timh@ide.com (Tim Hoogasian) (07/13/90)
>Is ongoing, heterosexual, premarital sex (fornication) any less sinful than >ongoing, homosexual sex? Is ongoing, heterosexual, extramarital sex (adultery) >any less sinful than ongoing, homosexual sex? I understand that at one time >each of these activities was considered evidence of a spiritual problem. Are >things really any different today? The whole discussion of which sin is more or less "sinful" than any other sin is a waste of our time and energies. To put it simply, to commit ANY sin constitutes the breaking of the WHOLE of the law, and hence disqualifies us (on our own merits) from attaining the Kingdom of Heaven. (But praise God for His indescribably merciful gift to us of His Son!) In other words: There *is* no sin that is any more or less "bad" than any other (with the notable exception of the sin of blasphemy). As Paul reminds us, ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (And let's not forget that this man, whom we consider a saint, boldly claimed he was the chief of sinners!) There is no "degree" of "sinfulness" in sin. Sin is just that: Sin - our rebellion against God. No more, no less. If we attempt to water down what Scripture teaches us, we are "adding or subtracting" from the Word of God. Now, who among us is really so wise as to tell God that He doesn't really know what he's talking about, and why can't He be more "enlightened"? If we believe that the Bible is God's holy, inspired word, then what place have we to suggest that portions of it are "outdated?" Scripture is just as potent and relevant to today's world as it was when it was originally written. One of the biggest problems I see in the Church today is that it is attempting to make itself "palatable" to the world. We often avoid taking stands, and "making waves" for fear of what it will "cost" us. (Come on, people! We're not going to take anything from this life with us into His presence after all!) We push the Gospel of the love of Christ (which certainly should be stressed!) at the expense of stressing the Holiness and Justness of Almighty God! (Listen to a copy of John MacArthur's tape on God's Holiness, and I *GUARANTEE* you'll get convicted, no matter how righteous you think you've been lately...) God wants us to minister to the world, certainly! But He doesn't want for us to water down his commandments to make them "taste" better. If we softpedal God's Law, and the penalties for flaunting that Law, in favor of "Isn't Jesus so wonderful?" evangalism, we are not serving Christ - at least, not very well. Don't get me wrong. I'm not pushing "hellfire and brimstone" preaching. I'm not out to "condemn" anyone for their sins. (Hey, I've got enough of my own to be concerned about!) But I'm sure God is very distressed at the amount of time we spend playing games with "interpreting" Scripture. (The only people I see as all that qualified to discuss semantics of Greek and Hebrew are, naturally, Greek and Hebrew scholars - this counts me out, too.) There are very few portions of scripture that I've found in my studies to be much less than straightforward. Examine yourself. If you know you are short in some area, then don't try to make scripture fit your mold (rationalize). The Word won't bend to fit our whims - rather, we must conform to it. (And yes, I know that that is itself the sticky point.) Paul has issued us the challenge to run for the prize. What are we waiting for? Tim --- -- Tim | ARPA: timh@ide.com Hoogasian | UUCP: sun!ide!timh (415) 543-0900 =============================================================================== #define DISCLAIMER "Are you nuts? I don't represent anyone, let alone myself!"
nxh@cis.ohio-state.edu (Nobuya Higashiyama) (07/16/90)
In article <Jul.13.05.02.36.1990.12003@athos.rutgers.edu> timh@ide.com (Tim Hoogasian) writes: >>Is ongoing, heterosexual, premarital sex (fornication) any less sinful than >>ongoing, homosexual sex? Is ongoing, heterosexual, extramarital sex (adultery) >>any less sinful than ongoing, homosexual sex? I understand that at one time >>each of these activities was considered evidence of a spiritual problem. Are >>things really any different today? > > In other words: There *is* no sin that is any more or less > "bad" than any other (with the notable exception of the sin > of blasphemy). As Paul reminds us, ALL have sinned and fallen > short of the glory of God. (And let's not forget that this > man, whom we consider a saint, boldly claimed he was the chief > of sinners!) There is no "degree" of "sinfulness" in sin. Sin > is just that: Sin - our rebellion against God. No more, no less. While I agree with your sentiments, I think we may need to proceed with caution here. Indeed, all sin (fornication, murder, gossip, etc.) are same in that they are all transgressions of God's standards (and as you stated, any one of them is enough to send us off to eternal punishment). However, we need to keep in mind that *consequences* of these sins vary greatly. I think this is illustrated in the Old Testament (Leviticus in particular), where various punishments are prescribed for different sins. If I understand correctly that OT laws are reflections of God's holy nature, then the fact that there is much variance in punishments seem to indicate that not all sins are same, even in God's eyes. Back to the original posting, OT punishment for most sexual sins is death by stoning. This includes fornication, adultery, homosexuality and bestiality. The fact that the punishments were so severe (according to today's standards) seems indicative of the fact that human sexuality is a very important part of one's life, and God has tremendous desire that we keep ourselves sexually pure. Higgy -- Nobuya "Higgy" Higashiyama | ____/| Data Integrity Systems | \ o.O| Vote for Bill in '92! Mead Data Central, Dayton, OH | =(_)= mead!nxh@uccba.uc.edu (or) ...!uccba!mead!nxh | U ACK! THPHTH!
