Is not stopping sin a sin?

[sin_is_fun]

When we witness a sin should we try to stop it?For example if we see somebody molesting a woman and if we have a gun in our hand should we try to stop the crime or leave the person to exercise his free will to rape?

Isnt freewill a gift given by god to humans? So why should we try to interfere with it? The god,who is more powerful than us ,isnt interfering.He is letting the man to exercise his free will to rape.Should we not follow the example of God?

The best course seems to be to advise that man that what he is doing is a sin.But forcibly preventing him from exercising his free will seems to be negating his free will.When God has given him free will who are we to refuse it to him?

[sin_is_fun]

Jesus has not stopped violence in many places.For example when two thieves were crucified along him he did not stop that.Even when one of the thieves accepted him still he wasnt saved from violence.The guard hits that theif after he accepts jesus with spear and breaks his legs.Now why did not Jesus stop this violence against a believer?If you argue that it was the law,then why did jesus interfere when people were stoning a whore?Even that was law.

On every occasion jesus stops legitimate use of violence by his disciples.He even heals the guard's cut ears.The violence jesus stops always is that of his disciples only.Even he saved the whore from stoning only by advising the people and winning them by debate.Had they not listened to him, would he have taken up violence in defense of her?Had he done that it would have been acceptable,since stoning is cruel.But whether he would have done that is highly questionable.

The only occasion where jesus uses violence is when the sancity of his father's temple is violated.Then he overturns the gamblers tables and chases the people away.This selective use of violence raises so many questions in my mind.I reserve it for another thread,but this shows that jesus wont hesitate to use violence to save his father's place but will not use it when a man is killed cruelly in cross or when a girl is going to be killed cruelly.

You keep writing this but not explaining why. How do you know if Jesus knew a rape would happen in his own vicinity, he would not prevent it? Why would Jesus never have stopped a rape by violence or even by "using advises or quotes"? Didn't he stop the stoning of Mary Magdalene using the latter method? Did he overturn the moneylender's tables using the former method?

How do I know?I know since rapes take place in the world and no god has ever stepped out to stop them.If he stops rapes by using his powers then why do any rapes take place at all?Jesus is not just human but an omnipresent god who is everywhere and who is omnipotent.But even when nuns are raped nowadays he doesnt seem to come to help.When pastors rape young boys he doesnt come to the help of the boys.He seems to respect freewill so much.

So what makes you to believe that he would have used violence to stop a rape when he was around?He would have advised and if the rapist had listened he would have let the victim free.But jesus always hates violence except when the sancity of his holy father was being breached.The instance of jesus asking to drop violence is done only to his followers.He never makes his enemies to stop violence.In fact it seems that he lets them carry weapons and kill cruelly because he respects their free will.

But when jesus knows that a girl will be raped through his omniscent knowledge,when he knows that his advice wont change the rapist what will he do?Technically he cannot do anything.He cannot help.Even when jesus was alive many rapes must have happened in israel.If jesus was around when one such rape was destined to happen he would have been helpless.Because through his omniscence he will know that the rape will happen.If it doesnt happen,then his omniscence would have been questioned.

[Corvus]

Jesus has not stopped violence in many places.For example when two thieves were crucified along him he did not stop that.

The two thieves knew that they deserved it. Perhaps the adulteress did not. (The people that brought the problem to Jesus were, after all, trying to ensnare him in a trap)
One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at Him: "Aren't You the Christ? Save Yourself and us!"

But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."


Proving he was the son of God at a time when this was under question would have jeopardised his mission. Jesus was also dying. What would you have expected him to do in order to release the two thieves from their punishment? How would he have prevented the thieves from being nailed back up there?

We really don't know just what these thieves did to deserve crucifixion. I don't believe they hung every common burglar they caught.

Even when one of the thieves accepted him still he wasnt saved from violence.The guard hits that theif after he accepts jesus with spear and breaks his legs.Now why did not Jesus stop this violence against a believer?

