PDA

View Full Version : Hate the sin or the sinner?



eccl3_6
July 15th, 2005, 02:06 PM
#1
Should you hate the sin but love the sinner.
Or
Hate the sinner until they repent.


#2.
Define sin.

defcon
July 15th, 2005, 02:13 PM
#1
Should you hate the sin but love the sinner.
Or
Hate the sinner until they repent.


#2.
Define sin.
#1 - Hate the sin but love the sinner

#2 - Any act or thought that does not meet the standard, which is God's holiness.

Knight
July 15th, 2005, 02:15 PM
#1
Should you hate the sin but love the sinner.
Or
Hate the sinner until they repent.


#2.
Define sin.
The term "hate the sin, love the sinner" isn't biblical or rational.

intro2faith
July 15th, 2005, 02:18 PM
#1
[B]Should you hate the sin but love the sinner.
Or
Hate the sinner until they repent.
Hate the sin, love the sinner. And if that doesn't work...THEN hate them both! Just kidding, just kidding. ;)

eccl3_6
July 15th, 2005, 02:20 PM
The term "hate the sin, love the sinner" isn't biblical or rational.

Its not irrational and whether or not its biblical is irrelevant.

Are you 'hate the sinner until they repent' then?


Defcon
#2 - Any act or thought that does not meet the standard, which is God's holiness.

Surely then most acts don't meet the standard of God's Holiness. If any. Does this mean everything is sinful...that can't be right surely?

defcon
July 15th, 2005, 02:29 PM
Surely then most acts don't meet the standard of God's Holiness. If any. Does this mean everything is sinful...that can't be right surely?
Well, I'm sure most people wouldn't say so, but I believe man is completely depraved- in other words unable to do good on their own. The Bible states that we are slaves - either to sin or to righteousness. We can't be slaves to righteousness unless God plays the active part in rescuing man from our depravity and then enables good works through the Spirit. Our very nature is sinful and therefore anything but holy.

intro2faith
July 15th, 2005, 02:32 PM
The term "hate the sin, love the sinner" isn't biblical or rational.
Do you have any verses to support that? Just wondering...cause I've heard a few people here say that.

And what about those verses that say to love your enemies?

Knight
July 15th, 2005, 02:34 PM
Its not irrational and whether or not its biblical is irrelevant.Actually it is irrational.

Sin, is not something you can separate from the sinner. Sin exists because someone sins. Without a sinner there is no such thing as sin.

It would be like saying...

Prosecute the crime NOT the criminal.

Knight
July 15th, 2005, 02:36 PM
Do you have any verses to support that? Just wondering...cause I've heard a few people here say that.

And what about those verses that say to love your enemies?We should indeed love our enemies.

Yet it isn't loving to be tolerant of sin. God says being tolerant of our neighbors sin is TRULY hateful.

‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. - Leviticus 19:17

intro2faith
July 15th, 2005, 02:36 PM
Actually it is irrational.

Sin, is not something you can separate from the sinner. Sin exists because someone sins. Without a sinner there is no such thing as sin.

It would be like saying...

Prosecute the crime NOT the criminal.
Not exactly...because you could still love the criminal, but still prosecute him.

intro2faith
July 15th, 2005, 02:37 PM
We should indeed love our enemies.

Yet it isn't loving to be tolerant of sin. God says being tolerant of our neighbors sin is TRULY hateful.

‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. - Leviticus 19:17
Love doesn't = being tolerant. We can still rebuke the sinner, but love them and want the best for them.

Ninjashadow
July 15th, 2005, 02:39 PM
Actually it is irrational.

Sin, is not something you can separate from the sinner. Sin exists because someone sins. Without a sinner there is no such thing as sin.

It would be like saying...

Prosecute the crime NOT the criminal.

Perhaps I'm getting into symantics, but "prosecute" is an action whereas "love" is a feeling. I realize that in the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" love could be seen as being an action, but love itself is a feeling. My point is that the analogy does not work in that case.

defcon
July 15th, 2005, 02:41 PM
Actually it is irrational.

Sin, is not something you can separate from the sinner. Sin exists because someone sins. Without a sinner there is no such thing as sin.

It would be like saying...

Prosecute the crime NOT the criminal.
So this position leaves either hating the sinner or loving sin. So which one is it?

I can hate the actions of my brother without hating my brother. There is a difference because it is an internal state of mind - not an outward action. Obviously I can't prosecute only my brother's act without prosecuting my brother himself. Apples and oranges.

Knight
July 15th, 2005, 02:43 PM
Not exactly...because you could still love the criminal, but still prosecute him.Now your mixing metaphors.

I said that the TERM "Hate the sin love the sinner"

Would be similar to the TERM "Prosecute the crime NOT the criminal."

"Prosecute the crime NOT the criminal." demonstrates the irrationality of that type of a term.

eccl3_6
July 15th, 2005, 02:48 PM
Actually it is irrational.

Sin, is not something you can separate from the sinner. Sin exists because someone sins. Without a sinner there is no such thing as sin.

It would be like saying...

Prosecute the crime NOT the criminal.

But we're not saying prosecute...we're saying hate and the comparison doesn't carry.

Prosecute the criminal but don't hate him...hate the crime.

I may hate being punched, but I don't hate the boxer that hits me.
I may hate crashing my car, but I don't hate the person who crashes into me.

It is very easy to wrap the perpetrator in the sin but they are different. One is responsible for the act the other is the act itself.....ergo they can be seperated, I've just done it, and it is not irrational.

eccl3_6
July 15th, 2005, 02:52 PM
There is a difference because it is an internal state of mind - not an outward action.

This is what I was trying to say in my previous post, but Defcon said it far better


Hate is an emotion......prosecution is an act. The comparison wasn't valid.

eccl3_6
July 15th, 2005, 03:19 PM
So having settled that, "Should you 'hate the sin but love the sinner' or 'hate the sinner until they repent'." is a rational question what is the general concensus? Hate the sin but love the sinner?

Is hate to be confined to acts or can we extend it to manifestations.

I am trying to establish parameters for hate.... is it ever acceptable to hate physicality, not just only action i.e. the sin

Agape4Robin
July 15th, 2005, 03:24 PM
So having settled that, "Should you 'hate the sin but love the sinner' or 'hate the sinner until they repent'." is a rational question what is the general concensus? Hate the sin but love the sinner?

Is hate to be confined to acts or can we extend it to manifestations.

I am trying to establish parameters for hate.... is it ever acceptable to hate physicality, not just only action i.e. the sin
You can still hate the sin and yet not embrace the sinner.......meaning you don't have to be their best friend.

Everglaze
July 15th, 2005, 03:25 PM
#1
Should you hate the sin but love the sinner.
Or
Hate the sinner until they repent.


#2.
Define sin.


1. The "hate the sin but love the sinner" isn't biblical...

If the sinner continues in their ways of sinning, it is hateful in its entirety. Although, you are supposed to love everyone, sin occurs from the heart of the sinner and thus, because the sinner is so contaminated with sin (which we hate)...there's disapproval. God sends those who have not repented to Hell, not because he hates them...but because he hates sin and the sinner took sin with him, aligning himself with something God despises. That in its entirety becomes objectional. There is the Godly wrath which substitutes for Godly "hate" if you want to call it that. That hate is the righteous hate, which hates sin. Sin starts from the heart and pollutes the entire sinner, and because of that, there is no cleanliness. That is why through Christ, the sinner is cleansed. It's a rather complicated matter.

2. Sin is disobedience towards God. Sin is anything that revolves around selfishness.

monochrome
July 15th, 2005, 03:41 PM
It would be like saying...
Prosecute the crime NOT the criminal.

Awesome. I'd never thought of it that way, but that's the wittiest thing I've read all day. I guess that measn I live under a rock though.

Anyway, my view is "Hate none, but defend life with death." That's about as open a philosophy as I can possibly imagine. Guess I need to add another rule or two.

- m -

eccl3_6
July 15th, 2005, 04:01 PM
Thanks for the reply :thumb:


1. The "hate the sin but love the sinner" isn't biblical...

Like intro2faith says what about those verses about love thy enemy?

Biblical or otherwise though....



If the sinner continues in their ways of sinning, it is hateful in its entirety. What the sinning or the actual sinner?




Although, you are supposed to love everyone, sin occurs from the heart of the sinner and thus, because the sinner is so contaminated with sin (which we hate)...there's disapproval.

We disapprove but we don't hate, we should rebute an unrepentent sinner but we do not hate them. Is this what you are saying?



2. Sin is disobedience towards God. Sin is anything that revolves around selfishness.
Good Answer!.......Is all sin rooted in selfishness?

eccl3_6
July 15th, 2005, 04:19 PM
And so allowing the discussion to mature...

#A Is it ever acceptable to hate physicality, not just only action? i.e. the sin (rebuttal not being hate)

#B Is all sin rooted in selfishness?

Knight
July 15th, 2005, 04:34 PM
Like intro2faith says what about those verses about love thy enemy?Maybe true love doesn't look like acceptance or apathy. :think:

eccl3_6
July 15th, 2005, 04:43 PM
Maybe true love doesn't look like acceptance or apathy. :think:

Exactly! In answering #A we must consider; what do you think limits true love? Do you think love can be expressed as a 'hateful action'. Does sin limit love and how it can be expressed? Must the expression of Love be truthful to itself, that a loving sentiment leads to a loving action?



#A Is it ever acceptable to hate physicality, not just only action? i.e. the sin (rebuttal not being hate)

#B Is all sin rooted in selfishness?

Balder
July 15th, 2005, 05:06 PM
I already took a shot at this topic:

Hating the Sinner (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20180)

Pretty similar responses.



Some things you can just count on, I guess!

defcon
July 15th, 2005, 05:38 PM
Why so quick to accept the answer that "all sin is rooted is selfishness." Did I not state what sin was and explain it earlier? Any reason why you disregard my explanation (without offering a rebuttal) for this one?

eccl3_6
July 15th, 2005, 05:49 PM
Cheers for the heads-up Balder....this will save a lot of time!

Thankyou.

BALDER CLEAR SOME MAIL FROM YOUR MAILBOX.....NOBODY CAN PM YOU!

eccl3_6
July 15th, 2005, 05:53 PM
Why so quick to accept the answer that "all sin is rooted is selfishness." Did I not state what sin was and explain it earlier? Any reason why you disregard my explanation (without offering a rebuttal) for this one?

Not at all. I actually thought yours was a strong point, strongly made! I wanted clarification on all sin being rooted in selfishness because it was slightly more ambiguous.

But to take up your line......it seemed you were suggesting that pretty much everything was sinful as it didnt match up to His Holiness. Am I right?

defcon
July 15th, 2005, 06:02 PM
Not at all. I actually thought yours was a strong point, strongly made! I wanted clarification on all sin being rooted in selfishness because it was slightly more ambiguous.

But to take up your line......it seemed you were suggesting that pretty much everything was sinful as it didnt match up to His Holiness. Am I right?
Thanks for the explanation. ;)

And yes, you are correct in as much that anything from ourselves (human nature) is worthless and sinful. However, actions wrought by God's Spirit through us of course are not sinful. I don't think you were implying differently, but I wanted to clarify.

beefalobilly
July 15th, 2005, 06:04 PM
Maybe true love doesn't look like acceptance or apathy. :think:

Tough love still isn't hate though. My friends and family sin everyday but I don't hate them. If it's impossible to separate the sin from the sinner (hate the sin not the sinner), then it would be impossible to love anyone.

eccl3_6
July 15th, 2005, 06:07 PM
Thanks for the explanation. ;)

And yes, you are correct in as much that anything from ourselves (human nature) is worthless and sinful. However, actions wrought by God's Spirit through us of course are not sinful. I don't think you were implying differently, but I wanted to clarify.

Are all sins equal....or some more heinous than others. I suspect a sin against the Holy Spirit is worse than say a sin against another person or am I wrong. Is sin, sin regardless and all sin is equal?

This isn't a trick question I'm finding where people stand before I propose a discussion regarding this.

eccl3_6
July 15th, 2005, 06:11 PM
Tough love still isn't hate though. My friends and family sin everyday but I don't hate them. If it's impossible to separate the sin from the sinner (hate the sin not the sinner), then it would be impossible to love anyone.

GOOD ANSWER - What is tough love though? When does tough love become a hateful act? What Im really asking is how far can you take tough love?.....can I kill someone, hit them, rebute them, deny them something, even force myself to hate them in the name of love?

Knight
July 15th, 2005, 06:20 PM
Are all sins equal....or some more heinous than others. I suspect a sin against the Holy Spirit is worse than say a sin against another person or am I wrong. Is sin, sin regardless and all sin is equal?

This isn't a trick question I'm finding where people stand before I propose a discussion regarding this.God makes it CLEAR all sin is NOT EQUAL.

defcon
July 15th, 2005, 06:21 PM
Are all sins equal....or some more heinous than others. I suspect a sin against the Holy Spirit is worse than say a sin against another person or am I wrong. Is sin, sin regardless and all sin is equal?

