How do we know a sinner when we see one?

[Argenta]

A sinner is one who transgresses God’s law. But what is God’s law? Would any two Christians agree on exactly what this law is? Presumably, the Ten Commandments are included but what about the laws set out in Deuteronomy et al? Is wearing a garment made of two fibres a sin? Am I a sinner if I refuse to stone my unruly child? If we could agree what God’s law is we may be able to establish if all humans really are sinners.

Christianity teaches that all humans are sinners as a principle when in fact it is a question that admits of an empirical answer. Does Christianity say this because those who are free of sin do not need Jesus Christ?

If only the Ten Commandments are included it may be that some people are free of sin. The truth is we cannot know until we define god’s laws explicitly. Can we compile a comprehensive list of sins? And if we can, I wonder if anyone would truly wish to be sin-free?

Argenta

[mitty]

What difference does it make anyway, since Paul even condemns Jesus to the pit of fire (1Corinthians 6:10) because of his witnessed drunkenness (Matt 11:19 Luke 7:34) and Paul seems to be the final authority for some "Christians" about sin/crime. With masturbation even being a capital offence, it's all just a case of Catch 22 with the bronze-age god having the last laugh.

What?? Jesus was not a drunkard. Matthew 11 19 details the pathetic allegations of the Pharisees who where out to smear Jesus. Jesus did spend time with sinners and did have a drink or two with them but he was not a drunkard.

You have got scripture totally wrong. Else you have simply embraced the teachings of those who seek to smear the bible and Jesus.

The bible doesn't say he didn't have a drinking problem and I'd prefer to believe eyewitness accounts than some 21st century excuses, and my interpretation is no less valid than yours.

Also please quote the scripture that states that masturbation was a capital offence.

Genesis 38:9-10 is accepted as meaning masturbation as well as coitus interuptus since the intent and outcome is the same - ie abominable sin worse than murder.

If you are top dog, however, you can get away with murder or worse such as David and Joshua did and particularly if you wrote your own accounts of the incidents or arranged for them to be written. But on the other hand, if you are just a peasant and pick up some sticks on the sabbath, you will be executed. Hmmm sounds like a good justice system.

David lost His son for His sin. But David also repented of the Sin when He was confronted with it. Joshua did not sin in carrying out the wrath of God upon the Canaanites.

Sons are not to be punished for the crimes/sins of the father and visa versa, so David should have been executed instead (FULL STOP). The Canaanites were just the descendants of Cainan (Seth's grandson) according to biblical myth and were therefore Joshua's mob anyway since Cain and Cainan were the same dude. If you write or are responsible for the written account, you can cover up and excuse any atrocity - like Hitler, Pol Pot, Henry Kissinger, Stalin etc. It's no different to a suicide bomber today blaming their crime on the same bronze-age god as Joshua did. It's an atrocity now, just as Joshua's was then. If that atrocity was recorded by an independant objective writer then Joshua should have also been executed since his crimes had nothing to do with any man-made god, he just wanted to grab someone else's bit of dirt (FULL STOP). And why would this bronze-age god give them such a miserable bit of dirt anyway instead of something decent such as the Nile valley just around the corner or the Yangstze Valley or the Ganges Valley or the Central Californian Valley which are all much much better bits of dirt. Perhaps those people had better gods, eh.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days[/quote]

[Wyvern]

Oh but it does exist. You made the statement that i believed that people chose to be homosexual and then you went on to state that it was a teaching of Paul.

You did state that homosexuality was equivalent to murder, stealing and pedophilia all crimes of choice. This would lead the casual observor to the conclusion that you consider homosexuality to be either a choice, a crime or both. If such was not your intention what exactly were you trying to say by equating the two?

Well sometimes i get the desire to give someone a real good smacking and i can go as far as to say i sometimes wish worse on people. I can also say if i was walking down the street and saw a 50$ note on the footpath i would be sorely tempted to pocket it and not hand it in. Thank God i do not get the desire to molest kids or have sex with other men. But my sins are a result of me being born with the sin nature waiting to come forth within me.

So i am saying that all that live past the age of innocence will sin. Its a built in thing unavoidable. So my stance is Not that people chose to sin. They cannot help but be sinners after a certain point.

