So how about we all agree that: sins are different in magnitude, in levels of punishment and in the damage that they cause
please see the topic i started called ALL SINS ARE EQUAL..... right now, you are contradicting the Pope, and i think you would know who i would rather trust on this. (no offence or anything)
No offence but allusion should be a passing reference not the only reference. Please give the quotation in context so that we could analyze it. I had allusion to holy Scripture and St Augustine. And if you are right about your inference of H.H. Then the next step is explaining how I have erred in my use of Scripture. God bless.
i didnt hear the sermon yet. But i think that for us we may think one sin is worse than another because it takes a longer time to repent and escape a sin more than it does for another sin. But who are we to judge and define how God sees the sins. So, personally i think that for us, one sin is worse than another. And in genneral if u murder ur looked upon badly by society rather than if u lie. But to ask if God sees these sins in his eyes as equal? Well!...that i suppose remains unanswered. Thats what i think .... +mahraeel+
Yeah I agree with mahraeel. I haven't listened to the sermon either but there are some seriously obvious differences between some sins, it just defies logic to say that they are exaclty the same.
And can I just add, what does it matter to us whether sins are equal or not? Why do we need to know? We know that we should avoid sin, and we know which deeds are sin, so like what else do we need to know? I cannot see any practical reason (please give me one if one exists) why we should know which sins are worse than others.
[quote author=epchois_nai_nan link=topic=7163.msg95490#msg95490 date=1223886822] Yeah I agree with mahraeel. I haven't listened to the sermon either but there are some seriously obvious differences between some sins, it just defies logic to say that they are exaclty the same. i agree=)
[quote author=epchois_nai_nan link=topic=7163.msg95490#msg95490 date=1223886822]And can I just add, what does it matter to us whether sins are equal or not? Why do we need to know? We know that we should avoid sin, and we know which deeds are sin, so like what else do we need to know? I cannot see any practical reason (please give me one if one exists) why we should know which sins are worse than others.
Pray for me :)
curiosity? lol well i agree but sometimes its good to noe=) xD
I Believe God see's all sins are equal, but some sins have a greater impact on a person than other sins, causing a person to sin more and more until no end. (Well, until confession :) )
For example, smoking is a sin, it is also an addiction. This addiction will cause the person to sin more and more, which will be far greater in God's eyes than what you or I see murder or homosexuality as.
By the way, if someone is homosexual, but they do not do any homosexual acts because they really want to stay Christian, is that still a sin? Or is it the homosexual acts that are sinful?
Can you back this up with some verses in Scripture. I am yet to see where in the world you can get the notion that God see's all sins are equal. This is philosophy philandering rather than reasoned evangelical orthodox belief, as far as I can tell. The only thing that comes to mind, is when St. James said, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." (James 2:10). But I don't get the impression that he is comparing sins, but saying that as a "transgressor of the law" you still need grace all the same. I do not deny this.
In fact, St. Paul says, "But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, though faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood through faith to demonstrate His righteousness..." (Rom. 3:21-25)
The point St. Paul, I believe is getting at, is that no matter what sin you did, your salvation depends on the world and righteousness of Christ, and your communion with Him, through "the law of faith"(v27).
In that vein, I just want to elaborate. Some people have said, quite rightly that all lead to death. However, let us not forget that in judgment, "God will render to everyone according to his deeds"(Ps. 62:12, Prov. 24:12, Rom 2:6 NKJV). I think it is quite important to remember that making unbelievers do righteous things, can be very beneficial in Judgment regardless of whether they are unfortunately going to hell.
