Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Sin & sins.

DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 6:54:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The error we Christians must resist is being drawn into arguments regarding sins such as homosexuality etc..

That is putting the cart before the horse; it is Sin that causes sins and Sin must be accepted and dealt with before sins are confronted.

Sin: the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; being our own God.

sins: the endless myriad of thoughts, words and deeds in opposition to GOD's Godhood.

Sin has been dealt with at the cross of Christ, by accepting His deity and His sacrifice we re-enter a relationship with God.

Then the Holy Spirit begins the (often messy) process of washing away our sins.

This is represented by Jesus washing His disciples feet.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 8:02:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I disagree. Tactically speaking, it's better to address sins first. The reason is because it's a lot easier to prove that people commit sins than it is to prove that Adam and Eve ever committed a Sin.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 8:08:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We sin because we're sinners, we're not sinners because we sin.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 8:40:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 8:08:52 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
We sin because we're sinners, we're not sinners because we sin.

Yeah, about like you are an adulterer before you ever have sex, and you are a liar before you ever speak a word. You become a sinner when you sin, just like you become a thief when you steal stuff.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 9:13:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 8:40:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/30/2012 8:08:52 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
We sin because we're sinners, we're not sinners because we sin.

Yeah, about like you are an adulterer before you ever have sex, and you are a liar before you ever speak a word. You become a sinner when you sin, just like you become a thief when you steal stuff.

But, Anna, wouldn't you agree that the reason a person commits adultery or steals is because they first have a desire or inclination to do so? Jesus said that a good tree cannot bear good fruit and a bad tree cannot bear bad fruit. He went on to say that people bring forth whatever is in their heart. The condition of the heart determines the behavior. So I think Paradox is right.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 10:04:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 9:13:50 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 10/30/2012 8:40:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/30/2012 8:08:52 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
We sin because we're sinners, we're not sinners because we sin.

Yeah, about like you are an adulterer before you ever have sex, and you are a liar before you ever speak a word. You become a sinner when you sin, just like you become a thief when you steal stuff.

But, Anna, wouldn't you agree that the reason a person commits adultery or steals is because they first have a desire or inclination to do so? Jesus said that a good tree cannot bear good fruit and a bad tree cannot bear bad fruit. He went on to say that people bring forth whatever is in their heart. The condition of the heart determines the behavior. So I think Paradox is right.

I actually think Jesus said the opposite on the fruit-bearing business. So I think Paradox is wrong. On top of that, backing it up a step and saying that the actual sin occurs in the heart or mind first only helps you temporarily. You get to back it up a bit because when you keep backing up and backing up, you'll come to a time when the mind is not even contemplating sin, and you're stuck again.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 10:36:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 10:04:17 PM, annanicole wrote:
But, Anna, wouldn't you agree that the reason a person commits adultery or steals is because they first have a desire or inclination to do so? Jesus said that a good tree cannot bear good fruit and a bad tree cannot bear bad fruit. He went on to say that people bring forth whatever is in their heart. The condition of the heart determines the behavior. So I think Paradox is right.

I actually think Jesus said the opposite on the fruit-bearing business.

Why do you think he said just the opposite? Is there a textual variant at Matthew 7:18? Is the original wording lost? In the NASB, at least, it says, "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit." In Matthew 12, he gives the same teaching:

Matthew 12:33-34 "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil."

Likewise, in Luke's version we have:

Luke 6:43-45 "For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart."

I don't know of anywhere that Jesus says the opposite.

On top of that, backing it up a step and saying that the actual sin occurs in the heart or mind first only helps you temporarily. You get to back it up a bit because when you keep backing up and backing up, you'll come to a time when the mind is not even contemplating sin, and you're stuck again.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The issue we're discussing is whether we are "sinners" because we sin or whether we sin because we are "sinners." I am arguing that since our actions follow from the condition of our hearts that we sin because we are sinners. The actions are the sin. We ourselves are the sinners. We act because of how we are. It is how we are that results in our actions. So I say we sin because we are sinners.

It may be that the reason we have sinful desires is because of something that lies outside of us. If that's what you mean, then why do you say I'm stuck? Why is that a problem for my view? Why isn't it a problem for yours?

I can only assume you mean to say that if our desires are ultimately the result of things that lie outside of the will, that we cannot be responsible for them, and if we cannot be responsible for them, then having them doesn't mean we are sinners. We can only be sinners if our sinful desires are the result of choice.

But i don't see any reason to believe that, and it seems to me that the alternative is even more problematic. The alternative is that our sinful desires spontaneously came to exist in us for no reason at all (or at least no sufficient reason). Or, you might say that while our sinful desires were determined by factors outside of our will, we are free to act contrary to our sinful desires. In other words, the condition of our hearts does <i>not</i> determine the acts of the will. And since only the acts of the will can be worthy of praise or blame, and the desires that influence (but don't determine) our choices are not result of choice, the desires themselves do not make us sinful.

But that contradicts what Jesus said. Our actions are determined by the condition of our hearts, whether good or bad. Besides that, we <i>are</i> judged by the condition of our hearts, and not merely the choices we make because of them. In fact, the motives we act on are the basis upon which our acts are judged to be good or bad.

