Christians, Does Sin Have a Ranking System?

[POI]

For Debate:

1) When is it okay, verses not okay, for a Christian to intervene, when they feel they can actually stop others from assisting in "sin"?

2) Allow me to explain. Let's say a large company was also demonstrated to be involved in some level of sex trafficking. If the church was to protest against this company, would any of you Christians have a problem with it? I doubt it. So why in the heck wouldn't all of you Christians also have a problem, when Disney decided to apply benefits for gay partners? I mean, is God for or against gay sex, like God is apparently also against sex trafficking? Is gay sex no longer enough of a reason to protest, or to try and intervene in some kind of way?

3) Christians, where EXACTLY does gay sex stack up, as compared to sex trafficking?

*************************************************************

For reference, this thread was created, as not to derail another thread. Here is the Christian's statement (which I find commendable):

"You are absolutely correct, and I am on record on several different sites attempting to combat this very thing. I have not posted on this site in a good number of months because I have been dedicating my time in order to speak out against Christians who want to enforce their beliefs upon the culture. In fact, all the way back in the 90's when Disney decided to cover the partners of their employees who were gay on insurance, there were a good number of denominations who were calling for a public boycott. The denomination I was a member of brought to the floor a motion to send a letter of protest to Disney in response. I stood up on the floor of this statewide conference and ask the question, "what do we have to do with Disney"? My stance is, the Church should have never been involved in what is called the "culture wars". It was the Church who started the culture wars, and it was the Church who started "cancel culture" and now we are upset that those opposed are using the same exact tactics, and doing a far better job, and the reason for this is that the Church was never called to fight a culture war. My position is, not only would the Church be better off if it minded it's own business, but so would the culture. If the Church would have minded, it's own business then there would be no reason for those outside the Church to be opposed. In other words, I have no problem with what it is you believe, no matter how insane I may think it to be, as long as you are not attempting to force your beliefs upon me, and the same should go for the Church as long as it minds it's business. The point here is, bringing this up to me is a waste of time because you and I are on the same page.

As I have said, I have been at this for several months now, and it all started when I was invited to a book study at a local Presbyterian Church. I was handed the book, and began to read, and I could not believe what I was reading. I could not make it past the 3rd chapter, at which point I began to dig in and study this movement. I am here to tell you, everyone needs to sit up and pay attention to what is being called "Christian nationalism" and you need to get familiar with the terms, theonomy, and theocracy. At any rate, if one is interested, they need to go to the "Straight White American Jesus" podcast and look up the "Charismatic Revival Fury" series. It is extremely long with a number of episodes, but I am convinced it is worth the time. I will also point out that since I am so involved in this fight against fellow Christians I may not have a whole lot of time left to respond on this site but will do my best."

[bjs1]

Yes, some sins are “worse” than others. There is no official list, nor do I think that one could exist. The severity of sin can depend on the context. To punch someone in the nose out of a sudden rage is a sin, but to plot out punching someone because of spite and hatred is far worse. It is not as simple as “this is always worse than that.”

If the penalty for all sins is the same, how can we logically say there is any difference in the severity of the sin?

If I might answer by way of analogy:
If I place a straw as a bridge across the gap between two tables, and then I put a 2 pound weight on the the straw then the straw will break.
If I were to place a 10 pound weight on a straw in the same position then the straw will break.
Can we logically say there is any difference between the weights placed on the straws?

Yes, because we know the weights being placed on the straw. If stealing gets one the same eternal punishment as murder, or any other sin, then they have essentially been deemed the same. Our legal system applies different penalties which reflect what we regard as difference in severity of each crime.

I do not follow your reasoning here. If we regard in practice some crimes to be worse than others, then how is that different from knowing that some weights are heavier than others? We don’t know anything in the strictest sense, but we are confident in some things to act as if they are true. So we can know that the weights are different and we can know that some sins are different than others.

If we judge things only by their results, such as saying that stealing gets one the same eternal punishment as murder, then we should also say that there is no difference between a 20 lb. weight and a 2 lb. weight, since both have the same result of breaking the straw in the above scenario. OR, and this is the option I favor, we could recognize that a wide variety of different actions can still have the same final result, but that doesn’t make the actions the same.

