]

Does it bother anyone else that (in the context of christian theology) the particulars of what is or is not sinful is a matter of judgment as often as not? It seems to me that if you'd burn in hell for all eternity for sinning, you'd want to be pretty damn sure what exactly was sinful. I mean, it seems like the Catholic Church can just invoke its own authority, but I think Protestants at least should have an issue here.

it does bother me..... but not exactly in way you describe we as humans prove ourselves to be fools time and time again. Wether your christian or atheist you are always seeking a maximum level of morality. Right and wrong is such a hard thing to truly know....... even as Christians we can have God's instructions right in front of our face and we STILL don't know whats right and wrong, we deal with context and meaning and time and place and culture and many other things. It's very frusterating to wanna be right, but not having a garentee that we can ever even define it right.

In christian doctrine [probably more calvinist actully] we call this depravity. That man is completely hopeless in living or knowing or even desiring good morelity....... and it's quite a pickle indeed.

 

[awosan]

You don't burn in hell for an eternity for sin. You burn in hell for an eternity for not believing in Jesus Christ.

To believe in Jesus Christ is to want to be just like Him. All you have to do is ask yourself, "What would Jesus do?" Pretty funny, I'm sure, but it works.

 

[SonicBOOM]

You don't burn in hell for an eternity for sin. You burn in hell for an eternity for not believing in Jesus Christ.

no..... you burn in hell for an eternity because of sin. It's pretty basic theology actully. We muck up and prove ourselves to be evil......

 

[fire flies]

Sin is something we all do it's our nature. we are condemned because of that nature. just like you might kill a poisonous snake, not because it has already bitten you but because it is in it's nature. God is not trying to torture anyone for eternity. he burns the chaff after he has taken the wheat. he doesn't torture the chaff. he disposes of it (you don't burn for eternity)

As far as what sin is exactly it can be measured by the state of one's conscience. God makes a point to telling us not to let our conscience be seared. Paul lays out in the weaker brother concept the idea that what is sin for some is not sin for others. The holy spirit within us is the guage of morality to Christians.

 

[Gracchus]

This is one of the reasons that the Catholic Church has such a ridiculously deep definition of sin, and how to figure out if something is a sin or not. There are mortal and venial sins, and mortal sins have several conditions that must be met.

As I remember Roman Catholic doctrine, there were supposed to be three criteria for determining whether a sin was damning (mortal):
It had to be a serious offense. (No trivialities.)
The sinner had to be aware it was a grave offense. (Ignorance or stupidity a mitigating circumstance.)
And it had to be completely uncoerced. (An act of personal volition.)

Of course when I was taught this, I was also taught that eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin, meriting eternal hellfire. So were all sexual offenses, including entertaining lustful thoughts. I have heard that this has changed.

I wonder, did they have to let people out of hell when the rules changed?

 

[The Nihilist]

If it's not absolutely clear, when I say "tomorrow," I mean "whenever I feel like it."

SonicBoom and awosan, it depends on who you ask. If you ask Augustine, you damn yourself via your sins, and God only takes an active role in saving. If you ask Calvin, God takes an active role in both saving and damning. Either way, the damned are damned because of their sins, and it is only sinlessness (generally coming from Jesus, sometimes also attributed to the unborn dead or those who died before the age of reason) that allows one to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

fire flies, I disagree with both your positions, but I take a bigger issue with your argument that it is our nature that damns us. Primarily because it is God who created that nature, and if he creates people to be sinful, then we must be blameless, in that doing other than sinning would necessarily be impossible. At least as importantly, Jesus, who was both fully human and fully divine, did not sin. If a sinful nature is part of human nature, then you have undone your Lord and Saviour.
If the only gauge of what is or is not sin is conscience, how can conscience be seared? How can you even know that your conscience is not already seared? If your position is taken seriously, you fall pretty quickly into moral nihilism, in which you can not know whether anything is good or evil.

Inviolable, I disagree with you on a couple of points, but not on anything that's bothering me. If you don't mind, we can hash them out another time.

But suppose we grant that conscience is our way of knowing what is sinful. What if my conscience disagrees with yours? Are you to beat me soundly until I give up the agreement?

 

[Inviolable]

But suppose we grant that conscience is our way of knowing what is sinful. What if my conscience disagrees with yours? Are you to beat me soundly until I give up the agreement?

There are a few universal truths to what is and isn't unethical.
If you can get past that then you can come to an understanding that can't really be placed in a box and shelved.
Which is what you're trying to do.
The entire point is, that we're all only human and we all exhibit that through some form of corruption.
The Christian aspect of that corruption is that Jesus died to make it easier for us to get past it. To grow beyond it.
It's not about condemnation. It's about love.
It only becomes about condemnation when you can't see past the corruption.
So far, your post and OP in this thread have you circling the drain, so to speak. I'm not condemning you, God isn't condemning you. You are.

Your assumption so far seems to have been, that God wants to condemn you for being you.
When in reality the bible teaches that God loves you as you are.

 

[Bushido216]

Intentions.

/thread