(July 10, 2013 at 2:16 am)Consilius Wrote:

(July 10, 2013 at 1:46 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: ?
i mean to say the person cannot be separated from his sin, according to the bible if he already knows it's a sin before he commits it. meaning you were just pulling things out of thin air.

i don't really care what the bible says about things like these, but i was just pointing out that you were making baseless assertions.

As long as the person is sinning, God's anger will fall on him, and the sinner will only have Hell to look forward to.
It's like insurance coverage. Christ died so that he could redeem whoever followed him. Those who refuse to follow him can not be redeemed because they are holding themselves back. There is no redemption for them on account of their sin, the sin they choose to remain in.
When the sinner repents, he gets Christ's sacrifice all over again and he can look forward to being with God. God's anger remains on all those who continue to sin because they are sinning.

You're just going to keep repeating yourself regardless of my response aren't you?

(July 11, 2013 at 7:44 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: You're just going to keep repeating yourself regardless of my response aren't you?

Wow you know the secret forum subtext!!

(who told you?)

(July 10, 2013 at 2:16 am)Consilius Wrote: As long as the person is sinning, God's anger will fall on him, and the sinner will only have Hell to look forward to.
It's like insurance coverage. Christ died so that he could redeem whoever followed him. Those who refuse to follow him can not be redeemed because they are holding themselves back. There is no redemption for them on account of their sin, the sin they choose to remain in.
When the sinner repents, he gets Christ's sacrifice all over again and he can look forward to being with God. God's anger remains on all those who continue to sin because they are sinning.

Yet sin is relative is it not? It is okay to kill someone under one circumstance but not okay under another - so the act of transgression must be relative.

For example, It was considered an abomination to do ANY work on the Sabbath but that death sentence was magically rescinded. Another example is the eating of pork or shellfish, those things would separate a person from God by transgressing his covenantal restrictions.

Sin then must be relative to conditions set forth by God. Another example is Paul's wonderfully liberating statement, that all things are permissible but not all things profitable.


In light of this what exactly is God's anger? And how does it remain on a person? Is it something like having two left feet or the art of failing to learn to ride a bike?

Is my assertion wrong?

When it comes to sin, I have always been partial to Buddha's definition. The only sin is harming others unnecessarily, and all other sin is invented nonsense..

(July 11, 2013 at 8:07 pm)Dionysius Wrote:

(July 10, 2013 at 2:16 am)Consilius Wrote: As long as the person is sinning, God's anger will fall on him, and the sinner will only have Hell to look forward to.
It's like insurance coverage. Christ died so that he could redeem whoever followed him. Those who refuse to follow him can not be redeemed because they are holding themselves back. There is no redemption for them on account of their sin, the sin they choose to remain in.
When the sinner repents, he gets Christ's sacrifice all over again and he can look forward to being with God. God's anger remains on all those who continue to sin because they are sinning.

Yet sin is relative is it not? It is okay to kill someone under one circumstance but not okay under another - so the act of transgression must be relative.

For example, It was considered an abomination to do ANY work on the Sabbath but that death sentence was magically rescinded. Another example is the eating of pork or shellfish, those things would separate a person from God by transgressing his covenantal restrictions.

Sin then must be relative to conditions set forth by God. Another example is Paul's wonderfully liberating statement, that all things are permissible but not all things profitable.


In light of this what exactly is God's anger? And how does it remain on a person? Is it something like having two left feet or the art of failing to learn to ride a bike?

Sin is disobedience to a command. The pagans who worked on the Sabbath weren't struck down, but the Israelite who had been specifically told to do so during the Exodus was. God gave this man more reasons to respect that commandment, so his refusal to do so was more serious than it was in later generations and had to be punished severely and immediately.
Killing is killing. But the reasons it is administered vary. Soldiers in armies die, hostile intruders die, and God, in many instances, kills those who reject him by doing wrong.
The laws in the Torah showed the faith and obedience of the Jewish people to their God. It is not the eating of pork that was sinful, but the disobedience to God it indicated. They were outward indications of what was inside hearts and minds.

God can't prevent us from doing anything, but he remains in the position to give the laws and punish when they are broken. Sometimes the punishment comes from the lawbreaking itself, hence, "not all things are profitable".

---

(July 11, 2013 at 8:22 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: When it comes to sin, I have always been partial to Buddha's definition. The only sin is harming others unnecessarily, and all other sin is invented nonsense..

Isn't this what sin has always been and always will be, within and outside of religion?
Your quote came from Robert A. Heinlein.

(July 11, 2013 at 8:22 pm)Consilius Wrote: Isn't this what sin has always been and always will be, within and outside of religion?
Your quote came from Robert A. Heinlein.

For some reason, I always thought it was Buddha.

I digress, however. Theists consider certain acts to be sins that do absolutely no harm to anyone, and that is why the theistic notion of sin is nonsense.

Can you give a good example that DOESN'T come from the Torah?
Homosexuality isn't a sin, either.

(July 11, 2013 at 8:37 pm)Consilius Wrote: Homosexuality isn't a sin, either.

What type of Roman Catholic are you, precisely? Obviously, you are more progressive than the Church.

(July 11, 2013 at 8:22 pm)Consilius Wrote: Sin is disobedience to a command.

So if god tells you to rape young virgins, as he did in the OT to not do so, is a sin? Or better yet if a crying baby is found on the battle field and you don't dash it upon the rocks would that be a sin?

Are you only required to keep the ten commandments or do the other 613 mitvoh apply? Failure to obey which of these is sin?

(July 11, 2013 at 8:22 pm)Consilius Wrote: The pagans who worked on the Sabbath weren't struck down, but the Israelite who had been specifically told to do so during the Exodus was. God gave this man more reasons to respect that commandment, so his refusal to do so was more serious than it was in later generations and had to be punished severely and immediately.

What is so significant about the Sabbath that no work could be done?

(July 11, 2013 at 8:22 pm)Consilius Wrote: Killing is killing. But the reasons it is administered vary. Soldiers in armies die, hostile intruders die, and God, in many instances, kills those who reject him by doing wrong.

My point was, "What is wrong is subject to change; relative."

(July 11, 2013 at 8:22 pm)Consilius Wrote: The laws in the Torah showed the faith and obedience of the Jewish people to their God. It is not the eating of pork that was sinful, but the disobedience to God it indicated. They were outward indications of what was inside hearts and minds.

So pork was incidental and the entire mosaic law was meaningless aside from it relevance in instituting limits to gauge obedience?

(July 11, 2013 at 8:22 pm)Consilius Wrote: God can't prevent us from doing anything, but he remains in the position to give the laws and punish when they are broken. Sometimes the punishment comes from the lawbreaking itself, hence, "not all things are profitable".

The laws that serve no purpose other than to test an individuals integrity?

---

(July 11, 2013 at 8:33 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(July 11, 2013 at 8:22 pm)Consilius Wrote: Isn't this what sin has always been and always will be, within and outside of religion?
Your quote came from Robert A. Heinlein.

For some reason, I always thought it was Buddha.

I digress, however. Theists consider certain acts to be sins that do absolutely no harm to anyone, and that is why the theistic notion of sin is nonsense.

Doing a quick search, I found a Buddhist quote regarding sin but it looks as though it might be something you'd find in the Judeo/Christian religion.

“If a man possesses a repentant spirit his sins will disappear, but if he has an unrepentant spirit his sins will continue and condemn him for their sake forever.” - Buddha