This isn't a trick question I'm finding where people stand before I propose a discussion regarding this.All sin is equal. Speeding on your way to work is the same as murder in God's eyes. The sin against the Holy Spirit is one of the most discussed but I believe there are only two ways to view it in light of Scripture

1) It is a sin that can never again be committed. The Pharisees accused Jesus of being Satanic when He drove the demon out of the man. Here they had irrefutable proof that He was God and still denied it. Since Christ is not in the world as He was then, this "unpardonable sin" can't be committed.
2) This unpardonable sin is the state of unbelief through life and death of an individual. This, of course, will not be forgiven, only those in Christ will be forgiven.

Either way, this "sin" does not affect the gospel message.

Knight
July 15th, 2005, 06:22 PM
I already took a shot at this topic:

Hating the Sinner (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20180)

Pretty similar responses.

Some things you can just count on, I guess!Uh, what is that supposed to mean? Is that supposed to be some sort of jab at folks for maintaining their position on a given issue? Would it be better that we change our stance every time we are asked a similar question?

defcon
July 15th, 2005, 06:24 PM
God makes it CLEAR all sin is NOT EQUAL.Not equal on this earth? Ok, I'll buy that since there are different consequences for sin here on this earth listed throughout the Bible. However, from an eternal perspective - the punishment for "lesser" sin and "big" sins are the same - separation from God and eternal torment.

Knight
July 15th, 2005, 06:28 PM
All sin is equal. Speeding on your way to work is the same as murder in God's eyes. The sin against the Holy Spirit is one of the most discussed but I believe there are only two ways to view it in light of Scripture

1) It is a sin that can never again be committed. The Pharisees accused Jesus of being Satanic when He drove the demon out of the man. Here they had irrefutable proof that He was God and still denied it. Since Christ is not in the world as He was then, this "unpardonable sin" can't be committed.
2) This unpardonable sin is the state of unbelief through life and death of an individual. This, of course, will not be forgiven, only those in Christ will be forgiven.

Either way, this "sin" does not effect the gospel message.While all sin may be worthy of seperating ourselves from God all sin certainly isn't equal. Do you honestly believe stealing a Tootsie Roll from 7-11 is equal to murdering an elderly woman and stealing her money?

Setting the common sense aspect aside God has made Himself very clear on this issue....

John 19:11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”

Luke 12:47 “And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 “But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

Knight
July 15th, 2005, 06:33 PM
Either way, this "sin" does not affect the gospel message.When you says things like the following it does....
All sin is equal. Speeding on your way to work is the same as murder in God's eyes.When unbelievers hear Christians make statements like that, you can be sure it affects the gospel message BIG TIME!

Balder
July 15th, 2005, 06:50 PM
Uh, what is that supposed to mean? Is that supposed to be some sort of jab at folks for maintaining their position on a given issue? Would it be better that we change our stance every time we are asked a similar question?
No, Knight, it wouldn't. It's just an admission that my own efforts at changing minds in this area have not been very successful, as far as I can tell.

Balder
July 15th, 2005, 06:54 PM
Cheers for the heads-up Balder....
BALDER CLEAR SOME MAIL FROM YOUR MAILBOX.....NOBODY CAN PM YOU!

Oh, I hadn't noticed my Inbox was full. Thanks.

I've cleared some space.

defcon
July 15th, 2005, 06:56 PM
When you says things like the following it does....When unbelievers hear Christians make statements like that, you can be sure it affects the gospel message BIG TIME!Why? Because you are taking it to mean that murder is lesser because it's equal to speeding? What if you look at it from the point of view that speeding is as serious as murder? Isn't the point of the law not that we keep it in our flesh but to recognize our utter sinfulness? Galatians 3:21-25 "Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law."

So I find that saying "Speeding isn't that big of a sin" encourages unbelievers that they can keep the law and therefore don't recognize their depraved state. So how we convince anyone but the people who have committed the most vile crimes that we are helpless and utterly sinful before God? This weakens the Gospel, for it is only when we are able to recognize that we are "dead in our trangressions" (Ephesians 2:1) that we fall on His grace.

beefalobilly
July 15th, 2005, 07:54 PM
GOOD ANSWER - What is tough love though? When does tough love become a hateful act? What Im really asking is how far can you take tough love?.....can I kill someone, hit them, rebute them, deny them something, even force myself to hate them in the name of love?
Tough love is any kind of punishment I suppose, although I'd say punishment from the government isn't quite the same as tough love :think:

And, no, I don't think you can force yourself to hate someone in the name of love. Maybe it's just semantics, but hatred is an utter disregard for someone. To go from love to hatred means you no longer care about them or what they do. Hatred would mean you no longer care about their sin, which is most likely self destructive. To hate someone would mean you no longer care what they do, even if it means their destruction. If you hate someone you wouldn't try to admonish or rebuke them.

So I still believe "Hate the sin not the sinner" is valid, because if you hate the sinner, you no longer care about their destruction, and would have no interest in changing the persons ways unless it is harming you or someone else.

Knight
July 15th, 2005, 08:24 PM
Oh, I hadn't noticed my Inbox was full. Thanks.

I've cleared some space.Always keep your "sent items" box cleaned up as well because it also counts aginst your total.

Knight
July 15th, 2005, 08:30 PM
Why? Because you are taking it to mean that murder is lesser because it's equal to speeding? What if you look at it from the point of view that speeding is as serious as murder? Isn't the point of the law not that we keep it in our flesh but to recognize our utter sinfulness? Galatians 3:21-25 "Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law."

So I find that saying "Speeding isn't that big of a sin" encourages unbelievers that they can keep the law and therefore don't recognize their depraved state. So how we convince anyone but the people who have committed the most vile crimes that we are helpless and utterly sinful before God? This weakens the Gospel, for it is only when we are able to recognize that we are "dead in our trangressions" (Ephesians 2:1) that we fall on His grace.2 points . . .

1. All sins aren't equal (John 19:11. Luke 12:47) therefore it is a misrepresentation of the gospel to say they are equal. When we misrepresent the gospel it has a harmful effect.

2. To state that speeding and murder is equal, is . . . well . . . its flat out asinine! :hammer: Even a knuckle-head atheist is smart enough to see the obvious wackiness of that statement. Therefore we turn people away that we wouldn't normally turn away if we had accurately represented God's word.

If we have a choice between being accurate and being inaccurate we should choice to be accurate.

billwald
July 15th, 2005, 08:34 PM
The very few people who have the ability to hate the sin but love the sinner are generally canonized as "saints." I've never personally met any.

defcon
July 15th, 2005, 09:09 PM
2 points . . .

1. All sins aren't equal (John 19:11. Luke 12:47) therefore it is a misrepresentation of the gospel to say they are equal. When we misrepresent the gospel it has a harmful effect.

2. To state that speeding and murder is equal, is . . . well . . . its flat out asinine! :hammer: Even a knuckle-head atheist is smart enough to see the obvious wackiness of that statement. Therefore we turn people away that we wouldn't normally turn away if we had accurately represented God's word.

If we have a choice between being accurate and being inaccurate we should choice to be accurate.
John 19:11 - So in accordance with sound doctrine - what can be meant by "greater sin." Does that mean that this particular sin tougher to forgive - that its punishment is the basement of hell while other sins reserve a place in hell higher up and more tolerable? Where is that in Scripture? Again, as I stated in post 36, earthly consequences are one thing - eternal consequences are the same for all sin. Someone who has broken the speed limit will end up in the same place as someone who murders.
Luke 12:47 - Now we are getting into the rewards judgments of Christ's return. Not someone who has sinned and is saved vs. someone who isn't. Also, this hardly has to do with degrees of sin. In context, those who are taught well yet still do not obey the God's command will be punished more than those who are not in an environment to be taught. This teaches circumstances attached play a role in our judgement, not one sin greater than another. (Jesus is also addressing the Jews at this point which could lead us to believe the servant who is not doing the master's command are the Jewish people, not Christian believers. At any rate, this verse hardly proves your point)
Do we need to confess more for "major" sins? Was Christ's sacrifice not as important to someone who hasn't committed a "major" sin since its not that bad? There are rewards for believers in Christ and some won't get as many as others. This fact does not change that we are born with sinful nature and all sin separates us from God. Humans want to attach "major" sins in the form of justice because the "majority" would never do such a thing. Our standard is ourselves. God's standard is himself. And no one meets that requirement. Degrees of sin in this context puts confidence in the flesh that as long as we don't commit "major" sins, I'm a good person, therefore not that far from God. "Surely God won't let good people go to hell," is the phrase all too often spoken. So I refute your claim of one sin being greater than another - "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 4:23). This is the message of God to man in the Gospel. Believer rewards and earthly consequences are not to be confused with this doctrine that is vital to anyone coming to salvation.

Knight
July 15th, 2005, 09:19 PM
John 19:11 - So in accordance with sound doctrine - what can be meant by "greater sin." Does that mean that this particular sin tougher to forgive - that its punishment is the basement of hell while other sins reserve a place in hell higher up and more tolerable? Where is that in Scripture? Again, as I stated in post 36, earthly consequences are one thing - eternal consequences are the same for all sin. Someone who has broken the speed limit will end up in the same place as someone who murders.
Luke 12:47 - Now we are getting into the rewards judgments of Christ's return. Not someone who has sinned and is saved vs. someone who isn't. Also, this hardly has to do with degrees of sin. In context, those who are taught well yet still do not obey the God's command will be punished more than those who are not in an environment to be taught. This teaches circumstances attached play a role in our judgement, not one sin greater than another. (Jesus is also addressing the Jews at this point which could lead us to believe the servant who is not doing the master's command are the Jewish people, not Christian believers. At any rate, this verse hardly proves your point)
Do we need to confess more for "major" sins? Was Christ's sacrifice not as important to someone who hasn't committed a "major" sin since its not that bad? There are rewards for believers in Christ and some won't get as many as others. This fact does not change that we are born with sinful nature and all sin separates us from God. Humans want to attach "major" sins in the form of justice because the "majority" would never do such a thing. Our standard is ourselves. God's standard is himself. And no one meets that requirement. Degrees of sin in this context puts confidence in the flesh that as long as we don't commit "major" sins, I'm a good person, therefore not that far from God. "Surely God won't let good people go to hell," is the phrase all too often spoken. So I refute your claim of one sin being greater than another - "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 4:23). This is the message of God to man in the Gospel. Believer rewards and earthly consequences are not to be confused with this doctrine that is vital to anyone coming to salvation.If you are trying to refute my point I certainly don't see it.

What is it about "greater sin" don't you understand? Those aren't my words those are God's words.

Here is the point . . . God grieves when we do sinful things. He grieves when the lost do sinful things and He grieves when His Body does sinful things.

Yet not all sins are equal. When a young girl is murdered that sin has far reaching effects and God grieves painfully in His heart, He grieves for the girl and the pain she endured, He grieves for the girls family, He grieves for the community and He grieves for the fact that the criminal was so lost that he resorted to such an act. Yet when a teenage boy steals a doughnut from his employer God is disapointed but isn't as troubled as He would be had the boy tied up the pastor at gun point and stole the collections plate.

It's biblical AND just plain common sense.

Turbo
July 15th, 2005, 09:42 PM
While all sin may be worthy of seperating ourselves from God all sin certainly isn't equal. Do you honestly believe stealing a Tootsie Roll from 7-11 is equal to murdering an elderly woman and stealing her money?

Setting the common sense aspect aside God has made Himself very clear on this issue....

John 19:11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”

Luke 12:47 “And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 “But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
:up: Here are some more passages. They also go against the clichés many of us are used to hearing in Sunday school but they speak the truth nonetheless.


You who judged your sisters, bear your own shame also, because the sins which you committed were more abominable than theirs; they are more righteous than you. Yes, be disgraced also, and bear your own shame, because you justified your sisters. Ezekiel 16:52

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves." Mat. 23:14-15

"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you." Mat. 11:21-24

In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, "I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow." Rev. 18:7

Servo
July 15th, 2005, 09:46 PM
Not exactly...because you could still love the criminal, but still prosecute him.

Or maybe you could just put the CRIME in jail and let the criminal go free!

Servo
July 15th, 2005, 09:50 PM
Proverbs 23:7
For as he thinks in his heart, so is he....

If God could just separate the sin from the sinner, then why did He send His only Son to die for us and be the ultimate sacrifice?

defcon
July 15th, 2005, 09:55 PM
If you are trying to refute my point I certainly don't see it.

What is it about "greater sin" don't you understand? Those aren't my words those are God's words.

Here is the point . . . God grieves when we do sinful things. He grieves when the lost do sinful things and He grieves when His Body does sinful things.

Yet not all sins are equal. When a young girl is murdered that sin has far reaching effects and God grieves painfully in His heart, He grieves for the girl and the pain she endured, He grieves for the girls family, He grieves for the community and He grieves for the fact that the criminal was so lost that he resorted to such an act. Yet when a teenage boy steals a doughnut from his employer God is disapointed but isn't as troubled as He would be had the boy tied up the pastor at gun point and stole the collections plate.

