Sin

[morningstar2651]

I've seen quite a few things in the bible that are deemed an abomination to God...also commonly known as "sins". Am I correct in assuming a sin is something that is an abomination to God?

The opposite of a sinner would be a righteous person...am I still correct on this assumption? Is it safe, then, to say that a righteous action is the opposite of sin?

 

[nahMish]

yes ! sin is anything that does not come from God-all thoughts, deeds, acts, words...anything that basically feeds your human nature and doesnt cooincide with God's goodness.
however, it is difficult to yield to God's grace and his perfect goodness and justice. we CANNOT become righteous ourselves-the bible says that our righteous deeds when we are separated from God are "like filthy rags." that is why Christ died for us and that is why we can only BECOME righteous by asking him to help us and save us because we are too far gone without his help. righteous acts are things that happen becuase of God's spirit living in your life-your heart changes and your mind begins to understand and practise..do..and say what God would say-we cant do that through ourselves though-*all things are through him and in him*.
yet, it is not always easy to distinguish if something is righteous. i may be kind to my neighbour, hoping to borrow his mercedes for a date that night-you know? thats not really righteous, but selfish and slightly manipulative !
it is possible to do good without God-it is in our human nature to respond to things like the tsunami disaster-but some people may give money to clear their conscience and make themselves feel better rather than desire to help the victims. the difference is that righteous acts are things that you do that dont come from you-but from God becuase you love him and you dont want to gain anything for yourself, but rather help others or love others.

 

[morningstar2651]

I see what you mean. So a sin is something that God disapproves of, and a righteous action is one that God approves of...then there are actions not mentioned in the bible -- I'm guessing that God is just indifferent of these actions.

But...I think something may be wrong...it seems slightly off.

Let us take homosexualiy, murder, shellfish, whatever you consider to be a sin for my example.

We now have two possible situations:
1.) It is wrong because God disapproves.
This is the situation we have just desribed.

2.) God disapproves because it is wrong.
In this situation, we can examine the facts and we can prove that homosexuality/murder/shellfish/whatever is wrong.

Perhaps this is the reason there is so much debate...

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

I see what you mean. So a sin is something that God disapproves of, and a righteous action is one that God approves of...then there are actions not mentioned in the bible -- I'm guessing that God is just indifferent of these actions.

But...I think something may be wrong...it seems slightly off.

Let us take homosexualiy, murder, shellfish, whatever you consider to be a sin for my example.

We now have two possible situations:
1.) It is wrong because God disapproves.
This is the situation we have just desribed.

2.) God disapproves because it is wrong.
In this situation, we can examine the facts and we can prove that homosexuality/murder/shellfish/whatever is wrong.

Perhaps this is the reason there is so much debate...

I think that it is the first one. Since God created everything, then it is only wrong because God disapproves.

 

[mepalmer3]

I see what you mean. So a sin is something that God disapproves of, and a righteous action is one that God approves of...then there are actions not mentioned in the bible -- I'm guessing that God is just indifferent of these actions.

But...I think something may be wrong...it seems slightly off.

Let us take homosexualiy, murder, shellfish, whatever you consider to be a sin for my example.

We now have two possible situations:
1.) It is wrong because God disapproves.
This is the situation we have just desribed.

2.) God disapproves because it is wrong.
In this situation, we can examine the facts and we can prove that homosexuality/murder/shellfish/whatever is wrong.

There's a lot of misunderstanding between good and evil I think. Granted, everyone has their own idea. But I think St Augustine described it best when he said that evil is only privatio boni, or the deprivation of good. Look at the wikipedia for privatio boni: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatio_boni

Basically there is just good. Evil is sort of a lack of good, not something real itself. So if there is a God, something that is uncaused, then it must embody certain essences or characteristics. Otherwise we need to speculate on there being multiple gods -- which is undesirable from Occam's razor. So we speculate that God is purely logical, uncaused, pure goodness. If goodness is like light in that it is substance where as evil is a lack of substance like darkness is a lack of light, then it is necessary for the uncaused God to be the source of good. So his very essence is pure goodness. Otherwise, good is created and somewhat arbitrary, as logic would also be.

 

[Blackmarch]

I've seen quite a few things in the bible that are deemed an abomination to God...also commonly known as "sins". Am I correct in assuming a sin is something that is an abomination to God?

