In the masturbation thread and in others the point has indirectly been made that in order to be sin, a given action must harm someone, either the person doing the act or someone else. Can anyone show me were it says in scripture, either explicitly or by implication, that harm must be cause in order for something to be a sin?
-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
What is sin?
- Thread starter chaz345
- Start date
Romans 13:8-10
If acting out of love is the fulfillment of the law, then to act unloving is a sin.
Intentionally causing harm is the same as acting unloving.
If acting out of love is the fulfillment of the law, then to act unloving is a sin.
Intentionally causing harm is the same as acting unloving.
Upvote
0
That says that acting unloving is a sin. It doesn't say that in order to be sin, one must be acting unloving(causing harm) does it?
The other possibility(actually quite probable IMO) is that there is harm in some actions that we cannot possibly see, and that taking God's word for it that we shouldn't do it is probably a better idea that to think that we know better than Him.
Upvote
0
So doesn't loving God mean that we would follow His direction as to what is and isn't sin, even if we can't see the harm in the given action?
Upvote
0
Yes, we should follow the Will of God, if we don't perceive any harm on our actions.
Problem is, Will of God according to who?
there are tons of way of interpreting the Bible. Even inside the same denomination, going to the same church room, two people may desagree - and both feel sincerelly with the company of the Holy Spirit.
For me, the direction, the Will of God, is within the parable of the good samaritan and in James' quote on my signature. And in Jesus' Statement that, when we do for the hungry, the sick, the needed, we are doing in His Behalf.
Is this fullfillment of the "Love God" part? I don't know. But I think, at least, is a good start. God's Law of Love afect each one of us in a different way - who can say one is right, and other is wrong?
Upvote
0
The problem with that is that our perception and the perception of the person being acted upon may be different. Who gets to decide?
But more to the point I was trying to raise in the OP it is entirely possible that that which appears to be harmless has negative effects that we can't see or understand. IOW, at some point "God said so" has to be a good enough answer to the question of what is sin. Consider the case of a small child and a parent. There are many restrictions that the parent places that the child cannot even conceptualize the possible harm in breaking them.
Upvote
0
Actually it does.
You see if there's only one law then breaking that law is the only sin.
In Romans it clearly states that nothing else matters except this law. All other laws(including the 1st commandment) fall under it.
Acting out of love is the only thing that matters. You're right we can't always know the harm in our actions. All we can do is examine our motives and make sure we're acting out of loving intent. Of course being purposely negligent wouldn't be acting out of loving intention.
When someone says "cause no harm" they mean act with the intention to cause the least amount of aggregate harm in every situation. This is the same thing as saying always act out of love.
Romans 13:10 "Love does no wrong to a neighbor"
Romans clearly links the two.
Upvote
0
Sin is failure to follow the commandments of Jesus. He commanded us to love. Failure to love is sin. Romans 14 does indicate that if we think something is wrong, it is wrong for us to do that although it might not have been wrong if we had not thought it was wrong.
Upvote
0
- Mar 1, 2006
- 14,765
- 607
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
All sin hurts someone. It hurts God.
The definition of "sin" is "missing the mark". In this case, the mark is that which God calls us to (perfection) and sin is missing that mark (not achieving perfection). Thus, we all sin, we all have sinned, and we all hurt God.
Rachel
The definition of "sin" is "missing the mark". In this case, the mark is that which God calls us to (perfection) and sin is missing that mark (not achieving perfection). Thus, we all sin, we all have sinned, and we all hurt God.
Rachel
Upvote
0
Suppose a certain person earns $2000 per month. The ruler of his country levies a flat tax of $2500 per month, making this person a criminal. Who is at fault here, our hero, for failing to pay the legally imposed tax, or the government, for imposing an impossible expectation and then punishing everyone who fails to meet it?
How is this different from condemning everyone in the world on the basis of an unnatainable "mark"?
Upvote
0
"perfection" is way too ambiguous.
Christ tells us very clearly how to act as I've stated above.
Upvote
0
- Mar 1, 2006
- 14,765
- 607
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Ah, but what if the aforementioned ruler then provided the $2500 per month for everyone, if they would only ask him? Remember, God did this for us, and we need only ask for His help.
Rachel
Rachel
Upvote
0
Good question. From my understanding of doctrine though, it would be more accurate to say that the ruler would wave the tax if you ask him instead of providing the payment (forgiveness). Either way this is a circular action, with no apparent reason. Why would anyone impose a tax that cannot be met and then not collext with a wave a their hand? Why would a deity threaten damnation for no fault that the victim can help, and then forgive the sin? This is not the action of a just, good, loving god (or ruler). It is the action of a vain, jealous god (or ruler), arbitrarily creating a reason for subservience. Which links well with the old testament, but not modern doctrine.
Upvote
0
I agree entirely.
What I was getting at with the OP is that there seems to be a not insignificant number of people who believe that an action is only sin if it causes tangible,understandable harm to another person.
Upvote
0
- Mar 1, 2006
- 14,765
- 607
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Actually, God created us perfect, without sin but with the capacity for it. We had to have capacity for it, or our obedience, love, etc. would be meaningless (w/o choice). Man chose to sin. God's standard could not change, but He could give us a way to be redeemed.
Rachel
Rachel
Upvote
0
MoonlessNight
Fides et Ratio
- Sep 16, 2003
- 10,217
- 3,523
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
The implicit question is what is harm?
For instance it would be true that every sin hurts the sinner because they weaken the relationship between the sinner and God, and because they strengthen habits that will make further immoral behavior seem more attractive (vices).
But often the "anti-harmists" wouldn't properly consider that harm. And they shouldn't, because it makes harm a result of sin and not a qualifying condition for it. If they considered that type of harm harm then they'd be forced to say nothing more than "sins are sins."
So what is harm, exactly? Is it a pain? A destruction of something? Is removing some potential benefit a harm?
Another question which I think varies among people with that belief is whether harm to yourself is wrong or not.
For instance it would be true that every sin hurts the sinner because they weaken the relationship between the sinner and God, and because they strengthen habits that will make further immoral behavior seem more attractive (vices).
But often the "anti-harmists" wouldn't properly consider that harm. And they shouldn't, because it makes harm a result of sin and not a qualifying condition for it. If they considered that type of harm harm then they'd be forced to say nothing more than "sins are sins."
So what is harm, exactly? Is it a pain? A destruction of something? Is removing some potential benefit a harm?
Another question which I think varies among people with that belief is whether harm to yourself is wrong or not.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
