sin and stuff

[fire flies]

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.

I Appreciate your criticism, but i can't agree

My contention that it is our nature that damns us is based on the idea that God gives us a new nature, when we choose to follow him. (why replace a blameless nature) although it is true that God instilled the old nature, that nature, was not meant to be permanent. In the garden, we were sinless, untouched by evil and could talk openly with God. As soon as we ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we began to die, we fell out of communion with God, because God is sinless and we no longer are. (everyone sees that as a horrible mistake on God's part) the point is that God knowing all things, knew we would eat of the tree, and he put the tree there for a purpose.

The old nature must be destroyed for new one to exist. The course of human existence is a process leading to the end times when the new earth is established. I don't believe that human existence is a Microsoft style patch for the fall I believe it is a journey stemming from the fall, resulting in God's perfect humanity with new bodies and a new nature

The old nature is not a mistake, it's a step like a child's baby teeth, they were necessary for a time however they have served their purpose and will begin to fall out, not because they were bad teeth but because their time has passed

As for your second point i apologize I must concede that my point was underdeveloped and was stated more as a rule of thumb and less as an absolute source of morality. My generalization was inappropriate for this discussion sorry about that.

My belief concerning what morality is is stated in a an earlier post. Sin is a breach of God's apparent will or laws or a breach of moral law. meaning if the bible speaks against it it's wrong. if God told you to do something and you ignore him you are sinning, or if you are breaking basic moral law ie slapping a baby then you are sinning. although this definition is highly subjective it is the best i have found

what sort of definition are you looking for as far as what sin is? do you believe that there exists a scientific definition of sin?

I have enjoyed our discussion so far, God bless

 

[fire flies]

.

 

[Chesterton]

.

 

[Verv]

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.

If you read the Bible and come to a personal relationship with Christ you will get the answers that you are looking for.

 

[Infernalfist]

the bible's moral guidance, in my opinion, is vague at best. thall shalt not kill, in one section, and the next, thall shalt kill the men and children of this city and take the women. the problem that most people have is the fact that they are trying to build a moral foundation from a book that was written by largly uneducated people. the only sound arguement i have read from the bible, which i will give credit to only because it is a sound basis for morality, is the idea of love. no act when truely based in love can be immoral.

 

[Gracchus]

the bible's moral guidance, in my opinion, is vague at best.

It's not so much vague, as ambiguous.

thall shalt not kill, in one section, and the next, thall shalt kill the men and children of this city and take the women.

The lesson here is that we should obey our political leaders. They are appointed by God and can override any moral code in his name.

the problem that most people have is the fact that they are trying to build a moral foundation from a book that was written by largly uneducated people.

It is not that they were ignorant, it is that they had their own shortsided interests in mind, save for a few, who were hounded, persecuted and thrown down into pits.

the only sound arguement i have read from the bible, which i will give credit to only because it is a sound basis for morality, is the idea of love. no act when truely based in love can be immoral.

It depends on what you love.

Robert E. Lee, for instance believed slavery to be wrong, and secession, but loved his "honor" (the good opinion of his friends and family) more than he loved righteousness.

 

[fire flies]

no act when truely based in love can be immoral.

Hitler loved Germany, his life's work was to restore the home he loved to it's rightful place and purge the refuse that crippled it.

none the less we see a mass murderer who killed millions of innocent people in an effort to take over the world, and arguably the most immoral historical figure

love based acts certainly can be immoral

 

[Gracchus]

Hitler loved Germany, his life's work was to restore the home he loved to it's rightful place and purge the refuse that crippled it.

none the less we see a mass murderer who killed millions of innocent people in an effort to take over the world, and arguably the most immoral historical figure. Love based acts certainly can be immoral

One could argue that Hitler didn't love the real Germany, he loved the Germany of his imagination, a Germany that never existed and never could exist. He loved a delusion, and that is the essence of idolatry.

 

[Bushido216]

Hitler loved Germany, his life's work was to restore the home he loved to it's rightful place and purge the refuse that crippled it.

none the less we see a mass murderer who killed millions of innocent people in an effort to take over the world, and arguably the most immoral historical figure

love based acts certainly can be immoral

The better refutation [Gracchus] would be to say that Hitler's actions weren't 100% grounded in love, as there was also a strong hatred of Jews.

 

[Gracchus]

The better refutation [Gracchus] would be to say that Hitler's actions weren't 100% grounded in love, as there was also a strong hatred of Jews.

In this world, pure love is extremely rare. It is usually low grade ore requiring purifying and refining. Certainly, Hitler loved imperfectly. It's almost always the best humans can do.

But Hitler loved only the parts of Germany that he deemed "worthy", and wished to destroy what he deemed "unworthy". He was a "great man" in the same sense that Alexander was great, or Temujin, or Timur the Lame, and in his pride he tried to obtain the unobtainable and lost all.

 

[BlessEwe]

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.

Great question Nihilist! Many of the laws are man made, Jesus came to show us how not to get all involved with the rules. He died a very painful death so that God can see man through the sacrifice of Christ. Becoming a Christian doesn't mean we are perfect, but we are perfect though the blood of Jesus. This light shines through our inner being, which in turn gives us the desire to do the best we can each day. Even though we fail because we are human, we start each day anew.
Now there are people who claim to be a christian, being a wolf in sheep's clothing can cause many to fall, this is why we need to have our own personal relationship with Christ, not people.