So sin is sin. But we can either agree that sin is sin or we can stand against sin being sin. We can seek forgiveness for sin or we can seek to be justified in our sinning.

The determining factor in what way we go in accepting or rejecting the Message of the Messiah Jesus is out attitude to sin. If we acknowledge that sin is sin then embracing the message of Jesus comes natural. But if we say our sin is not sin and are struggling to justify ourselves in Sin then one will never accept the Message of Jesus. People who don't think they need to repent or be forgiven of anything will never repent and seek forgiveness through the Messiah Jesus.

So i am definitely Not one who proclaims that people chose to become homosexuals. Neither is Paul for that matter.

Just wondering but when does this supposed age of innocence end? How can someone repent for something they had no hand in doing such as their sexual orientation? I think women are beautiful and desirable, did I choose to be a heterosexual? No. In the very same way I'm pretty sure homosexuals did not choose to be the way they are and for god to punish them for how he made them is ridiculous. It would be like a potter smashing the jug he just made because he made it into an ashtray. If god was just he would blame himself not his creations for the mistake he made in their creation.

[mitty]

I thought the saying was "the price of Tea in China"

Na, hasn't got the right ring. "Chooks" is better

Swyer syndome
As far as i know there is no teaching in the bible that covers people who have this Swyer syndome you talk of. So therefore i can make no deninitive comment on that. So if i was a person who had Swyer syndome i would ask God to convince me through the Holy Spirit as to the right course to go in relation to relationships.

That's just fantastic. The last time the bronze-age god spoke was in the OT times in the same time period that the Achaens were communicating with their bronze-age gods. So that's really going to be a big help for these people, eh.

But what if a person with Swyer syndrome has a sexual relationship with a man and then a woman. Which relationship is the homosexual one?

[gegraptai]

It would be like a potter smashing the jug he just made because he made it into an ashtray. If god was just he would blame himself not his creations for the mistake he made in their creation.

According to the Bible, He does "take the blame," although I wouldn't word it like that. He didn't make them gay, he made them unregenerate. Also, it is interesting that you would use a potter for your analogy:

You will say to me then, Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will? But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, Why have you made me like this? Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

[Wyvern]

It would be like a potter smashing the jug he just made because he made it into an ashtray. If god was just he would blame himself not his creations for the mistake he made in their creation.

According to the Bible, He does "take the blame," although I wouldn't word it like that. He didn't make them gay, he made them unregenerate. Also, it is interesting that you would use a potter for your analogy:

You will say to me then, Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will? But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, Why have you made me like this? Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

In what way does god accept the blame for creating homosexuals? If god is taking the blame why according to religious folk are homosexuals doomed to hell then? I used a potter on purpose, as the passage shows it is god that makes people either good or bad so I ask again why would god blame the clay when he is the potter.

[wonderer]

Romans 9:19-24 wrote:
You will say to me then, Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will? But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, Why have you made me like this? Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Am I missing something, or is this not cruel and unjust of God? There it is in black and white, God's horribleness. Preparing vessels of wrath, people created by him for destruction, because it's his right??, to show how great he is for showing mercy to the others??

[Goat]

Romans 9:19-24 wrote:
You will say to me then, Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will? But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, Why have you made me like this? Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Am I missing something, or is this not cruel and unjust of God? There it is in black and white, God's horribleness. Preparing vessels of wrath, people created by him for destruction, because it's his right??, to show how great he is for showing mercy to the others??

Well, I don't know what it says about any hypothetical God so much as it shows how the mind of Paul worked.

[Choir Loft]

A sinner is one who transgresses God’s law. But what is God’s law? Would any two Christians agree on exactly what this law is? Presumably, the Ten Commandments are included but what about the laws set out in Deuteronomy et al? Is wearing a garment made of two fibres a sin? Am I a sinner if I refuse to stone my unruly child? If we could agree what God’s law is we may be able to establish if all humans really are sinners.

Christianity teaches that all humans are sinners as a principle when in fact it is a question that admits of an empirical answer. Does Christianity say this because those who are free of sin do not need Jesus Christ?

