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

[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

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).

Hi Richard, well you’ve got me there! But don’t make the mistake of reading headlines literally—their purpose is to attract attention. The headline is intended to mean, as the first post makes clear, is it possible to determine whether a person is a sinner? And the essence of the question is to create a list of actions that are sinful that would allow us to make that determination.

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.

Thank you. I think you are the first Christian here to offer clarity on this.

This means that those Christians here arguing that homosexual acts are sinful are wrong. Do you agree?

And we can now be sure that many things that people thought were bad are not actually sins. I am thinking of things such as holding slaves; sex with children, beating children; gambling; excessive drinking of alcohol etc.

We can also see that some things that many people thought were OK are actually sins. Here I am thinking about people such as doctors, nurses, carers, transport staff and emergency services staff working on the Sabbath. Also people who make or worship statues of Jesus on the cross are sinning.

I suspect this also means that it is false to assert that every human is a sinner. Though not easy, it must be possible to keep all of the 10 commandments. In fact, as an atheist, I keep almost all of them myself. I don’t have any gods before Yahweh because I don’t believe any of them exist. My only sin is to cook the family dinner or do some shopping or household chores on a Sunday.

Argenta

[Choir Loft]

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."

Eden is way off track with the rebuttal here. Wow! Talk about hijacking the debate to change subjects!!!

The passage in Paul (Rom 1:26-27) has to do with worship of false gods. Read the passages that preceeded it;

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:22 & 23

If there is a similarity between the two disparate themes it is God's reaction to human rebellion.

The passage about Onan jerking off is NOT about self-gratification. It's about rebellion and an act of defiance against God. Read the whole thing.

The passage you quoted from Romans is not about the gay life style, it's primary message is about worship of false gods.

In both cases, God gave up the offenders to destruction. God is a protector from the human tendency to self-destruct, not the cause of it. When man disobeys or displays defiance against God, those protections are removed and the human, by its own foolishness, falls into its own trap. I can point to the greed of self-wise American bankers or the dope addicts on skid row. It's all the same. The majority of humanity is spiritually and morally bankrupt and will destroy itself without divine help.

People often FAKE an interpretation of Bible passages in order to further their own agenda. An unfortunate subject often chosen for this is the gay person...BUT have another look and see what the good book says. The following is a passage about Sodom & Gomorrah and the end of the world.

"And as it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise even as it came to pass in the days of Lot; they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but in the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all: after the same manner shall it be in the day that the Son of man is revealed."

Luke 17:26-30

Look at what it says about "the days of Lot" who lived in Sodom and Gomorrah. Is there anything wrong with eating, drinking, buying and selling, planting and building? Is there anything about sex in there? Tell me if you see it. What this passage is talking about is PASSIVE INDIFFERENCE toward God.....

It's the same sort of thing that Onan was guilty of and the same sort of thing spoken of by Paul in your Romans passage. GOD IS....and humans are required to recognize this fact. Mudding the understanding of this by injecting issues about masturbation, gays, etc. doesn't change it. Ultimately it isn't about sex or what one does in the bedroom.....its about what one does in one's heart concerning recognition of God and His authority.

[East of Eden]

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. .

Most probably refers to anal sex which isn't something normally practised by lesbians, methinks. Anyway, since he never met Jesus, what gave Paul any divine authority on anything - it's only his personal view in some letters and no more important than the Pope's ex-cathedra statements or even yours or mine.

"I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me, is not after men. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal. 1:11, 12.

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." 1 Cor. 2:12, 13.


Not only do Christians believe Paul wrote under divine inspiration, but that he did meet Jesus on the road to Emmaus conversion experience. IF God exists, both those supernatural events are no big deal for God to do.

[East of Eden]

Eden is way off track with the rebuttal here. Wow! Talk about hijacking the debate to change subjects!!!

The passage in Paul (Rom 1:26-27) has to do with worship of false gods. Read the passages that preceeded it;

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:22 & 23

If there is a similarity between the two disparate themes it is God's reaction to human rebellion.

When people reject God, the sexual sins listed often result.

The passage about Onan jerking off is NOT about self-gratification. It's about rebellion and an act of defiance against God. Read the whole thing.

