Is Sin real ?

[Azure24]

My Scriptural quotes are not the reason for my understanding of the statements I make...The quotes are merely proof of the statements I make.....In other words I don't believe Jesus instead knows us because of the above quotes.

Evertime I post something people always tell me..."your out of context"...context, context, context....You wanna play the context game, let's play...

" ... Christ liveth in me ... " (Gal. 2:20).
Does this prove that Christ lives in no one else?

"As the Lord liveth, there shall not one hair of thy son fall to the earth" (II Sam. 14:11).
So when this person eventually died, did God then die?

"God is love".(I John. 4:8)
But apart from this instance He is hatred?

"And I saw thrones ... and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" (Rev. 20:4).
Would anyone suggest that at the end of the thousand years the subjects of this prophecy all died?

Let's get real people....I'm not an idiot, don't treat me like one, ok?

No. When God wants to make a point about something to us through Scripture, He always doesn't it numerous times. So I can give many verses that prove my statement....Shall I? No, in fact I will...So there is no reasonable doubt.

All the Good things we have are not our own, proof. Where does love come from?

"Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God..." (I John. 4:7)

"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us..." (I John. 4:10)

"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us..." (I John.4:12)

Where does faith come from?

"For in grace, through faith, are you saved, and this is not out of you; it is God’s gift, not of WORKS, lest anyone should be boasting" (Eph. 2:8-9).

"I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith OF the Son of God [not faith ‘IN’ the Son of God, but the very faith ‘OF’ the Son of God—it is His faith, not ours until He gives us some of it] Who loved me, and gave Himself for me" (Gal. 2:20).

Where does the will to repent come from?

"Or despise you the riches of HIS goodness [‘His goodness;’ not ours] and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God LEADS [God is ‘leading’ ] you to repentance?"(Rom. 2:4).

Shall I go on? Ok one last statement...

"God hath not cast away his people which he FOREKNEW." (Rom. 11:2)

What do we have here? Foreknew Let's check that in the dictionary.

: to have previous knowledge of : know beforehand especially by paranormal means or by revelation

lack of knowledge? I don't think so....

Night, night.

 

[Netti-Netti]

And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." (Genesis 2)
​

ok, so we know sin is real by virtue of the fact that it has consequences that are not only real, but significant in their impact.

In Genesis 3 we see Eve repeating to the serpent what she had been warned about the consequences of disobedience. The serpent countered with the temptation:

"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like G-d, knowing good and evil."
​

This is important because now the scenario has changed to one where Eve is second guessing G-d's threat concerning the consequences of disobedience while at the same time presuming herself to be capable of divine knowledge.

In effect then, we have two kinds of violations here: (1) simple disobedience of a command ("you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge"), the other violation being (2) a wish to usurp G-d's authority ("become like G-d"). The punishment that follows would seem to be for both.

My sense is that the point was is to illustrate that actions have consequences, but wrong attitudes do, too. The issue is not just second guessing G-d's specific threat; it's second guessing His authority and sovereignty.

 

[Faithfulservant]

My pastor always says in order to understand the text read the context.


...

 

[immortalitylost]

If Adam and Eve knew no knowledge of good or evil before they ate of the fruit, then how could their actions be interpreted as "Bad" or "Sin"? If they had no knowledge of evil, surely they had no knowledge of bad. If sin is indeed based apon intention, as so many have told me, then I contest that Adam and Eve did not intend to do bad, because they did not know what "bad" was. Therefore they could not have sinned.

The scenario means little anyhow. A truly omniscient God would have known A&E's decision before he told them not to eat the fruit. Before he had even created them. Not to mention that if he created all of the world, he created the serpent along with it. There was a purpose behind their consumption of the fruit. If God didn't want them to do it, they wouldn't have done it.

My beliefs, that's all.

See ya!

 

[Thomas]

If I killed thousands of people, but didn't believe in my heart that it was wrong to do so, I wouldn't be 'sinning'? How exactly does that work, Thomas?

By the very process you describe — the very fact that you say 'in my heart' defines the decision as a moral one. Look at Scripture again — sin is always something that rises in the heart.