There would be no reason to do it. This person was redeemed. On that day, Jesus said, he would be with Him in paradise. There is also the tiny little problem that Jesus was dead at the time the thieves' legs were being broken.

If you argue that it was the law,then why did jesus interfere when people were stoning a whore?Even that was law.

Ah, but different laws. One was mosaic law, the other was Roman law. But could you tell me why this happened? You accept that a thing occurred that contradicts your theory - that Jesus did interfere when punishment was about to be dispensed.

I would also like to add that the bible never states she was a 'whore". Simply an adulteress.

On every occasion jesus stops legitimate use of violence by his disciples.He even heals the guard's cut ears.The violence jesus stops always is that of his disciples only.Even he saved the whore from stoning only by advising the people and winning them by debate.

Then the violence Jesus stopped wasn't "always ...that of the his disciples only". And if he "[won] them by debate", why is it that you say "jesus would never have stopped a rape which he knew would happen by using violence or even by using advises or quotes"?

Had they not listened to him, would he have taken up violence in defense of her?Had he done that it would have been acceptable,since stoning is cruel.But whether he would have done that is highly questionable.

Not highly questionable, simply unknown

The only occasion where jesus uses violence is when the sancity of his father's temple is violated.Then he overturns the gamblers tables and chases the people away.This selective use of violence raises so many questions in my mind.

The only recorded occasion of using violence against another is when the sanctity of his father's church is violated. We can't say whether this use of violence is selective because we don't know if these are his only applications of force, or for what reason.

You keep writing this but not explaining why. How do you know if Jesus knew a rape would happen in his own vicinity, he would not prevent it? Why would Jesus never have stopped a rape by violence or even by "using advises or quotes"? Didn't he stop the stoning of Mary Magdalene using the latter method? Did he overturn the moneylender's tables using the former method?

How do I know?I know since rapes take place in the world and no god has ever stepped out to stop them.If he stops rapes by using his powers then why do any rapes take place at all?Jesus is not just human but an omnipresent god who is everywhere and who is omnipotent.But even when nuns are raped nowadays he doesnt seem to come to help.When pastors rape young boys he doesnt come to the help of the boys.He seems to respect freewill so much.

It is not for you to tell God his obligations. I explained earlier that we have different roles. God could take us all by the hand and smack our bottoms when we are naughty, but he does not. The fact that he does not is no indication that he wants these things to go on - simply that he himself will not intervene.

So what makes you to believe that he would have used violence to stop a rape when he was around?He would have advised and if the rapist had listened he would have let the victim free.But jesus always hates violence except when the sancity of his holy father was being breached.The instance of jesus asking to drop violence is done only to his followers.He never makes his enemies to stop violence.In fact it seems that he lets them carry weapons and kill cruelly because he respects their free will.

Evidence? As far as I can remember, no people were killed cruelly in the presence of Jesus.

But when jesus knows that a girl will be raped through his omniscent knowledge,when he knows that his advice wont change the rapist what will he do?Technically he cannot do anything.He cannot help.Even when jesus was alive many rapes must have happened in israel.If jesus was around when one such rape was destined to happen he would have been helpless.Because through his omniscence he will know that the rape will happen.If it doesnt happen,then his omniscence would have been questioned.

I have no idea what you mean here, and you still have not provided proof that he would be "helpless". You have already allowed Jesus the possession of a tool that can interfere with free will, which is "debate" (though I suspect it would have been closer to invective). What is one more? You appear to be contradicting yourself. Jesus has interfered in matters that involve free will. In fact, it is impossible to live any life without altering events and opinions.

[Amadeus]

Please remember...in the Law of Moses there are many encouragements to punish sinners. Also, in the New Testament, we are called to admonish each other and encourage righteous behavior. Obviously, God wants us to interfere.

And remember, just because God doesn't interfere NOW does not mean that they don't have HELL TO PAY later.

[sin_is_fun]

The two thieves knew that they deserved it. Perhaps the adulteress did not. (The people that brought the problem to Jesus were, after all, trying to ensnare him in a trap)
One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at Him: "Aren't You the Christ? Save Yourself and us!"