It's biblical AND just plain common sense.The Greek word for "sin" is Hamartia - which means literally "miss the mark" (http://diarist.com/diary-goodnews-2626.html) So the one committing the "sin" missed the mark by a greater degree. But if you miss the mark by a foot or by a mile you still miss the mark. The mark is God's holiness. So the depravity of man still "misses the mark" whether by a little or a lot. I have commented that sin has degrees in consequences on this earth and in believer's judgement. However, James 2:10 tells us "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." So the boy who steals a doughnut is just as guilty as the murderer who kills the little girl.

novice
July 15th, 2005, 09:59 PM
I think we can safely kill the "all sins are equal" cliche now.

The objective truth:


You who judged your sisters, bear your own shame also, because the sins which you committed were more abominable than theirs; they are more righteous than you. Yes, be disgraced also, and bear your own shame, because you justified your sisters. Ezekiel 16:52

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves." Mat. 23:14-15

"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you." Mat. 11:21-24

In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, "I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow." Rev. 18:7

John 19:11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”

Luke 12:47 “And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 “But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

novice
July 15th, 2005, 09:59 PM
:turbo: :up:

Knight
July 15th, 2005, 10:03 PM
So the boy who steals a doughnut is just as guilty as the murderer who kills the little girl.The argument isn't . . . "are all sins sinful?" If that were the argument you would have a excellent point and I would be right there with you.

Yet that isn't the argument.

The argument is . . . "are all sin equal?" Your last post affirms you do NOT think all sins are equal so why are you continuing to argue the point?

beefalobilly
July 15th, 2005, 10:06 PM
Proverbs 23:7
For as he thinks in his heart, so is he....

If God could just separate the sin from the sinner, then why did He send His only Son to die for us and be the ultimate sacrifice?

GOod point, but if God can't separate sin from sinner, according to some others in this thread, he hates us, and if he hates us why would he bother sending his son? :think: Seems to me like theres a middle ground...

Knight
July 15th, 2005, 10:17 PM
GOod point, but if God can't separate sin from sinner, according to some others in this thread, he hates us, and if he hates us why would he bother sending his son? :think: Seems to me like theres a middle ground...Because He doesn't hate everybody. Which brings us back to the fact that not all sins are equal.

Some sin isn't worthy of hatred. Other sin is.

And what about hatred?

There is righteous hatred and unrighteous hatred and both are illustrated in the Bible:

Righteous hatred:
Psalms 139:22 I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies.23 Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me, and know my anxieties;And see if there is any wicked way in me, And lead me in the way everlasting.

Unrighteous hatred:
Psalms 25:19 Consider my enemies, for they are many; And they hate me with cruel hatred.

Notice the following...
Psalms 69:4 Those who hate me without a cause Are more than the hairs of my head; They are mighty who would destroy me, Being my enemies wrongfully; Though I have stolen nothing, I still must restore it.

It is wrong to hate "without cause" but conversely it is correct to hate WITH CAUSE.

Romans 12:9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

beefalobilly
July 15th, 2005, 10:33 PM
Because He doesn't hate everybody. Which brings us back to the fact that not all sins are equal.

Some sin isn't worthy of hatred. Other sin is.

And what about hatred?

There is righteous hatred and unrighteous hatred and both are illustrated in the Bible:

Righteous hatred:
Psalms 139:22 I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies.23 Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me, and know my anxieties;And see if there is any wicked way in me, And lead me in the way everlasting.

Unrighteous hatred:
Psalms 25:19 Consider my enemies, for they are many; And they hate me with cruel hatred.

Notice the following...
Psalms 69:4 Those who hate me without a cause Are more than the hairs of my head; They are mighty who would destroy me, Being my enemies wrongfully; Though I have stolen nothing, I still must restore it.

It is wrong to hate "without cause" but conversely correct to hate WITH CAUSE.

Romans 12:9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

Ok, thanks for the lengthy response

I definately agree that not all sin is equal, and can see the difference between righteous, but still have a couple questions.

First of all, what tells us which sins are worthy of hatred? I'm not aware of any passages that say this, and as we know, all have fallen short of the glory of God.

I think the main problem I have with what you're saying, is that it almost sounds like God sent his son for those, who are kind of good, and not worthy of hatred. I guess that is what you said, since in response to my question "why did he send his son" you said "because he doesn't hate everybody" This sounds like you're saying he sent his son not for sinners, but for people who aren't that bad. Isn't it true though that he sent his son for everybody? Not all will receive him, yes, but he still died for all of us, right?

Yeah, I definately need to study this some more :think:

defcon
July 15th, 2005, 10:39 PM
The argument isn't . . . "are all sins sinful?" If that were the argument you would have a excellent point and I would be right there with you.

Yet that isn't the argument.

The argument is . . . "are all sin equal?" Your last post affirms you do NOT think all sins are equal so why are you continuing to argue the point?Perhaps we have a different definition of "equal". The verses that have been listed talking about "greater condemnation" is dealing with God's righteous judgement against those who know better than most people (Pharisees). The sins themselves have the same consequence - separation from God. That's why I say all sin is equal - i.e. James 2:10. The judgment being harsher for those with knowledge, those that teach, that is not based on the sin - it's the state of knowledge of the person committing the sin. A new Christian committing a sin unknowingly will not be judged as harshly as a Christian who knows it is a sin. The sin still has the same affect - breaking the law which results in separation from God, God's judgment is the difference.

Knight
July 15th, 2005, 10:57 PM
Ok, thanks for the lengthy response

I definately agree that not all sin is equal, and can see the difference between righteous, but still have a couple questions.

First of all, what tells us which sins are worthy of hatred? I'm not aware of any passages that say this, and as we know, all have fallen short of the glory of God.

I think the main problem I have with what you're saying, is that it almost sounds like God sent his son for those, who are kind of good, and not worthy of hatred. I guess that is what you said, since in response to my question "why did he send his son" you said "because he doesn't hate everybody" This sounds like you're saying he sent his son not for sinners, but for people who aren't that bad. Isn't it true though that he sent his son for everybody? Not all will receive him, yes, but he still died for all of us, right?

Yeah, I definately need to study this some more :think:I think your missing one major aspect of this which is that God doesn't hate just for hate sake.

Ultimately we want the wicked to repent right?

God is merciful and He would be glad if the wicked repent therefore God sent His son for the murderer as well as the doughnut thief because as we have all agreed all sins are sinful. All sins are sinful but not equal as has been clearly demonstrated on this thread.

So whats to hate?

The unrepentant wicked!

Romans 12:9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. (abhor literally means hate)

Any unrepentant capital criminal, those that wish to harm the innocent with malice, enemies of God that are actively working to thwart God's plan for others, and those that are so proud in their own eyes that they profess God is not necessary.

If David could say....

Psalms 139:21 Do I not hate them, O LORD, who hate You? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You? 22 I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies. 23 Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me, and know my anxieties;

I think it's safe to say that God approves and even expects that we hate those that rise up against Him, maliciously hurt others etc. Stealing a doughnut or speeding isn't remotely "rising up" against God. God tells us what He hates therefore that maybe a clue....

Proverbs 6:16 These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: 17 A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, 19 A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren.

Knight
July 15th, 2005, 10:59 PM
Perhaps we have a different definition of "equal". The verses that have been listed talking about "greater condemnation" is dealing with God's righteous judgement against those who know better than most people (Pharisees). The sins themselves have the same consequence - separation from God. That's why I say all sin is equal - i.e. James 2:10. The judgment being harsher for those with knowledge, those that teach, that is not based on the sin - it's the state of knowledge of the person committing the sin. A new Christian committing a sin unknowingly will not be judged as harshly as a Christian who knows it is a sin. The sin still has the same affect - breaking the law which results in separation from God, God's judgment is the difference.Again, you are affirming my point.

All sin is sinful but not all sin is equal!

Words have meaning and it's important we not misrepresent God's clear teaching.

beefalobilly
July 15th, 2005, 11:11 PM
I think your missing one major aspect of this which is that God doesn't hate just for hate sake.

Ultimately we want the wicked to repent right?

God is merciful and He would be glad if the wicked repent therefore God sent His son for the murderer as well as the doughnut thief because as we have all agreed all sins are sinful. All sins are sinful but not equal as has been clearly demonstrated on this thread.

So whats to hate?

The unrepentant wicked!

Romans 12:9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. (abhor literally means hate)

Any unrepentant capital criminal, those that wish to harm the innocent with malice, enemies of God that are actively working to thwart God's plan for others, and those that are so proud in their own eyes that they profess God is not necessary.

If David could say....

Psalms 139:21 Do I not hate them, O LORD, who hate You? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You? 22 I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies. 23 Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me, and know my anxieties;

I think it's safe to say that God approves and even expects that we hate those that rise up against Him, maliciously hurt others etc. Stealing a doughnut or speeding isn't remotely "rising up" against God. God tells us what He hates therefore that maybe a clue....

Proverbs 6:16 These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: 17 A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, 19 A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren.

Cool, thanks for your input, a lot of it made sense, like I said, more study is in order :sinapisN:

Knight
July 15th, 2005, 11:36 PM
One thing to keep in mind . . .

The two cliches in question on this thread are:

"Hate the sin, love the sinner."

And . . .

"All sins are equal."

Now, we could analyze both of these cliches and possibly find some plausible explanations for them or maybe some aspects of both of them that are truthful. But what we must keep in mind are how both of these cliches are ACTUALLY used in the real world and what they are intended to convey by those that use them.

The only time you will hear anyone say "Hate the sin, love the sinner." is in opposition to a Christian condemning wicked people, (most often homosexuals). In other words when someone says.... "Hate the sin, love the sinner." it's used as a way to defuse God's command to "Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear." - 1Timothy 5:20. The cliche "Hate the sin, love the sinner." a ploy to remove moral clarity and thwart righteous judgement.

"All sins are equal." is a cliche used to minimize the wickedness of sin that is worthy of righteous hatred. Usually when you hear someone say "All sins are equal." its in response to a Christian saying something like "pedophiles should be executed." The "All sins are equal." cliche is designed to minimize that sin by attempting to compare pedophilia with stealing paper clips from work or coveting your neighbors lawn mower or some type of sin that we can all relate to. If the devil can convince the Body of Christ that "All sins are equal." surely we cant be that judgmental of the truly wicked people that surround us.

defcon
July 16th, 2005, 06:57 AM
Again, you are affirming my point.

All sin is sinful but not all sin is equal!

Words have meaning and it's important we not misrepresent God's clear teaching.
??????? I'm confused. I think the clear teaching is that the knowledge of the person committing the sin may cause harsher judgment but no where is Scripture does it say "Murder is worse than lying." This was the point you were trying to make earlier. I acknowledged that the earthly judgment was harsher - but please show me where such things are eternally. Are the 10 commandments the major ones? In that case lying (giving false testimony) is worse than having sexual act with an animal. What scripture am I missing?

Example of difference in crime and judgment: Say we have two people who rob from the business they work for. One is a lawyer who just wants the extra money for "extra" things. One is the janitor who has 7 kids and can't pay his bills on time. The crime is the same and equal - stealing. The judgment may be different because of the circumstances of the person. However, one is no closer to righteousness than the other in the view of God - "whoever keeps the whole law but stumbles at one point is guilty of breaking the entire law""

defcon
July 16th, 2005, 07:11 AM
"All sins are equal." is a cliche used to minimize the wickedness of sin that is worthy of righteous hatred. Usually when you hear someone say "All sins are equal." its in response to a Christian saying something like "pedophiles should be executed." The "All sins are equal." cliche is designed to minimize that sin by attempting to compare pedophilia with stealing paper clips from work or coveting your neighbors lawn mower or some type of sin that we can all relate to. If the devil can convince the Body of Christ that "All sins are equal." surely we cant be that judgmental of the truly wicked people that surround us.
Actually, I see it in reverse, that it's ok that I steal paper clips from work because I'm not a pedophile. I could do much worse things. In reality, I am subject to the wrath of God and eternal punishment for stealing paper clips and am in need of a Savior. Sins on this earth have degrees of punishment - but eternally everyone must understand the depravity of themselves- none qualify (even if they only steal paper clips). Minimizing sin is putting confidence in the flesh ("I'm close to God because I haven't killed anyone, I've only stolen paper clips which isn't that bad") and disarms humbleness.

eccl3_6
July 16th, 2005, 08:10 AM
Actually, I see it in reverse, that it's ok that I steal paper clips from work because I'm not a pedophile. I could do much worse things. In reality, I am subject to the wrath of God and eternal punishment for stealing paper clips and am in need of a Savior. Sins on this earth have degrees of punishment - but eternally everyone must understand the depravity of themselves- none qualify (even if they only steal paper clips). Minimizing sin is putting confidence in the flesh ("I'm close to God because I haven't killed anyone, I've only stolen paper clips which isn't that bad") and disarms humbleness.

