The definition of sin

[RaymondG]

I'm sure they do. What's your point and how does this help it?

Before the serpent offered the fruit, Adam and eve were walking around naked without guilt or shame. After eating the apple, they became ashamed. Jesus is come to tell you that you can put that fruit down now...and show you the way to tree of life.

You've just stated that the apologetics forum is worthless. Why are you here?

I don't know, I guess God wants me to talk to you for some reason. I wouldn't say anything is worthless.....as God can use anything for His glory....

It seems you are saying that you know God exists, and not that you merely believe God exists. If that's what you're saying, then we both know you're being dishonest.

If you don't believe that....I shouldnt even mention seeing Him face to face and the fact that you don't have to die....

"And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"

Accountability and justice: totally absent from Christianity.

You got me on this one....Have no clue where this falls.

You're saying I could be easier to convert than an apathetic atheist?

I'm saying you are closer to heaven than you know. Continue to waste your inheritances on riotous living....when you are finished, God will be waiting for you with a fat calf and a party...no matter how long it takes. I'll be the one at the table with a big goofy hat saying "I told you so"

 

[Soyeong]

Why not recommend someone who converted the other way so that you appear objective?

My goal in recommending the book was not to persuade you that Christianity is right and that Islam was wrong, but to compare and contrast what Christians believe by someone who was both a Muslim and a Christian.

So far, I'm liking this answer best - in terms of simply being consistent and well defined. However, the Old Testament law would make a criminal of anyone who followed it. The OT law is quite terrible and immoral. I do not think you genuinely believe it is right. What do we do from here?

The OT Law does not make criminals the people who follow it, but rather it makes criminals the people who don't follow it. Of course I disagree that it is terrible or immoral, though the goal here is to define what sin is, not to express opinions about whether we think it is a good standard.

 

[Tree of Life]

So then I assume you have no problem with slavery, since it was clearly never abrogated in the NT.

The kind of slavery which existed in the NT period is not sinful as such. But even within the NT the gospel creates an environment in which it's very difficult for slavery to continue. See the letter to Philemon for an example of how this is so.

Also, the execution of homosexuals was never abrogated. Do you think we should still be executing them? What about witches? Do you believe they exist? If so, what are their powers and should we execute them?

As I said, laws concerning how nations ought to enforce the law of God are complicated. They are not directly applicable to individuals because they are about how nations are to behave (i.e. capital punishment). But there's a lot of debate about how these laws apply to modern nations and to the church. Thankfully, though, you and I needn't be terribly concerned about this since we're not policy makers or legislators.

Also, please go in depth on the rape laws in the OT because I think they are severely lacking.

What needs to be said?

And that seems to be precisely the problem. The law was written by men who had no issues with slavery, rape, genocide, racism, or sexism. And you are saying I am accountable to that on pain of infinite torture.

So now we arrive at the real problem. It's not that God's requirements are unclear. It's that you don't like God's Law.

 

[Chriliman]

Religion in general, and Christianity in particular, does not always want things to be clear. If, for instance, a clear outcome is expected after a session of prayer, then the effectiveness of prayer will be shown to be statistically equivalent to randomness.

However, a religion like Islam, as far as I understand, makes it absolutely clear what is considered right and wrong. Any contradiction in scripture is resolved by the understanding that a later statement overrides an earlier statement. So Muslims have a clear understanding of what is expected of them (even though most, fortunately, ignore the clear commands to murder people). While being easily the world's most despicable religion, Islam is nevertheless clear, concise, and well defined by religious standards.

Christianity, on the other hand, does not make it clear what is right or wrong. One might think that the rules are similar to Islam in that the New Testament overrides the Old Testament, but that does not seem to actually be the case. Jesus and Paul, the two main founders of Christianity, did away with much of the Old Testament, but John - the fourth most important founder of Christianity behind Peter - says in 1 John 3:4 that "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." It would seem to make sense that the law as dictated by God through Moses is the "objective morality" that some Christians refer to, which would mean that sin is defined as defiance of any of the 600+ commandments in the law. Yet, essentially no Christian on earth would attest to the absolute authority of everything listed in the Mosaic law.