But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."

Proving he was the son of God at a time when this was under question would have jeopardised his mission. Jesus was also dying. What would you have expected him to do in order to release the two thieves from their punishment? How would he have prevented the thieves from being nailed back up there?

We really don't know just what these thieves did to deserve crucifixion. I don't believe they hung every common burglar they caught.

Jeopardizing the mission is hardly an excuse for jesus to give for not saving those criminals.whatever crime they did they did not deserve nailing to cross.Atleast civilized societies never nail anybody to cross and such a punishment is cruel by nature.If jesus did not want to interfere in the law of those days by saving those criminals--well it means that whatever is done in the name of law is correct then.Even jews were killed by hitler legally.

How could have jesus saved them?Or atleast saved the thief who believed in him? The least possible thing was a lightning to appear and kill that thief instantly thus saving him from further torture.Or how about a whirlwind toppling that cross and thief falling down and nails are off and jesus healing that theif instantly and he runs away?God can help in anyway if he wants.

There would be no reason to do it. This person was redeemed. On that day, Jesus said, he would be with Him in paradise. There is also the tiny little problem that Jesus was dead at the time the thieves' legs were being broken.

I thought jesus was always there and is unborn or undead.Was the world functioning without god for 3 days inbetween jesus's death and easter?And if believers will be redeemed only in heaven and will not be saved in this world prayers are meaningless.I thought God will give some earthly wishes too,atleast wishes to save a person from a gruesome death.

Ah, but different laws. One was mosaic law, the other was Roman law. But could you tell me why this happened? You accept that a thing occurred that contradicts your theory - that Jesus did interfere when punishment was about to be dispensed.

I would also like to add that the bible never states she was a 'whore". Simply an adulteress. .

So law is relative, is it?If jesus lived in Nazi Germany would he have abided by hitler's laws?God should have his own law or his own sense of just and unjust.What is crime in one law isnt in another law.Isnt there any absolute law,one that stands across all times and civilizations?Even if it isnt god should have one such law on which to judge sins.Else Hitler isnt a sinner,since he acted purely by nazi law.

Jesus interfering when punishment occurs--by advise or using violence---it contradicts the free will theory of god,not mine.When I debate on this I have to quote the double standards of god.Why does he interfere in some evils alone and not in other evils?That is partiality.

WYM said "Had they not listened to him, would he have taken up violence in defense of her?Had he done that it would have been acceptable,since stoning is cruel.But whether he would have done that is highly questionable

Not highly questionable, simply unknown.

Its highly improbable that jesus would have taken arms and hurt anyone.

The only recorded occasion of using violence against another is when the sanctity of his father's church is violated. We can't say whether this use of violence is selective because we don't know if these are his only applications of force, or for what reason..

Jesus saw innocent kids of betlehem being murdered by herod.He did not interfere.If you say he was just born then, well wasnt he a lord who was omnipotent then?Did he then have his divine powers or not?

It is not for you to tell God his obligations. I explained earlier that we have different roles. God could take us all by the hand and smack our bottoms when we are naughty, but he does not. The fact that he does not is no indication that he wants these things to go on - simply that he himself will not intervene. .

why doesnt he intervene is the question.If the answer is freewill then why was that free will negated in the instance of stoning of the adulteress?why this selective intervention?

Evidence? As far as I can remember, no people were killed cruelly in the presence of Jesus.

brutal murder of justborns by king herod and nailing of criminals in cross and the beheading of john the baptist.He wasnt in the exact locations but was aware that his believers were cruelly killed. But he was there with the criminal in cross.But he did nothing.

I have no idea what you mean here, and you still have not provided proof that he would be "helpless". You have already allowed Jesus the possession of a tool that can interfere with free will, which is "debate" (though I suspect it would have been closer to invective). What is one more? You appear to be contradicting yourself. Jesus has interfered in matters that involve free will. In fact, it is impossible to live any life without altering events and opinions.

You said " you still have not provided proof that he would be "helpless".

