• 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.

The definition of sin

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
58
Dublin
✟110,146.00
Country
Ireland
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
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.

If a person agape loved someone else, they would NEVER just kill themselves. They might sacrifice their life to save another, but the way you have phrased it suggests that is an act of selfishness, not love. So there is absolutely no justification for that statement, nor for seeing it as agape love.

Most Christians go with your incorrect definition of "neighbor,"

Which should indicate to you that there is reason to doubt your interpretation. Indeed the whole point of the Good Samaritan story is to show that your neighbour is the person that needs your help. Every Christian would agree with that, since they are following Christ's example. So the definition as applied by Christians is the correct one. As far as I can tell your definition of neighbour is one that you have obtained for yourself and have tried to tell everyone else that they are wrong. Sorry we Christians have been believing this to be true for 2,000 years... I think we might have a better idea, even if we are not always good at applying it.

in which case I'd be a neighbor.

Not really, I do not know who you are. As far as the internet is concerned you are a masked stranger whom I am unlikely to ever meet. Even the Good Samaritan story is one of someone meeting the needs of the person they met. Now if you really want to see Christians being neighbourly go and look for the homeless in your city or watch street pastors at work, or soup kitchens or those that cross over borders to provide housing or food.

If you have food, you have shelter, then your needs are being met and you are unlikely to come across Christians at work, but they are there. If you have spiritual needs you could go to a church and you might find them met (some churches would and some wouldn't).

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.

Firstly there is no way on these threads that you could ever feel agape. You don't feel it, you experience it. And on these threads people can only offer you explanations when you need them... which many have done and you have rejected them.

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.

They should be loving you, but they don't have to like you and let's face it you do seem to go out of your way to be unlikeable, which I actually think is quite sad.

I don't think I lack the perspective of seeing how Christians treat outsiders, I see it every day: they treat them as individuals, not as some corporate mob. That is not to say everyone does that, but that is hardly surprising. Becoming a Christian is not some magical formula where we are suddenly like Jesus, it is a process in which we are being transformed to be more like Jesus, and some are further along in their transformation than others.

If your only experience of Christians is unkindness, then I'd say you are not looking hard enough or only looking at what you want to see. Find out which churches run ministries to the homeless or provide care and protection for the drunks on a Friday night or collect food parcels to distribute as aid to countries in need. Go along to them and find out WHY they do it and then you might have a better understanding of agape.
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
58
Dublin
✟110,146.00
Country
Ireland
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Me: Well apart from the the fact that is not certain what it means by 'billions of souls to hell'

You:
What part of that is not clear?

The whole thing is not clear. It is not clear what 'hell' is. It is not clear that any souls, let alone 'billions' are being sent there. Some think that hell is annihilation. Some think that it is just absent from the presence of God. Many think it is some burning, firey place of torment.

I'm just saying it is not clear what it is and which, if any, of those ideas are correct.
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
58
Dublin
✟110,146.00
Country
Ireland
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
I don't understand what you are saying here.

You want to know how Christianity works? You want to compare the list of sins in Islam to Christianity?

Then why not start at the beginning: the list of sins in Islam. It should be easy enough to get a Christian perspective on each Islamic sin, including nuances where Christians might disagree. By doing so you might begin to understand why 'love the lord your God...neighbour' works for the Christian.

Christianity doesn't have a list of sins, but that doesn't mean ignorance of them, nor ideas about them. It just means that the Christian doesn't define their relationship with God by what they are managing to avoid, but by what they are doing.

Do you really want to compare Islamic ideas about sin with Christianity's approach, then the only practical way is to see how each would deal with a given issue. I know very little about Islam, you clearly know something as you started by using it as a comparison, so why not continue by picking Islamic sins and seeing if Christians would agree and why they would agree or not?
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.

Straw man. Do this again and we're done. I clearly was saying that God could forgive us as an act of will instead of sending his son to die. I never said anything about replacing repentance and etc.

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.