Good argument for all sin is equal....coming from an agnostic. No transgression goes unnoticed, no transgression is unimportant. Whether it be driving offences or rape....live your entire life according to the law.

Arguing that 'not all punishment is equal' is not the same as 'all sin is equal'. Surely we punish to correct. Correction for one type of sin may be more intense for another but all sin is still equal.

Turbo
July 16th, 2005, 08:44 AM
??????? I'm confused. I think the clear teaching is that the knowledge of the person committing the sin may cause harsher judgment but no where is Scripture does it say "Murder is worse than lying." Why would some sins be punished more harshly than others if some sins are not greater (more wicked) than others? Remember that God is just.


In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, "I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow." Rev. 18:7

In the criminal justice system that God laid out in the Bible, punishments are proportional to the crime (sin acted upon) that is committed. Murderers, rapists, adulterers, kidnappers, homosexuals, etc. are to be put to death, according to God. But thieves are to pay restitution to their victim in proportion to the value of what was stolen. Isn't that a huge clue that murdering your neighbor or seducing his wife is far more wicked than purposefully not returning the hedge clippers you borrowed from him before you move away? Isn't it also obvious that stealing a car is a greater sin than stealing a tomato (even thought they are both sins)?

As for lying, in most cases lying is a sin, but sometimes it's right to lie. There is more than one example of God being pleased with people for lying to thwart the plans of the wicked. (The Hebrew midwives or Exodus 1, Rahab, David's wife Michal.)

Bearing false witness regarding a crime is criminal, but what does God say the punishment for perjury should be? Do you know?


This was the point you were trying to make earlier. I acknowledged that the earthly judgment was harsher - but please show me where such things are eternally. We already have:

"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you." Mat. 11:21-24

“And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.” Luke 12:47-48

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves." Mat. 23:14-15



Are the 10 commandments the major ones?No, they give an overview of all of them (although they include keeping the sabbath, a symbolic law which, like other symolic laws, was specifically for Israel only as it was a part of His covenant with them... but that's another topic).

Jesus said that the two greatest commandments are to love God (Deuteronomy 6:5) and to love your neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), and that "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 22:40). Neither of these commandments are among "the ten," but all of the ten are extensions of these two, as is every other commandment.


In that case lying (giving false testimony) is worse than having sexual act with an animal.It sounds like you intuitively recognize that lying is typically not as great a sin as having sex with an animal. :up:
What scripture am I missing?
Did you miss these?



You who judged your sisters, bear your own shame also, because the sins which you committed were more abominable than theirs; they are more righteous than you. Yes, be disgraced also, and bear your own shame, because you justified your sisters. Ezekiel 16:52

John 19:11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”

Here's another:

If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death. 1 John 5:16-17

Turbo
July 16th, 2005, 08:51 AM
Surely we punish to correct. We are also supposed to punish to administer justice. That's why it's called punishment.


Correction for one type of sin may be more intense for another but all sin is still equal.You are mistaken, not knowing (or willfully ignoring) the Scriptures.

eccl3_6
July 16th, 2005, 08:56 AM
We are also supposed to punish to administer justice. That's why it's called punishment.

But its not punishment for justice if I, the offended/victim, forgive....its just punishment to correct.

Am I right or wrong?

(I'm not willingly ignoring scripture....I reading up on it as we speak)

Knight
July 16th, 2005, 10:32 AM
:turbo: rocks.

billwald
July 16th, 2005, 11:00 AM
If all sins are equal and a person is convinced he is not elect or going to hell for whatever the reason then his logical solution is to maximize his sinning. If looking will be punished the same as rape then it is logical to rape.

defcon
July 16th, 2005, 11:13 AM
In the criminal justice system that God laid out in the Bible, punishments are proportional to the crime (sin acted upon) that is committed. Murderers, rapists, adulterers, kidnappers, homosexuals, etc. are to be put to death, according to God. But thieves are to pay restitution to their victim in proportion to the value of what was stolen. Isn't that a huge clue that murdering your neighbor or seducing his wife is far more wicked than purposefully not returning the hedge clippers you borrowed from him before you move away? Isn't it also obvious that stealing a car is a greater sin than stealing a tomato (even thought they are both sins)? As I've stated - earthly consequences exist. I don't dispute that



We already have:

"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you." Mat. 11:21-24

“And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.” Luke 12:47-48

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves." Mat. 23:14-15 This deals with harsher judgement for those with knowledge, but this doesn't minimize the sin itself in other cases. This is an incorrect inference that "harsher punishment" means "it was a larger sin." This deals with the judgment being unequal not the sin being unequal.



Here's another:
[indent]If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death. 1 John 5:16-17 The sin that leads to death, IMHO is unbelief. Not sure how this helps the case, it just says unbelief can't be forgiven by us praying for the one who is unsaved. In context, this scripture is dealing with the simplicity of the gospel message (v. 12 -"He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.") It also isn't specific to lead us to the conclusion the meaning is "some sin is tolerable because it's not that bad". It says in Romans 6:23 - " For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in [ Or through] Christ Jesus our Lord." The wages of sin (not some sin, or the bad sins, but all sin) is death. No differing levels here.

intro2faith
July 16th, 2005, 11:31 AM
I think all that Defcon is saying is this:

All sin is equal eternally. But all sin is not equal here on Earth.

Therefore, you should be judged on different levels for different sins here on earth, but on judgement day, it's not going to matter wether or not you stole a candy bar, or murdered the nice old lady who lives down the street. Because if you have not accepted Christ, you will go to Hell either way. So ultimately the only sin that really matters is not accepting Christ.

So...eternally all sins are equal.

On Earth they are not.

I think this is what Defcon was meaning. :) Am I right Defcon?

billwald
July 16th, 2005, 11:49 AM
"The sin that leads to death, IMHO is unbelief."

This concept boggles the mind.

I believe it will rain
I think it will rain
I conclude it will rain

I believe Jesus is God
I think Jesus is God
I conclude Jesus is God.

People go to hell for incorrect data analysis.

Turbo
July 16th, 2005, 11:56 AM
I think all that Defcon is saying is this:

All sin is equal eternally. But all sin is not equal here on Earth.

Therefore, you should be judged on different levels for different sins here on earth, but on judgement day, it's not going to matter wether or not you stole a candy bar, or murdered the nice old lady who lives down the street.I have posted several passages that show that this is not the case.



Because if you have not accepted Christ, you will go to Hell either way. So ultimately the only sin that really matters is not accepting Christ.Will everyone who is in hell experience exactly the same degree of torment? (Hint: read the passages I've posted in this thread.)

Turbo
July 16th, 2005, 12:06 PM
This deals with harsher judgement for those with knowledge, but this doesn't minimize the sin itself in other cases. This is an incorrect inference that "harsher punishment" means "it was a larger sin." This deals with the judgment being unequal not the sin being unequal.What's the point of insisting that all sins are equal if you acknowledge that some sins will be punished more severely than others? Why would some sins be punished more severely than others if all sins are equal? What you are suggesting would be unjust.

If you're saying that any sin great or small will condemn and separate the unrepentant from God, then no one is disagreeing. But to say that therefore all sins are equal is not accurate, because the consequences of sin go beyond separation from God.

The fact that some sins will be punished more severly than others is proof that not all sins are equal. Not only that, but some passages directly say that some sins are greater than others. How much clearer could these passages be?

eccl3_6
July 16th, 2005, 12:25 PM
What's the point of insisting that all sins are equal if you acknowledge that some sins will be punished more severely than others? Why would some sins be punished more severely than others if all sins are equal? What you are suggesting would be unjust.

If you're saying that any sin great or small will condemn and separate the unrepentant from God, then no one is disagreeing. But to say that therefore all sins are equal is not accurate, because the consequences of sin go beyond separation from God.

The fact that some sins will be punished more severly than others is proof that not all sins are equal. Not only that, but some passages directly say that some sins are greater than others. How much clearer could these passages be?

Arguing that 'not all punishment is equal' is not the same as 'all sin is equal'. Surely we punish to correct. Correction for one type of sin may be more intense for another but all sin is still equal.


But its not punishment for justice if I, the offended/victim, forgive....its just punishment to correct.

Knight
July 16th, 2005, 12:28 PM
This deals with harsher judgement for those with knowledge, but this doesn't minimize the sin itself in other cases. This is an incorrect inference that "harsher punishment" means "it was a larger sin." This deals with the judgment being unequal not the sin being unequal.If all sin is equal why would the punishment for sins be different?

The very fact that you admit that all sin is punished in accordance with the scope of the sin is affirmation that not all sin is equal.

Knight
July 16th, 2005, 12:31 PM
Arguing that 'not all punishment is equal' is not the same as 'all sin is equal'. Surely we punish to correct. Correction for one type of sin may be more intense for another but all sin is still equal.


But its not punishment for justice if I, the offended/victim, forgive....its just punishment to correct.Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Why would we correct more intensely for an equal offense?

Furthermore, I am curious, since you reject God's word entirely what do you make of the Bible verses that have been posted in this thread that so clearly state that God DOES NOT see all sins as being equal?

Or are you arguing this from the agnostic perspective?

eccl3_6
July 16th, 2005, 01:11 PM
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. #1 Why would we correct more intensely for an equal offense?

#2 Furthermore, I am curious, since you reject God's word entirely what do you make of the Bible verses that have been posted in this thread that so clearly state that God DOES NOT see all sins as being equal?

Or are you arguing this from the agnostic perspective?


I'm not actually arguing as such because I really have not made up my mind on this...I know its my thread but its shot off at angle I didnt expect...I really am just speculating to learn (a bit of devil's advocate)


#1 Perhaps for the same reason why different medicines taste different. Or another way to think of it might be a simple crime like paperclip theft althpough being equal in sin only really effects the one person (the owner of the paperclip). The sin is just as bad..the deed has still been done but the casualities are few. In the case of a murderer though.....the murdered is effected, and his family, etc. etc. The sin is the same but he must pay for it over and over again for the numerous parties. (SPECULATION)

Isn't there a line in the scipture that says we must forgive if we are to be forgiven?

#2 I don't reject His word entirely....I am an agnostic and the reason why \i'm not focussing on the scripture is because there are far more people out there that are better qualified to argue it. There's a time to stay quiet and learn.....regarding this, this is it for me.

Knight
July 16th, 2005, 02:00 PM
#2 I don't reject His word entirely....I am an agnostic and the reason why \i'm not focussing on the scripture is because there are far more people out there that are better qualified to argue it. There's a time to stay quiet and learn.....regarding this, this is it for me.OK, but in light of scripture what do you think?

In other words . . . IF the Bible is God's word, isn't rather clear that God doesn't consider all sins equal? (using the references posted on this thread)

Knight
July 16th, 2005, 02:03 PM
Or another way to think of it might be a simple crime like paperclip theft althpough being equal in sin only really effects the one person (the owner of the paperclip). The sin is just as bad..the deed has still been done but the casualities are few. In the case of a murderer though.....the murdered is effected, and his family, etc. etc. The sin is the same but he must pay for it over and over again for the numerous parties. (SPECULATION):sigh: And the conclusion of that statement of yours would be that those sins were not equal! One sin had little to no effect and the other had far reaching effects - not equal!

eccl3_6
July 16th, 2005, 02:09 PM
:sigh: And the conclusion of that statement of yours would be that those sins were not equal! One sin had little to no effect and the other had far reaching effects - not equal!

No because the sin could be considered the transgression....the one sinful act....not the multiple consequences. All sins still equal but the punishment is in line with the consequences not the sin.


dealing with post #80 now

eccl3_6
July 16th, 2005, 02:30 PM
OK, but in light of scripture what do you think?

In other words . . . IF the Bible is God's word, isn't rather clear that God doesn't consider all sins equal? (using the references posted on this thread)

From the posts here....(I just reread the thread)...I would say the Bible is weighted in your arguments favour....i.e.there are varying levels of sin.

I did then reread the thread again in light that we may be punished by our consequences and so far that too is upheld. And if this were the case then all sins could be condsidered equal in accordance to another post that I liked....Defcon's I believe. (admittedly the posts weren't chosen to defend against this position (i.e. punishment in relation to consequence). Which Biblical references would you use to argue against this? (which version of the Bible do you refer to so I can use the same?)



So I still believe "Hate the sin not the sinner" is valid, because if you hate the sinner, you no longer care about their destruction, and would have no interest in changing the persons ways unless it is harming you or someone else.


This made alot of sense as well as I was reading through.

intro2faith
July 16th, 2005, 02:34 PM
How 'bout this:

Case # 1- This kid goes into some womans house and steals a gun. The woman sees that her gun has been stolen and goes out and buys a new one.

Case # 2 - This kid goes into some womans house and steals a gun. Two days later, there is an intruder in this womans house. He is out to kill her She goes to where her gun is supposed to be, and it's not there! As a result, she is killed.

So you see, even though these two kids commited the exact same sin, one had much more serious consequences here on Earth because his stealing the gun resulted in the loss of someones life. Yet the sin is still in equal seriousness in Heaven. It was theft.