And in the same mail previously you said

"Proving he was the son of God at a time when this was under question would have jeopardised his mission. Jesus was also dying. What would you have expected him to do in order to release the two thieves from their punishment? How would he have prevented the thieves from being nailed back up there?"

This is one proof for the helplessness of Jesus.You yourself wonder "what could have jesus done" to save that criminal from being nailed.

I only ask the logic behind jesus saving that adulteress from being stoned and not saving that criminal from cross,john the baptist from being beheaded and children being massacred by herod.

I ask the logic behind god himself allowing freewill and god himself curtailing it.why is that so?

[snowman]

sin_is_fun. May I address you as "sif" ?

You ask a couple of interesting things:

1. Is not stopping sin a sin? (your topic title)
2. I ask the logic behind god himself allowing freewill and god himself
curtailing it.why is that so?

Sounds like you've created a scenerio here in which God would be stuck between a rock and hard place. It seems no matter what God does, he will violate something and therefore end up sinning.

But what about this thing called 'FREEWILL'? How do you define this word?

[Corvus]

The two thieves knew that they deserved it. Perhaps the adulteress did not. (The people that brought the problem to Jesus were, after all, trying to ensnare him in a trap)
One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at Him: "Aren't You the Christ? Save Yourself and us!"

But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."

Proving he was the son of God at a time when this was under question would have jeopardised his mission. Jesus was also dying. What would you have expected him to do in order to release the two thieves from their punishment? How would he have prevented the thieves from being nailed back up there?

We really don't know just what these thieves did to deserve crucifixion. I don't believe they hung every common burglar they caught.

Jeopardizing the mission is hardly an excuse for jesus to give for not saving those criminals.

I think a Christian would disagree that risking the entire salvation of mankind so that two criminals would not suffer is a very good excuse for not doing it.

How could have jesus saved them?Or atleast saved the thief who believed in him? The least possible thing was a lightning to appear and kill that thief instantly thus saving him from further torture.Or how about a whirlwind toppling that cross and thief falling down and nails are off and jesus healing that theif instantly and he runs away?God can help in anyway if he wants.

An assumption most nontheists make is that life is the pinnacle of existence. It isn't. You must understand that the thief was already saved.

There would be no reason to do it. This person was redeemed. On that day, Jesus said, he would be with Him in paradise. There is also the tiny little problem that Jesus was dead at the time the thieves' legs were being broken.

I thought jesus was always there and is unborn or undead.Was the world functioning without god for 3 days inbetween jesus's death and easter?And if believers will be redeemed only in heaven and will not be saved in this world prayers are meaningless.I thought God will give some earthly wishes too,atleast wishes to save a person from a gruesome death.

Jesus is God in mortal form, setting an example for mortals to follow. Obviously, being in mortal form places limitations on his power. Being dead, he is effectively dead. Incapable of action.

Ah, but different laws. One was mosaic law, the other was Roman law. But could you tell me why this happened? You accept that a thing occurred that contradicts your theory - that Jesus did interfere when punishment was about to be dispensed.

I would also like to add that the bible never states she was a 'whore". Simply an adulteress. .

So law is relative, is it?If jesus lived in Nazi Germany would he have abided by hitler's laws?God should have his own law or his own sense of just and unjust.What is crime in one law isnt in another law.Isnt there any absolute law,one that stands across all times and civilizations?Even if it isnt god should have one such law on which to judge sins.Else Hitler isnt a sinner,since he acted purely by nazi law.

Jesus interfering when punishment occurs--by advise or using violence---it contradicts the free will theory of god,not mine.

You are debating a strawman. No free will theory exists in the way you describe it. Mankind, collectively, has free will. This includes the free will to negate other people's free will, and so on and so forth.

When I debate on this I have to quote the double standards of god.Why does he interfere in some evils alone and not in other evils?That is partiality.

And? One would think he who knows the innermost thoughts of every human - knew them before they were even born - can afford to be partial.

WYM said "Had they not listened to him, would he have taken up violence in defense of her?Had he done that it would have been acceptable,since stoning is cruel.But whether he would have done that is highly questionable

Not highly questionable, simply unknown.