I've never gotten a clear answer on this issue. Worse, I don't know if I've ever even seen two Christians agree on this. Worst, this is the criteria by which we will be evaluated as worthy of eternal hellfire, and yet we have no access to this criteria.

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.

Sin is anything you've done that you feel convicted that it was wrong. It can include doing something you know is wrong or don't know is wrong until after the fact.

 

[Everybodyknows]

This doesn't tell me anything.

Sure it does. Perhaps not what you wanted to hear though for the argument you wish to make.

On Christian theology, we were created without consent and placed in a game with infinite torture as the inevitable result of breaking rules which are either totally immoral (rape and slavery are OK, genocide and mass murder too) or else totally unclear (sin is... whatever it is you're saying it is).

There are many Christians who don't believe in infinite torture. Even so it is irrelevant to the definition of sin.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Before the serpent offered the fruit, Adam and eve were walking around naked without guilt or shame. After eating the apple, they became ashamed.

Are you suggesting that they masturbated, and did so shamelessly? If not, how is this point relevant?

Jesus is come to tell you that you can put that fruit down now...and show you the way to tree of life.

I did not ever see this in scripture.

I don't know, I guess God wants me to talk to you for some reason. I wouldn't say anything is worthless.....as God can use anything for His glory....

God will change his mind shortly. Trust me.

If you don't believe that....I shouldnt even mention seeing Him face to face and the fact that you don't have to die....

Correct, you probably shouldn't.

"And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"

No.

You got me on this one....Have no clue where this falls.

OK.

I'm saying you are closer to heaven than you know. Continue to waste your inheritances on riotous living....when you are finished, God will be waiting for you with a fat calf and a party...no matter how long it takes. I'll be the one at the table with a big goofy hat saying "I told you so"

This outcome is unlikely.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

My goal in recommending the book was not to persuade you that Christianity is right and that Islam was wrong, but to compare and contrast what Christians believe by someone who was both a Muslim and a Christian.

I know. And my point was that the book would be heavily tilted to favor points of Christianity rather than Islam due to the biased author. You would be more objective if you recommend an author who is biased against your position.

The OT Law does not make criminals the people who follow it, but rather it makes criminals the people who don't follow it.

This conversation has officially gone off the rails. I can't go around murdering people for working on the Sabbath or practicing homosexuality. Following the OT law would make me a criminal in any nation on earth.

Of course I disagree that it is terrible or immoral,

Exactly which part of the racism, sexism, rape, and slavery do you think is neither terrible nor immoral? How about terrifying and slaughtering animals with a central nervous system merely for the amusement of a deity?

though the goal here is to define what sin is, not to express opinions about whether we think it is a good standard.

Well played. The OP does not go beyond this. If you want your participation to end there, then that's your prerogative. However, that, in my opinion, is a very two-dimensional discussion. I want to have a lively, interesting discussion. And that interesting discussion will begin the moment you tell me that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with racism, sexism, rape, and slavery.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The kind of slavery which existed in the NT period is not sinful as such.

You haven't yet lobbed the term "indentured servant" at me, but I feel the need to preempt you here.

Indentured servitude in the OT only existed between Hebrew men. Hebrew women, and also all foreigners, were slaves for life. Also, the OT endorses chattel slavery. I know that you specifically pointed out the NT here, but you are responding to where I mentioned slavery and I was not being so selective. The OT absolutely is relevant to the discussion, especially with the responses you've been giving me. Even if the OT law on slavery is now defunct - it isn't, by the way - you are still tasking yourself with defending the notion that at one point in time it was a good, just law. I find that task to be impossible, so good luck.

As far as the NT goes, indentured servitude absolutely did not exist. In Rome, the practice of nexum was outlawed long before Christ. Therefore, the slavery that is advocated in the NT is that of chattel slavery.

Now, if you think that chattel slavery is not a sin, then you are certainly self consistent. However, as I told another user here:

I want to have a lively, interesting discussion. And that interesting discussion will begin the moment you tell me that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with racism, sexism, rape, and slavery.

But even within the NT the gospel creates an environment in which it's very difficult for slavery to continue.