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (07/16/90)
> The whole discussion of which sin is more or less "sinful" than > any other sin is a waste of our time and energies. To put it > simply, to commit ANY sin constitutes the breaking of the WHOLE > of the law, and hence disqualifies us (on our own merits) from > attaining the Kingdom of Heaven. (But praise God for His > indescribably merciful gift to us of His Son!) > > In other words: There *is* no sin that is any more or less > "bad" than any other (with the notable exception of the sin > of blasphemy). As Paul reminds us, ALL have sinned and fallen > short of the glory of God. (And let's not forget that this > man, whom we consider a saint, boldly claimed he was the chief > of sinners!) There is no "degree" of "sinfulness" in sin. Sin > is just that: Sin - our rebellion against God. No more, no less. I would just like to present the Catholic position on the "relativity" of sins. An analogy might suffice to illustrate the point. Let us suppose we have a close and honorable friend. Even though we are good friends, there may be things which I do (consciously or unconsciously) which annoy my friend. There may be still other things that I do which truely offend my friend, but not enough to break off the friendship. Finally, there may be certain things which are completely offensive and intolerable to my friend which would break off the friendship entirely. This analogy is really less of an analogy and closer to actual reality. In Jesus -- God made man -- God has made himself a truely _human_ _friend_ to us. But our friendship to God, just like any other friendship, can be destoyed by our carelessness. The Catholic Church has therefore identified two general catagories of actions which offend God to a greater or lesser degree, and thereby endanger our relationship to Him. The first general category of sinful thoughts/words/actions/ omissions are called "venial" sins. A venial sin is an act which dipleases God, but not to the extent that our relationship to Him is broken off. We stil remain friends with God in the state of grace, but we are obliged to make reperation for our venial sins through good works and self denial. The second category of sinful thoughts/words/actions/omissions are those which are serious and grave in nature. These are called "mortal" sins because in performing these offenses, we have broken ourselves off from our living friendship with God, and have brought death to our souls. Of course, God never cuts Himself off from us and is always ready to reconcile sinners to Himself. But the least which is required is an apology to God for the offences we have made against Him. This is done formally in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and is an obligation for Catholics who are aware of any serious offences which they may have committed against God. These sins also require some reparation or penance. But to get back to my main point, there are levels to the gravity of offences to God -- ranging from involuntary venial sins to premeditated mortal sins. All sins are offenses against God, and in that sense, all sins have infinite consequences from which we sinful humans could never recover based on our own merits. Only through the merits of Christ's Pascal Sacrifice are we redeemed. Nevertheless, we need to "work out our salvation in fear and trembling" (as Paul says) and strive for the perfection of virtue in our own life, "even as the Father is perfect." Because God gave us free will, we are still responsible for our actions, and we must use our wills to maintain and perfect our relationship with God, and make reparation (based on our love for God) for the offenses we have committed against Him. Certainly, to use these ideas of the "relativity" of sins as an excuse to offend God only in "little" ways is in itself a blatant and presumtuous offense against God. But understood properly, these ideas can bear the fruit of much virtue in life. chris -- First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T T E C H N O L O G I E S / / \\ / / Then, the disclaimer: All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \ / o Now for the witty part: I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam! \/
vm0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent Paul Mulhern) (07/18/90)
The 'friend' analogy from the previous "Re: Let's end..." post
breaks down when considering that God is not limited to humanity. Jesus
isn't human anymore; He's resurrected and glorified. Yes, our sin
sepatates us from Him like an offense separates us from a friend. But
our friend has a hard time figuring out when we've "become sorry" for
the offense. They have to figure out when we've realized the "error of
our ways" and want to restore the relationship. So our human friend may
be slow to trust us again, for fear that we haven't "been truly sorry"
for the offense.
God doesn't have a problem in figuring this out. He knows. And
regardless of whether we told a little lie or stole a car, once a person
reaches the point of repentance (which is individual and cannot be
generalized into two, or any number of, categories), God sees this and
restores the person to His fellowship.