Its highly improbable that jesus would have taken arms and hurt anyone.

I have to take your word for it.

The only recorded occasion of using violence against another is when the sanctity of his father's church is violated. We can't say whether this use of violence is selective because we don't know if these are his only applications of force, or for what reason..

Jesus saw innocent kids of betlehem being murdered by herod.He did not interfere.If you say he was just born then, well wasnt he a lord who was omnipotent then?Did he then have his divine powers or not?

What about the children being murdered on the other side of the world? What about the martian parricides? The Venetian paedophiles? The Zygogoglian murderers? Because Jesus can do anything, does not mean he must do everything. If God wanted to solve all of the world's ills, he doesn't need to be housed in a mortal frame in order to do it. What you are proposing is that because Jesus was on a corner of eart

It is not for you to tell God his obligations. I explained earlier that we have different roles. God could take us all by the hand and smack our bottoms when we are naughty, but he does not. The fact that he does not is no indication that he wants these things to go on - simply that he himself will not intervene. .

why doesnt he intervene is the question.If the answer is freewill then why was that free will negated in the instance of stoning of the adulteress?why this selective intervention?

Evidence? As far as I can remember, no people were killed cruelly in the presence of Jesus.

brutal murder of justborns by king herod and nailing of criminals in cross and the beheading of john the baptist.He wasnt in the exact locations but was aware that his believers were cruelly killed. But he was there with the criminal in cross.But he did nothing.

I have no idea what you mean here, and you still have not provided proof that he would be "helpless". You have already allowed Jesus the possession of a tool that can interfere with free will, which is "debate" (though I suspect it would have been closer to invective). What is one more? You appear to be contradicting yourself. Jesus has interfered in matters that involve free will. In fact, it is impossible to live any life without altering events and opinions.

You said " you still have not provided proof that he would be "helpless".

And in the same mail previously you said

"Proving he was the son of God at a time when this was under question would have jeopardised his mission. Jesus was also dying. What would you have expected him to do in order to release the two thieves from their punishment? How would he have prevented the thieves from being nailed back up there?"

This is one proof for the helplessness of Jesus.You yourself wonder "what could have jesus done" to save that criminal from being nailed.

I only ask the logic behind jesus saving that adulteress from being stoned and not saving that criminal from cross,john the baptist from being beheaded and children being massacred by herod.

I ask the logic behind god himself allowing freewill and god himself curtailing it.why is that so?

[sin_is_fun]

sin_is_fun. May I address you as "sif" ?

You ask a couple of interesting things:

1. Is not stopping sin a sin? (your topic title)
2. I ask the logic behind god himself allowing freewill and god himself
curtailing it.why is that so?

Sounds like you've created a scenerio here in which God would be stuck between a rock and hard place. It seems no matter what God does, he will violate something and therefore end up sinning.

But what about this thing called 'FREEWILL'? How do you define this word?

I dont define this word.For me God isnt proved or disproved yet.But I believe that if god is there and he is omniscent then free will doesnt exist.If god isnt omniscent then he isnt god at all.He is just another powerful entity in the universe like USA.A god who isnt omniscent can better come down and become president of the world rather than sitting alone in heaven and sending messengers and prophets.

If there is free will there isnt god.Because to be a god he has to be in control of the world.And to control you should have a plan.And that plan is fate.

If god is all knowing then that means he knows future and hence it indicates we dont have free will.If god is not all knowing then we cannot claim that he is justful god.If god isnt justful he isnt god at all.

If fate is there are we robots?Why did god purposely torture us like this?The only answer seems to be that this is the best god can do.God being perfect cannot create perfect creatures, he can create only imperfect creatures and this is the best effort he can make with us.Even god cannot create another god even if he wishes.Likewise all this misery and evil are side effects of his production process.Maybe they are quality defects in his factory.He cannot do better than this.His powers are limited to this level.

Another option is to search for answers in science.That seems to be the best bet.