Clay that ultimately depends on your interpretation of a deed. Foundationally, an individual's deeds must be those behaviors which he accords to a greater moral Authority. Otherwise, deeds become superficially relevant and substantially irrelevant. Thus, if I help an impoverished individual, and a Moral Law exists which remediates the deed's theological significance, then the deed becomes a theologically "sound" act before God's eyes (presuming of course that you uphold the causality and moral dependency of divine law.) However, if deed is defined as that behavior which imparts a greater sense of existential succession or moral independency for the individual, then the deed has no backdrop on which to claim its absolute value. Ultimately intention precedes substantive content; even if such content accords itself with sovereign law. It therefore follows;
1.) Only deeds committed under the authority of a transcendent personal Being are conceptually valuable in essence
2.) Deeds that are committed without the knowledge of God do not commence under the authority of a transcendent personal Being
3.) Deeds that are committed without the knowledge of God are not conceptually valuable in essence
Furthermore, one may argue that very notion of propositional truth claims renders counterfactual knowledge for God in which both the enactment upon deeds and the non-enactment upon deeds are counterfactually related in any given feasible world; such that in any given circumstance C one may choose to act in accord with p or non p (propositional truths of a deed-related acts). By the same token, if in any given circumstance C one avoids propagating p and attempts for non-p, then p is still in the viable pool of propositional possibility. Therefore for every given non-p a counter-deed is evoked that substitutes for that potential p….such that every individual will either choose p or non-p when faced with the choice to commit a deed. This Moulinistic viewing lens redefines "deeds" in both the sense of their positive and negative commencements; so that at any given point where a choice is being made on whether to act upon a deed or not, it is logically possible that either the positive or negative contingency of that proposition has been initiated. All such propositions can be rendered then as "deed" related. In light of such truth claims, all men are judged on the basis of both what they do act upon or what they refuse to act upon. This becomes even more acutely apprehensible as one considers the bedrock of divine middle knowledge that such propositions must fall back upon.
[quote author=epchois_nai_nan link=topic=7163.msg95490#msg95490 date=1223886822] Yeah I agree with mahraeel. I haven't listened to the sermon either but there are some seriously obvious differences between some sins, it just defies logic to say that they are exaclty the same.
And can I just add, what does it matter to us whether sins are equal or not? Why do we need to know? We know that we should avoid sin, and we know which deeds are sin, so like what else do we need to know? I cannot see any practical reason (please give me one if one exists) why we should know which sins are worse than others.
Pray for me :)
LISTEN TO THE SERMON,, it is only 16 minutes long, it is very beneficial, and u only have to listen to the first 2 minutes t understand what i am saying.....
When considering the reality of transgression, one must remember not to conflate the noetic reality of sin with the essential value of sin. While one may experience a noetic expression of reality that redefines one sin as particularly more heinous than another, it does not therefore immediately qualify that sin as having an equivocal potency over all other sin. For, as James 3:6 implies that the part can corrupt the whole, so too the presence of sin disturbs the entire nexus of purity. For it is morally inconsistent to assert that sin, a severing of man's relationship to Christ, is sufficiently ordered in terms of severity, so that some number of sinful deeds sever the relationship less than others. A relationship that is genuine is constituted by the wholistic collocation of personal attempt, not a democracy of particulars in behavior. Worse yet, it is logically incompatible with divine sovereignty to claim that sin has a greater number of it's members in adherence to "purity" than it 's more severe counterparts. Inscrutably so then, it seems that this is what the proponent of a multifaceted perspective of sin must hold. For if one sinful act is substantially greater than another, it follows logically that certain acts of sin are substantially less "evil" than their counterparts; entailing those certain sins are relatively closer to a standard of goodness than are others. Yet, the gospels make incisively clear, I think, that the incompatibility of evil and goodness going so far as to use the analogical juxtaposition of light that futilly attempts to reside alongside darkness. Furthermore, passages like James 3:6 show the dire implications that a relatively trivial wrong, the abuse of the tongue, can have on the entire "course of life", even going so far as to say that "it is itself set on fire by hell." It seems to me then, that a proponent of multi-faceted expressions of sin must revise his initial presupposition to hold that on grounds of noetic experience, certain wrongs are innately more unjust, but that on metaphysically essential grounds, all sin is equally abhorrent.
