the nature of sin

[Drich]

Your contention, then, is that if words do not mean what they mean..and if paul and john and jesus are all wrong when they use those words..that don't mean what they mean...then...what, exactly?

i do not understand any of this. I am using the words of Jesus Paul and john (and the Hebrews writer) to describe sin this way.

What do you need to atone or be atoned for?  Good, or bad?

but the law extends beyond good and bad. the law was subdivide into the moral law, the laws of ceremony and service to God which include atonement. and the civil law/what it meant to be a ot jew.

remember the story of UZZah who steadied the ark and kept it from breaking on the rocks below? he broke no moral laws. what he did was morally good. he broke a ceremonial law. he still sinned even though he did what was morally right.

morality is only 1/3 of the total law.

So not take stuff like that and extend it to thought crimes.

that means 2/3 of the sin you commit have nothing to do with good or bad.

that makes sin something different than a measure of morality.

 As I've already explained, magic book addresses the morality of sin every single time it mentions sin.  This is completely inarguable.  You would have to write your own magic book to edit it out.  

morality is part of laws and breaking the moral code is sin so everything moral will include sin. but again it now goes beyond just moral actions.

look at the parable of the 10 virgins. 1/2 were taken to the wedding and 1/2 were left behind. what was their moral crime/sin? They committed no moral sin, but rather they demonstrate or represent people who only 1/2 ass their obligations. those who's heart is not fully given to their God.

look at the rich young ruler. what was his moral sin? Jesus saw he had many things and of him made the requirement to sell everything and give to the poor.
morally the boy was perfect. he was not greedy by any stretch as he said he kept the laws which would include those that required him to give a percentage of what he made, and Jesus made no one else sell everything and give to the poor. what was his sin? again he had no moral failing.

My point is sin extends beyond good and bad. Christ identifies it as leven or yeast. they did not know what virus were but knew enough of yeast to know a little would infect a huge amount of dough and cause the whole loaf to rise. He compares sin to the smallest amount of yeast saying a little will consume/infect the whole body/loaf.

this is where I get my zombie virus analogy. the smallest bit or bit of infected blood in an open wound or eye means your deeds no longer become the measure of whether or not you qualify for heaven. as it does not matter what kind of person you are because all that matters now is that you are infected. once infected you must be cured before you can enter the land of the living. (that is the whole purpose of the Holy communion being taken with unleavened/yeast less bread)

Every time. Sin is not mentioned at all outside the context of what is right, or not right.  Sin, in no way shape or form..is ever anything except that which is wrong.  All wrong is, in fact, sin.  You do nothing but harm your faith when you argue this..and harm..according to magic book..is sin.

you are right. but you also must consider how the current culture uses the word wrong. Christ's picture on the surface to a simple person could only mean right or wrong. as it works that way, but there are many more explanations and analogies to also support the stain, taint or yeast/virus understanding of sin as well.
right and wrong have been so polluted by pop culture one can not discern it any more. because God in the people's eyes and hearts have been given the standard of the society to determine right and wrong. and as people will never see them selves as evil, they will always assume the opposite of whatever they are is wrong. In this case because God say homosexuality and abortion is evil, then God must be evil... So then how or why would a 'good person need to atone to an evil one?

unless there is more to sin. if we can get over the idea of good and evil and understand the other 2/3 of the law for a moment we will see good and evil are only 1/3 of the total meaning. that 2/3 of the law is about staying "clean" and keeping and maintaining a clean spirit/soul. (oT actual terms in dealing with sin and the purpose for the other 2/3 of the law) again when Jesus extended the law these terms of clean and how to keep a clean spirit also extended to thought.

The OT idea of being clean meant we must be without the taint stain or virus of sin. with this in mind it no longer matter how good you think you are. God lives in on the side of life, free from the virus which only causes death. (which is where i get the zombie aspect) upon resurrection the redeemed will rise to life and the unrepentant will rise to death. both side get resurrected. in christ we get to retain our selves in death we become literal zombies.

That god gives a murderer a mulligan does not mean that murder is not sin.

100% true. but my righteousness is no longer determined by my morality any more. it is based on Christ.

 If you want to contend that swearing fealty to your stupid fucking god gets you acquitted on charges you rightfully deserve, have at it.  That is what Christians believe - but that doesn't mean that what you've been acquitted for is not a moral issue, or that sin can be separated from morality.

never once said that I said we are not longer judge by the moral law. we are judged whether or not we have the vaccine of atonement or not.

Because without it the moral law still is the standard that shows those without atonement steeped in sin. the sin standard of morality still exists here. it's just used to judge those who have not been redeemed. the law does not go away. this is what is meant onc christ extended the law you must find a righteousness greater than that of the pharisees. They were the most moral and most aw abiding people on the planet. none could do no greater. yet thier standard of following the laws was no longer valid according to christ himself.

which is where atonement comes in. that is the standard greater than following the law as your means to righteousness.

So what keeps a follower of Christ from sinning if he has all these mulligans? the same as out first and greatest command. to love God with all of our being.
Can't prtend to love someon with every fiber and cheat on them or go behind their backs or do things that hurt them. it is with this love that binds us to the atonement we need to be found righteous. without this love God will say he never knew you.

 More accurately, you think that the christian "sin" concept is a factual view of morality.  You're not arguing against morality as relativism or anything of the sort.  You are simply arguing that your relative morality is accurate.  You're only arguing that you will not hold yourself and will not be held by another to your own moral standard - standards alleged to be those of a god, your god.

you say such silly things... i can see this would have to be what you think my position was, if what your assumption on my video is correct.. sorey but no.

No argument was required for that.  We all know that you're an asshole already.  No one needed to be informed that people like you think this way.  Absolutely no one.  We already knew that.  You're literally everything wrong with christianity by the standard of john, paul, and christ.

i guess i got sucked back to c-36