Obviously false. "Slaves, obey your masters" is a sentiment advocated by Peter and Paul, the two main founders of Christianity aside from Christ himself.

See the letter to Philemon for an example of how this is so.

So your evidence for your obviously false claim is a letter in which Paul instructs a runaway slave to return to his master. Paul also pleads with Philemon to let the slave go only because the slave has become a Christian and also has become useful to Christianity. It's absolutely not clear that Paul would make such a case for any other slave. Furthermore, it seems clear that Paul recognizes that Philemon is well within his rights to own a slave, which is why Paul is pleading rather than breathing fire and whipping Philemon with his pen like Paul so often does to nearly every church he addresses.

You couldn't be more wrong about slavery in the Bible, other than when you say it is not a sin.

As I said, laws concerning how nations ought to enforce the law of God are complicated. They are not directly applicable to individuals because they are about how nations are to behave (i.e. capital punishment). But there's a lot of debate about how these laws apply to modern nations and to the church. Thankfully, though, you and I needn't be terribly concerned about this since we're not policy makers or legislators.

I'm not asking about whether it should be passed into law. I'm asking whether you think it's right to execute homosexuals, own slaves, coerce women to marry their rapists, and etc.

What needs to be said?

I need you to tell me that you think there is nothing intrinsically wrong about raping 14-year-old virgins after having slaughtered their families without provocation, for example.

So now we arrive at the real problem. It's not that God's requirements are unclear. It's that you don't like God's Law.

So... I'm the problem... because I am against rape, slavery, racism, sexism, and etc?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Sin is anything you've done that you feel convicted that it was wrong. It can include doing something you know is wrong or don't know is wrong until after the fact.

A psychopath is a person who has a defective sense of empathy, or no empathy at all. Such a person, as far as I can see, has no conscience. Is such a person, then, incapable of sinning?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Sure it does. Perhaps not what you wanted to hear though for the argument you wish to make.

Do you honestly think that what you told me makes it clear to me what exactly is or is not a sin?

There are many Christians who don't believe in infinite torture.

Why? Are they illiterate?

Even so it is irrelevant to the definition of sin.

Hell is not relevant to sin? Now I've heard it all.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why? Are they illiterate?

No. Some of us can actually read.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Do you honestly think that what you told me makes it clear to me what exactly is or is not a sin?

I know it's a difficult concept to grasp. I would suggest reading up on virtue ethics. The point is that sin is not defined by a law giving you a list of what is sin and and what is not sin. The focus is on what qualities make a good person rather than which actions are bad. If you're asking the from the point of view of needing a list that tells you what is sin and not sin you're missing the message of the new testament altogether - it tells us how to be rather than what to do.

Why? Are they illiterate?

No, you'll find that the scripture is not all that clear on the issue. Hell is not even mentioned at all in the old Testament. Look up annihilationism and universalism for a couple of alternative views.

Hell is not relevant to sin? Now I've heard it all.

Read that again. Hell is not relevant to the definition of sin.

 

[Soyeong]

I know. And my point was that the book would be heavily tilted to favor points of Christianity rather than Islam due to the biased author. You would be more objective if you recommend an author who is biased against your position.

You made a statement about Islam that indicated to me that you didn't know much about Islam, so I'm just trying to help point you to where you can become more informed. If you want to read a book written by an ex-Christian Muslim that discusses the same topic afterward for a more balanced view, then more power to you.

This conversation has officially gone off the rails. I can't go around murdering people for working on the Sabbath or practicing homosexuality. Following the OT law would make me a criminal in any nation on earth.

The Bible doesn't command anyone to go around murdering people for working on the Sabbath or for practicing homosexuality. Murder is unlawful killing and if the Law commands someone to be executed, then it is not murder. With that said, Bible doesn't command anyone to go around killing people either, but rather the Bible instructs there to be due process. Nor does the Law instruct us to enforce penalties that have already been paid.

Exactly which part of the racism, sexism, rape, and slavery do you think is neither terrible nor immoral? How about terrifying and slaughtering animals with a central nervous system merely for the amusement of a deity?

Of course the Law doesn't promote those things.