So you beat up a straw man, and then you leave my question unanswered here. Jesus died to execute our sinful nature, you say. OK. Why not just execute our sinful nature as an act of will?

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.

If you love people, why ignore what they have to say and give them garbage answers?



Why is wages a unit of measurement?

I didn't say that. Re-read.

You earn wages and I earn wages, but they are different amounts, different currencies, but still wages.

But there is still an equivalence of currencies, so we could still be measured against each other.

Wages are what we earn. And we earn 'death' by sinning.

Why? I asked why this is so, and your answer is to assert it?


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).

Doesn't explain anything.

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.

I think you're the one who is confused.

If a person agape loved someone else, they would NEVER just kill themselves. They might sacrifice their life to save another, but the way you have phrased it suggests that is an act of selfishness, not love. So there is absolutely no justification for that statement, nor for seeing it as agape love.

When you're ready to address my points instead of beating up that straw man, do let me know.

Which should indicate to you that there is reason to doubt your interpretation. Indeed the whole point of the Good Samaritan story is to show that your neighbour is the person that needs your help. Every Christian would agree with that, since they are following Christ's example. So the definition as applied by Christians is the correct one. As far as I can tell your definition of neighbour is one that you have obtained for yourself and have tried to tell everyone else that they are wrong. Sorry we Christians have been believing this to be true for 2,000 years... I think we might have a better idea, even if we are not always good at applying it.

We've been over this. You were wrong then, you're wrong now, and 2000 years of Christianity has been wrong on a ton of things.



Not really, I do not know who you are. As far as the internet is concerned you are a masked stranger whom I am unlikely to ever meet. Even the Good Samaritan story is one of someone meeting the needs of the person they met. Now if you really want to see Christians being neighbourly go and look for the homeless in your city or watch street pastors at work, or soup kitchens or those that cross over borders to provide housing or food.

If Christians want to be neighborly, maybe they can start paying their taxes so that they are contributing to emergency services, roads, and etc. You know, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

If you have food, you have shelter, then your needs are being met and you are unlikely to come across Christians at work, but they are there. If you have spiritual needs you could go to a church and you might find them met (some churches would and some wouldn't).

Big wigs in the Vatican have $30K entrees, but hey... they make sure no one starves to death at least.

Firstly there is no way on these threads that you could ever feel agape. You don't feel it, you experience it. And on these threads people can only offer you explanations when you need them... which many have done and you have rejected them.

I said it's rare for Christians to express agape love. Don't twist it around to what I'm feeling.

They should be loving you, but they don't have to like you and let's face it you do seem to go out of your way to be unlikeable, which I actually think is quite sad.

Perhaps give me reasonable answers, and in cases where you can't simply say, "I don't know." But no, you and all Christians just keep giving me garbage answers or else outright lie. Sorry, I get aggravated.

I don't think I lack the perspective of seeing how Christians treat outsiders, I see it every day: they treat them as individuals, not as some corporate mob. That is not to say everyone does that, but that is hardly surprising. Becoming a Christian is not some magical formula where we are suddenly like Jesus, it is a process in which we are being transformed to be more like Jesus, and some are further along in their transformation than others.

How far along in the process before a Christian starts being honest when discussing the weak points of their religion?

If your only experience of Christians is unkindness, then I'd say you are not looking hard enough or only looking at what you want to see.

I said 1/10 Christians express agape love. I think we're done talking. Clearly you're not paying attention. I'm ending this conversation. Help yourself to the final word. Or not. I literally don't care, and won't read it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
58
Dublin
✟110,146.00
Country
Ireland
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
I said 1/10 Christians express agape love. I think we're done talking. Clearly you're not paying attention. I'm ending this conversation. Help yourself to the final word. Or not. I literally don't care, and won't read it.

Yawn.

You keep threatening to quit, but don't. You argue that there is a straw man argument, but from God is not a list of traits but a thinking, reasoning being. By definition then, there are reasons why he does or doesn't do something. If you want simple arguments it would go something like this:

Me: God can forgive all sins.
You: Ha!, then why doesn't he just do that?
Me: I could tell you, but then you'd call it a straw man argument.