[bjs1]

All sin is equal in the sense that all sin comes from the same place of selfishness in the human soul that takes what is good and twists it into what is not good. However, while all sin comes from the same sinful nature, this does not mean that every action is equal. Gossip and murder both break the law of God, but murder is a far worse trespass. Just like nearly all legal systems, any violation of the law is a crime, but some crimes are more serious than others.

The catch, I suppose, is that God’s laws are about the state of our souls, so any sin that darkens our souls can have a deadly effect.

To specific questions:

1) When is it okay, verses not okay, for a Christian to intervene, when they feel they can actually stop others from assisting in "sin"?

I don’t know that there is a universal Christian rule here, but I would suggest that a Christian should intervene whenever he can do so in a good way (instead of giving in to evil himself), and he can be reasonably confident that his intervention will have a net positive effect.

2) Allow me to explain. Let's say a large company was also demonstrated to be involved in some level of sex trafficking. If the church was to protest against this company, would any of you Christians have a problem with it? I doubt it. So why in the heck wouldn't all of you Christians also have a problem, when Disney decided to apply benefits for gay partners? I mean, is God for or against gay sex, like God is apparently also against sex trafficking? Is gay sex no longer enough of a reason to protest, or to try and intervene in some kind of way?

I’m not sure that Disney has committed any sin here. The company itself is not having sexual relationships with anyone. Nor does it appear to be profiting for anyone’s sexual relationship. One could argue that it is supporting relationships that go against traditional Christin values, but that seems more like a culture wars issue than an ethical one. Beyond that, it is hard for me to oppose compassion of any kind, no matter whom it is shown to.

If someone doesn’t want to support a company because it promotes homosexuality that is their choice, but it seems more like a personal preference than a moral stand. I can see little comparison between providing employment benefits and profiting from creating suffering (such as in sex trafficking).

3) Christians, where EXACTLY does gay sex stack up, as compared to sex trafficking?

Sex trafficking is way, way more serious than gay sex. In sex trafficking the sin isn’t even sex. The sin is domination, abuse, and cruelty to another person.

Purely sexual sins – sins that involve a sexual relationship outside of one man and one woman in marriage – get a lot of press because we live in a sex obsessed world. However, on their own they are far from the heart of Christian ethics. Sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. The worst sins are spiritual. It is things like domination and cruelty and hatred that Christians should be (and for the most part are) more concerned with.

Matthew 12:30-32: "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

Feel free to rape, murder, pillage - just don't say "The Spirit is a knucklehead."

Interestingly, the majority of Christian thinkers who looked at that passage in context have said that if you feel you are free to rape, murder and pillage without remorse then you in fact committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

[bjs1]

Yes, some sins are “worse” than others. There is no official list, nor do I think that one could exist. The severity of sin can depend on the context. To punch someone in the nose out of a sudden rage is a sin, but to plot out punching someone because of spite and hatred is far worse. It is not as simple as “this is always worse than that.”

But this would all be assumption. Sounds like you are applying your own set of moral values, and are unable to assess if they align with god's moral values.

The Bible states gay sex is an abomination. That seems like god really detests such activity. Do you detest it too? If not, why not?

Who, specifically, is the company Disney have sex with?

Again, that seems more like a culture war issue than an ethical choice. The motivation would matter, but the act itself seems neither good nor bad.

Not really. God states gay sex is an abomination. Thus, wouldn't it be commendable for Christians to protest Disney, which supports such acts?

Again, if we are protesting Disney about gay sex, then I would first want to know who Disney the company was having sex with.

I can understand how this makes sense from some atheist views on morality. However, what you describe is fundamentally against Christianity. To deny kindness or benefit to someone because they do what is wrong is the definition of being judgmental. There is quite a lot in the Christian scriptures and doctrine which opposes this. If an employer (Disney or any other employer) knew that an employ was actively involved in sex trafficking and did not report it to the authorities, then that would be terrible a sin.

I'm speaking about "God's law", not man's law. You do not have the luxury in making logical and secular judgements. You abide by God's rules above all else. In your worldview, God's law trumps all.