Does that make any sense at all, or do I just need some sleep?? :sleep: :p

defcon
July 16th, 2005, 02:50 PM
I think all that Defcon is saying is this:

All sin is equal eternally. But all sin is not equal here on Earth.

Therefore, you should be judged on different levels for different sins here on earth, but on judgement day, it's not going to matter wether or not you stole a candy bar, or murdered the nice old lady who lives down the street. Because if you have not accepted Christ, you will go to Hell either way. So ultimately the only sin that really matters is not accepting Christ.

So...eternally all sins are equal.

On Earth they are not.

I think this is what Defcon was meaning. :) Am I right Defcon?
:thumb: Good synopsis - there are also degrees of judgment for believers as well but in the end sin is sin.

eccl3_6
July 16th, 2005, 02:53 PM
How 'bout this:

Case # 1- This kid goes into some womans house and steals a gun. The woman sees that her gun has been stolen and goes out and buys a new one.

Case # 2 - This kid goes into some womans house and steals a gun. Two days later, there is an intruder in this womans house. He is out to kill her She goes to where her gun is supposed to be, and it's not there! As a result, she is killed.

So you see, even though these two kids commited the exact same sin, one had much more serious consequences here on Earth because his stealing the gun resulted in the loss of someones life. Yet the sin is still in equal seriousness in Heaven. It was theft.

Does that make any sense at all, or do I just need some sleep?? :sleep: :p

Good post.....here on Earth I couldn't blame the second kid anymore because he was not to know...it was't his sin that killed the woman....it was the intruder. If the kid told the intruder that she no longer had her gun then different scenario and he would be culpable too.

But it doesnt follow that the consequences caused her death....just that the consequences of his actions led to the cause whose consequences led to her death. :dizzy:

Consequences of the sin
Not consequences of the consequences of the sin

JUST HYPOTHESISING

eccl3_6
July 16th, 2005, 02:57 PM
:thumb: Good synopsis - there are also degrees of judgment for believers as well but in the end sin is sin.

Yep....I think on reflection this is where I'm heading but with consequential judgement rather than Earthly sin being judged differently. Obviously I'm not necessarily linked to the Jesus thing.

Balder
July 16th, 2005, 03:00 PM
If the ultimate punishment (the eternal consequence) of absolutely any deviation from God's perfect standard is eternal conscious torment in the Lake of Fire, can we say that ultimately all sin is treated equally?

The kindly Hindu grandma next door and Hitler are both headed to the same fate, in the Christian view, are they not? Unending, inescapable suffering.

intro2faith
July 16th, 2005, 03:16 PM
If the ultimate punishment (the eternal consequence) of absolutely any deviation from God's perfect standard is eternal conscious torment in the Lake of Fire, can we say that ultimately all sin is treated equally?

The kindly Hindu grandma next door and Hitler are both headed to the same fate, in the Christian view, are they not? Unending, inescapable suffering.
Yes, ultimately the only sin that matters for an unbeliever is not accepting Christ. That is the sin that will send them to Hell. But God will bring different levels of wrath on Earth to the sinners that commit different levels of sin. I'm not even really clear on if there's different levels of punishment in Hell...I haven't come across any verses that say that...but if anyone can point out any, I'd be greatful. :D I know there will be different "levels" of Heaven(some will have more riches stored up for them) but Hell...I dunno!

eccl3_6
July 16th, 2005, 03:32 PM
If the ultimate punishment (the eternal consequence) of absolutely any deviation from God's perfect standard is eternal conscious torment in the Lake of Fire, can we say that ultimately all sin is treated equally?

The kindly Hindu grandma next door and Hitler are both headed to the same fate, in the Christian view, are they not? Unending, inescapable suffering.

I personally do not believe in an eternal hell.....not so sure about hell at all really.

Hindu Granny certainly aint there though.

Balder
July 16th, 2005, 03:42 PM
I personally do not believe in an eternal hell.....not so sure about hell at all really.

Hindu Granny certainly aint there though.
I don't believe in it either, nor do I think that is the fate of kindly Hindu grannies (!), but I think many of the people with whom you've been debating believe just that.

eccl3_6
July 16th, 2005, 03:46 PM
I don't believe in it either, nor do I think that is the fate of kindly Hindu grannies (!), but I think many of the people with whom you've been debating believe just that.

I'll go one further....I don't think peace-loving, nice, little atheist granny is there either!

Turbo
July 16th, 2005, 03:58 PM
If the ultimate punishment (the eternal consequence) of absolutely any deviation from God's perfect standard is eternal conscious torment in the Lake of Fire, can we say that ultimately all sin is treated equally? No, because not everyone will experience the same degree of torment, as several of the passages posted repeated on this thread indicate.

Turbo
July 16th, 2005, 04:03 PM
I personally do not believe in an eternal hell.....not so sure about hell at all really.

Hindu Granny certainly aint there though.
This is silly. If you don't believe in or don't know whether hell exists, why would you assert (with certainty, even!) who is there and who isn't? :hammer:

eccl3_6
July 16th, 2005, 04:07 PM
This is silly. If you don't believe in or don't know whether hell exists, why would you assert (with certainty, even!) who is there and who isn't? :hammer:

Because I don't believe a loving, understanding, forgiving Deity sends loving, understanding, forgiving grannies to hell.

I would find compassion in my heart....and I believe God would have more compassion than me. :sleep:

intro2faith
July 16th, 2005, 04:17 PM
No, because not everyone will experience the same degree of torment, as several of the passages posted repeated on this thread indicate.
Could I maybe have some of those verses? :D That state that there are different levels of torment in Hell?

Thanks!

Balder
July 16th, 2005, 04:21 PM
Turbo,

I had not read through the whole thread when I posted my remarks, but I was doing that just now and I did see them. I agree that those verses could be used to support the idea of degrees of eternal torment.

Not that that makes the doctrine any more reasonable or just, of course! An eternal sentence of pain is monstrous, even if some people hurt more forever than others. Hank Hanegraaff suggests that the suffering in Hell, for absolutely anyone there, will be worse than the pain humans have ever experienced on Earth. Which is pretty bad.

But there it is.

Best wishes,
B.

defcon
July 16th, 2005, 04:28 PM
What's the point of insisting that all sins are equal if you acknowledge that some sins will be punished more severely than others? Why would some sins be punished more severely than others if all sins are equal? What you are suggesting would be unjust.

If you're saying that any sin great or small will condemn and separate the unrepentant from God, then no one is disagreeing. But to say that therefore all sins are equal is not accurate, because the consequences of sin go beyond separation from God.

The fact that some sins will be punished more severly than others is proof that not all sins are equal. Not only that, but some passages directly say that some sins are greater than others. How much clearer could these passages be?Why is it proof? Have there not been explanations of different punishments for the same sin? Have I not shown the scriptures provided in a different context? Then its not the sin that is the difference but God's justice. I have also provided scripture showing that committing one sin is breaking the entire law and that the wages of any sin is death. Here on Earth God has given commands and punishments if they are broken. But the Law was not intended to bring life! It was meant to show that we can't keep the law and come to agreement with God that we are utterly sinful. Lesser degrees of sin acknowledge that the flesh "isn't so bad" and lead us astray. Read the judgments of God in context with the situation and there is no problem understanding sin is sin - not "Sin A" is more forgivable than "Sin B". Or does Jesus need to suffer more for "Sin B" than He does for "Sin A"?

Turbo
July 16th, 2005, 04:41 PM
Turbo,

I had not read through the whole thread when I posted my remarks, but I was doing that just now and I did see them. I agree that those verses could be used to support the idea of degrees of eternal torment.:up:


Not that that makes the doctrine any more reasonable or just, of course!Who are you to judge God?


An eternal sentence of pain is monstrous, even if some people hurt more forever than others. Hank Hanegraaff suggests that the suffering in Hell, for absolutely anyone there, will be worse than the pain humans have ever experienced on Earth. Which is pretty bad.Everyone will be punished justly according to their sins if they reject the grace that God offers through Christ. You've now acknowledged that the Scriptures say just that.

What's sad is that you'd rather reject God and compound your condemnation by painting Him as an unjust monster than humble yourself before Him and accept the grace He freely offers you.

Balder
July 16th, 2005, 04:47 PM
:up:

Who are you to judge God?

Everyone will be punished justly according to their sins if they reject the grace that God offers through Christ. You've now acknowledged that the Scriptures say just that.

What's sad is that you'd rather reject God and compound your condemnation by painting Him as an unjust monster than humble yourself before Him and accept the grace He freely offers you.
I understand your view. I agree that the Bible appears to indicate these things (though some like Logos_X interpret it differently). But here's the rub: I don't think I'm rejecting God when I reject what is written in the Bible. I am just rejecting what some human beings have written.

Best wishes,
B.

Turbo
July 16th, 2005, 04:49 PM
If you're saying that any sin great or small will condemn and separate the unrepentant from God, then no one is disagreeing. But to say that therefore all sins are equal is not accurate, because the consequences of sin go beyond separation from God.

I have also provided scripture showing that committing one sin is breaking the entire law and that the wages of any sin is death... [The Law] was meant to show that we can't keep the law and come to agreement with God that we are utterly sinful. Lesser degrees of sin acknowledge that the flesh "isn't so bad" and lead us astray. Read the judgments of God in context with the situation and there is no problem understanding sin is sin - not "Sin A" is more forgivable than "Sin B". Or does Jesus need to suffer more for "Sin B" than He does for "Sin A"?defcon, you are arguing against a strawman here.

Turbo
July 16th, 2005, 04:53 PM
I understand your view. I agree that the Bible appears to indicate these things (though some like Logos_X interpret it differently).OK. :up:
But here's the rub: I don't think I'm rejecting God when I reject what is written in the Bible. I am just rejecting what some human beings have written.

What do you make of Jesus?

defcon
July 16th, 2005, 04:56 PM
defcon, you are arguing against a strawman here.
Doesn't seem like it to me, as I see God's judgment as the difference, not one sin vs. another. At any rate, I have expressed my view and I appreciate yours and everyone else's. I am willing to get this thread moving forward with the "hating the sin not the sinner" discussion. :)

elohiym
July 16th, 2005, 05:04 PM
One thing to keep in mind . . .

The two cliches in question on this thread are:

"Hate the sin, love the sinner."

And . . .

"All sins are equal."

Now, we could analyze both of these cliches and possibly find some plausible explanations for them or maybe some aspects of both of them that are truthful. But what we must keep in mind are how both of these cliches are ACTUALLY used in the real world and what they are intended to convey by those that use them.As you imply, I think we can find some aspects of both of them that are truthful; and that being said, I don't think we can conclude the intention of those who use the cliches, except on a case-by-case basis.


The only time you will hear anyone say "Hate the sin, love the sinner." is in opposition to a Christian condemning wicked people, (most often homosexuals). In other words when someone says.... "Hate the sin, love the sinner." it's used as a way to defuse God's command to "Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear." - 1Timothy 5:20. The cliche "Hate the sin, love the sinner." a ploy to remove moral clarity and thwart righteous judgement.Paul stated it was not he that sinned, but sin that dwelled in him sinned. He appears to have separated sin from sinner. Do you see the benefit in doing that?

I believe it is acceptable to disgaree with a practice, believe it to be sinful, and tell people who engage in the practice what you think in an effort to help them. In my opinion, it is important to always ask what the motivation is behind the act? Can a seeming violation of the law have a "good excuse"? Jesus stated the pirests profaned the sabbath, yet were held blamless. David ate the shew bread, which was unlawful to eat...because he was hungry!



"All sins are equal." is a cliche used to minimize the wickedness of sin that is worthy of righteous hatred. Usually when you hear someone say "All sins are equal." its in response to a Christian saying something like "pedophiles should be executed." The "All sins are equal." cliche is designed to minimize that sin by attempting to compare pedophilia with stealing paper clips from work or coveting your neighbors lawn mower or some type of sin that we can all relate to. If the devil can convince the Body of Christ that "All sins are equal." surely we cant be that judgmental of the truly wicked people that surround us.

All sins are clearly not equal in their consequences for victims and society, but all sins are equal in their ultimate consequence for the sinner. Jesus did not say "whoever sins big sins is a servant of sin, but whoever sins little sins is free from sin." Jesus stated plainly that whoever sins (any sin) is a servant of sin, and that a servant cannot remain in the house, only a son can. He went as far as to suggest that it would be better for someone cut off their hand or pluck out their eye for offending than risk damnation.

Peace

###

Poly
July 16th, 2005, 05:10 PM
Jesus did not say "whoever sins big sins is a servant of sin, but whoever sins little sins is free from sin." Jesus stated plainly that whoever sins (any sin) is a servant of sin, and that a servant cannot remain in the house, only a son can. He went as far as to suggest that it would be better for someone cut off their hand or pluck out their eye for offending than risk damnation.

Peace

###

:confused:

Please show where Knight said that if one sins in a small way, he is free from sin.