The opposite of a sinner would be a righteous person...am I still correct on this assumption? Is it safe, then, to say that a righteous action is the opposite of sin?

Pretty much.

No unclean thing can enter into the Knigdom of Heaven. A sin is when you choose to go against the will of God.

 

[CaffineAddict]

We now have two possible situations:
1.) It is wrong because God disapproves.
This is the situation we have just desribed.

2.) God disapproves because it is wrong.
In this situation, we can examine the facts and we can prove that homosexuality/murder/shellfish/whatever is wrong.

Both of theses statements are true. God dissapproves because it is wrong, and the reason it is wrong is because God dissapproves. It's one of those paradox things.

Lets say you invented a new game, and you were writing the rules of the game. Are moves illeagle because thy are against the rules, or because you, the writer of the rules, dissapprove. You find that both reasons are true, because one reason can't exist without the other.

 

[Abbadon]

Of coarse, this is assuming the Bible is the literal Word of God (TM).

Not everyone (including some Christians) believe this.

Basically, reason should be used to determine what is or isn't a sin. Unless this leads to people blowing up other people because they use a different color flag (whole sum of human history, I think).

Examples:
-Homosexuality, eating pork and shrimp, etc: at the time the Old Testament was written, people didn't have much of an understanding of cleanliness standards. Thus these actions would have been really bad ideas at the time. However, provided proper procautions are taken (such as sterilization and avoiding conservatives or vegetarians), these really aren't bad ideas. They aren't good ideas, but they aren't bad.
-wearing different types of threads in a single garment, eating the dairy and meat from the same animal: this is to some extent wasteful, but in modern times and in more developed countries (most anyone reading this is probably living in one of these countries), there is enough for this not to be. It's still argueable about this, but they're not observsed by most people.
-murder: Duh. This oughta' be self explainitory.

 

[Ananel]

The term "abomination" in the OT is derived, commonly, from one of two synonymns: To'ebah and Shiqqes. Commentary from Harris, Archer and Waltke's Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament-Volume II gives clarity to the usage of the terms.

To'ebah:
"The nuances of to'eba are numerous indeed. As with the verb, so also with the noun the abomination may be of a physical, ritual or ethical nature and may be abhored by God or man. Sharing a meal with a Hebrew was ritually offensive to an Egyptian (Gen 43:32), as was offering certain kinds of sacrifices (Ex 8:22). Homosexuality and other perversions are repugnant to God and fall under his judgment (Lev 18:22-30; 20:13). Idolatry (Deut 7:25), human sacrifice (Deut 12:31), eating ritually unclean animals (Deut 14:3-8), engaging in occult activities (Duet 18:9-14), conducting one's business dishonestly (Deut 25:13-16), practicing ritual prostitution (1 Kings 14:23), and similar acts of disobedience (for seven more abominations, see the list in Prov 6:16-19) were sure to bring God's wrath on those who perpetrated them. Twelve times the book of Proverbs uses the phrase, 'this is an abomination to the Lord.' ...

Sometimes to'eba is used as a synonym for 'idol,' as in Isa 44:19, or even for a specific pagan deity, as in II Kgs 23:13 where Milcom is called 'the abomination of the Ammonites' ...

Whereas to'eba includes that which is aestetically and morally repulsive, its synonym sheqes dnotes that which is cultically unclean, especially idolatry."
(Pages 975-6)

On Sheqqes:

Forgive my lack of time, but page 955 is the reference point. The conjugation sheqes is more commonly used for ritual cultic practices such as food laws. Shiqqus is used in reference to idolatry.

Generally speaking, in usage, the terms are translated as synonymns in the greek septuagint. One cannot place Sheqes as lesser in God's eyes in terms of practice merely because it deals with food. To'ebah includes such practice as well, and Sheqes has conjugations equivalent to idolatry. Overall, the two terms refer to detestable practices, but not always to sin. Sin is certainly a common usage of the words, but even still for the Christian, one must remember that the concept of ritual purity that is evidenced in the usage of To'ebah and Shiqqes is no longer valid (Acts 15, Colossians 2, Galatians and fragments of Romans.)

 

[morningstar2651]

Both of theses statements are true. God dissapproves because it is wrong, and the reason it is wrong is because God dissapproves. It's one of those paradox things.

