The definition of sin

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

Thanks, but this does not address the OP.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

It is absolutely clear that not everyone is your neighbor. If everyone was one's neighbor, it would say to love everyone.

Which it does elsewhere (love your enemies; love your brother).

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.

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.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Which it does elsewhere (love your enemies; love your brother).

Correct, but I don't see the relevance. We're discussing the word "neighbor."

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.

We both know that you completely made this up. This is entirely an invention off the top of your head with zero research.

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.

Leviticus 25:39-46 says,

39 And if thy brother be waxed poor with thee, and sell himself unto thee; thou shalt not make him to serve as a bond-servant.

40 As a hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee; he shall serve with thee unto the year of jubilee:41 then shall he go out from thee, he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.

42 For they are my servants, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen.

43 Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear thy God.

44 And as for thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, whom thou shalt have; of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them shall ye take your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigor.

So as you can see, 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. Also, please explain to me how this is in any way different from the chattel slavery of early America.

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 ).

Another "fact" pulled out of thin air.

The principle problem you have is looking for a legalistic definition of neighbour which you don't really need.

But you told me to start with, "Love thy neighbor."

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 when these guys say they love their neighbor, I think it's best to look into what that means.

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 now I'm confused... are we going with Christ's words now almost entirely? Do you as of this moment disavow the OT?

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.

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.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Correct, but I don't see the relevance. We're discussing the word "neighbor."

No we are not discussing the word, we are discussing the meaning, which means that it should not be seen in isolation: Jesus uses numerous examples of love and who we should love, thus neighbour is a convenient catch-all.

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!

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

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.

Actually this is not racism at all it is normal. Should a foreigner just be able to turn up in another country and gain all the benefits not having earned them? In the UK asylum seekers are not even allowed to work until their asylum has been granted and once it has been granted they will still be at risk if they break the rules. So foreigners are being treated differently from natives in pretty much every country and nobody else sees that as racism. It is just normal. Racism is where such a person gains citizenship and then is still treated differently.

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 say again that the term 'neighbour' was applied then as it is now: the people with whom you have everyday contact.

It is only Christians that try and apply a wider meaning to the term and only on the basis of specific commands by Jesus to widen it out (e.g. love your enemies).

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Another "fact" pulled out of thin air.

Not so. If everyone at the time of Jesus thought of neighbour in the way you were implying, the teacher of the law would not be asking, "who is my neighbour" and the parable of the Good Samaritan becomes totally meaningless: the parable of the Samaritan.

For the question and the parable to have any meaning it has to be true that people were selective (even racist) about who was their neighbour and that should not surprise us in an occupied country.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

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.

You really can't make up your mind what it is you want? Why did you ask for a Christian definition of sin, if you really wanted a Nazi definition of sin. You should be asking fascists this question.

If on the other hand you want a Christian definition, then you need to understand 'neighbour' as the Christians do. Not a Jewish definition, nor a Nazi definition. The only way you are going to get that is to look at the Christian scriptures.

In a sense you are following the legalistic definition that the 'teacher of the law' was trying to get over when he asked 'Who is my neighbour'. Jesus' response was a parable that highlighted the point that your neighbour was anyone who needed your help, which much of the rest of scripture also examined.

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.

By all means, but be up front about it. Don't pretend you want a Christian definition when you really want to argue with a Jewish definition or with Christians who proclaim that they are obedient to the law.

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?

I'm not sure that the 'authors' regularly engaged in rape, slavery or genocide. How much raping did Moses do? Did Solomon spend lots of his life wiping out other nations? Did Isaiah engage in regular slavery? There is zero evidence for 'regular' actions by any of the authors of any of those things.

Where such things are occurring they are often reported in such a negative way that one can only see them as a bad thing and more often than not God punishes the Jews for such actions... but that then comes back to a Jewish definition of sin, NOT a Christian one, which is what you asked for.

So now I'm confused... are we going with Christ's words now almost entirely? Do you as of this moment disavow the OT?

No, and you should give consideration that there is more than two ways to make use of the OT. One does not have to either embrace it wholeheartedly or disavow it completely. Indeed I don't think any Christian has EVER done either (in the first instance, you might as well be a Jew and in the second you would be a heretic like Marcion).

The real response is to treat the OT like it is meant to be. When it comes to the Law, for example, it is a covenant made between God and Israel. Jesus came and brought a New Covenant (Testament), making the old one of use, but not binding.

When I became a Christian I signed up to follow Jesus, not become a Jew and while the two are not mutually exclusive, it is not required to be both.

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.

What you would do is not necessarily the same as what another would do. For starters the requirement to sell all you have and give to the poor was given only to the Rich Young Ruler, though many have embraced the same thinking. Nor is it necessary to wander the world doing good works. Jesus only left Palastine to go to Samaria. His total area of travel was less than the size of Wales. From the travels and writings of Paul it is clear that many people stayed put and lived out their Christian lives in their current location.

