Ten Commandments

[nobspeople]

Ask 1000 christians "What, exactly, counts as 'a sin'?" and you'd probably get various answers. Most, somewhere in the conversation, would likely visit the Ten Commandments. Fair enough, I suppose. But are there other things that aren't included in the Ten Commandments - outliers - that are also sin?
Some say it's a sin to smoke, drink, do drugs, curse. Some say those are OK so long as you're not over indulging in them.
Some say it's a sin to kill another human being, while others say it's not if it pertains to justice and or self defense.
Some say it's a sin to blaspheme, yet many can't agree on what that is, exactly.
Some say it's a sin to disobey god, while others say it's not a sin, just not a good idea.
Some say it's a sin to be gay, while others say it's not, but the act it, while others still say being gay is not an issue.
Some say it's a sin to have sex before marriage, while others say it's not, while others still say having sex is a union and thus, dictates being married.

It seems that, if sin separates one from god, it's an important enough concept in which everyone should be able to fully grasp.

So, assuming violating the 10 CMDMTS is a sin, are there other things that are sinful as well? If yes, what are they, exactly? If not, is it safe to say obeying the 10 CMDMTS is a sure-fire way to avoid sin?

[1213]

...So guess what, no one is then deemed 'righteous.' Why? You would have to lie to a terrorist, or to preserve a surprise, or to not hurt someone's feelings, or etc....

I don't think lying is necessary in any case. One could just speak like main stream media.

So if God thinks there is no 'good lie', then no one is 'righteous'. Why mention not to lie, when God knows everyone (Christian or not), will lie anyways; no matter what?

I have understood from the Bible that lying is wrong. And I think this confirms it:

But for... ...all liars, their part is in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Rev. 21:8

However, I think it is possible to be forgiven. And I think it gives a new clean start, but obviously after that it would be better not to lie again.

[POI]

...So guess what, no one is then deemed 'righteous.' Why? You would have to lie to a terrorist, or to preserve a surprise, or to not hurt someone's feelings, or etc....

I don't think lying is necessary in any case.

Oh really?

1. Your house is invaded, and you have a password protected safe house. Your three children manage to get in there, but you do not. The invaders get a hold of you, and ask you for the code to the safe house. You tell them you do not know it. Your lie saves their lives. Should you have instead given them the code, and pray that God intervenes?

2. Your best friend is planning an extravagant surprise birthday party for his spouse. You happen to run into his wife at the store. She asks you, point blank, "do you know what my husband is doing for my birthday next week?" Do you ruin the surprise, by always telling the truth?

The examples are infinite... Above are just two...

So if God thinks there is no 'good lie', then no one is 'righteous'. Why mention not to lie, when God knows everyone (Christian or not), will lie anyways; no matter what?

I have understood from the Bible that lying is wrong. And I think this confirms it:

But for... ...all liars, their part is in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Rev. 21:8

However, I think it is possible to be forgiven. And I think it gives a new clean start, but obviously after that it would be better not to lie again.

But you will lie again, and again, and again, and again, because again.... NO ONE IS RIGHTEOUS If no lie is good, this means all lies are bad.

Telling the reader not to lie, means virtually nothing.... We all make our own assessments as to weather or not a lie would be deemed necessary for the 'greater good' in a given situation. You could also know when not to lie... Case/point, if you are covering up an affair, cheating on a test, etc... But you can also produce many examples where a lie is necessary to preserve the innocent, etc etc etc... So if lying is ALWAYS bad, does 1) God judge which lies you actually commit, in order to preserve a "greater good"? Or, 2) is all lying bad, period? Assuming you stick to your guns, and select option 2), then you must either rely on God's grace, or, no one goes to Heaven.

So which is it...? Can a righteous person lie, or not??????

[Wootah]

One definition of sin is 'missing the mark'. So if you aim for the bullseye and miss then you sinned. So mistakes are sins.

To me that sounds like a very flawed definition of sin. If you "aim for the bullseye" then you are doing your best to be perfect. If you miss, then that is not really a mistake, but rather reflects a limitation on your part over which you apparently have no control. That doesn't sound at all sinful.

What irony that you are defining sin (something which I bet you don't believe in) and second you are saying my definition of sin missed the mark, was flawed, and offered a definition that in your opinion was closer to the target. Literally, proving my definition.

1000 mpg reward.

[Wootah]

I think there is only one thing that is a sin, to reject God and righteousness.

And all the time the Bible goes on and on about concealing and confessing one's sinS. What a waste. Right?

Making a mistake, doing some wrong things, is not necessary a sin, if person doesn't reject God and righteousness.

Why would making a mistake ever be a sin?

.

Confession is good for you, so not a waste. Suppose you want to get good at tennis. You can try to play harder but sometimes you need to confess your weaknesses and get help to correct your game. This probably applies to all endeavours. The best sportsmen often claim that they barely know the game they are masters of. What a waste? Right?

One definition of sin is 'missing the mark'. So if you aim for the bullseye and miss then you sinned. So mistakes are sins.