Well played. The OP does not go beyond this. If you want your participation to end there, then that's your prerogative. However, that, in my opinion, is a very two-dimensional discussion. I want to have a lively, interesting discussion. And that interesting discussion will begin the moment you tell me that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with racism, sexism, rape, and slavery.

My goal is primarily to inform as I do not see discussing these topics with you as having much of a chance of being fruitful. As parting, I will note that if atheism is true, then there is nothing intrinsically wrong with racism, sexism, rape, and slavery. There would be no way that the world intrinsically ought to be, just our subjective preferences.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I know it's a difficult concept to grasp. I would suggest reading up on virtue ethics. The point is that sin is not defined by a law giving you a list of what is sin and and what is not sin. The focus is on what qualities make a good person rather than which actions are bad. If you're asking the from the point of view of needing a list that tells you what is sin and not sin you're missing the message of the new testament altogether - it tells us how to be rather than what to do.

If we follow your line of reasoning, then a quick thumbing of the NT should make it obvious that love is the most important thing in the world. Here I am on Christian forums asking myself, "Where in the world is it?" Most Christians I deal with here are indifferent, spiteful, dishonest, and/or hateful. Where is the Christian love? Or am I misinterpreting both you and the NT?

No, you'll find that the scripture is not all that clear on the issue. Hell is not even mentioned at all in the old Testament.

Demons aren't mentioned in the OT either. Do you think they don't exist?

Analysis of the Judeo-Christian religion makes it pretty obvious that demons derived from the Greek notion of daemons, and hell is derived from Hades. But if you were to have faith, then you should just read the text and believe what it says. Instead, you read it and you change the things you don't like. That's not faith. While I and other atheists might commend you for your lack of faith, your deity, should he exist, will certainly send you to the place you don't think exists without hesitation. Read the OT, count how many times Jehovah "burns with hatred" and once you've lost count, you'll realize that hell can't not exist in Judeo-Christian theology.

Look up annihilationism and universalism for a couple of alternative views.

I'll check that out right after I read up on why Jesus does not want you to sell all that you have and give to the poor despite telling two different audiences to sell all that they have and give to the poor.

Read that again. Hell is not relevant to the definition of sin.

Correct, I did misread it the first time. Hell is not relevant to the definition of sin. But hell certainly is relevant to sin by definition.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You made a statement about Islam that indicated to me that you didn't know much about Islam, so I'm just trying to help point you to where you can become more informed. If you want to read a book written by an ex-Christian Muslim that discusses the same topic afterward for a more balanced view, then more power to you.

I have no desire to learn anything more about that despicable religion. I was just giving you pointers on how to appear more objective.

The Bible doesn't command anyone to go around murdering people for working on the Sabbath or for practicing homosexuality. Murder is unlawful killing and if the Law commands someone to be executed, then it is not murder. With that said, Bible doesn't command anyone to go around killing people either, but rather the Bible instructs there to be due process. Nor does the Law instruct us to enforce penalties that have already been paid.

If I make up a stupid rule for no reason and hold people accountable to it, and then I *execute* them as a result, that's considered murder.

"Thou shalt not work on the Sabbath" is, as far as any reasonable person can see, a stupid made up rule. Executing people for breaking that rule is murder.

Of course the Law doesn't promote those things.

And with this you've lost the right to talk to me. Welcome to my ignore list.

My goal is primarily to inform as I do not see discussing these topics with you as having much of a chance of being fruitful.

You've informed me that you are capable of saying things that are obviously and blatantly false.

As parting, I will note that if atheism is true, then there is nothing intrinsically wrong with racism, sexism, rape, and slavery. There would be no way that the world intrinsically ought to be, just our subjective preferences.

Objective morality is an incoherent idea and is not well defined. But I am not the final arbiter on reality, so I cannot say for a certainty that it does not exist. However, being *objective*, objective morality would not require the existence of a God. The existence of God is utterly irrelevant to an objective morality. For that reason, your statement here is silly. You might as well tell me that if atheism is true, four-sided triangles don't exist.

Anyway, enjoy lying to yourself. As I privately predicted, you refused to acknowledge the excruciatingly obvious fact that the OT law promotes racism, sexism, rape, and slavery. You totally melted under the lights here. Bye.

