The "You're Trying to Justify Sin" Trump Card

[Tetra]

This is another classic, this generally arises when someone disagrees with your position, and is tossed out there like a haymaker... only it's weak and not really relevant.

I've generally only seen this is relation to conversations regarding sex. I mean, it could be used in other ways, but I haven't seen it.

Common usage:
Steve: "What do you think the Bible says about premarital sex?"
Bob: "I think it says it's wrong."
Steve: "I've been reading a lot and I'm not to sure I agree..."
Bob: "You're just trying to justify sin!"

Here's the problem, in order to "justify sin", you need to actually agree that the thing you're talking about is in fact a sin. If the action isn't a sin, it need not justification! The entire trump card hinges on this presupposition.

Have you ever wondered why this is only used when discussing sex? I mean, I've never said to my friend, "what do you think the Bible means when it says thou shalt not kill? What about self defense?" and had the response be, "you're trying to justify killing someone!". By some sort of magic this argument seems impervious to any other application.

 

[Tree of Life]

You still haven't given me an answer to the seventh commandment. What do you think that "you shall not commit adultery" means? And do you think that sex outside of marriage violates this command?

 

[Tetra]

You still haven't given me an answer to the seventh commandment. What do you think that "you shall not commit adultery" means? And do you think that sex outside of marriage violates this command?

That's due to the fact I said I'd think on it. That however couldn't be any more off topic on this thread, and nor was this thread directed at you specifically.

 

[CrystalDragon]

You still haven't given me an answer to the seventh commandment. What do you think that "you shall not commit adultery" means? And do you think that sex outside of marriage violates this command?

What about polygamy?

 

[Tetra]

What about polygamy?

Polygamy is interesting because it's still within the confines of marriage, what really blows my mind are concubines. What's going on there?? lol Christians always skip the concubines.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Polygamy interesting because it's still within the confines of marriage, what really blows my mind are concubines. What's going on there?? lol Christians always skip the concubines.

Either that or they don't know about the concubines.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Polygamy is interesting because it's still within the confines of marriage, what really blows my mind are concubines. What's going on there?? lol Christians always skip the concubines.

I wouldn't say that I "skipped" the concubines, it was more like I was outnumbered in votes by my wife ... Oh, well!

 

[High Fidelity]

It may be an oversimplification, but it isn't always wrong.

 

[CrystalDragon]

I wouldn't say that I "skipped" the concubines, it was more like I was outnumbered in votes by my wife ... Oh, well!

Okay I admit, I laughed at that.

It may be an oversimplification, but it isn't always wrong.

But if morals are meant to be absolute, why is it sometimes wrong and not other times?

 

[Tetra]

Okay I admit, I laughed at that.




But if morals are meant to be absolute, why is it sometimes wrong and not other times?

Concubines are odd in Christendom. They're random women who live with me, that aren't my wife, who I just get to have sex with... and yet the Bible makes no indication this is a sin. Your question is warranted, if morals are absolute, how do Christian's reconcile this issue?

 

[CrystalDragon]

Concubines are odd in Christendom. They're random women who live with me, that aren't my wife, who I just get to have sex with... and yet the Bible makes no indication this is a sin. Your question is warranted, if morals are absolute, how do Christian's reconcile this issue?

Finally, someone gets it! It's like "It's a absolutely a sin to have sex with a woman outside of your marriage (if you have multiple wives that's fine), no exceptions... oh wait, you have a concubine? Which is the same thing? Well if you're calling them a concubine and not just a random woman than it's PERFECTLY okay".

 

[High Fidelity]

Okay I admit, I laughed at that.




But if morals are meant to be absolute, why is it sometimes wrong and not other times?

My point was that there are two ways of going about it. Someone may simply be overly dogmatic, suggesting that their sound bite statement is the extent of their argument and understanding, but someone may actually be making that albeit oversimplified statement from a reasoned position they consider to both be backed up by Scripture as well as able to back it up if pressed, because it's true, some people really do bend over backwards to try and justify their sins.

 

[Tetra]

My point was that there are two ways of going about it. Someone may simply be overly dogmatic, suggesting that their sound bite statement is the extent of their argument and understanding, but someone may actually be making that albeit oversimplified statement from a reasoned position they consider to both be backed up by Scripture as well as able to back it up if pressed, because it's true, some people really do bend over backwards to try and justify their sins.

Of course sometimes people know something is wrong, yet choose to try and justify the action regardless.

This is different however, when the parties disagree over if something is a sin in the first place, which is what I'm referring to in the original post. You do not need to justify not sinning, that wouldn't make sense.

 

[High Fidelity]

Of course sometimes people know something is wrong, yet choose to try and justify the action regardless.