And that is agreeable to common sense. If I shove an old lady because I hate old ladies, then I'm worthy of blame. But if I shove an old lady because I want to save her from being hit by a car, then I'm worthy of praise. So the same act can be worthy either of praise or of blame depending on what motive induced me to act. The condition of the heart determines the kind of people we are. Just as a bad tree cannot produce good fruit, so also a bad heart/person cannot produce good actions. So if I sin, then it's because I'm a bad person. Being a bad person is what I mean by being a sinner.

But maybe this is all semantics. If you define a sinner as "one who has committed a sin" or "one who has acted sinfully," then of course you'd be right by definition. Sinning is what makes you a sinner, not the other way around.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 10:55:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 10:36:15 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 10/30/2012 10:04:17 PM, annanicole wrote:
But, Anna, wouldn't you agree that the reason a person commits adultery or steals is because they first have a desire or inclination to do so? Jesus said that a good tree cannot bear good fruit and a bad tree cannot bear bad fruit. He went on to say that people bring forth whatever is in their heart. The condition of the heart determines the behavior. So I think Paradox is right.

I actually think Jesus said the opposite on the fruit-bearing business.

Why do you think he said just the opposite? Is there a textual variant at Matthew 7:18? Is the original wording lost? In the NASB, at least, it says, "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit." In Matthew 12, he gives the same teaching:

Because this is what he said (copied and pasted): "Jesus said that a good tree cannot bear good fruit and a bad tree cannot bear bad fruit." I said Jesus said the opposite, and He did.

Matthew 12:33-34 "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil."

Likewise, in Luke's version we have:

Luke 6:43-45 "For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart."

I don't know of anywhere that Jesus says the opposite.

Again, copied and pasted from Paradox's post: "Jesus said that a good tree cannot bear good fruit and a bad tree cannot bear bad fruit."

On top of that, backing it up a step and saying that the actual sin occurs in the heart or mind first only helps you temporarily. You get to back it up a bit because when you keep backing up and backing up, you'll come to a time when the mind is not even contemplating sin, and you're stuck again.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The issue we're discussing is whether we are "sinners" because we sin or whether we sin because we are "sinners." I am arguing that since our actions follow from the condition of our hearts that we sin because we are sinners. The actions are the sin. We ourselves are the sinners. We act because of how we are. It is how we are that results in our actions. So I say we sin because we are sinners.

Well, you could very well be right until you keep tracing it back. What, in fact, was the first sin that you committed? And if by thought, when did you think it?

It may be that the reason we have sinful desires is because of something that lies outside of us. If that's what you mean, then why do you say I'm stuck? Why is that a problem for my view? Why isn't it a problem for yours?

Actually I was referring more to Paradox because I know he think we are all just born sinners. Hence, the phrase "we sin because we are sinners." That may be true in most cases, i. e. we commit the sin (lie, cheat, steal) because we first sinned by purposing to do it. I'd go along with that. But the first sin, whether in thought or deed, you ever committed was not because you were a sinner.

I can only assume you mean to say that if our desires are ultimately the result of things that lie outside of the will, that we cannot be responsible for them, and if we cannot be responsible for them, then having them doesn't mean we are sinners. We can only be sinners if our sinful desires are the result of choice.

No, I was speaking of his belief in total hereditary depravity - not specifically to what you might believe on the subject, because I do not know.

But i don't see any reason to believe that, and it seems to me that the alternative is even more problematic. The alternative is that our sinful desires spontaneously came to exist in us for no reason at all (or at least no sufficient reason). Or, you might say that while our sinful desires were determined by factors outside of our will, we are free to act contrary to our sinful desires. In other words, the condition of our hearts does <i>not</i> determine the acts of the will. And since only the acts of the will can be worthy of praise or blame, and the desires that influence (but don't determine) our choices are not result of choice, the desires themselves do not make us sinful.

But that contradicts what Jesus said. Our actions are determined by the condition of our hearts, whether good or bad. Besides that, we <i>are</i> judged by the condition of our hearts, and not merely the choices we make because of them. In fact, the motives we act on are the basis upon which our acts are judged to be good or bad.

And that is agreeable to common sense. If I shove an old lady because I hate old ladies, then I'm worthy of blame. But if I shove an old lady because I want to save her from being hit by a car, then I'm worthy of praise. So the same act can be worthy either of praise or of blame depending on what motive induced me to act. The condition of the heart determines the kind of people we are. Just as a bad tree cannot produce good fruit, so also a bad heart/person cannot produce good actions. So if I sin, then it's because I'm a bad person. Being a bad person is what I mean by being a sinner.

But maybe this is all semantics. If you define a sinner as "one who has committed a sin" or "one who has acted sinfully," then of course you'd be right by definition. Sinning is what makes you a sinner, not the other way around.

Again, I was addressing his belief that a 1-minute-old infant is a sinner. In fact, he thinks it was a sinner in the womb. And a week earlier. And a week earlier. I don't know how far back he'd go.