But we will find that in the first situation, the argument is an appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam), making the argument invalid (but not neccisarily false).

These are the rules for testing the cogency of an appeal to authority. I've boldened the ones that the first situation does not fulfill...the argument is weak and therefore uncogent.

1. The authority must have competence in an area, not just glamour, prestige, rank or popularity.
2. The judgement must be within the authority's field of competence.
3. The authority must be interpreted correctly.
4. Direct evidence must be available, at least in principle.
5. The expert should be reasonably unbiased (not unduly influenced by other factors, such as money, political considerations, or religious beliefs).
6. The judgement must be representative of expert opinions on the issue (as opposed to an unrepresentative sample).
7. A technique is needed to adjudicate disagreements among equally qualified authorities.
8. The argument must be valid in its own right i.e. without needing to appeal to authority at all. (This last point ought to dissuade any who might consider an argument legitimate from authority alone.)

To say that they are both true is to create a circular argument (petitio principii). In this third scenario where we use both the first and second combined...the first argument assumes the second is true and the second argument assumes that the first is true. Neither are proven. This third scenario is uncogent as well.

 

[morningstar2651]

I have shown that of the three scenarios explored thus far, two are logically invalid.

The one not declared invalid is as follows:
- God disapproves because it is wrong.
In this situation, we can examine the facts and we can prove that homosexuality/murder/shellfish/whatever is wrong.

It would make sense that if we have the same knowledge as God (Gen. 3:22) then we can reason as God did and find out why homosexuality/murder/shellfish/whatever is wrong...doesn't it?

 

[Alencon]

I have shown that of the three scenarios explored thus far, two are logically invalid.

The one not declared invalid is as follows:
- God disapproves because it is wrong.
In this situation, we can examine the facts and we can prove that homosexuality/murder/shellfish/whatever is wrong.

It would make sense that if we have the same knowledge as God (Gen. 3:22) then we can reason as God did and find out why homosexuality/murder/shellfish/whatever is wrong...doesn't it?

You have shown the first case (It is wrong because God disapproves) to be invalid based upon deductive logic IF only appeal to authority is used, but even as you admit, the conclusion is not necessarilly wrong based upon the refutation of the argument.

The question becomes what is the source of morality and is there such a thing as Objective Morality that exists even independent of God?

God can only disapprove of something because it is wrong if there exists a source of morality that even God must acknowledge. This contradicts the axiom that God is all powerful. Therefore the argument that God disapproves of something because it is wrong leads us to a logical contradiction and must be false. Therefore one must accept the argument that something is wrong because God disapproves.

 

[morningstar2651]

But according to Genesis 3:22 -- Yahweh has the same knowledge of good and evil as we do. In fact...I'm now curious...which verses of the bible state that Yahweh is indeed all-powerful?

 

[Alencon]

But according to Genesis 3:22 -- Yahweh has the same knowledge of good and evil as we do. In fact...I'm now curious...which verses of the bible state that Yahweh is indeed all-powerful?

I'm not certain of the source, but most folks would claim the axiom that God is all-powerful.

You do see my point though that if one accepts that God is all powerful, there can be no Objective Morality superior to God. God must logically be the source of morality.

If on the other hand, God is NOT all powerful or if an Objective Morality exists to which even God is obligated, then things get very interesting don't they? What would be the source of this morality? This would be a VERY important question because whatever it is, it would be superior to God!

 

[Ananel]

But according to Genesis 3:22 -- Yahweh has the same knowledge of good and evil as we do. In fact...I'm now curious...which verses of the bible state that Yahweh is indeed all-powerful?

Quite a few references in the psalms as memory serves. I apologize, my previous commentary on the nature of the translation and interpretation of the term 'abomination' seems quite useless to what you are doing. You don't seem to have much concern for what is actually textually addressed with the use of the term. Frankly, this dissapoints me, as understanding the use of To'ebah and Shiqqes/Shiqqus in their ritual purity-related usage gives a far more meaningful interpretation to the text, especially in light of Acts 15.

 

[morningstar2651]

Oh, it does? could you please demonstrate for me?

 

[Ananel]

I've seen quite a few things in the bible that are deemed an abomination to God...also commonly known as "sins". Am I correct in assuming a sin is something that is an abomination to God?

The opposite of a sinner would be a righteous person...am I still correct on this assumption? Is it safe, then, to say that a righteous action is the opposite of sin?