Perhaps you should give consideration to the fact that you don't seem to know what it is you want. If you really want to argue the points of the OT law, why make up some rubbish about wanting a Christian definition of sin? If you want a Christian definition of sin, then why keep going back to the law when its relevance, at best, is indicative to the Christian, not binding.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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. You quoted me up to the point where I showed that the institution of chattel slavery in early America was completely Biblical, and then you stopped right before getting there. You didn't touch it at all. And I think it was quite deliberate. I think you chopped it all up and put it into four different posts in some attempt at disguising your efforts.

The closest you came was this:

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 can find laws from old America prohibiting the torture, murder, and mutilation of slaves. Does that mean it was a good institution? But who am I kidding... you won't touch this. American slavery of the Africans was fully Biblical, and you cannot label it as sinful because then you'd have a hard time explaining why it was not sinful for the Jews. Right, God made a covenant with the Jews allowing them to own and beat slaves, so long as the slave is of a different race... and America was in the wrong because they didn't have this covenant. Is that your argument?

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?

Is it a sin to own slaves? Obviously not. Was the slavery of blacks in America a sin? Well... it's hard to say it was. If it wasn't a sin, was it wrong? Well... it's hard to say anything is wrong if it's not a sin. That's where you know it will go. It's easy for me to tie you in knots. Not because I'm of the devil and thus am good with words. It's because I have the truth on my side. It's too dang hard for any atheist to lose a debate with a Christian for that very reason. We can show up drunk and it won't matter. We will win every time because we are right.

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.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

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.

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.

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 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.

And you don't want me to know. Why else would you weasel around like this?

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

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.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The Hebrews weren't Christian, so it is not on topic.

The topic is the definition of sin. Mosaic law is mentioned in the OP. Clearly you did not read it or else you are not interested in a sincere discussion.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

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.

a) You wanted a clear definition of sin (which as I have pointed out is not possible)
b) You have been provided with a clear definition of love and how that then leads to determining what is sinful
c) You don't apply this to conceivable situations, you keep bringing up the Jewish Law, much of which isn't applicable (unless of course you currently own slaves).

It seems to me from every thing you say is not that you want a definition of sin, but you want to argue the Jewish Law. I don't want to argue the Jewish Law (I've had enough of that elsewhere and it never seems productive... given that in general it is not applicable to the lives that most people live today - unless you own cows that gore other cows or you are a Jewish priest).

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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)

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.

 

[food4thought]

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

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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

Thanks, but I want a rigorous definition of sin. I think we should be entitled to that if we're going to be held in eternal conscious torment as a result of our sins.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

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

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.

... 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.

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.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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...'

Right... but why did he *have* to do that?

Suppose I loved my pet dog so much that I cut off my hand to feed him. And then I said that I had no other choice than to do what I did. You'd probably raise an eyebrow and mention that there is a thing called dog food. You would probably mention that getting a $100 slab of choice meat from the butcher every day would have been a better option.

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?

Love is easy to articulate. See 1 Corinthians 13, for example.

Love is easy to articulate. "I love you so much that I have to kill myself" is also easy to articulate. What's not easy to articulate is a valid argument to justify that statement.

Well apart from the the fact that is not certain what it means by 'billions of souls to hell',

What part of that is not clear?

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.

All you need is love... and a human sacrifice which occurred for no apparent reason.

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

Love is not enough. Again, you need that human sacrifice, too.

(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).

False.

Most Christians go with your incorrect definition of "neighbor," in which case I'd be a neighbor. I absolutely do not feel the agape gushing out from Christians here. Maybe one in ten Christians express a genuine agape for me. More than one in ten express indifference, and more than one in ten express overt disgust and hatred.

Whether I'm an enemy or a neighbor, they should be loving me. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not crying over this. I'm just pointing out that you're wrong. And on this one, it's not your fault; you just lack the perspective of seeing how Christians treat outsiders.

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.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

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.

Which is why they are able to sin. God could forgive all sin just like that [clicks fingers], but does not because what would the point of that be?

People would just continue sinning and expecting that God will forgive them. 'Oh I am a mass murderer, but God will forgive me' is just illogical. So sin requires repentance at the very least, but it still has consequences, even beyond the prison sentences for mass murder. Sin affects people psychologically and the more you do it, the easier it becomes. It is the attitude that needs to change in people - the attitude that they can get away with it. Because it is that attitude that it is an anathema to God. Our past sins can be forgiven easily, but that clean slate comes with a cost - to go and sin no more.

Jesus died to execute our sinful nature - the nature that leads us to continue in our sinful ways. So when we die we go before God with that sinful nature suppressed. We will have free will but will choose to do Good because that is the nature we choose to exercise.

It is why many of us harp on about 'love', because ultimately not sinning is not enough (you could be a very good person and never sin, which is great, but not all that fulfilling), we have to go to the opposite extreme and love other people.

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.

Why is wages a unit of measurement? You earn wages and I earn wages, but they are different amounts, different currencies, but still wages. Wages are what we earn. And we earn 'death' by sinning. This is in the Jewish understanding of sin (though not in those words) - the Jews understood that there were consequences to sin that needed to be assuaged, so there were various sacrifices (and it wasn't the killing of animals that was the sacrifice, it was the loss of the animal to God that was the sacrifice).

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?

It's probably best not to second-guess what I am going to say based on zero evidence. It just seems to lead to you being confused.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

?