Now whether you were right or wrong, depends on a number of things. People commit the most heinous crimes believing they are right.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

If Adam and Eve knew no knowledge of good or evil before they ate of the fruit, then how could their actions be interpreted as "Bad" or "Sin"?

But they did, obviously. God said 'do that and you will die' (Genesis 2:16) – what more is there to understand?

Thomas

 

[GlorytoGod]

What definition of sin are you working to?

What seems to be missing from the discussion is the fact that a sin, by definition, requires the freely-given assent of the will to perform an action one knows to be wrong ... so a sin is not a 'mistake', or an 'error', or something done in ignorance, 'sin' implies the moral dimension of an action (or inaction) — it's not what you do that determines a sin, it's why you do it.

Thomas

so Sin is the intention of the action ?

 

[GlorytoGod]

I'm going to move this to the Christianity section to try and keep it focused there.

other religions also have sin, islam so its not just and christian concept.

but I dont mind which section its in really.

 

[Thomas]

so Sin is the intention of the action ?

Yes.

Animals, plants, rocks do not sin. Sin belongs by definition to the sphere of morality, and morality to humanity.

Aquinas gave an example:
A rich man gives a poor man alms. Is that good?
Yes ... if the intention is to relieve the suffering of the poor man;
No ... if the intention is to demonstrate to his neighbours what a noble and generous person he is.

Either way the poor man benefits, but that's not the point, the point is why the rich man did what he did. Why he did what he did will effect the soul.

The rich man gives the poor man alms to relieve his suffering. The poor man buys alcohol, gets drunk, and falls into a river and drowns. Or goes home and beats his wife and children. Or in a drunken stupor falls asleep with a cigarette in his hand and burns the house down, which spreads to the whole city block ...

... was the rich man wrong to give the poor man alms?

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

If Adam and Eve knew no knowledge of good or evil before they ate of the fruit, then how could their actions be interpreted as "Bad" or "Sin"?

The commandment “Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die” created a rudimentary conscience.

If they had no knowledge of evil, surely they had no knowledge of bad.

They knew what was forbidden.

If sin is indeed based opon intention, as so many have told me, then I contest that Adam and Eve did not intend to do bad, because they did not know what "bad" was. Therefore they could not have sinned.

Action reflects intention. A&E intended disobedience.

The scenario means little anyhow. A truly omniscient God would have known A&E's decision before he told them not to eat the fruit. Before he had even created them.

Why would this change anything?

Not to mention that if he created all of the world, he created the serpent along with it. There was a purpose behind their consumption of the fruit. If God didn't want them to do it, they wouldn't have done it.

G-d knew A&E would have find out the consequences for themselves. In other words, notions of wrong doing and responsibility would become realistic when A&E suffered consequences.

The Fall takes the notion of wrongdoing and responsibility out of the realm of abstract ideas into the empirical realm. A&E got to discover what happens when choices are effectuated.

Empirically, we often discover what it means to be responsible after the fact. Moreover, the situation becomes a venue for rebuilding the relationship. There would be no need for redemption without the Fall. The process makes G-d's love more real and allows the person to experience it so that they will then come to love G-d more. Was all this all intended from the start? I believe so.

 

[Azure24]

Hi all

My pastor always says in order to understand the text read the context.
...

Yes, they would say that wouldn't they. That's one of the reasons why I know longer go to "church".

If Adam and Eve knew no knowledge of good or evil before they ate of the fruit, then how could their actions be interpreted as "Bad" or "Sin"?

A sin is a sin. Having no knowledge of Evil is not the same as having no knnowledge of sin. In other words Evil and sin are not the same thing. In fact it is true (and I have proven this fact in this forum before) that Eve sinned BEFORE she eat the fruit.

The scenario means little anyhow. A truly omniscient God would have known A&E's decision before he told them not to eat the fruit. Before he had even created them. Not to mention that if he created all of the world, he created the serpent along with it. There was a purpose behind their consumption of the fruit. If God didn't want them to do it, they wouldn't have done it.

