Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think of sin as our thoughts and actions which are less than perfect which bring grief to ourselves and others. Not one of us is immune. It is like gardening. We try to raise a good garden but weeds are always popping up. Nothing we do will prevent them. We simply do our best to nurture the good within ourselves and look to providence for the sun and the rain.
It is absolutely clear that not everyone is your neighbor. If everyone was one's neighbor, it would say to love everyone.
And I think you agreed that not everyone was one's neighbor. I believe you said that it refers to those who are in close proximity. I argued that the meaning of the word was referring only to a man from your own country who is of fatherly age. The term "neighbor" is what defines the racism and sexism that has become the moral standard of the Bible.
Which it does elsewhere (love your enemies; love your brother).
The term neighbour refers to (in the OT at least) those that live in your proximity. If the person living next door was a Philistine, you didn't skip over him in your 'love'. You treated him just the way you treated your Jewish neighbour on the other side (mostly). So it wasn't racist.
By the first century it is indicated that people weren't doing that (hence the parable of the Good Samaritan), but the summary of the law was meant to encompass all the laws which were meant to provide cover for women, children, slaves and foreigners (except for Samaritans).
The principle problem you have is looking for a legalistic definition of neighbour which you don't really need.
For the Christian it meant the people we come into contact with on a regular basis. Which meant anyone you knew. It could even mean helping people you didn't know (churches were commended for sending aid to those less well off, whether money or food). The principle is 'love your neighbour AS YOURSELF', so if you would hope to have help when you need it, show love by providing equal help when you are able to, no matter who needs it.
So from a Christian perspective, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart... and love your neighbour as yourself' works just fine. Any action that fails to do any of these things when one is able to is sin (something the Western church needs to give more consideration to. See 'Rich Christians in an age of Hunger' for example.
Correct, but I don't see the relevance. We're discussing the word "neighbor."
Recall that Hebrew men could not be sold into slavery to another Hebrew man: the rules on this type of relationship are what apologists cherry pick to show that the Bible supports indentured servitude and not slavery. But it also plainly states that there are different rules for foreigners, whether said foreigners are living among the Jews or not.
... there is a different set of rules which very strongly favor Jews over others. In other words, this is institutionalized racism.
You can say, "Well, they are just saying that their citizens should be treated better than foreigners, which is what any nation should do." OK, but it's still advocating that one race is favored over another, which is racism.
Another "fact" pulled out of thin air.
Well, here's the thing, if Hitler told his Nazis to "Love thy neighbor" then what do you think he would've meant by that? Certainly not to love Jews, even though Jews were in Germany and all around them.
It's true that Jesus said to love your enemies, but until that day comes when you rip the OT out of your Bible and tell me you disavow it, I'm going to scrutinize it.
The authors of the Bible regularly engaged in rape, slavery, and genocide, so I don't think it's unfair to compare them to Hitler. If they had World War II technology, what do you think they would've done to the inhabitants of the holy land?
So now I'm confused... are we going with Christ's words now almost entirely? Do you as of this moment disavow the OT?
It seems obvious to me that a Christian should sell all he has, give to the poor, and wander the world doing good works and preaching the gospel. That's what I would do if I were a Christian. But I would also admit when I'm utterly destroyed in an argument. Perhaps give at least one of these things consideration.
With regards to Leviticus, if you fully read the passage, the Jews were indentured until Jubilee. They couldn't just walk out at any time before that and they had to serve at their master's command. The only difference between that and the foreigner is that the foreigner could sell themselves into slavery, but could only buy their way out (no free Jubilee). On the other hand if they converted to Judaism then they too would be subject to Jubilee.
I'll be frank with you. I'm pretty disappointed. I didn't read what you have to say, but rather looked at how you chopped up what I had to say. And that says it all.
The point of the thread, as you mention, is not about the word "neighbor" but about the word "sin." And I want to know precisely what is or isn't a sin.
And you don't want me to know. Why else would you weasel around like this?
I've seen this script. You're going to bow out. I've given you all the ammo you need. I've directly told you that I didn't read what you said. But the real reason is because you are not trying to find the truth here, but rather you're trying to win an argument - and you can't do it.
You're simply wrong. You're wrong, and I don't think you have it in you to admit it for the five people that might be reading this.
With all due respect, that is something of a pathetic excuse. I keep having to separate out your posts into the bit that are on topic (a definition of sin) and those that are not (the bulk of it).
If you want to discuss the Jewish Law find someone else and someplace else and instead keep to the topic here and read what people are saying to you not what you think they are saying... or not.
Replying to a thread in different posts saves each individual post from getting unmanageable and enables me to pause between writing them. There seems little point if you don't even read them.
And you have been told repeatedly that there is no precise definition of sin. Your continued desire to get one isn't going to make it suddenly appear out of thin air.