 

[Everybodyknows]

If we follow your line of reasoning, then a quick thumbing of the NT should make it obvious that love is the most important thing in the world.

It does.
Mark 12:28-31
1 Corinthians 13:13
Romans 13:10

Here I am on Christian forums asking myself, "Where in the world is it?" Most Christians I deal with here are indifferent, spiteful, dishonest, and/or hateful. Where is the Christian love? Or am I misinterpreting both you and the NT?

Is that an accusation against me personally or against Christians in general? Either way I would rather debate the topic than our opinions of Christians/atheists/Muslims etc.

Demons aren't mentioned in the OT either. Do you think they don't exist?

Analysis of the Judeo-Christian religion makes it pretty obvious that demons derived from the Greek notion of daemons, and hell is derived from Hades. But if you were to have faith, then you should just read the text and believe what it says. Instead, you read it and you change the things you don't like. That's not faith. While I and other atheists might commend you for your lack of faith, your deity, should he exist, will certainly send you to the place you don't think exists without hesitation. Read the OT, count how many times Jehovah "burns with hatred" and once you've lost count, you'll realize that hell can't not exist in Judeo-Christian theology.

Evil spirits are mentioned in the old Testament. Hell is a concept that has come to Christianity from the Greeks. Hell was never a feature of Judaism and still isn't. We probably should stay on topic though an not turn this into a debate on hell. I suggest we just stick to 'the consequence of sin is death' and move on.

I'll check that out right after I read up on why Jesus does not want you to sell all that you have and give to the poor despite telling two different audiences to sell all that they have and give to the poor.

 

[Chriliman]

A psychopath is a person who has a defective sense of empathy, or no empathy at all. Such a person, as far as I can see, has no conscience. Is such a person, then, incapable of sinning?

If they can never know that they've done something wrong then they can't ever experience sin. However, I don't believe anyone can never know their own sin, I believe we'll all eventually know and have the God given opportunity to be freed from its effects.

In the case of say an infant, they're incapable of sinning because they have no knowledge of it, but they're born into a world infected by sin so eventually they'll know.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It does.
Mark 12:28-31
1 Corinthians 13:13
Romans 13:10


Is that an accusation against me personally or against Christians in general?

It was not directed at you. So far, you've been a pleasure to talk to.

Either way I would rather debate the topic than our opinions of Christians/atheists/Muslims etc.

Seeing as how I made the thread, I can assure you that you won't offend me by expanding the scope of the OP.

As far as I understand things, there is no debating a definition. They literally aren't up for debate - at least for things which are well defined. However, I am well aware that most core principles of Christianity are ill-defined or undefined. The purpose of the OP, therefore, is for people like you to establish a definition of sin that we can then use as a launchpad for a discussion. If we just stopped at the definition of sin, the conversation would be quite boring.

Evil spirits are mentioned in the old Testament. Hell is a concept that has come to Christianity from the Greeks. Hell was never a feature of Judaism and still isn't.

Can you explain, then, what is happening when Jesus mentions hell?

We probably should stay on topic though an not turn this into a debate on hell. I suggest we just stick to 'the consequence of sin is death' and move on.

Again, I'd rather not have a two-dimensional conversation. I'd much prefer that you follow the flow of the conversation with me, but if you refuse to expand upon the OP then you are basically done here.

My point is perhaps better summarized by referring you to Proverbs 3:5-6. Lean not on your own understanding. If the Bible says something, then you are to believe it. If you say to yourself, "Jesus said X, but surely he did not mean X" then you sound like the serpent in the garden, don't you?

 

[Everybodyknows]

Seeing as how I made the thread, I can assure you that you won't offend me by expanding the scope of the OP.

My point is that you can make some general criticism of Christians, I could retaliate with some criticism of atheists but this rarely results in productive discussion.

As far as I understand things, there is no debating a definition. They literally aren't up for debate - at least for things which are well defined. However, I am well aware that most core principles of Christianity are ill-defined or undefined. The purpose of the OP, therefore, is for people like you to establish a definition of sin that we can then use as a launchpad for a discussion. If we just stopped at the definition of sin, the conversation would be quite boring.