My position is that an infant is born safe and at some point, either by thought or deed, sins due to human weakness, external influences, ignorance, or whatever. But I do not believe an infant was born as a completely, hereditarily depraved being.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Suqua
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 11:51:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 6:54:38 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
The error we Christians must resist is being drawn into arguments regarding sins such as homosexuality etc..
I agree!
That is putting the cart before the horse; it is Sin that causes sins and Sin must be accepted and dealt with before sins are confronted.

Are you saying we sin because the whole head is sick?

Sin: the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; being our own God.

sins: the endless myriad of thoughts, words and deeds in opposition to GOD's Godhood.

Sin has been dealt with at the cross of Christ, by accepting His deity and His sacrifice we re-enter a relationship with God.

Then the Holy Spirit begins the (often messy) process of washing away our sins.

This is represented by Jesus washing His disciples feet.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 11:02:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 8:40:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 10/30/2012 8:08:52 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
We sin because we're sinners, we're not sinners because we sin.

Yeah, about like you are an adulterer before you ever have sex, and you are a liar before you ever speak a word. You become a sinner when you sin, just like you become a thief when you steal stuff.

No, we are born into Sin, spiritually disconnected from God: dead.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 11:04:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 8:02:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
I disagree. Tactically speaking, it's better to address sins first. The reason is because it's a lot easier to prove that people commit sins than it is to prove that Adam and Eve ever committed a Sin.

Sins against who? Unless we first address whose morality we are obeying or disobeying it is a mute point..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 11:08:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 11:51:27 PM, Suqua wrote:
At 10/30/2012 6:54:38 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
The error we Christians must resist is being drawn into arguments regarding sins such as homosexuality etc..
I agree!
That is putting the cart before the horse; it is Sin that causes sins and Sin must be accepted and dealt with before sins are confronted.

Are you saying we sin because the whole head is sick?

Sin: the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; being our own God.

sins: the endless myriad of thoughts, words and deeds in opposition to GOD's Godhood.

Sin has been dealt with at the cross of Christ, by accepting His deity and His sacrifice we re-enter a relationship with God.

Then the Holy Spirit begins the (often messy) process of washing away our sins.

This is represented by Jesus washing His disciples feet.

Sin is being our own God; unless we then act differently to the way God would want us to (our sins) we would not be our own God, He would be..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 12:29:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 11:04:25 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 10/30/2012 8:02:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
I disagree. Tactically speaking, it's better to address sins first. The reason is because it's a lot easier to prove that people commit sins than it is to prove that Adam and Eve ever committed a Sin.

Sins against who? Unless we first address whose morality we are obeying or disobeying it is a mute point..

I don't agree. All that's required to know that you have sinned is to know that you've violated some standard of morality. You can know right from wrong without knowing where it comes from, so you can know that you have sinned without knowing who you have sinned against.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 12:31:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 11:04:25 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
Sins against who? Unless we first address whose morality we are obeying or disobeying it is a mute point..


Against God.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 4:31:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 12:29:36 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 10/31/2012 11:04:25 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 10/30/2012 8:02:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
I disagree. Tactically speaking, it's better to address sins first. The reason is because it's a lot easier to prove that people commit sins than it is to prove that Adam and Eve ever committed a Sin.

Sins against who? Unless we first address whose morality we are obeying or disobeying it is a mute point..

I don't agree. All that's required to know that you have sinned is to know that you've violated some standard of morality. You can know right from wrong without knowing where it comes from, so you can know that you have sinned without knowing who you have sinned against.

Who's standard? Which morality? Because the morality pre 1960's is very different to now.. And so our morality becomes subjective and ever changing..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 4:36:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 4:31:11 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:29:36 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 10/31/2012 11:04:25 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 10/30/2012 8:02:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
I disagree. Tactically speaking, it's better to address sins first. The reason is because it's a lot easier to prove that people commit sins than it is to prove that Adam and Eve ever committed a Sin.

Sins against who? Unless we first address whose morality we are obeying or disobeying it is a mute point..

I don't agree. All that's required to know that you have sinned is to know that you've violated some standard of morality. You can know right from wrong without knowing where it comes from, so you can know that you have sinned without knowing who you have sinned against.

Who's standard? Which morality? Because the morality pre 1960's is very different to now.. And so our morality becomes subjective and ever changing..


God's standard is unchanging.

37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 4:50:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 4:36:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 10/31/2012 4:31:11 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 10/31/2012 12:29:36 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 10/31/2012 11:04:25 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 10/30/2012 8:02:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
I disagree. Tactically speaking, it's better to address sins first. The reason is because it's a lot easier to prove that people commit sins than it is to prove that Adam and Eve ever committed a Sin.

Sins against who? Unless we first address whose morality we are obeying or disobeying it is a mute point..

I don't agree. All that's required to know that you have sinned is to know that you've violated some standard of morality. You can know right from wrong without knowing where it comes from, so you can know that you have sinned without knowing who you have sinned against.

Who's standard? Which morality? Because the morality pre 1960's is very different to now.. And so our morality becomes subjective and ever changing..


God's standard is unchanging.

37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

That's my point, subjective morality (like Hitlers) is no morality at all; it must be objective, exist outside and independently of man: GOD.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)