Try looking at the issue holistically rather than concentrating on the nuts and bolts.

You don't strike me as a person who likes to think through issues. You just want simple answers, but life isn't as simple and Christianity is not simple either. So if you reject any answer because it is not simple, then you are getting a false picture. And that false picture then fuels the thoughts that Christianity doesn't make sense.

It does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oncedeceived
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.



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.



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.



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.



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.
Excellent post.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here are some definitions of sin according to the Bible:
James 4:17
So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.
Romans 3:23
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Mark 7:20-23
And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
1 John 3:4
Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
This one is very important:
Matthew 5:48
You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Perfection is impossible for created beings but when Christ covers our imperfection we stand righteous through His covering before God.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Here are some definitions of sin according to the Bible:
James 4:17
So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.
Romans 3:23
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Mark 7:20-23
And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
1 John 3:4
Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
This one is very important:
Matthew 5:48
You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Perfection is impossible for created beings but when Christ covers our imperfection we stand righteous through His covering before God.

What about torturing and killing an infant? Is that a sin?
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's a simple yes/no question.
It is if you are referring to the actions of an human inflicting torture on an infant as humans as I've said before. So yes, it is a sin to torture an infant for human beings.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It is if you are referring to the actions of an human inflicting torture on an infant as humans as I've said before. So yes, it is a sin to torture an infant for human beings.

OK, so you believe that morality is subjective then?
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But you are clearly trying to say that X is or isn't a sin depending on who does X. Therefore, the morality of X is subject to a condition. That is subjective morality, by definition.
No, I am saying that is a sin for every human in any situation, anywhere and always.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,778
11,593
Space Mountain!
✟1,368,377.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But you are clearly trying to say that X is or isn't a sin depending on who does X. Therefore, the morality of X is subject to a condition. That is subjective morality, by definition.

... it's also to say that X is or isn't a sin depending on who the 'Creator' actually is. It's called, Creation Ethics (like that proposed by Oliver Barclay), as opposed to the tired, overused, and limited ideas pertaining to Divine Command Ethics. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, I am saying that is a sin for every human in any situation, anywhere and always.

I understand that. But it's still, on your view, not an objectively true fact that killing an infant is a sin, or that killing an infant is wrong. So morality is not objective. Thus morality is subjective.

Conversely, if I understand your position correctly, 2+2=4 will always be true no matter who says it, where it's said, or why it's said. There is no set of circumstances in which 2+2=4 can be false, so it is objectively true. Infanticide cannot be described in these terms, according to you, so there is no objective sense in which we can even talk about it.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
... it's also to say that X is or isn't a sin depending on who the 'Creator' actually is. It's called, Creation Ethics (like that proposed by Oliver Barclay), as opposed to the tired, overused, and limited ideas pertaining to Divine Command Ethics. :cool:

OK, thanks for the song and dance. But a simple yes or no would suffice. Is morality objective?
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I understand that. But it's still, on your view, not an objectively true fact that killing an infant is a sin, or that killing an infant is wrong. So morality is not objective. Thus morality is subjective.

Conversely, if I understand your position correctly, 2+2=4 will always be true no matter who says it, where it's said, or why it's said. There is no set of circumstances in which 2+2=4 can be false, so it is objectively true. Infanticide cannot be described in these terms, according to you, so there is no objective sense in which we can even talk about it.
I described it in those terms exactly. There is no set of circumstances in which a human beings can torture an infant or kill one for that matter without it being a sin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I described it in those terms exactly. There is no set of circumstances in which a human beings can torture an infant or kill one for that matter without it being a sin.

Not the exact same terms. 2+2=4 is true no matter who or what says it. A human. A gorilla. Artificial intelligence. Alien life forms. This is what is meant by "objective truth." Infanticide cannot be described in those terms. Right?
 
Upvote 0