Balder
July 16th, 2005, 05:13 PM
OK. :up:

What do you make of Jesus?
He is on par with a number of the world's great spiritual teachers and saints. His kenotic agape is exemplary.

Though he does make a lot of pesky references to Gehenna and eternal destruction.

elohiym
July 16th, 2005, 05:17 PM
:confused:

Please show where Knight said that if one sins in a small way, he is free from sin.Did I imply that Knight said such a thing? I was just explaining my point of view on the equality of sins, in that Jesus claimed any sin (big or little) made one a servant of sin. That is one way of saying all sins are equal.

###

Poly
July 16th, 2005, 05:40 PM
Did I imply that Knight said such a thing?


Yes because your response to him was...


Jesus did not say "whoever sins big sins is a servant of sin, but whoever sins little sins is free from sin."

By stating this you're implying that Knight said the very thing which you point out that Jesus did not say.


I was just explaining my point of view on the equality of sins, in that Jesus claimed any sin (big or little) made one a servant of sin. That is one way of saying all sins are equal.

No it isn't. If one commits a big sin, he's a servant of sin. If one commits a little sin, he's a servant of sin. All sins cause man to be a servant of sin. But this in no way suggests that all sins are equal. Why do you yourself refer to sin as "big and little" if they are all equal?

elohiym
July 16th, 2005, 06:01 PM
By stating this you're implying that Knight said the very thing that you're pointing out that Jesus did not say.Well, that's not what I intended to imply, and I should know.




No it isn't. If one commits a big sin, he's a servant of sin. If one commits a little sin, he's a servant of sin. All sins cause man to be a servant of sin. But this in no way suggests that all sins are equal. Why do you yourself refer to sin as "big and little" if they are all equal?I said they are not equal in their consequence for the victim and society, but they are equal in their consequence for the sinner--remains servant of sin and unsaved.

I don't normally use the terms "big and little" when it comes to sin, but I felt it appropriate here to make my point. There appears to be equality on one level, and yet obvious inequality on another level. On the obvious level, a child molester is not a car thief; but on a spiritual level, if either remains a servant of sin, they will perish with the rest of the wicked.

###

Turbo
July 16th, 2005, 06:51 PM
He is on par with a number of the world's great spiritual teachers and saints. His kenotic agape is exemplary.

Though he does make a lot of pesky references to Gehenna and eternal destruction.And he made all those pesky claims that he was God, and taught people that they should worship him and follow and obey him or else.

If you don't believe that he is in fact God, why would you call him a "great spiritual teacher" and a "saint" even though he taught such things?

Balder
July 16th, 2005, 08:23 PM
Other saints have also spoken of being God or of being one with God. It's a way of voicing a particular level of spiritual insight.

Turbo
July 17th, 2005, 06:49 AM
Other saints have also spoken of being God or of being one with God. It's a way of voicing a particular level of spiritual insight.
Unless someone is God, claiming to be God destroys his credibility. At least it should, but you don't seem to think it's a big deal.

Sure, he falsely claimed he was God and he demanded people to worship him or go to hell... but other than that he was a swell guy.

eccl3_6
July 17th, 2005, 08:38 AM
Unless someone is God, claiming to be God destroys his credibility. At least it should, but you don't seem to think it's a big deal.

Sure, he falsely claimed he was God and he demanded people to worship him or go to hell... but other than that he was a swell guy.

Just out of interest what are the quotes where Jesus says He is God.

Balder
July 17th, 2005, 10:00 AM
Sure, he falsely claimed he was God and he demanded people to worship him or go to hell... but other than that he was a swell guy.

No one's perfect!

More seriously, I see a way of understanding his claims that is consonant with several contemplative ("mystical") traditions. I know of Christians who agree with this. I also know that most here at TOL do not.

intro2faith
July 17th, 2005, 12:18 PM
No one's perfect!

More seriously, I see a way of understanding his claims that is consonant with several contemplative ("mystical") traditions. I know of Christians who agree with this. I also know that most here at TOL do not.
:doh:

Agape4Robin
July 17th, 2005, 12:57 PM
No one's perfect!

More seriously, I see a way of understanding his claims that is consonant with several contemplative ("mystical") traditions. I know of Christians who agree with this. I also know that most here at TOL do not.
Seriously?! :shocked:





:darwinsm:

eccl3_6
July 17th, 2005, 02:11 PM
Are we all in agreeance that it is not ok to hate the actual sinner or are there some out there that advocate hate of people?

Turbo
July 17th, 2005, 02:11 PM
Just out of interest what are the quotes where Jesus says He is God.Somehow I doubt that you are interested but nevertheless someone else might be.



Only God has the authority to forgive sins, yet Jesus claimed this authority.

Now it happened on a certain day, as He was teaching, that there were Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting by, who had come out of every town of Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was present to heal them. Then behold, men brought on a bed a man who was paralyzed, whom they sought to bring in and lay before Him. And when they could not find how they might bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the housetop and let him down with his bed through the tiling into the midst before Jesus.

When He saw their faith, He said to him, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.”

And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, He answered and said to them, “Why are you reasoning in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Rise up and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”--He said to the man who was paralyzed, “I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.”

Immediately he rose up before them, took up what he had been lying on, and departed to his own house, glorifying God. And they were all amazed, and they glorified God and were filled with fear, saying, “We have seen strange things today!” Luke 5:17-26 (see also Matthew 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12)

We are not to worship other gods, yet Jesus accepted worship.

An angel rejected John’s worship and told him “Worship God” (Revelation 22:8-9). Peter rebuked Cornelius for trying to worship him (Acts 10:25-26). But Jesus accepted worship and even commanded men to worship Him. (Matthew 8:2, 9:18, 14:33, 15:9, 15:25, 28:9, 28:17, Mark 7:7, Luke 4:7) Who does this guy think he is? Even Jesus said, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (Luke 4:8) He also taught men to follow the Law of Moses, which forbade worshipping anyone or anything other than God.

You may suggest that Jesus may have been merely “a good teacher like any other.” And by good you may mean moral or you may mean wise (or both). But a mere moral teacher would not accept worship, and a wise teacher would not contradict his own teachings by accepting worship.


These examples are typical of Jesus’ ministry. Much of His ministry was focused exclusively on Himself.

For instance, when the Old Testament prophets were claiming to speak authoritatively, they used the phrase “thus says the LORD” (over 300 times by OT prophets) Jesus never used this phrase, but is recorded saying, “I say unto you” over 100 times in the Gospel accounts.

What does this manner of speaking imply?

Here are some other examples of Christ's “egocentric” teachings to ponder:

“I and my Father are one.” John 10:30

Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 16:13-17

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
“If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.” John 14:6-7
When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"
So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

“Follow me” (Matthew 4:19, 8:22, 9:9, 9:27, 16:38, 19:21, Mark 2:14, 8:34, 10:21, Luke 5:27, 9:23, 9:59, 18:22, John 1:43, 10:27, 12:26, 13:36, 21:19, 21:22)

“And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.” (Matthew 19:29)

“Believe in the name of the Son.” (John 3:18, 20:31)

“Believe in the Son.” (John 3:36)

“Believe in Him whom He sent.” (John 6:29)

“Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me.” (John 14:1)

“Abide in Me” (John 15:7)

“...if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24)

“He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.” (John 11:25)

When sending false believers to hell: “I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” (Matthew 7:22-23)

Jesus claims to be “greater than Jonah.” (Matthew 12:41, Luke 11:32)
Jesus claims to be “greater than Solomon.” (Matthew 12:42, Luke 11:31)
Jesus claims to be “greater than the temple.” (Matthew 12:6)

“...the Son of Man is LORD even of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8, Mark 2:28, Luke 6:5)

“...keep My commandments” (John 14:15. 14:21, 15:10)

“...in My name...you belong to Christ” (Mark 9:41)

“Hear my sayings and do them” (Luke 6:47, John 14:24)

to the apostles: “He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16)

“But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the [Holy] Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.” (John 15:26)

“And this is eternal life...know Jesus Christ,” (John 17:3)

“I give them eternal life” (John 10:28)

“I will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32)

Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.” John 5:45-46

Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” Luke 24:44

“Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58, compare to Exodus 3:14)

eccl3_6
July 17th, 2005, 02:13 PM
Thankyou, I am interested.....

Turbo
July 17th, 2005, 02:20 PM
#2 Are we all in agreeance that it is not ok to hate the actual sinner or are there some out there that advocate hate of people?There are many (myself included) who recognize that as a man thinks in his heart, so is he.


Do I not hate them, O LORD, who hate You?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
I hate them with perfect hatred;
I count them my enemies. Psalm 139:21-22


These six things the LORD hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren. Proverbs 5:16-19

eccl3_6
July 17th, 2005, 02:26 PM
There are many (myself included) who recognize that as a man thinks in his heart, so is he.

So if a homosexual who desires in his heart even though he does not act on it....is still evil. Even if he lives his life in complete celibacy.

Does this mean people aren't born gay but become gay?

Agape4Robin
July 17th, 2005, 02:38 PM
Somehow I doubt that you are interested but nevertheless someone else might be.



Only God has the authority to forgive sins, yet Jesus claimed this authority.

Now it happened on a certain day, as He was teaching, that there were Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting by, who had come out of every town of Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was present to heal them. Then behold, men brought on a bed a man who was paralyzed, whom they sought to bring in and lay before Him. And when they could not find how they might bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the housetop and let him down with his bed through the tiling into the midst before Jesus.

When He saw their faith, He said to him, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.”

And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, He answered and said to them, “Why are you reasoning in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Rise up and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”--He said to the man who was paralyzed, “I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.”

Immediately he rose up before them, took up what he had been lying on, and departed to his own house, glorifying God. And they were all amazed, and they glorified God and were filled with fear, saying, “We have seen strange things today!” Luke 5:17-26 (see also Matthew 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12)

We are not to worship other gods, yet Jesus accepted worship.

An angel rejected John’s worship and told him “Worship God” (Revelation 22:8-9). Peter rebuked Cornelius for trying to worship him (Acts 10:25-26). But Jesus accepted worship and even commanded men to worship Him. (Matthew 8:2, 9:18, 14:33, 15:9, 15:25, 28:9, 28:17, Mark 7:7, Luke 4:7) Who does this guy think he is? Even Jesus said, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (Luke 4:8) He also taught men to follow the Law of Moses, which forbade worshipping anyone or anything other than God.

You may suggest that Jesus may have been merely “a good teacher like any other.” And by good you may mean moral or you may mean wise (or both). But a mere moral teacher would not accept worship, and a wise teacher would not contradict his own teachings by accepting worship.


These examples are typical of Jesus’ ministry. Much of His ministry was focused exclusively on Himself.

For instance, when the Old Testament prophets were claiming to speak authoritatively, they used the phrase “thus says the LORD” (over 300 times by OT prophets) Jesus never used this phrase, but is recorded saying, “I say unto you” over 100 times in the Gospel accounts.

What does this manner of speaking imply?

Here are some other examples of Christ's “egocentric” teachings to ponder:

“I and my Father are one.” John 10:30

Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 16:13-17

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
“If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.” John 14:6-7
When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"
So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

“Follow me” (Matthew 4:19, 8:22, 9:9, 9:27, 16:38, 19:21, Mark 2:14, 8:34, 10:21, Luke 5:27, 9:23, 9:59, 18:22, John 1:43, 10:27, 12:26, 13:36, 21:19, 21:22)

“And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.” (Matthew 19:29)

“Believe in the name of the Son.” (John 3:18, 20:31)

“Believe in the Son.” (John 3:36)

“Believe in Him whom He sent.” (John 6:29)

“Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me.” (John 14:1)

“Abide in Me” (John 15:7)

“...if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24)

“He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.” (John 11:25)

When sending false believers to hell: “I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” (Matthew 7:22-23)

Jesus claims to be “greater than Jonah.” (Matthew 12:41, Luke 11:32)
Jesus claims to be “greater than Solomon.” (Matthew 12:42, Luke 11:31)
Jesus claims to be “greater than the temple.” (Matthew 12:6)

“...the Son of Man is LORD even of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8, Mark 2:28, Luke 6:5)

“...keep My commandments” (John 14:15. 14:21, 15:10)

“...in My name...you belong to Christ” (Mark 9:41)

“Hear my sayings and do them” (Luke 6:47, John 14:24)

to the apostles: “He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16)

“But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the [Holy] Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.” (John 15:26)

“And this is eternal life...know Jesus Christ,” (John 17:3)

“I give them eternal life” (John 10:28)

“I will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32)

Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.” John 5:45-46

Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” Luke 24:44

“Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58, compare to Exodus 3:14)
Kinda hard to refute all that!!!!! :think: :chuckle:

eccl3_6
July 17th, 2005, 02:41 PM
Kinda hard to refute all that!!!!! :think: :chuckle:

Yep,,,,just as valid as any other religion and it would disrespectful to attempt to.