If we are talking about things like religion, ethics, emotion or art we are inevitably gong to run into the problem of rather unspecific definitions. Some ideas exist as broad concepts but are very difficult to define specifically. For example, we all pretty much agree on the concept of right and wrong but when it comes down to finding a specific definition of what exactly they mean you will find many different opinions and definitions. Does that make the entire notion invalid? The same with sin (which is connected to our ideas of right and wrong), you'll find you have several different definitions and opinions presented in this thread.

Can you explain, then, what is happening when Jesus mentions hell?

Often Jesus is speaking in parable when he speaks of hell. Jesus draws on both Greek 'Hades' and Hebrew 'Sheol' concepts, because these are what his audience is familiar with. He never really defines what hell is precisely.

Again, I'd rather not have a two-dimensional conversation. I'd much prefer that you follow the flow of the conversation with me, but if you refuse to expand upon the OP then you are basically done here.

There are numerous threads on the topic of hell, it's a pretty big subject to get into. I just wanted to point out the fact that, as with many things, there is quite a diversity of views among Christians. I'm happy to discuss my thoughts on the issue if you like.

My point is perhaps better summarized by referring you to Proverbs 3:5-6. Lean not on your own understanding. If the Bible says something, then you are to believe it. If you say to yourself, "Jesus said X, but surely he did not mean X" then you sound like the serpent in the garden, don't you?

My point is how does this at all relate to what I said? This is not 'flow' of conversation, it's just s random insertion of some problem you have with Christianity. You may think it clever but I'd rather we address the content of each other's posts.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I've never gotten a clear answer on this issue. Worse, I don't know if I've ever even seen two Christians agree on this.

Well there's a first for everything, cause I agree with @Everybodyknows heh

Worst, this is the criteria by which we will be evaluated as worthy of eternal hellfire, and yet we have no access to this criteria.

The evaluation for hellfire is not a moral test so we don't need to have access to some kind of ruleset or moral list. With regard to eternal life the Bible talks of two groups, one group receives spiritual connection with the Spirit of God through Jesus and enters into eternal life in heaven. The other group rejects spiritual connection and enters into eternal death in hell. "Spiritual connection" is available to every person who has ever lived unconditionally. Jesus came to bring forgiveness to everyone, not to bring a list of rules and then judge people according the rules. Jesus came to forgive and restore mankind relationship with God in a spiritual sense--hence why I am using the term "spiritual connection". Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:8-9:

For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast.​

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.

Morality for Israel was loosely defined by the Old Testament Law. However it is not an objective morality that remains for all people of all times. It was an objective morality for the people of Israel because they accepted to obey those external laws. Jesus then summed up the heart of the law with, love God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself. But then Jesus gave a new law in John 13:34,

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.​

So the beginning point of all morality is love. And we know what love looks like: it is self-sacrificing, it is healing, it stands up for what is right, because we find these and many more things in the life of Jesus. Paul also writes about what love looks like in the classic wedding passage of 1 Corinthians 13 verses 4 to 7 specifically:

Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.​

But how do we describe so broad a concept as love? How do we narrow it down to a list of rules or guidelines? The christian life is to be transformed into love, for every decision and every motive to be fundamentally based on love. Then, when practical decisions need making, if we are unsure, we pray, we discuss, we wait 'till we feel peace, we work together towards love. We are not relying on a list of guidelines but on the Law of Love written on our hearts, our minds, the life of Jesus, how a child would think etc.

Not every decision is either loving or sinful. If I choose to type the word awesome instead of the word excellent it doesn't really matter either way. It is neutral. But if a decision is moral, then there are loving and sinful options. Interestingly, what one might consider to be loving, another might consider sinful. Continued discussion, prayer etc is needed. It is similar to how democracy deals with morality.

Thus to be clear, I do not believe christianity offers a clear objective morality, but a subjective morality relying on group consensus through prayer and discussion based on love. I also realise this leaves open the door for some potentially strange ideas, hence the need for group consensus and always falling back on the life of Jesus and the most basic understanding of love as presented in the Bible.