Sins that are not immoral.

[McCulloch]

There are things which in some cases may be a sin but are not immoral. In the same way there are certain things which may be illegal, but not immoral.

Sins that are not immoral. Isn't that a contradiction? How about a few examples of moral sins.

[2timothy316]

LOL

An oxymoron indeed.

I only know of forgivable sins and unforgivable sins. I don't know of an instance of a moral sin especially with the meaning of the Hebrew word sin means to 'miss the mark'. Wouldn't a 'moral sin' mean somehow missing the mark but instead hitting it?

My brain hurts....

[JP Cusick]

There are things which in some cases may be a sin but are not immoral. In the same way there are certain things which may be illegal, but not immoral.

Sins that are not immoral. Isn't that a contradiction? How about a few examples of moral sins.

Eating animals as food is a sin for me, but that is just immorality done by everyone else.

Breaking the true Sabbath is a sin for me, but that is just immorality done by everyone else.

Failure to tithe would be a sin for me, but that is just immorality done by everyone else.

The immorality is widespread throughout, but technically none of that is really a sin.

Only those shooting at the target can be charged with "missing the mark" which is the sinning.

Of course many things are legal or illegal by human laws which are on both sides of morality and immorality.

[Wootah]

There are things which in some cases may be a sin but are not immoral. In the same way there are certain things which may be illegal, but not immoral.

Sins that are not immoral. Isn't that a contradiction? How about a few examples of moral sins.

Eating animals as food is a sin for me, but that is just immorality done by everyone else.

Breaking the true Sabbath is a sin for me, but that is just immorality done by everyone else.

Failure to tithe would be a sin for me, but that is just immorality done by everyone else.

The immorality is widespread throughout, but technically none of that is really a sin.

Only those shooting at the target can be charged with "missing the mark" which is the sinning.

Of course many things are legal or illegal by human laws which are on both sides of morality and immorality.

Yes but I don't think McCulloch is interested in legalism.

Of course your statement on shooting at the target is false. A murderer is not innocent but more guilty but you would call them innocent.

[McCulloch]

There are things which in some cases may be a sin but are not immoral. In the same way there are certain things which may be illegal, but not immoral.

Sins that are not immoral. Isn't that a contradiction? How about a few examples of moral sins.

Eating animals as food is a sin for me, but that is just immorality done by everyone else.

Breaking the true Sabbath is a sin for me, but that is just immorality done by everyone else.

Failure to tithe would be a sin for me, but that is just immorality done by everyone else.

The immorality is widespread throughout, but technically none of that is really a sin.

Only those shooting at the target can be charged with "missing the mark" which is the sinning.

Of course many things are legal or illegal by human laws which are on both sides of morality and immorality.

I think that I asked for something that is a sin but not immoral. You have listed some sins but gave no indication which ones if any you consider moral acts.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 5 by McCulloch]

Isn't the classic example homosexuality?

But is there anything less contentious?

[McCulloch]

Isn't the classic example homosexuality?

Really? There are Christians who hold that homosexuality is a sin by not immoral?

But is there anything less contentious?

Is there anything at all?

[2timothy316]

But is there anything less contentious?

Is there anything at all?

The closest thing I know of are where acts of love God cover a sin. Like when David was being chased by Saul. David and his men were starving and they ate food straight from the alter. (1 Sam. 21:1-6) They ate the 'show bread'. It says, "which had been removed from Jehovah’s presence to be replaced by fresh bread on the day it was taken away." To take food from the alter would normally be considered a serious sin. That bread was for the priest only. (Lev 24:5-9)

So did David and his men sin? Not according to Jesus in Matthew 12:1-8. Also Matthew 6:33. Even David said of God, "I was once young and now I am old, But I have not seen anyone righteous abandoned, Nor his children looking for bread." Ps 37:25.

Some try to use the example above to cover other sins claiming love covers sins, like homosexuality. Sex is not a necessity to live. So things like homosexual acts being covered by love can't really be excused. People don't die from a lack of sex but they can die from a lack of food.

[JP Cusick]

Yes but I don't think McCulloch is interested in legalism.

I happen to love legalism when it is done correctly, because legalism is liberating and wonderful.

The only people that I find who do not like legalities are those who break the rules and who defy authority and who shirt their duty, and I see far too many of that kind of people in this evil world.

My view is different from most other people because I am proactive as I really do the work and I put in the effort and thereby the legalism is my rock and my foundation - thank God.

Of course your statement on shooting at the target is false. A murderer is not innocent but more guilty but you would call them innocent.

I do not say that the murderer is innocent or not guilty, but I do say that in most cases the murder is not a sin because the murderer is so lost and so separated from the truth and from God that they are not shooting at the target and thereby they do not "miss the mark" which is the meaning of sin.

Every murderer will be rightly punished in this life, and that is a fact, but we are punished by our wrong doing, and not for our sins.

Jesus already paid the full punishment for all sins so that everyone gets saved and so "sin" is not the same as just doing wrong.

It is comparable to a bow-and-arrow in that we shoot the arrow at the target and we "miss the mark" when we do wrong, but most people are not even trying to follow the scriptures as they stumble through life, and so they "miss the mark" by not even having a bow or an arrow as they are not even in the game.

The vast majority of humanity are just sheep as like spectators watching from the sidelines, while only a few people ever get into the arena and start participating and they are the ones who count for their scores or their missing the mark.

[bjs]

If I understand his point correctly (which I might not) KingandPriest seemed to be making a distinction between specifically Christian duties as opposed to general morality.

This was a common theme in the OT, especially in Jeremiah and Isaiah. The theme is present to a lesser degree in the NT.

The people who know the Lord are held to a higher standard than those who do not. In the OT, God often condemned the Israelites for idolatry. They knew the Lord and were expected to act accordingly.

God did not condemn nations around Israel for Idolatry. He might condemn them for violence, malice, and oppression, but not idolatry. Those who did not know the Lord were not expected to keep the moral commands that come from special revelation, but they were expected to hold to universal moral codes.

The Israelites were also expected to follow the general moral code, and since they had a relationship with God they were expected to act accordingly.

KingandPriest’s example of homosexuality seems like a valid application of this principle. Christians, who have accepted Jesus as their lord, are called to save a sexual relationship for one man and one woman in marriage. Those who have not accepted Jesus as lord do not have the same sexual ethics. God might rebuke them for more general ethical failures – dishonest, selfishness, lack of mercy, etc. – but not for specifically Judeo-Christian sexual ethics.