In my experience, in sinning very few people, if any, actually aim to do the sinless act, but rather end up doing sin instead. They commit the sin because that's what they aimed to do. Besides, why would god hold an honest attempt to do the right thing to be a sin when obviously something outside the individual's ability caused him fail in his attempt? If this is your god then it would make him less understanding and moral than myself, along with what I estimate to be millions of others. Of course his simple stand on slavery and male homosexual activity has already shown him to be morally deficient.

.

Yes, sin is a wide target - very easy to hit.

Besides, why would god hold an honest attempt to do the right thing to be a sin when obviously something outside the individual's ability caused him fail in his attempt?

In my view the idea is that you are meant to realise that you depend on God. As I implied in my sporting reference it is a wisdom issue. To know thyself, to know that you don't know, to admit we are not God. It's the hardest thing in the world to do but necessary .

Atheists in my experience always find themselves more noble, honourable and understanding than God. This is a good topic for a new post.

[Miles]

Atheists in my experience always find themselves more noble, honourable and understanding than God.

Perhaps that's because they don't see god as any more noble, honorable, and understanding than any other mythical character.


.

[brunumb]

One definition of sin is 'missing the mark'. So if you aim for the bullseye and miss then you sinned. So mistakes are sins.

To me that sounds like a very flawed definition of sin. If you "aim for the bullseye" then you are doing your best to be perfect. If you miss, then that is not really a mistake, but rather reflects a limitation on your part over which you apparently have no control. That doesn't sound at all sinful.

What irony that you are defining sin (something which I bet you don't believe in) and second you are saying my definition of sin missed the mark, was flawed, and offered a definition that in your opinion was closer to the target. Literally, proving my definition.

Whether I believe in sin or not is irrelevant to the point I was making. That aside, you haven't demonstrated that your own definition is not flawed by actually refuting what I said. I am not saying that your definition missed any target. I explained how it is a badly flawed definition, that's all. Also, I offered no alternative definition that you allege is closer to some supposed target. Really, your response contributed nothing at all. Or, one could say that you missed the target by a mile and presumably you have therefore sinned.

[brunumb]

Atheists in my experience always find themselves more noble, honourable and understanding than God.

Not unreasonable when you read about this God character in the Bible. And that doesn't just apply to atheists either.

[Tcg]

Atheists in my experience always find themselves more noble, honourable and understanding than God.

Not unreasonable when you read about this God character in the Bible. And that doesn't just apply to atheists either.

Indeed. As we see time and time again, these attacks focused against atheists don't apply only to atheists. Of course, Christians may consider Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and others as atheists given those folks don't worship the God of the Bible which is actually some odd Hebrew/Christian hybrid god. This often results from a Christian or else an atheist dichotomy viewpoint.

Rather than an attempt to understand atheism, some ask questions that are of course silly to atheists. Do I think something that I lack belief in is better than me? A hamburger may be better than me, but something that doesn't exist? Not likely.


Tcg

[1213]

1. Your house is invaded, and you have a password protected safe house. Your three children manage to get in there, but you do not. The invaders get a hold of you, and ask you for the code to the safe house. You tell them you do not know it. Your lie saves their lives. Should you have instead given them the code, and pray that God intervenes?

I could be silent and not say anything. Or I could argue and change their mind. I think there is never only two choices.

2. Your best friend is planning an extravagant surprise birthday party for his spouse. You happen to run into his wife at the store. She asks you, point blank, "do you know what my husband is doing for my birthday next week?" Do you ruin the surprise, by always telling the truth?

I can always answer with a question. For example: “You have birthday next week?”. Or I could just tell, “sorry, obviously, even if I would know something, I don’t tell”. Speaking truth and not lying, does not mean that I have to say everything.

Can a righteous person lie, or not??????

I believe righteous person doesn’t lie.

[POI]

1. Your house is invaded, and you have a password protected safe house. Your three children manage to get in there, but you do not. The invaders get a hold of you, and ask you for the code to the safe house. You tell them you do not know it. Your lie saves their lives. Should you have instead given them the code, and pray that God intervenes?

I could be silent and not say anything. Or I could argue and change their mind. I think there is never only two choices.

2. Your best friend is planning an extravagant surprise birthday party for his spouse. You happen to run into his wife at the store. She asks you, point blank, "do you know what my husband is doing for my birthday next week?" Do you ruin the surprise, by always telling the truth?

I can always answer with a question. For example: “You have birthday next week?”. Or I could just tell, “sorry, obviously, even if I would know something, I don’t tell”. Speaking truth and not lying, does not mean that I have to say everything.

Can a righteous person lie, or not??????

I believe righteous person doesn’t lie.

You are rationalizing. If someone asks you a direct question, and you avoid the answer, you are not being honest. You are instead lying by omission.

Does a righteous person avoid direct questions or change the subject? If not, then YOU are not righteous

Every response you give only further substantiates my initial assessment. Telling the reader of the Bible, not to sin, is pointless. The author knows you will sin, no matter what.

So I ask you anew....

Can a righteous person 'lie'?