If only the Ten Commandments are included it may be that some people are free of sin. The truth is we cannot know until we define god’s laws explicitly. Can we compile a comprehensive list of sins? And if we can, I wonder if anyone would truly wish to be sin-free?

Argenta

The title of this thread admits of a discrepency with the first post.

One cannot 'know a sinner' by sight any more than one can 'know whether a person has just had sex' or not (ignoring for the sake of argument a rather satisfied grin that is sometimes apparent).

The Ten Commandments, which the writer of the initial post has dismissed out of hand, is THE definitive list of sins which is sought for. If there is some other 'list' it is not to be found in either Jewish or Christian literature.

In the Judeo-Christian ideology there are two general types or categories of laws; moral law and ceremonial law. The moral law is that which is stated by the ten commandments. The ceremonial laws are those defined by Jewish and Christian dietary restrictions, social customs and general religious doctrine.

Moral law is critical to understanding the spiritual relationship between God and man as well as between man and man. Ceremonial law is critical for the exercise of religious and social relationships. It's all about who we are.

Those who simply dismiss religion as rubbish and as causal factors for human disagreement and war are in danger of falling into the same trap of pretentious pride as those they ridicule. 'Judge not that you be not judge' applies to all, not just a single group.

The notion that all humans are sinners is basic to understanding any human relationship as well as that between God and man.

For example, when I entered military service I was taught the axiom that "there is the right way and there is the wrong way AND THERE IS THE MILITARY WAY." When I joined the military social group, I was required to UNLEARN all that I had learned previously. In their eyes, my behavior was wrong, my attitude was wrong and I was wrong; a sinner, so to speak. I was required to learn new ways of thinking, speaking and acting if I was to continue in service.

It is the same with any complex social group if you think about it. It is the same with religion and it is the same with God. You cannot understand a new lover in your life unless you discard something of your old ways of thinking and acting.

Similarly, one cannot begin to truly understand God until one's human baggage is left by the wayside. This is why Jesus said that one needed to leave his old life in order to follow Him. It is not military service, but it is service nonetheless and requires the same sort of adaptability; the hallmark of human nature I might add.

One cannot 'know a sinner' by their appearance. The sinful or justified status of a person is spiritual, mental and social in nature and is defined by the only real moral law on the planet; the Ten Commandments.

[East of Eden]

Genesis 38:9-10 says that masturbation is another one of those sins punishable by death which wasn't rescinded by the omniescent Paul.

Completely wrong, Onan wasn't punished for masterbation but for failing to do his duty in a levirate marriage situation by producing an heir for his deceased brother. Today we have more tidy ways of being a sperm donar.

Gee, that just exterminates half the world's population in one foul swoop by that bronze-age god and includes the true believers I daresay, provided they're honest with themselves. Doesn't mention anything about female masturbation though, but that's not unexpected since the bible was written by men, about men, for men much like the American Declaration of Independence was written only for and about male WASPs. Even the wording of the US constitution may have given Hilary Clinton a problem by assuming a president is male. I guess that paternalism was based on those bronze-age biblical-writers who assumed females were inferior and subservient to males and why female homosexuality isn't addressed either.

Not really. Romans 1:26–27 (26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.


I also have a problem with this thread title. How do we know a sinner when we see one? By looking in a mirror. "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

[JoeyKnothead]

Genesis 38:9-10 says that masturbation is another one of those sins punishable by death which wasn't rescinded by the omniescent Paul.

Completely wrong, Onan wasn't punished for masterbation but for failing to do his duty in a levirate marriage situation by producing an heir for his deceased brother. Today we have more tidy ways of being a sperm donar.

Gee, that just exterminates half the world's population in one foul swoop by that bronze-age god and includes the true believers I daresay, provided they're honest with themselves. Doesn't mention anything about female masturbation though, but that's not unexpected since the bible was written by men, about men, for men much like the American Declaration of Independence was written only for and about male WASPs. Even the wording of the US constitution may have given Hilary Clinton a problem by assuming a president is male. I guess that paternalism was based on those bronze-age biblical-writers who assumed females were inferior and subservient to males and why female homosexuality isn't addressed either.

Not really. Romans 1:26–27 (26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.


I also have a problem with this thread title. How do we know a sinner when we see one? By looking in a mirror. "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

Theology.