Yet again, I have proven this before... God intentionally made mankind Spiritually weak. We had to eat from the tree knowledge. It is the first step into becoming the image of God. Notice what God says after we had eaten the fruit...

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil"

But now, realise what mankind must also do...

"...and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (Gen. 3:22)

The tree of life...That being Jesus Christ.

"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection and [I am] the LIFE (John 11:25). But notice how man must put forth his hand to take it, now read what God does to the Tree of life life in (Gen. 3:24).

"and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

If one is to put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life he must first be consumed by fire...

God as a [the] CONSUMING FIRE (Heb. 12:29).

"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones [valuable traits of Godly spiritual character] wood, hay, stubble [carnal traits of no value]; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because IT SHALL BE REVEALED BY FIRE; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is"
​

Every thought, every word, and every deed that proceeds out of the heart and mind of man is his "WORKS." And every thought, every word, and every deed of man will come into the judgment of Almighty God’s "CONSUMING FIRE." Notice that it is both our things of great value: "gold, silver, precious stones," and our things of no value: "wood, hay, stubble" that are tried in the fire, God’s Consuming Fire. Every person possesses knowledge, therefore, every person is a combination of both good and evil (for knowledge can only be a combination of both good and evil knowledge). The Spiritual fire burns the bad traits "wood, hay, stubble" and purify the Good ones "gold, silver, precious stones".

By the very process you describe — the very fact that you say 'in my heart' defines the decision as a moral one. Look at Scripture again — sin is always something that rises in the heart.

True. (Rom. 14:23)

Now whether you were right or wrong, depends on a number of things. People commit the most heinous crimes believing they are right.

Thomas

True, but if we say we do not sin we decieve ourselves...(I John. 1:8)

The truth in the fact (for Christians at least) is that Jesus Christ was sinless, and therefore if we ourselves are also to become sinless (or anything close to it) we must do as He says.

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matt. 22:36)

And if you don't then...

"...why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke. 6:46)

Because...

"Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." (Rev. 22:14)

 

[Gatekeeper]

By the very process you describe — the very fact that you say 'in my heart' defines the decision as a moral one. Look at Scripture again — sin is always something that rises in the heart.

Now whether you were right or wrong, depends on a number of things. People commit the most heinous crimes believing they are right.

Thomas

I was attempting to show that our intentions have little to do with the full scope of sin. I can believe that killing thousands of people is NOT a 'moral' sin, but in the end it is a breaking of Gods law.

If I intend to inflict pain, or suffering on another that would be a conscious sin. Many of our sins are made w/o an awareness of, tho. That's my point - Whether we know we are sinning, or whether we 'miss the mark' unintentionally they are both the same. There are consequences for breaking God's law no matter our intentions (Good or bad).

GK

 

[Adi]

Yes, and using religion as a smokescreen for cultural prejudice in the marketplace is the biggest one of all.


And, in 2009.......
it's really asking for it.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Considering that the "church" is the body of Christ..

 

[immortalitylost]

Hi all
A sin is a sin. Having no knowledge of Evil is not the same as having no knnowledge of sin. In other words Evil and sin are not the same thing. In fact it is true (and I have proven this fact in this forum before) that Eve sinned BEFORE she eat the fruit.



Yet again, I have proven this before... God intentionally made mankind Spiritually weak. We had to eat from the tree knowledge. It is the first step into becoming the image of God.

Adam ad Eve would have had no knowledge of sin. The word and the concept started with them, with their act of eating the forbidden fruit.

Before gaining the knowledge of good and evil, they would have not known that what they did was an evil, a sin is an evil invariably, just in different degrees, whether it be one of intention or action.

They would have been as animals are before gaining that knowledge. Having no concept that what they do or think is wrong even if their actions or thoughts are wrong. Sin cannot be present without the knowledge of good or evil. I don't see how you could think that it could.

I agree that Adam and eve were supposed to eat the fruit, if we are looking at the story in terms of fact. That's why I said that God knew that they would do it before he had told them not to. Being omniscient, he would have to have known.