That's exactly what I said. Read it again.

The passage you quoted from Romans is not about the gay life style, it's primary message is about worship of false gods.

In both cases, God gave up the offenders to destruction. God is a protector from the human tendency to self-destruct, not the cause of it. When man disobeys or displays defiance against God, those protections are removed and the human, by its own foolishness, falls into its own trap. I can point to the greed of self-wise American bankers or the dope addicts on skid row. It's all the same. The majority of humanity is spiritually and morally bankrupt and will destroy itself without divine help.

People often FAKE an interpretation of Bible passages in order to further their own agenda. An unfortunate subject often chosen for this is the gay person...

I see those pushing the gay agenda do this all the time.

BUT have another look and see what the good book says. The following is a passage about Sodom & Gomorrah and the end of the world.

"And as it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise even as it came to pass in the days of Lot; they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but in the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all: after the same manner shall it be in the day that the Son of man is revealed."

Luke 17:26-30

Look at what it says about "the days of Lot" who lived in Sodom and Gomorrah. Is there anything wrong with eating, drinking, buying and selling, planting and building? Is there anything about sex in there? Tell me if you see it. What this passage is talking about is PASSIVE INDIFFERENCE toward God.....

It would have been assumed the hearers knew of the Sodom story, there was no need to spell out the sexual sin aspect of it.

It's the same sort of thing that Onan was guilty of and the same sort of thing spoken of by Paul in your Romans passage. GOD IS....and humans are required to recognize this fact. Mudding the understanding of this by injecting issues about masturbation, gays, etc. doesn't change it. Ultimately it isn't about sex or what one does in the bedroom.....its about what one does in one's heart concerning recognition of God and His authority.

A right heart towards God will result in sexual purity, as opposed to those who practice 'lawlessness', i.e., living in disregard of God's moral law.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 174:

When people reject God...

I think this is a gross distortion, or gross misunderstanding of the atheist position. Atheists reject the unfounded, unprovable assertions of those making the claim a god exists.

We can no more "reject God" than we can "reject The Easter Bunny".

...the sexual sins listed often result.

Funny how East of Eden mentions this, while being utterly incapable of showing a god has an opinion on the thoughts or actions of humans.

>snip<

People often FAKE an interpretation of Bible passages in order to further their own agenda. An unfortunate subject often chosen for this is the gay person...

I see those pushing the gay agenda do this all the time.

Surely just because one uses nefarious means to achieve their aims shouldn't be legitimate reason for others to abandon honorable methods. Especially those who claim to know a god may frown on dishonesty.

A right heart towards God will result in sexual purity...

Only in the minds of those who think they know what a god has to say on such issues.

as opposed to those who practice 'lawlessness', i.e., living in disregard of God's moral law.

I challenge you to show you speak truth regarding:

1- God has a "moral law".

1st challenge.

(edit for speling)

[mitty]

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.

This is not talking about masturbation. it never happened in the incident that this scripture covered.

Genisis 38
8 And Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother.� 9 But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD; therefore He killed him also.

This woman’s first husband had died without leaving a son to inherit His estate. It was the custom to allow a brother of the dead man to father a son with the dead mans wife to provide a heir for His estate and a son for the woman. Onan however was having sex with his dead brothers wife but withdrawing so as not to impregnate her. Onan wanted his descendants to inherit his dead brothers estate. This is the reason God killed Onan, He was not doing the right thing but was stealing His dead brothers inheritance and denying the woman children.

Well at least that's got masturbation off the list of sins. What a relief to everyone about that, except perhaps the mothers who've still got to wash the sheets.

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 death of the baby was not a judgement on the baby. The baby being innocent had eternity with God. The punishment was on David and bethsheba who mourned the loss of their child. Parents always suffer if their baby dies.

That's a pathetic excuse coming from someone who I presume opposes abortion. Clearly both are in the same category if a bronze-age god caused this child's death - just far far too silly. Nowdays most other people would say that such a loss of a child is an unfortunate natural event from "cot death" or disease etc and wouldn't blame it on some imaginary god. David therefore remained unpunished like Joshua, because they both ruled their groups under the concept of the divine-right-of-kings and we all know what happened to the last one that tried to pull that stunt in England.