We need to stop thinking of God as a human. Yes, He was human, and
He lived a perfect life as one. But He is also divine, and we must
realize this. The concept of total and instantaneous forgiveness for
something like rape or murder is very hard for us to conceive. But
that's because our trust, forgiveness, and love are imperfect. God's
trust, forgiveness, and love aren't. It may very well be harder for
us to ACCEPT forgiveness for murder than for a lie, but that's an
individual, human issue. It isn't one from God's perspective. Jesus
forgave the adulteress, the criminal He was crucified with, and many
others, on the spot, without lengthy process or lectures. He knew when
a person "was sorry" and that was all it took.
Respectfully,
Vince Mulhern
[I think you should consider very carefully your comment that Christ
isn't human any more. This is certainly contradicts all the Christian
doctrinal standards. Being glorified certainly changes your bodily
form, but I don't think I'd want to say it makes you something other
than human. --clh]jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (07/24/90)
The distinction between mortal and venial sin is basic to Roman Catholic spirituality. The difference between the two is the gravity of the acts involved. Some things are incompatible with the love of God and the salvation of one's soul. Trying to make all sin mortal would not fit with the traditional practice of the Sacrament of Penance, which involves private confession of sins to a priest. If every sin were mortal, there would be no way you could ever confess them all. There are also interesting implications in the civil domain. If every fault deserves Hell, then putting someone to death for little things is justified. Catholic spirituality views the work of grace as a growth of the soul in sanctity. Mortal sin kills the life of grace. The Sacrament of Penance restores it. Holy Communion feeds it. The spiritual life is above all the avoidance of mortal sin, and a striving to eliminate all deliberate venial sin. Making all sins mortal involves puzzling notions of justification, or something. It would seem to make justification independent of human acts, since "the just man falls seven times daily." If I'm so inclined to mortal sin that even a holy man sins seven times a day, what has the Redemption done to restore the human race? Joe Buehler
johnw@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) (07/30/90)
In article <Jul.13.05.02.36.1990.12003@athos.rutgers.edu> timh@ide.com (Tim Hoogasian) writes: > > We push the Gospel of the love of Christ (which certainly should > be stressed!) at the expense of stressing the Holiness and Justness > of Almighty God! (Listen to a copy of John MacArthur's tape on > God's Holiness, and I *GUARANTEE* you'll get convicted, no matter > how righteous you think you've been lately...) > > God wants us to minister to the world, certainly! But He doesn't > want for us to water down his commandments to make them "taste" > better. If we softpedal God's Law, and the penalties for flaunting > that Law, in favor of "Isn't Jesus so wonderful?" evangalism, we > are not serving Christ - at least, not very well. > Maybe you need to heed the words of Paul: "I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by faithing (active belief, supported by confidence, in God's promises) what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit [i.e., through faith, which is active belief, supported by confidence, in God's promises], are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?" Galatians 3:2,3. If we are really in tune with God, and faithing in his promises, we do start to realize how sinful we are, i.e., how short we fall of his perfection. But we don't need a preacher to beat into us how sinful we are. > Paul has issued us the challenge to run for the prize. What > are we waiting for? > >Tim >--- Again I ask, How do you run? By the Spirit (i.e., through faith) or by the flesh (i.e., through observance of the law, any kind of law or regulation on how to be holy)?
