Sin

[Ananel]

abomination does not necessarily equal sin. *shrugs* The only way to be clearer, honestly, would be to go on a case by case basis, and at 11:30 pm, I'm in no mood for that. (and in general, at that.)

Abomination can = sin and sin can = abomination. However, the two terms are simply not synonymous.

Some A is also B.
Some B is also A.

You have A.
Therefore you must have B.

These do not logically follow. The text does not support your position. Abomination is used in too many ways and shifts at the point of the NT's introduction.

 

[Ananel]

I wish to also make a note: You seem desparately bent on getting me to say yay or nay. I will not do that. I have honestly and clearly explained for you the simple reality of the text from a standard lexicon. Your position demonstrates a faulty understanding of the Hebrew, one that is cleared up by simple exegesis.

However, this does not lead to a clear cut Abomination = or =/= Sin statement. It makes clear only that you cannot say one way or another, but must have a better definition for what renders sin.

Edit: If it sounds like I am employing circumlocution, I apologize. There is a sense in which sin is abomination to God. However, the way you have phrased your question, you seem concerned with the things that are labelled abominations and asking if that phrasing means something is a sin.

 

[morningstar2651]

Abomination is used in too many ways and shifts at the point of the NT's introduction.

Ahh, I see what you mean now.

How, then, do I distinguish sin from righteousness? Surely there must be a simple way that even I can understand.

 

[Ananel]

As I think I already said, I rely upon the law of love of Mark 12 and Galatians 5: (12, I think? I usually reference Mark only.). The term love is agape, meaning self-sacrificial love not only for God in this case, but for all fellow men. It, with the guidance of the apostles, is a good guide to what remains. The ten are usually assumed to apply in this regard, as they seem to fit Mark 12 very well.

That... and God personally chisselling things usually assumes importance.

 

[morningstar2651]

I'm still confused...do the apostles agree on what is right and what is wrong?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I'm still confused...do the apostles agree on what is right and what is wrong?

Yes. They agree, but because of something they are or have received and the non-believer is has not. The best a non-believer can do is to look at the Law, but that will only convict.
Ananel has patiently and to the best of my knowledge, correctly addressed the question not only based it in doctrine, but in rules of logic... the same logic you tried manipulating to render doctrine logically irrelevant. Logic does not produce truth, it is a tool used to discern truth and that doesn't even begin to address spiritual truth.
Your options are also neglecting that there is sin that God hasn't spelled out word for word. He has given the righteous boundaries, if one finds themself beyond those boundaries, they are in sin.
A simple scripture that supports this:
Romans 14:22-24(KJV)
22Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

 

[morningstar2651]

I'm not rendering the doctrine irrelevent...perhaps your interpretation of the said doctrine...but not the doctrine itself.

So sin is not eating faith? Then what is meant by eating faith...it doesn't sound like a delicious food.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I'm not rendering the doctrine irrelevent...perhaps your interpretation of the said doctrine...but not the doctrine itself.

So sin is not eating faith? Then what is meant by eating faith...it doesn't sound like a delicious food.

Eating BY faith... eating being an example of an action.
Come now, allegedly it is usually the Christian that is ridiculed of being closed minded by the non-believer.

 

[Ananel]

I'm still confused...do the apostles agree on what is right and what is wrong?

Generally speaking, it would appear so. I see little if any dissagreement on the nature of right and wrong between them. Paul specifically seems to acknowledge the primacy of the Law of Love in his own writings.

 

[morningstar2651]

I'm sorry ChristianCenturian...please do not ridicule me for misunderstanding you.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I'm sorry ChristianCenturian...please do not ridicule me for misunderstanding you.

Correction, the majority of the burden is on the speaker to convey the message. Please do not mistake coaxing for ridicule.

 

[California Tim]

There seems to be an ulterior motive for this thread. The OP hints at what it might be, but I wonder why the author doesn't come right out and say it. Exactly what is it the author of the OP wishes to debate or inquire about? Evidently the responses have not followed a predetermined script leading to the true motive, so why not just come out with it anyway?

 

[Abbadon]

Perhaps there is no ulterior motive, just that someone doesn't understand the Judeo-Christian concept of sin and abomination.

 

[California Tim]

Perhaps there is no ulterior motive, just that someone doesn't understand the Judeo-Christian concept of sin and abomination.

Maybe. But there is a notable difference between "not understanding" and "rejecting" a concept. The author of this thread seems to lean more toward "rejecting" the repeated attempts to clarify the Biblical concept of sin and abomination. The reason for this may be debatable, but there seems to be an underlying motive - specific point (or lifestyle) that is the true focus of this thread. I can't help equating this whole thread to an "Amway" presentation which evades the issue of whether or not is is a true MLM, in order to capture the audience for as long as possible before a bias kicks in.

 

[Eve_Sundancer]

I really would have to disagree. I was raised as a Catholic, yet the differences between a sin and an abomination are very subtle. I myself have a hard time seeing the differences... which is why I've stayed out of this discussion so far

I'm content to read these posts and not open my mouth, instead waiting for something to be clarified. *is very shy and does not want to look silly when she is confuzzled*

 

[Abbadon]

Perhaps. But we can't decide that. Only morningstar2651 can.

Besides, I disagree with certain things about aspects about sin and abomination, even though it's in my religion. Would it not be his right to disagree, whether or not he actually does?

(Sorry about talking about you in third person, morningstar2651, if it does offend you).

(I meant this to the thread above the thread above mine).

 

[morningstar2651]

I'm pagan -- I have no concept of sin or original sin...and debating wether or not something is a sin is difficult because of this. I'd just like an easy way to determine what a sin is and what it isn't. The majority view appears to be that first scenario I thought of...but the second scenario makes more sense logically. Can we decide for ourselves what is and is not sin?

Sorry about talking about you in third person, morningstar2651

No problem...you didn't start the conversation about my "ulterior motives" anyhoo.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Can we decide for ourselves what is and is not sin?

To a degree we can discern what is and is not sin - when in doubt, don't.
Or would you prefer... WWJD ?

 

[morningstar2651]

...WWJD?

What does that mean?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

...WWJD?

What does that mean?

What
Would
Jesus
Do
?