Allow me, for the moment to repeat myself. To answer your first question, I presented the following information:

The short answer is "No, you are incorrect to assume so. The term is used in a variety of ways." Here is the evidence.

The term "abomination" in the OT is derived, commonly, from one of two synonymns: To'ebah and Shiqqes. Commentary from Harris, Archer and Waltke's Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament-Volume II gives clarity to the usage of the terms.

To'ebah:
"The nuances of to'eba are numerous indeed. As with the verb, so also with the noun the abomination may be of a physical, ritual or ethical nature and may be abhored by God or man. Sharing a meal with a Hebrew was ritually offensive to an Egyptian (Gen 43:32), as was offering certain kinds of sacrifices (Ex 8:22). Homosexuality and other perversions are repugnant to God and fall under his judgment (Lev 18:22-30; 20:13). Idolatry (Deut 7:25), human sacrifice (Deut 12:31), eating ritually unclean animals (Deut 14:3-8), engaging in occult activities (Duet 18:9-14), conducting one's business dishonestly (Deut 25:13-16), practicing ritual prostitution (1 Kings 14:23), and similar acts of disobedience (for seven more abominations, see the list in Prov 6:16-19) were sure to bring God's wrath on those who perpetrated them. Twelve times the book of Proverbs uses the phrase, 'this is an abomination to the Lord.' ...

Sometimes to'eba is used as a synonym for 'idol,' as in Isa 44:19, or even for a specific pagan deity, as in II Kgs 23:13 where Milcom is called 'the abomination of the Ammonites' ...

Whereas to'eba includes that which is aestetically and morally repulsive, its synonym sheqes dnotes that which is cultically unclean, especially idolatry."
(Pages 975-6)

On Sheqqes:

Forgive my lack of time, but page 955 is the reference point. The conjugation sheqes is more commonly used for ritual cultic practices such as food laws. Shiqqus is used in reference to idolatry.

Generally speaking, in usage, the terms are translated as synonymns in the greek septuagint. One cannot place Sheqes as lesser in God's eyes in terms of practice merely because it deals with food. To'ebah includes such practice as well, and Sheqes has conjugations equivalent to idolatry. Overall, the two terms refer to detestable practices, but not always to sin. Sin is certainly a common usage of the words, but even still for the Christian, one must remember that the concept of ritual purity that is evidenced in the usage of To'ebah and Shiqqes is no longer valid (Acts 15, Colossians 2, Galatians and fragments of Romans.)

As to the meaningfulness of interpretation of the maintenance and veracity of the Levitical Law, I cite Acts 15 in the ESV

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 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. 21For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."

22Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, 23with the following letter: "The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

How the understanding of the ritual purity aspect of To'ebah and Shiqqes adds a certain meaning to the text is that, when it is considered in light of defenses against pagan practice (for example, at the opening verses of Leviticus 18), one sees its original intended value. One, then, also sees why it is ended in Acts 15 and only certain issues remain, ones related to pagan practices at the time.



As ritual purity is listed to be tied heavily with idolatrous practice and communion with God, one begins to see why certain matters remain specifically within Acts 15. These are those related to idolatrous practice.

As to what remains afterwards, I stress Mark 12, the law of love. Leviticus is passed over, a lesson in God's love in history for a people wandering in the wilderness. Its codes are needed only to guide the work of Mark 12 now. Where they do not apply, they do not apply.

 

[morningstar2651]

Umm...what relevance does this have in this thread?

 

[Ananel]

You asked a question.

I answered it.

You then got into deductive reasoning arguments based on the assumption that the matters of To'ebah remained. I countered with NT texts that indicate that the scriptures do not remain.

*shrugs* You asked if you were correct in assuming that "abomination" = sin. The Hebrew does not support your assessment. I'm sorry, did you not want qualified citations of the Hebrew text to inform you of the accuracy of your assessment within that text?

If you want it short and sweet, you cannot assume that abomination means sin in the OT. You can further not assume that abomination means sin in the NT for the double reason that much of what is To'ebah in the OT is no longer in the NT, based on Acts 15.

You'll excuse me, but with the simplicity of your initial question, how am I not answering your question?

 

[morningstar2651]

...so am I wrong that assuming that the abominations are sins...they are not sins?