When you can present us with some verifiable evidence for real communication between the bronze-age god and us in the last 100 years, then I will start to take your postings seriously, otherwise Joshua and David just remain as unpunished criminals and the rest is just unverifiable theory.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

From all this

[Darias]

I think this video clip summarizes this thread fairly well. Enjoy the LOLs. This is not a one liner; the video contributes to the debate in a humorous manner, as to give everyone a break from the back and forth. It is a bit of a straw man, but it summarizes my thoughts on the supposed God-breathed, infallible inerrancy of the Bible quite well.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

[Adstar]

Mitty you have typed your reply within my quote box. it is very hard to keep track of different discussions when this is happening. Please take time to review your post so as to help with better discussion,

Ok you said.

That's a pathetic excuse coming from someone who I presume opposes abortion. Clearly both are in the same category if a bronze-age god caused this child's death - just far far too silly.

God is not bound by the rules He gives us to live by. Rules are designed for the kind of beings the rules are made for. God did not make His rules for himself. They where designed for us faulty human beings. Every human being is owned by God and He has the right to grant life and take it away when ever he chooses. You can call my explanation silly but it really is not.

Nowdays most other people would say that such a loss of a child is an unfortunate natural event from "cot death" or disease etc and wouldn't blame it on some imaginary god.

Well a lot of deaths happen to little ones and it's just the outcome of living in a faulty world. So no need to apportion responsibility to God, as some people do. But in David’s sons case God told David that He would take his son from him. So God did cause this little one to die. But again it was punishment on David, not the little one.

David therefore remained unpunished like Joshua, because they both ruled their groups under the concept of the divine-right-of-kings and we all know what happened to the last one that tried to pull that stunt in England.

Well if the day ever comes that you suffer the loss of a loved baby then you will see just how wrong your assessment on David’s punishment is.

When you can present us with some verifiable evidence for real communication between the bronze-age god and us in the last 100 years, then I will start to take your postings seriously, otherwise Joshua and David just remain as unpunished criminals and the rest is just unverifiable theory.

I don't believe any such verifiable evidence exists. I am sure God would not allow that undeniable evidence to happen. You can take my postings any way you like. Your position is your prerogative.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[Adstar]

I think this video clip summarizes this thread fairly well. Enjoy the LOLs. This is not a one liner; the video contributes to the debate in a humorous manner, as to give everyone a break from the back and forth. It is a bit of a straw man, but it summarizes my thoughts on the supposed God-breathed, infallible inerrancy of the Bible quite well.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

The figure representing the Christian in this verse is a smorgasbord Christian. The faith of such people almost inevitably falls away when someone confronts them with the more server action of God in the Bible.

Reminds me of you Darius. I'd say you where once like that christian.

Nothing said by the one quoting the bible shook me. I have read it all. God is Just. He is also a God of Wrath upon those who rebel against Him.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[Darias]

Nothing said by the one quoting the bible shook me. I have read it all. God is Just. He is also a God of Wrath upon those who rebel against Him.

I grew up in church; I am no stranger to hell-fire preaching, or condemnation of homosexuality, or the conquests of Joshua, etc.

But for me, realizing the sheer amount of carnage and brutality within the sacred text made me take pause.

It is not a question of "How could a Just God call for the slaughter of children, etc." This is because I understand those histories and stories to be a reflection of the culture at that time. I see those instances of absolute brutality as something that provides insight into the minds which penned them -- specifically how they understood God, justice, and morality.

I do find divine genocides and murder of women and children to be appalling. I have absolutely no need to apologize for, ignore, or brush those passages aside. I have no reason at all to justify such bloodthirsty craven acts as God's will, just because such horrors are recorded within the sacred text.

The fact that such evils exist in the Bible -- and yes they were indeed evil -- solidifies my position that the idea of "a Just, loving God" and "God Breathed, infallible, inerrancy" are totally and completely irreconcilable. To make excuses for such barbaric acts is wrong. I don't do it because I have a the good sense to call evil out when I see it.