Thus, (is it, or is it not commendable), to protest against gay sex? I would imagine God thinks both gay sex, as well as sex trafficking, are both detestable. So Christians should try to deflect both. As they are both abominations against God.

I have spoken about the Christian understanding of God’s law. You don’t have to agree with Christianity. As the Christian in this debate I do have the luxury of declaring what Christianity is, just as you have the luxury what atheism is. Neither of us have the luxury of telling the other person what that person believes.

I have told you what Christianity teaches. You can believe or you can reject it, but it is Christianity. I would only ask that non-Christians not attempt to inform Christians about what it is we really should believe.

This is a debate forum. I'm informing you that your God apparently detests gay sex, and I read as you try and make excuses for it. If you had the chance, you would intervene in sex trafficking, so why not gay sex? Does God think gay sex is detestable, or not?

This is a debate forum. We can debate if Christianity is true, right and good. However, for a non-Christian to tell a Christian what Christians believe would be the textbook example of strawman fallacy.

[brunumb]

Yes, some sins are “worse” than others. There is no official list, nor do I think that one could exist. The severity of sin can depend on the context. To punch someone in the nose out of a sudden rage is a sin, but to plot out punching someone because of spite and hatred is far worse. It is not as simple as “this is always worse than that.”

If the penalty for all sins is the same, how can we logically say there is any difference in the severity of the sin?

If I might answer by way of analogy:
If I place a straw as a bridge across the gap between two tables, and then I put a 2 pound weight on the the straw then the straw will break.
If I were to place a 10 pound weight on a straw in the same position then the straw will break.
Can we logically say there is any difference between the weights placed on the straws?

Yes, because we know the weights being placed on the straw. If stealing gets one the same eternal punishment as murder, or any other sin, then they have essentially been deemed the same. Our legal system applies different penalties which reflect what we regard as difference in severity of each crime.

I do not follow your reasoning here. If we regard in practice some crimes to be worse than others, then how is that different from knowing that some weights are heavier than others? We don’t know anything in the strictest sense, but we are confident in some things to act as if they are true. So we can know that the weights are different and we can know that some sins are different than others.

If we judge things only by their results, such as saying that stealing gets one the same eternal punishment as murder, then we should also say that there is no difference between a 20 lb. weight and a 2 lb. weight, since both have the same result of breaking the straw in the above scenario. OR, and this is the option I favor, we could recognize that a wide variety of different actions can still have the same final result, but that doesn’t make the actions the same.

What is the point of declaring that some sins are worse than others? The outcomes are different but the penalty is the same as for the worst.

[brunumb]

However, for a non-Christian to tell a Christian what Christians believe would be the textbook example of strawman fallacy.

Not quite so cut-and-dried. There are hundreds of denominations of Christians with differences in what they believe. Even these so-called Christians bicker between themselves about their beliefs.

[bjs1]

Yes, some sins are “worse” than others. There is no official list, nor do I think that one could exist. The severity of sin can depend on the context. To punch someone in the nose out of a sudden rage is a sin, but to plot out punching someone because of spite and hatred is far worse. It is not as simple as “this is always worse than that.”

If the penalty for all sins is the same, how can we logically say there is any difference in the severity of the sin?

If I might answer by way of analogy:
If I place a straw as a bridge across the gap between two tables, and then I put a 2 pound weight on the the straw then the straw will break.
If I were to place a 10 pound weight on a straw in the same position then the straw will break.
Can we logically say there is any difference between the weights placed on the straws?

Yes, because we know the weights being placed on the straw. If stealing gets one the same eternal punishment as murder, or any other sin, then they have essentially been deemed the same. Our legal system applies different penalties which reflect what we regard as difference in severity of each crime.

I do not follow your reasoning here. If we regard in practice some crimes to be worse than others, then how is that different from knowing that some weights are heavier than others? We don’t know anything in the strictest sense, but we are confident in some things to act as if they are true. So we can know that the weights are different and we can know that some sins are different than others.

If we judge things only by their results, such as saying that stealing gets one the same eternal punishment as murder, then we should also say that there is no difference between a 20 lb. weight and a 2 lb. weight, since both have the same result of breaking the straw in the above scenario. OR, and this is the option I favor, we could recognize that a wide variety of different actions can still have the same final result, but that doesn’t make the actions the same.