Do you think that if there was ANY definition of sin from a Christian perspective, it would be easy for you to find, for any of us to find for that matter? I do. And the fact that you can't find it on your own, let alone get anyone to tell you it should lead you sensibly to conclude that THERE IS NO SUCH THING! But despite the repeated attempts to show you this, you seem to insist that it exists but I want to keep it secret from the likes of you.
Talk about paranoid!
And then you say,
Even more paranoia. You are projecting your own ideas and fail repeatedly to even read what others have said. By saying what you have you've just justified your own paranoia.
See what I mean? You are pushing me out of the argument by not reading what I have to say and then making out that it is my fault! How you can know that I am wrong when you haven't even read what I had said, I do not know!
The fact is that it is not I who has bowed out of the argument, but you. The moment you admit to not reading a response you are saying that you can't or won't deal with what I have say and to justify your actions you are projecting your own weakness back on to me implying that I will bow out, when you have already done so by your own admission.
I really feel rather sorry for you. You clearly know exactly what response you want, but are getting frustrated that nobody will give it to you. Carry on long enough and you might just get it... but only by pretending all the other responders are hiding the truth.
On topic, short, and direct:
Was it sinful for Hebrews to own slaves, to beat them for any reason so long as the slave doesn't die, and to pass the slave down to their children like property?
The Hebrews weren't Christian, so it is not on topic.
The purpose of this thread is for someone to present a clear definition of sin. I must be able to apply your definition to any conceivable scenario and determine for myself if an action qualifies as sinful. If you think my expectations are unreasonable, please explain why Islam is capable doing this.
Your original request was for a Christian Definition of Sin. It seems a bit pointless then that when you get a Christian definition you insist your interpretation of their definition is somehow superior!
a) You wanted a clear definition of sin (which as I have pointed out is not possible)
Blind post, I didn't read the entire thread, so I am sorry if this has been posted before.
The Hebrew word:
H2398 חָטָא chata (306c); a prim. root; to miss, go wrong, sin
The Greek word:
G264 ἁμαρτάνω hamartanō; from an early root ἁμαρτ- hamart-; to miss the mark, do wrong, sin
The idea of sin is to miss the mark of perfection, to not hit the bullseye, so to speak. From the Christian perspective, given Jesus' statement of the two greatest commandments (love god, love your neighbor), not being perfect is equated with a failure to love (agape). As many philosophers, theologians, and songwriters can attest, it can be very hard to pin down a definition of "love", particularly agape love. The best definition I have ever heard is this:
agape love: to give of your time, your self, and your treasure for the ultimate good of the one loved, regardless of the consequences to one's self.
Sin is a failure to love, not the feeling, the action (agape is most often a verb in the Bible). It is placing yourself as more important, valuable, etc. than someone else by your actions (or failure to act). How this works out in actual everyday life is obviously complex, so to make things simpler, Jesus gave us the "golden rule": do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Failure to keep this rule, IMO, is the essence of sin.
Hope this helps;
Michael
It seems that your position is that there is a loose Christian definition of sin, and no clear definition. I don't understand why Jesus had to die for an idea that cannot be intelligently articulated
... and worse, I don't understand why a just God would send billions of souls to hell for the violating something that is not well defined.
Jesus died for an idea that can easily be intelligent articulated. In fact the NT does just that: 'For God so LOVED the world, he gave his one and only son...'
Love is easy to articulate. See 1 Corinthians 13, for example.
Well apart from the the fact that is not certain what it means by 'billions of souls to hell',
Actually the situation is quite simple: If you have to ask, you need salvation. It is why Paul points out that 'all have sinned'.
After that 'all you need is love' to borrow from the Beatles.
I still find it odd that you can't accept that for Christians intelligently articulating 'love the Lord your God and Love your Neighbour' are enough
(and another poster has pointed this out also - we aren't doing it because we are regurgitating something we heard, but because it is something we are living).
I wonder if you might be better examining individual sins that are in the Muslim scriptures and we can apply the 'Love the...' rule and see how a Christian may respond.
So when you say that Jesus loved us so much that he died for us, I need you to connect the dots for me. I assume that God is unable to forgive sins as an act of will, despite the fact that both God and Jesus seemed to have done so on several occasions.
But what is it about sin that makes the death of Jesus a solution? The wages of sin is death. Why? Shouldn't this be entailed in the definition of sin? Also, if Jesus is paying our sin wage, it should also be shown in the definition of sin that sin has units of measurement and that it is transferable.
If you try to avoid this by appealing to "God can do whatever he wants" then we're right back to asking why he can't just forgive sin as an act of will, thereby averting the crucifixion. If, instead, you try to avoid this by saying that we can never understand and that we need faith, then you've admitted that the core idea of your belief system is nonsensical and has not been resolved after 2000 years. And so faith is more than just believing in a proposition for which there is no evidence; faith, then, would be believing in a nonsensical proposition for which there is no evidence. And then you could use faith to justify *any* belief, couldn't you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?