Freewill doesnt make much impact.If freewill has to be there then all have to start equally.But that isnt the case.Some are born in pious families and some to criminals.The people of second type start with a disadvantage.THis is not an equal choice which god gives us.God cannot be unfair.

[snowman]

Dear sif. First, you said

I dont define this word.For me God isnt proved or disproved yet.But I believe that if god is there and he is omniscent then free will doesnt exist

Now the big IF question. Yes, don't we all really want to know? What if we did KNOW? Would we serve him anyways? Not necessarily. Remember the story of Moses and the Ten Commandments? The people did see the awsome display of God on Mount Sania. They proclaimed in one voice that they would serve God and obey him. This they failed to do and that unbelieving GENERATION perished in the desert. They did not come into their inheritance, the Promised Land.

Yet your comment of God's omniscence vs freewill must be addressed.

You said

If there is free will there isnt god.Because to be a god he has to be in control of the world.And to control you should have a plan.And that plan is fate

I guess you know that most christians don't go as far as you have here with the soveriengty of God. In this 'definition' that you have given, I would think that you have more insight than most who profess to believe the bible. I believe that you are right. There is no such thing as free will. Yes you have a will, but is it FREE? As far as I know, there is not one scripture that tells us that our will is free. The bible does teach that we have a will and choices. I will agree that God has a plan. He always did have a plan. Now here is where we only see the negative side of things, we call this plan 'FATE'. When someone says 'fate' there is nothing but negative connotations applied to that word. Why is that?

You said

If god is all knowing then that means he knows future and hence it indicates we dont have free will.If god is not all knowing then we cannot claim that he is justful god.If god isnt justful he isnt god at all.

I couldn't agree more. I see that you have thought this over say....for hundreds of hours?

You asked

If fate is there are we robots?

Excellent question. Not an easy one to answer. Again, if you really have freewill, then are you really free to make choices without any limitations or influences? But you know the truth concerning that already don't you? We are influenced every day. Our choices are caused by something else. Sounds just a little robotic don't you think?

You asked

Why did god purposely torture us like this

Ahhhhh! That is the real question. That is the most common thought for those who choose to reject God. I am not fitting you into this category. You did state earlier, in so many words, that you are weighing the evidence. Believe it, I asked that same question many times. To say it simply, I chose to switch thoughts. I decided to look at things in the light of postiveness. What if there is a reason for all the bad things we see? Would we know what Love is unless we experience some hate? Would we know what comfort means unless we experience pain? How do we come to appreciate things big or small?

Now to jump to your last thought.

God cannot be unfair

Here is a thought. If God is totally soveriegn, and if he did make things the way they are, if he does have a plan, then all these things must have a purpose?

A plan must suggest a purpose? What is that purpose? The original plan according to Genesis was for God to make man in his image and likeness. The last book of the bible we see God actualizing that plan.

sif. Have you considered looking at things through different eyes? God will be just in all things. All things were created good. Good for its intended pupose. The purpose/plan of God will be fulfilled. There is a positive message in all this negativeness.

[sin_is_fun]

sif. Have you considered looking at things through different eyes? God will be just in all things. All things were created good. Good for its intended pupose. The purpose/plan of God will be fulfilled. There is a positive message in all this negativeness.

You might be correct.But there isnt enough evidence for it.If God is there and what I believe is wrong, let him show his existence to me somehow.If not let me head to hell.

[snowman]

sif. You said

You might be correct.

Ahhhh. Yes, something truly worth pondering.

You said

But there isnt enough evidence for it.

Hey sif. Maybe there is.

You said

If God is there and what I believe is wrong, let him show his existence to me somehow

Maybe he has already! Care to look at things with different eyes?

You said

If not let me head to hell.

I've been there. So have many others. You probably feel that you are already in hell. The good news is that you won't always be there! You don't have to be.

Jesus already took away the SIN of the WORLD. God already conciliated the word to himself. God will NOT send you to some fabled hell where you will be punished forever and ever. God is not this monster as most religions portray him to be. Far from it.