So to sum it up:

The inner personal compass of a strong relationship with Gods discernment is the most important, not running around freaking out worried about sinning. It is a wonderful peaceful place to be.

 

[Edial]

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.

A person will not burn in hell specifically for sinning, since all sin yet not all will go to hell.
A person will burn in hell for refusing forgiveness of sins (that includes repentance).
And what exactly is sinful is not really that hard to see - even secular societies have jails for liars, swindlers, murderers, abusers (if they get caught, that is).

Thanks,
Ed

 

[The Nihilist]

A person will not burn in hell specifically for sinning, since all sin yet not all will go to hell.
A person will burn in hell for refusing forgiveness of sins (that includes repentance).
And what exactly is sinful is not really that hard to see - even secular societies have jails for liars, swindlers, murderers, abusers (if they get caught, that is).

Thanks,
Ed

No one denies that some things are just plainly wrong. Murder, stealing, etc. The rub is that there are other issues that are not clear. I mentioned abortion earlier, but what about speeding? According to Paul, you should obey the law, so are you sinning if you drive 46 mph in a 45 zone? The police won't pull you over for that (at least no in GA), so is the de facto law that you shouldn't drive 15 over the speed limit? Is this what you should obey? Things like this seem a matter of opinion more than anything else.
More to the point, why is this an issue? Why do christians rail against premarital sex, homosexuality, abortion, fun, etc.? If it is not the particular sins that matter, then why even talk about them? It's not like I'm going to be saved if I quit having premarital sex, and it's not like a christian isn't going to be saved if he doesn't (because he won't refuse forgiveness). So, let me pose this question directly: If it is not our sins that damn us specifically, then why worry about sinning?

 

[Edial]

No one denies that some things are just plainly wrong. Murder, stealing, etc. The rub is that there are other issues that are not clear. I mentioned abortion earlier, but what about speeding? According to Paul, you should obey the law, so are you sinning if you drive 46 mph in a 45 zone? The police won't pull you over for that (at least no in GA), so is the de facto law that you shouldn't drive 15 over the speed limit? Is this what you should obey? Things like this seem a matter of opinion more than anything else.

To go over a speed limit is not a sin.
Paul presents that one is to obey the secular and state laws in order to avoid penalties.
Common sense approach is often a better way of proceeding. Go with the speed of traffic, do not weave, signal, try staying off the left lane ...

More to the point, why is this an issue? Why do christians rail against premarital sex, homosexuality, abortion, fun, etc.? If it is not the particular sins that matter, then why even talk about them? It's not like I'm going to be saved if I quit having premarital sex, and it's not like a christian isn't going to be saved if he doesn't (because he won't refuse forgiveness). So, let me pose this question directly: If it is not our sins that damn us specifically, then why worry about sinning?

In response to your direct question, we worry about willful sinning because the relationship that we have with Christ and God the Father is important to us.
We love Christ. Not from an emotional perspective (which could be unpredictable at times), but from a very real understanding of love.
We also respect God and consider Him to be so important and irreplaceable, we worship Him.

Taking this into consideration one could see that Christian tries avoiding willful sinning, simply because he knows that the One he loves, the One he is trying to imitate does not sin.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[The Nihilist]

Would you say that trying to figure out what's sinful and what isn't is like shopping for your dad for Christmas, in that the conclusion that you come to is really less important than that you're trying to do it well? I mean, he's going to like it whether you get him the dremel or the remote controlled blimp, but it's really that you're doing it for him that counts.

 

[Vigilante]

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.

As I understand the "corporate inheritance of Adam's guilt," it doesn't really matter what we do because everyone's already been condemned by default. Why worry about whether or not you ran the red light when you're wanted for murder right out of the gate?

Having an exacting 'criteria of sin' actually seems like it would be a low-priority issue for most Christians.

 

[Gracchus]

As I understand the "corporate inheritance of Adam's guilt," it doesn't really matter what we do because everyone's already been condemned by default. Why worry about whether or not you ran the red light when you're wanted for murder right out of the gate?

Having an exacting 'criteria of sin' actually seems like it would be a low-priority issue for most Christians.

If you have enough faith, you don't have to be rational!

 

[Penumbra]

If you read the Bible and come to a personal relationship with Christ you will get the answers that you are looking for.

It seems that so many people of different Christian denominations come to believe they have a relationship with Jesus and yet they disagree with each other on so many things.

-Lyn

 

[The Nihilist]

As I understand the "corporate inheritance of Adam's guilt," it doesn't really matter what we do because everyone's already been condemned by default. Why worry about whether or not you ran the red light when you're wanted for murder right out of the gate?

Having an exacting 'criteria of sin' actually seems like it would be a low-priority issue for most Christians.

Original sin would be a great solution, if it weren't stupid. One man cannot be justly condemned for the act of another.

 

[Vigilante]

Original sin would be a great solution, if it weren't stupid. One man cannot be justly condemned for the act of another.

What do you mean by "just"?