This is different however, when the parties disagree over if something is a sin in the first place, which is what I'm referring to in the original post. You do not need to justify not sinning, that wouldn't make sense.

Yes but I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider such prolonged abstinence from a faith grounded in the authority of Scripture to follow one's own path and desires could lead someone to believe something that's sin -- that is, something black and white, in the Bible and unequivocally and inescapably sin unless one abandons the authority of Scripture entirely -- is not actually sin.

So I think it can still be a relevant statement because conversely it doesn't matter whether or not someone considers their actions to be righteous if they are, in fact, unrighteous. Granted, God will be the judge, but some things are plain enough for even our minds to determine as wrong.

This is something that seeps in to other areas of faith, too. Asking someone "what does this passage means to you" is another example. We shouldn't care what it means to them, we should care about what it says and I think with that in mind, stating someone's simply trying to justify sin is not at all removed from being reasonable when truth remains truth whether or not the person is ignorant to it or not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Concubines are odd in Christendom. They're random women who live with me, that aren't my wife, who I just get to have sex with... and yet the Bible makes no indication this is a sin. Your question is warranted, if morals are absolute, how do Christian's reconcile this issue?

Yep. The Bible doesn't specifically say having a concubine (or two, or three, or ....) was a sin. But, neither does it recommend it, nor does it show it as a common social factor for most men. In fact, if we do an honest survey of the bible, looking for all the concubines, we'll probably find that there are certain types of individuals who actually had concubines.

 

[Tetra]

Yes but I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider such prolonged abstinence from a faith grounded in the authority of Scripture to follow one's own path and desires could lead someone to believe something that's sin -- that is, something black and white, in the Bible and unequivocally and inescapably sin unless one abandons the authority of Scripture entirely -- is not actually sin.

So I think it can still be a relevant statement because conversely it doesn't matter whether or not someone considers their actions to be righteous if they are, in fact, unrighteous. Granted, God will be the judge, but some things are plain enough for even our minds to determine as wrong.

This is something that seeps in to other areas of faith, too. Asking someone "what does this passage means to you" is another example. We shouldn't care what it means to them, we should care about what it says and I think with that in mind, stating someone's simply trying to justify sin is not at all removed from being reasonable when truth remains truth whether or not the person is ignorant to it or not.

Not advocating relativism, truth exists. However, making claims to know that truth with certainty when dealing with texts of antiquity can become problematic in my opinion. So generally, when asked questions regarding the Bible, I personally prefer saying this is what I "think" it's saying. If you look at any of my posts, I'm very careful with my words, and make very few claims... unless say, dealing with logic.

 

[Tetra]

Yep. The Bible doesn't specifically say having a concubine (or two, or three, or ....) was a sin. But, neither does it recommend it, nor does it show it as a common social factor for most men. In fact, if we do an honest survey of the bible, looking for all the concubines, we'll probably find that there are certain types of individuals who actually had concubines.

Yes, I agree. Also, most people in my experience trying to prove it's a sin, have to draw off other areas of the Bible. It also tends to be mostly conjecture.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, I agree. Also, most people in my experience trying to prove it's a sin, have to draw off other areas of the Bible. It also tends to be mostly conjecture.

In the case of Solomon, it was a "sin" problem, as were his many wives. The funny thing is, we have no indication that the multitudinous wives and concubines whom Solomon had were in any way "sweet and pious Jewish women." They were more or less foreign "floozies."

So, it was bad enough that Solomon broke God's ruling regarding wives (and by proxy concubines) which God established beforehand for Israelite kings, Solomon also went ahead and took all of the foreign sexual gusto he could get.

 

[Tetra]

In the case of Solomon, it was a "sin" problem, as were his many wives. The funny thing is, we have no indication that the multitudinous wives and concubines whom Solomon had were in any way "sweet and pious Jewish women." They were more or less foreign "floozies."

So, it was bad enough that Solomon broke God's ruling regarding wives (and by proxy concubines) which God established beforehand for Israelite kings, Solomon also went ahead and took all of the foreign sexual gusto he could get.

So with concubines, are you saying it's not the act itself that's the sin, rather what was established for Israelite kings?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So with concubines, are you saying it's not the act itself that's the sin, rather what was established for Israelite kings?

Well, as it appears in the Old Testament, it might not be a full fledged sin for a common man to have a second wife or even an "institutionalized" Jewish concubine (I say "institutionalized" because we not talking about a Hugh Hefner Playboy Mansion Party--except in the case of Solomon), but even if we can say that, there are numerous social and spiritual complications which remain, not the least of which is the fact that the Bible does begin with a story indicating that God brought "one" woman to "one" man. And in the several instances in which we find men in the Bible harboring some concubines and multiple wives, there is typically some contextual indication in each instance that there was ... "a problem."