What is the point of declaring that some sins are worse than others? The outcomes are different but the penalty is the same as for the worst.

What's the point of saying that 20 lbs. is heavier than 2 lbs. since they both break the straw?

[bjs1]

However, for a non-Christian to tell a Christian what Christians believe would be the textbook example of strawman fallacy.

Not quite so cut-and-dried. There are hundreds of denominations of Christians with differences in what they believe. Even these so-called Christians bicker between themselves about their beliefs.

Can you give an example of a denomination that disagrees with what I have described in this thread?

[boatsnguitars]

I have spoken about the Christian understanding of God’s law. You don’t have to agree with Christianity. As the Christian in this debate I do have the luxury of declaring what Christianity is, just as you have the luxury what atheism is. Neither of us have the luxury of telling the other person what that person believes.
....
This is a debate forum. We can debate if Christianity is true, right and good. However, for a non-Christian to tell a Christian what Christians believe would be the textbook example of strawman fallacy.

This is patently untrue. After all, have you verified this with JW? Christ? The RCC? The Phelps?

All you can tell us is that you read a book, went to church and formed an opinion of your own spirituality.

The Bible, and Christianity is public domain. I was a Christian, I'm a "cultural Christian", I lead a Bible Study group with self-described Christians, I've studied the Bible more than most Christians. I've actually read the Bible.

No one person speaks for Christianity, and it is just as fair for an atheist to interpret the Bible as a Muslim or a Christian.

All a Christian can address is their individual perspective and try to show that their perspective aligns with the presumed teachings of Jesus.

An atheist only needs a lack of a belief in God, just as a mechanic is someone who works on mechanisms.

Religion is a different, amorphous thing. It's emotional, it's mythology, it's a story, a narrative, and you don't have the universal rights to it.

[POI]

Who, specifically, is the company Disney have sex with?

You have missed my point entirely. (Disney knowingly offers benefits to workers which practice gay sex). God thinks gay sex is an abomination. Now, let's simply replace one thing, in my previous statement, which is in (brackets), to demonstrate my point:

Disney knowingly offers benefits to workers which practice sex-trafficking.

Would you too protest/condemn Disney for supporting such acts? I bet you would. So why are you not on board with the Christians who protest/condemn Disney? Why are you not appalled? According to God, gay sex is a high crime. Why are you indifferent? Or, are you not indifferent? And if not, why do you not agree with the god you worship?

I have spoken about the Christian understanding of God’s law. You don’t have to agree with Christianity. As the Christian in this debate I do have the luxury of declaring what Christianity is, just as you have the luxury what atheism is. Neither of us have the luxury of telling the other person what that person believes.

I have the luxury in asking you if you agree with God, in that gay sex is an abomination? If so, what is your stance on Disney?

This is a debate forum. We can debate if Christianity is true, right and good. However, for a non-Christian to tell a Christian what Christians believe would be the textbook example of strawman fallacy.

I'm not telling you. I'm asking you. Do you think gay sex is an abomination? Yes or no? If yes, then I guess you detest Disney's practices, as it relates to the practices of supporting gay sex partners? If no, why do you disagree with the God you worship?

[bjs1]

I have spoken about the Christian understanding of God’s law. You don’t have to agree with Christianity. As the Christian in this debate I do have the luxury of declaring what Christianity is, just as you have the luxury what atheism is. Neither of us have the luxury of telling the other person what that person believes.
....
This is a debate forum. We can debate if Christianity is true, right and good. However, for a non-Christian to tell a Christian what Christians believe would be the textbook example of strawman fallacy.

This is patently untrue. After all, have you verified this with JW? Christ? The RCC? The Phelps?

My words fit with the doctrines of JW’s and the RCC. I do not claim to speak for Christ. I don’t know who the Phelps are. Wasn’t he a swimmer or something?

An atheist only needs a lack of a belief in God, just as a mechanic is someone who works on mechanisms.

Says who? If Christians cannot speak for Christianity, then what gives an atheists the right to speak for atheism?

If you want to define atheism then that's fine, but don't declare what Christianity is.

If atheists decide what Christians believe, then don't expect me to accept your description of atheism.