Turbo
July 17th, 2005, 03:31 PM
Yep,,,,just as valid as any other religion and it would disrespectful to attempt to.:rolleyes:

Turbo
July 17th, 2005, 03:38 PM
So if a homosexual who desires in his heart even though he does not act on it....is still evil. Even if he lives his life in complete celibacy.
"You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matthew 5:27-28


Does this mean people aren't born gay but become gay?
People aren't born homosexual any more than they're born adulterers or drunkards or murderers.

Knight
July 17th, 2005, 07:12 PM
No it isn't. If one commits a big sin, he's a servant of sin. If one commits a little sin, he's a servant of sin. All sins cause man to be a servant of sin. But this in no way suggests that all sins are equal. Why do you yourself refer to sin as "big and little" if they are all equal?:chuckle: :up:

Agape4Robin
July 17th, 2005, 07:17 PM
Yep,,,,just as valid as any other religion and it would disrespectful to attempt to.
:blabla:

defcon
July 17th, 2005, 09:09 PM
There are many (myself included) who recognize that as a man thinks in his heart, so is he.


Do I not hate them, O LORD, who hate You?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
I hate them with perfect hatred;
I count them my enemies. Psalm 139:21-22


These six things the LORD hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren. Proverbs 5:16-19
Isn't this the old covenant? As mentioned before - Luke 6:27-28 "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." Are we to assume those who mistreat us or are our enemies aren't sinning? If not, how then can it be qualified to hate sinners?

missedmarks
July 17th, 2005, 10:18 PM
This is a tough issue that has often given me headaches. Knight is dead on when he says Love the sinner hate the sin is unbiblical. It's a cliche that popped up to describe a dillema and it does a rather poor job of dealing with the problem.

The problem here is condemnation. Jesus said whoever calls his brother an idiot is guilty of murder, he says judge not lest ye be judged yourself. Other places it tells us to judge rightly, or to rebuke our brother. This gets confusing sometimes.

I think the confusion comes from our modern misunderstanding of the terms. When we are told to judge and rebuke we are being instructed to recognize, inform and lovingly correct our brother all the time recognizing that we are also sinners...in other words not thinking too highly of ourself as we do so. Being sinfull humans however, most of us like being 'better' then our brother. We enjoy having some 'currency' with God that puts us in a more favorable place then our sinfull brethren. It is very hard for us to judge without condemning our brother. Still that doesn't mean we are off the hook and we are supposed to just tolorate or ignore sin.

We should treat sin like cancer. It kills. We don't hate someone who has cancer and even though they often did things to encourage the cancer, we don't condemn then and declare them 'untouchable' because of it. We do however let them know they have something that will kill them and they need to see the doctor. We are not doing them a favor by just pretending the cancer isn't there or that it is somehow "Ok"

Balder
July 17th, 2005, 10:30 PM
Missedmarks,

Would you say rebuking should sound something like this?

"You disgusting cancerous person. You are rotten and God hates you because your cells are corrupt. I hate you too, you filthy cellular mutant. Chemotherapy is the only answer. Do it or die, you freak. Consider yourself lovingly warned."

missedmarks
July 17th, 2005, 10:58 PM
No not at all, and yes I am well aware that is what many Christians do.

The problem with that sort of statement is the condemnation intrinsic to the statement. You are not simply identifying and attempting to correct sin...you are passing judgement on the worth of a human being who is loved by God. God doesn't hate anyone, he hates the fact that people are sinfull and are constantly tempted to do things which harm them and drive a wedge in between him and his children

Also the anger and venom in that statement clearly shows that the speaker has many sin issues of their own. Not that anger is a sin, but cultivating it and spewing it all over annother person in such a manner is. Anyone who treats people that way needs to take a step back and worry a little more about their own sin then trying to help their brother.

There is a time to be harsh and a time to be gentle. Christ was usually very kind and carefull with the broken sinners he dealt with, his rebuke usually boiled down to "Stop Sinning" He tended to be rather harsh however with the arrogant and those that would use God as a tool to increase their own status or control others.

intro2faith
July 17th, 2005, 11:28 PM
Missedmarks,

That is pretty much thee best thing I've read on this thread! You hit it dead on. :up:

logos_x
July 18th, 2005, 01:34 AM
No not at all, and yes I am well aware that is what many Christians do.

The problem with that sort of statement is the condemnation intrinsic to the statement. You are not simply identifying and attempting to correct sin...you are passing judgement on the worth of a human being who is loved by God. God doesn't hate anyone, he hates the fact that people are sinfull and are constantly tempted to do things which harm them and drive a wedge in between him and his children

Also the anger and venom in that statement clearly shows that the speaker has many sin issues of their own. Not that anger is a sin, but cultivating it and spewing it all over annother person in such a manner is. Anyone who treats people that way needs to take a step back and worry a little more about their own sin then trying to help their brother.

There is a time to be harsh and a time to be gentle. Christ was usually very kind and carefull with the broken sinners he dealt with, his rebuke usually boiled down to "Stop Sinning" He tended to be rather harsh however with the arrogant and those that would use God as a tool to increase their own status or control others.


Well said :thumb:

defcon
July 18th, 2005, 06:32 AM
Do we really want to just tell unbelievers to "Stop Sinning?". While I agree with what missedmarks said, the "judgment" of sin isn't to create "better people." The depraved state of the person should be emphasized over an individual sin so that the person can fall on the grace of Jesus. When we point out individual sins of unbelievers, and then the unbeliever stops that sin, we have now just pushed "works" righteousness into the gospel - why do they need Jesus if they can just do supposed "good things"? I'm not saying that we can't point out individual sin, but the goal is not to get them to stop sinning, but to recognize that we need a Saviour. As for believers, rebuke and judge as needed.

Balder
July 18th, 2005, 08:05 AM
Do we really want to just tell unbelievers to "Stop Sinning?". While I agree with what missedmarks said, the "judgment" of sin isn't to create "better people." The depraved state of the person should be emphasized over an individual sin so that the person can fall on the grace of Jesus. When we point out individual sins of unbelievers, and then the unbeliever stops that sin, we have now just pushed "works" righteousness into the gospel - why do they need Jesus if they can just do supposed "good things"? I'm not saying that we can't point out individual sin, but the goal is not to get them to stop sinning, but to recognize that we need a Saviour. As for believers, rebuke and judge as needed.
Why do you think Jesus told those sinners to stop sinning, rather than to "believe in him or else"? If that was his only message to them, and they didn't know that the "only way" to heaven was through considering him to be God Himself, then they very well may have ended up being lost forever anyway...

defcon
July 18th, 2005, 08:24 AM
Why do you think Jesus told those sinners to stop sinning, rather than to "believe in him or else"? If that was his only message to them, and they didn't know that the "only way" to heaven was through considering him to be God Himself, then they very well may have ended up being lost forever anyway...Grace had not come through His sacrifice, therefore the sacrificial atonement for the Old Testament still held. However, the Law as not intended to bring life but to drive people to understand that they were utterly sinful. When Christ gave this command it was no different than God in the Old Testament giving laws that people couldn't keep in our sinful state. The goal was to show sinfulness, not to be made righteous from the law. When we come to an understanding of our depraved state, we then accept Christ's sacrifice for our sin given by His grace - not by our works. Jesus did spread this message (John 3:16 for instance - "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Faith is the difference - not keeping the law) but until His sacrifice, the New Covenant had not begun.

eccl3_6
July 18th, 2005, 08:42 AM
People aren't born homosexual any more than they're born adulterers or drunkards or murderers.

Its just I read this...

www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1689843,00.html

And I was wondering what your qualifications were?

You see why would these people be born sinners? If it is a sin.

And if evertything is sinful which falls short of His Grace then all of us are sinners to some extent. So can we ever justify actually hating someone?

I believe not for it would make us hypocrites. If we hate someone because they sin, regardless of what sin it is, then surely we would be as well hating ourselves first.

allsmiles
July 18th, 2005, 08:49 AM
Random Post:

I find it hilarious that anything must be hated at all. How pointless, counter-productive and futile.

eccl3_6
July 18th, 2005, 08:53 AM
Random Post:

I find it hilarious that anything must be hated at all. How pointless, counter-productive and futile.

I agree. Not with intangible things, but with tangible things hate is counter productive.

Balder
July 18th, 2005, 09:08 AM
Grace had not come through His sacrifice, therefore the sacrificial atonement for the Old Testament still held. However, the Law as not intended to bring life but to drive people to understand that they were utterly sinful. When Christ gave this command it was no different than God in the Old Testament giving laws that people couldn't keep in our sinful state. The goal was to show sinfulness, not to be made righteous from the law. When we come to an understanding of our depraved state, we then accept Christ's sacrifice for our sin given by His grace - not by our works. Jesus did spread this message (John 3:16 for instance - "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Faith is the difference - not keeping the law) but until His sacrifice, the New Covenant had not begun.
What's the point of giving a law to people that will either encourage the misguided belief that a human can keep it, or else will lead to the realization that one is totally unable to keep it (though commanded to do so), when "grace" would not be extended for many centuries? That's a lot of people living a lie, or else living in despair and fear, with nowhere to turn (since grace had not yet been extended). I understand the impulse to take a big historical perspective and look at the whole "story" of God's (apparent) interaction with the Jews, but if you also insist that salvation is only available through one means alone, then God's interactions with his people prior to Christ appear confused or cruel: requiring a huge number of animals to be killed in a totally ineffective sacrificial system, and holding people to a law (on pain of death) that they had no hope of possibly keeping, in order to "make a point" to later generations.

defcon
July 18th, 2005, 09:17 AM
Its just I read this...

www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1689843,00.html

And I was wondering what your qualifications were?

You see why would these people be born sinners? If it is a sin.

And if evertything is sinful which falls short of His Grace then all of us are sinners to some extent. So can we ever justify actually hating someone?

I believe not for it would make us hypocrites. If we hate someone because they sin, regardless of what sin it is, then surely we would be as well hating ourselves first.In one sense you are correct in that we are all born sinners. Yet even if they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is genetic, this doesn't make it not a sin. Testosterone levels can be more advanced in some individuals which will lead them to be more violent. Addictions to alchohol and other drugs can be past on from the mother to the child. Yet, none of these can be used for excuses before a perfect and holy God. We are all born in sin inherited from Adam. We all must fall on the grace of Jesus Christ through His sacrifice to be saved - no excuses. Once one becomes saved, the Spirit comes into the person's life to help them overcome sin. We don't instantly never sin again and the weakness may be present in some capacity for our entire life, but we are no longer a slave to it.

eccl3_6
July 18th, 2005, 09:24 AM
In one sense you are correct in that we are all born sinners. Yet even if they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is genetic, this doesn't make it not a sin. Testosterone levels can be more advanced in some individuals which will lead them to be more violent. Addictions to alchohol and other drugs can be past on from the mother to the child. Yet, none of these can be used for excuses before a perfect and holy God. We are all born in sin inherited from Adam. We all must fall on the grace of Jesus Christ through His sacrifice to be saved - no excuses. Once one becomes saved, the Spirit comes into the person's life to help them overcome sin. We don't instantly never sin again and the weakness may be present in some capacity for our entire life, but we are no longer a slave to it.

I'm not trying to infer that it is not a sin or not....thats another thread entirely. I am trying to say that it is unacceptable to hate a sinner. Regardless of what that sin might be. So even if you do regard homosexuality as a sin.....they should still not be hated.


Do you (addressed to the wider audience) hate homosexuals?

I, personally, am heterosexual and do not.

defcon
July 18th, 2005, 09:28 AM
What's the point of giving a law to people that will either encourage the misguided belief that a human can keep it, or else will lead to the realization that one is totally unable to keep it (though commanded to do so), when "grace" would not be extended for many centuries? That's a lot of people living a lie, or else living in despair and fear, with nowhere to turn (since grace had not yet been extended). I understand the impulse to take a big historical perspective and look at the whole "story" of God's (apparent) interaction with the Jews, but if you also insist that salvation is only available through one means alone, then God's interactions with his people prior to Christ appear confused or cruel: requiring a huge number of animals to be killed in a totally ineffective sacrificial system, and holding people to a law (on pain of death) that they had no hope of possibly keeping, in order to "make a point" to later generations.Even in the Old Testament we find that Abraham was credited righteousness by faith (Romans 4:3), so to extrapulate out that everyone in the Old Testament perished eternally is incorrect. The Jews were God's chosen people. The gospel is what it is. To try to rationalize with God is an endeavor that we are hardly qualified to take on. Romans 11:33-36 -
Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
"Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?"
"Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay him?"
For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.

missedmarks
July 18th, 2005, 05:44 PM
When I said Christ simply said "Stop Sinning" I oversimplified...Christ said quite a bit more then that.

God gave the Law, man imedieately dug into it to find loopholes. He dug through it and read it like a man made legal document and figured, "All right, I'm not sleeping with my neighboors wife...I am keeping the comandment."

Jesus came and pointed out that just avoiding sex with your neighbor's wife was not enough for righteousness. Just avoiding certain behaiviors is like washing the outside of the cup and leaving the inside filthy. He suggested cleaning the inside of the cup and the outside will get clean in the process. In other words seek to desire what is good, and your behaivior will follow naturaly. Of course we will fail, life is a struggle and we are imperfect. That doesn't mean we don't try.