timh@linus.uucp (Tim Hoogasian) (08/06/90)
(any and all Biblical quotes will have to be regarded as paraphrased, since i don't have my Bible with me, in order to get them completely textually accurate.) In article <Jul.24.04.42.39.1990.17398@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: >The distinction between mortal and venial sin is basic to Roman Catholic >spirituality. ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ and you've hit the nail on the head right there. >The difference between the two is the gravity of the acts >involved. Some things are incompatible with the love of God and the >salvation of one's soul. who's to judge the gravity of one's acts except Almighty God? you? me? sorry, sin is sin is sin. the only sin you're going to find explicitly mentioned in Scripture as unforgivable is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Dogma about "relative sinfulness" of various sins only serves to cloud the issue that ANY sin is repugnant to God. i haven't minimized or maximized the nature of sin here - i'm just telling it like it is: "For *ALL* have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" the fact that you (and i, and everybody else in the world) are a sinner condemns you to eternal separation from God (Hell). there's no point in artificial distinctions between "greater" and "lesser" sins. God hates them all! >Trying to make all sin mortal would not fit with the traditional >practice of the Sacrament of Penance, which involves private confession >of sins to a priest. If every sin were mortal, there would be no way >you could ever confess them all. do you believe that by your own might in confessing your sins to your priest that you'll make things right with God? ("Well, if I say I'm sorry, and recognize all the sins I can think of that I've committed, that'll appease Him, right?") i'm not anti-Catholic, i hope you realize. but i've nowhere seen in my Bible (NIV, for any who care) anything to suggest that i need any particular Sacrament or Rite to restore me to Grace. all that is necessary is for me to confess my sin, and repent of it. "If we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." We don't need any intermediaries - we are instructed to boldly (!) approach His Throne of Grace, repentent of our sins (i.e., none of this "Well, I'm sorry I did it, but I might do it again" stuff), to ask His mercy and forgiveness - and He will grant it! >There are also interesting implications in the civil domain. If every >fault deserves Hell, then putting someone to death for little things is >justified. > whole 'nuther ballgame entirely. are you going to attempt to coerce Almighty God to play by the rules of man? "My ways are above your ways, and My thoughts are above your thoughts." (loosely) the point is this: a Just, Holy God will not (*cannot*, if He is to remain self-consistent) tolerate sin. any sin. period. However, by the Grace (translated: Unmerited Favor) of Jesus Christ, God views us through Christ's righteousness, and counts that as our own. (i know i wouldn't want to be Judged on the basis of my "good works" by a Just, Holy God. would you?) >Catholic spirituality views the work of grace as a growth of the soul in ^^ ?? ^^ ^^^ ???? ^^^ >sanctity. Mortal sin kills the life of grace. The Sacrament of Penance >restores it. Holy Communion feeds it. The spiritual life is above all >the avoidance of mortal sin, and a striving to eliminate all deliberate >venial sin. > No, No, *No*! "Sin" (no prefix whatever) removes you from God. God doesn't forsake us - we forsake Him. Rites and Sacraments must be kept in their proper perspectives. they are above all RITUALS. they have NO merit of themselves. the Christian recognizes that he is hopelessly a sinner - he's stuck, and unless Christ Jesus (and *only* Him) saves him, he is doomed to eternal (think about how long that is) separation from God. we can't "help" the process along with our rituals. till the day we die, we remain sinners; but by the Grace of God, through Jesus Christ, we who have accepted the free gift of Salvation will NOT be judged as we so richly deserve to be. (i am not sneering here) do you honestly believe that you have enough holiness in you to resist Sin on your own, without the help of Christ? we who've been Christians for a while often get to thinking we're doing pretty good (i must confess i've done this as well) in our Walk. That smug sin is called Pride. Christ is the only reason we are able to resist sin. (i know, i know - "What about the atheist who lives a 'moral' life? Hasn't he resisted sin?" has he really, though? nope. think about it.) by making distinctions between 'mortal' and 'venial' sin, men are encouraged to think in relativistic terms about their sins, ("Thank you O God, that I am not as that heathen over there...") thereby encouraging them to sin further by having pride in their own works and "righteousness." remember what God thinks of our works? they're "as filthy rags." give yourself a break - you'll NEVER earn your way into the Kingdom of Heaven. if your name is written in the Book of Life, signified by your personal recognition of your unworthiness and acceptance of Christ's saving Grace, then your salvation is sure! >Making all sins mortal involves puzzling notions of justification, or >something. It would seem to make justification independent of human >acts, since "the just man falls seven times daily." EXACTLY! HOORAY! You've hit it! Justification IS just that - independent of human acts. "You are saved by Grace (Unmerited Favor), not of works, lest any man should boast." (i realize my paraphrases aren't tight enough...) We did not seek out God - He sought us! He wanted us to be reconciled with Him so BADLY that He sent His Son, Jesus, to die on Golgotha the cruelest death ever conceived (which He did not deserve in the slightest) so that we could be offered (and hope- fully accept) His free gift of salvation. >If I'm so inclined >to mortal sin that even a holy man sins seven times a day, what has the >Redemption done to restore the human race? > but you see, Redemption does NOT belong to us all - it's there for those who choose to accept it, but it does NOT apply to all who happen to belong to the family of Man. God doesn't wish that any should perish in Hell, but He is also not sentimental - He offers each of us salvation, but if we don't accept the gift, we have condemned ourselves. the human race can't restore itself. our race will only be restored to God when His kingdom is finally established here on Earth. don't concern yourself with when He'll do it - that's His worry, not ours. >Joe Buehler tim Tim | ARPA: timh@ide.com Hoogasian | UUCP: sun!ide!timh (415) 543-0900 =============================================================================== #define DISCLAIMER "Are you nuts? I don't represent anyone, let alone myself!"