Of course men took Jesus's words and imediately started looking for loopholes. They say now make sure you don't look lustfully on your neighbor's wife and your are good to go. That's not the point. It's not about behaivior, it's about your internal motivations and your desires. The only way to clean the inside of the cup is by letting Christ get in there and do the scrubbing.

The other problem we have is that we get salvation issues mingled in there with other stuff. If you believe in Christ he will forgive your sins. The reason for following his commands is not to earn favor from him, or because it's a condition of salvation. You follow Christs commands because he was brilliant, he presents the best information on how to live your life. He is God, you do what God says because God said so.

eccl3_6
July 18th, 2005, 05:55 PM
When I said Christ simply said "Stop Sinning" I oversimplified...Christ said quite a bit more then that.

God gave the Law, man imedieately dug into it to find loopholes. He dug through it and read it like a man made legal document and figured, "All right, I'm not sleeping with my neighboors wife...I am keeping the comandment."

Jesus came and pointed out that just avoiding sex with your neighbor's wife was not enough for righteousness. Just avoiding certain behaiviors is like washing the outside of the cup and leaving the inside filthy. He suggested cleaning the inside of the cup and the outside will get clean in the process. In other words seek to desire what is good, and your behaivior will follow naturaly. Of course we will fail, life is a struggle and we are imperfect. That doesn't mean we don't try.

Of course men took Jesus's words and imediately started looking for loopholes. They say now make sure you don't look lustfully on your neighbor's wife and your are good to go. That's not the point. It's not about behaivior, it's about your internal motivations and your desires. The only way to clean the inside of the cup is by letting Christ get in there and do the scrubbing.

The other problem we have is that we get salvation issues mingled in there with other stuff. If you believe in Christ he will forgive your sins. The reason for following his commands is not to earn favor from him, or because it's a condition of salvation. You follow Christs commands because he was brilliant, he presents the best information on how to live your life. He is God, you do what God says because God said so.

And Unfortunately if you don't agree - eternity in hell. ;)

missedmarks
July 18th, 2005, 06:15 PM
People don't go to hell for not agreeing, and they don't go to hell because they failed to observe the proper religious rituals. People go to hell because they deserve it.

I know alot of people really don't like that idea. I know most people look at themselves and consider themselves fairly decent people. I thought the same way before I went to the Kosovo. I am no Calvinist, but he got the totally depraved part right. The difference between the day to day inhumanity we all experience in traffic and ethnic cleansing is only in the results. Human cruelty and selfishness is staggering in it's depth. Whether we like to admit it or not, most of us, put in the right situation would happily do things that would make hardened SS veterans puke. I'm not saying that everyone is a sadistic potential serial killer, I'm saying that most people do horrible things to each other, and are only held in check by the situation and by civilization's threat of punishment. Given the right conditions people normally go the route of evil.

intro2faith
July 18th, 2005, 06:15 PM
And Unfortunately if you don't agree - eternity in hell. ;)
And whose choice would that be? You were offered a way out...and you didn't take it.

billwald
July 18th, 2005, 08:19 PM
You were offered a way out. All you gots to do is say, "Jesus,"come into my heart," and Jesus/God is backed into a corner and gots to issue you a fire insurance policy.

eccl3_6
July 19th, 2005, 09:44 AM
And whose choice would that be? You were offered a way out...and you didn't take it.

So if a kid in school says to a child, "do as I say or I'll beat you up." he's not a bully?


I'm not trying to infer what is or is not a sin....thats another thread entirely. I am trying to say that it is unacceptable to hate a sinner. Regardless of what that sin might be. So even if you do regard homosexuality as a sin.....they should still not be hated.


#1 Addressing to the wider audience, do you hate homosexuals?

I, personally, am heterosexual and do not.


#2 On this site there seems to be a body of people who's propagation of hate is justified by the doctrine they hold true. Is this correct?

billwald
July 19th, 2005, 11:14 AM
>Grace had not come through His sacrifice,

Then Abraham was not "saved by grace?"

>therefore the sacrificial atonement for the Old Testament still held.

Isn't one verse in Exo thru Deut that states or implies that the Mosiac Covenant was strictly a social contract for the people living in the Israel. Not one verse refers to the next life or to gentiles living in Austrailia.

>However, the Law as not intended to bring life

Agree. It was to provide a civil government.

>but to drive people to understand that they were utterly sinful.

Then Moses and God lied to the people?

>When Christ gave this command it was no different than God in the Old Testament giving laws that >people couldn't keep in our sinful state.

He gave the command to Jews living in Israel. Yes, they could "keep" the Law. The Mosiac Contract provided sacrifices so that people who inadvertantly violated the contract could continue to live in the community. There was NO sacrifice for intentional sin. The intentional violator had to die. BUT the Law made no reference to after life disposition. In other words, an elect (technically righteous) person who committed a felony could go to Heaven after his death as King David did.

>The goal was to show sinfulness, not to be made righteous from the law.

This is an intentional misinterpretation by St Paul for political (command and control) reasons.

Chileice
July 19th, 2005, 11:14 AM
The very few people who have the ability to hate the sin but love the sinner are generally canonized as "saints." I've never personally met any.

Sure you have... your parents. I loved my brother even though I hated his doing drugs. I tried to get him to stop every chance I could. And I still hate drugs with a passion but a person can love the sinner and hate the sin and not be a "saint". It happens everyday.


Here from the book of Jude is an example of how we OUGHT to live. Yes, loving the sinner and hating the sin is very biblical.

20But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy)faith, praying in the Holy Spirit,

21keep yourselves in the love of God,)waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.

22And have mercy on some, who are doubting;

23save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.

intro2faith
July 19th, 2005, 12:03 PM
You were offered a way out. All you gots to do is say, "Jesus,"come into my heart," and Jesus/God is backed into a corner and gots to issue you a fire insurance policy.
God doesn't "have" to accept anyone into His heavenly kingdom. He WANTS to! That is His greatest desire...that ALL shall be saved and come to Him. He rejoices beyond belief when someone chooses Him!

defcon
July 19th, 2005, 12:38 PM
He gave the command to Jews living in Israel. Yes, they could "keep" the Law. The Mosiac Contract provided sacrifices so that people who inadvertantly violated the contract could continue to live in the community. There was NO sacrifice for intentional sin. The intentional violator had to die. BUT the Law made no reference to after life disposition. In other words, an elect (technically righteous) person who committed a felony could go to Heaven after his death as King David did.

>The goal was to show sinfulness, not to be made righteous from the law.

This is an intentional misinterpretation by St Paul for political (command and control) reasons.Romans 3:20 " Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." Misinterpretation? I don't see it. Please explain.

defcon
July 19th, 2005, 01:28 PM
>Grace had not come through His sacrifice,

Then Abraham was not "saved by grace?"
I mentioned this already in another post (Post #143) affirming my point that we can't keep the Law. :rolleyes: Also, Scripture isn't wrong in saying it even today because we still can't keep the Law in our flesh.


Isn't one verse in Exo thru Deut that states or implies that the Mosiac Covenant was strictly a social contract for the people living in the Israel. Not one verse refers to the next life or to gentiles living in Austrailia. Tried reading this section a few times, are you saying that Exodus through Deut. is a social contract? The first sentence doesn't say this but the second sentence affirms the first sentence as if it was, please explain.


>However, the Law as not intended to bring life

Agree. It was to provide a civil government. Nope. Galatians 3:22 "But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe." It helped civil government, no question, but as you can see there is much more to it.


>but to drive people to understand that they were utterly sinful.

Then Moses and God lied to the people?Lie? No - it wasn't a lie. To be righteous by the Law you could never break the Law - that was the standard. To say otherwise would be to affirm Christ's death was meaningless because we could atone for sin through animal sacrifices. Hebrews 10:1-2 "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins."

defcon
July 19th, 2005, 06:36 PM
Here from the book of Jude is an example of how we OUGHT to live. Yes, loving the sinner and hating the sin is very biblical.

20But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy)faith, praying in the Holy Spirit,

21keep yourselves in the love of God,)waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.

22And have mercy on some, who are doubting;

23save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh. :thumb: I agree, nice post!

eccl3_6
July 20th, 2005, 07:50 AM
Sure you have... your parents. I loved my brother even though I hated his doing drugs. I tried to get him to stop every chance I could. And I still hate drugs with a passion but a person can love the sinner and hate the sin and not be a "saint". It happens everyday.


Here from the book of Jude is an example of how we OUGHT to live. Yes, loving the sinner and hating the sin is very biblical.

20But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy)faith, praying in the Holy Spirit,

21keep yourselves in the love of God,)waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.

22And have mercy on some, who are doubting;

23save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.


This post should humble a lot of pious people here on TOL.
Should but won't.

OMEGA
July 21st, 2005, 10:45 AM
Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

intro2faith
July 21st, 2005, 10:52 AM
Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
Yes, there I believe it is talking about the FRUITS of darkness. Not the people of darkness. Although we are not to fellowship with unbelievers too much, as they will probably rub off on us eventually. That's not saying that we can't hang out with them and give them a Godly example though.

For all those people that say it's okay to hate sinners...think about this. God's love is absolutely unconditional. That means that you don't have to be saved for Him to love you, you don't even have to be a good person for Him to love you. Because His love isunconditional. Therefore, shouldn't our love be unconditional as well?

defcon
July 21st, 2005, 10:53 AM
Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.Cherry-picking verses doesn't help, nowhere does this say that we should hate sinners. It simply says to expose evil deeds. God's love often rebukes our faults, to rebuke sin doesn't mean you hate the sinner. Apathy to sins is not love.

billwald
July 21st, 2005, 01:06 PM
Romans 3:20 " Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." Misinterpretation? I don't see it. Please explain.

Paul was wrong.

"Tried reading this section a few times, are you saying that Exodus through Deut. is a social contract?"

Read it several dozen times in a half dozen translations. Yes, it is a social contract.

"Lie? No - it wasn't a lie. To be righteous by the Law you could never break the Law - that was the standard."

Not the standard set by God in the Mosiac Covenant. If you were correct then there would be no sacrifices for inadvertant violations.

defcon
July 21st, 2005, 01:14 PM
Romans 3:20 " Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." Misinterpretation? I don't see it. Please explain.

Paul was wrong.

"Tried reading this section a few times, are you saying that Exodus through Deut. is a social contract?"

Read it several dozen times in a half dozen translations. Yes, it is a social contract.

"Lie? No - it wasn't a lie. To be righteous by the Law you could never break the Law - that was the standard."

Not the standard set by God in the Mosiac Covenant. If you were correct then there would be no sacrifices for inadvertant violations.I don't even see the need in refuting this, you obviously see the Bible as something that can be "cut and pasted" at your will.
"Paul was wrong." :chuckle: Nice refutation - This is an utterly stupid position - you can't argue the Bible says something definitively if you do so by stating other parts of the Bible are false. You are not arguing Biblical perspectives but your own point of view and in doing so undermine your case entirely.

billwald
July 21st, 2005, 08:36 PM
If Paul wrote something that contradicted Moses then Paul is wrong. Jesus demonstrated his faith in Moses as accuately transcribing God's words. Where did Jesus and Moses err? After all, the major 6dayer interpretation is based upon the assumption that Jesus cited Moses and therefore Moses was correct.

defcon
July 21st, 2005, 08:52 PM
If Paul wrote something that contradicted Moses then Paul is wrong. Jesus demonstrated his faith in Moses as accuately transcribing God's words. Where did Jesus and Moses err? After all, the major 6dayer interpretation is based upon the assumption that Jesus cited Moses and therefore Moses was correct.Goodness billwald, why bother? Your case is destroyed - what stops someone from saying Moses is wrong and Paul is right? The Bible can not to be taken in pieces, but as a whole with the understanding that all of it is God breathed. Your position is unbiblical. Why is mine not? Moses gave the Law but a lot of people assume since we were given commandments, we have the ability to keep them. In light of sound doctrine based out of the New Testament, we know that in our flesh we can't. To disregard part of the Bible is to disregard it all - your position is intolerable. All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). You are arguing biblical authority by disregarding biblical authority, therefore your argument is destroyed by your argument!

billwald
July 21st, 2005, 10:07 PM
Common sense should tell you or anyone who has read it that Genesis through Deut constitutes a "doable" systematic theology but the NT fails unless every book of the OT is God's theology.

Turbo
July 21st, 2005, 10:26 PM
For more on billwald's indefensible and thoroughly refuted views on Paul, check out this thread: MacArthur Rant (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12952)

defcon
July 22nd, 2005, 06:58 AM
For more on billwald's indefensible and thoroughly refuted views on Paul, check out this thread: MacArthur Rant (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12952)Thanks....:)

Chileice
December 26th, 2005, 09:37 AM
A thread that had its share of rants but that also had its share of moments of wisdom and I nominate it for top 10.