[quote author=gmankbadi link=topic=7163.msg95710#msg95710 date=1224140399] When considering the reality of transgression, one must remember not to conflate the noetic reality of sin with the essential value of sin. While one may experience a noetic expression of reality that redefines one sin as particularly more heinous than another, it does not therefore immediately qualify that sin as having an equivocal potency over all other sin. For, as James 3:6 implies that the part can corrupt the whole, so too the presence of sin disturbs the entire nexus of purity. For it is morally inconsistent to assert that sin, a severing of man's relationship to Christ, is sufficiently ordered in terms of severity, so that some number of sinful deeds sever the relationship less than others. A relationship that is genuine is constituted by the wholistic collocation of personal attempt, not a democracy of particulars in behavior. Worse yet, it is logically incompatible with divine sovereignty to claim that sin has a greater number of it's members in adherence to "purity" than it 's more severe counterparts. Inscrutably so then, it seems that this is what the proponent of a multifaceted perspective of sin must hold. For if one sinful act is substantially greater than another, it follows logically that certain acts of sin are substantially less "evil" than their counterparts; entailing those certain sins are relatively closer to a standard of goodness than are others. Yet, the gospels make incisively clear, I think, that the incompatibility of evil and goodness going so far as to use the analogical juxtaposition of light that futilly attempts to reside alongside darkness. Furthermore, passages like James 3:6 show the dire implications that a relatively trivial wrong, the abuse of the tongue, can have on the entire "course of life", even going so far as to say that "it is itself set on fire by hell." It seems to me then, that a proponent of multi-faceted expressions of sin must revise his initial presupposition to hold that on grounds of noetic experience, certain wrongs are innately more unjust, but that on metaphysically essential grounds, all sin is equally abhorrent.
I take that u didn't hear the sermon!!! Just do......
The concept of more evil or less, a sin, doesn't support this mentality of all sins are equal. Against GOD any amount of evil IS evil. But the true factor here is how far does that sin take you away from God.
Comments
So how about we all agree that: sins are different in magnitude, in levels of punishment and in the damage that they cause
please see the topic i started called ALL SINS ARE EQUAL..... right now, you are contradicting the Pope, and i think you would know who i would rather trust on this. (no offence or anything)
if you don't want to go to the other topic, the link to the Sermon is Here http://www.4shared.com/file/47431830/51a4efd9/______.html?s=1
Thats what i think ....
+mahraeel+
And can I just add, what does it matter to us whether sins are equal or not? Why do we need to know? We know that we should avoid sin, and we know which deeds are sin, so like what else do we need to know? I cannot see any practical reason (please give me one if one exists) why we should know which sins are worse than others.
Pray for me :)
Yeah I agree with mahraeel. I haven't listened to the sermon either but there are some seriously obvious differences between some sins, it just defies logic to say that they are exaclty the same.
i agree=)
[quote author=epchois_nai_nan link=topic=7163.msg95490#msg95490 date=1223886822]And can I just add, what does it matter to us whether sins are equal or not? Why do we need to know? We know that we should avoid sin, and we know which deeds are sin, so like what else do we need to know? I cannot see any practical reason (please give me one if one exists) why we should know which sins are worse than others.
Pray for me :)
curiosity? lol well i agree but sometimes its good to noe=) xD
For example, smoking is a sin, it is also an addiction. This addiction will cause the person to sin more and more, which will be far greater in God's eyes than what you or I see murder or homosexuality as.
By the way, if someone is homosexual, but they do not do any homosexual acts because they really want to stay Christian, is that still a sin? Or is it the homosexual acts that are sinful?
In fact, St. Paul says, "But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, though faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood through faith to demonstrate His righteousness..." (Rom. 3:21-25)
The point St. Paul, I believe is getting at, is that no matter what sin you did, your salvation depends on the world and righteousness of Christ, and your communion with Him, through "the law of faith"(v27).
In that vein, I just want to elaborate. Some people have said, quite rightly that all lead to death. However, let us not forget that in judgment, "God will render to everyone according to his deeds"(Ps. 62:12, Prov. 24:12, Rom 2:6 NKJV). I think it is quite important to remember that making unbelievers do righteous things, can be very beneficial in Judgment regardless of whether they are unfortunately going to hell.
1.) Only deeds committed under the authority of a transcendent personal Being are conceptually valuable in essence
2.) Deeds that are committed without the knowledge of God do not commence under the authority of a transcendent personal Being
3.) Deeds that are committed without the knowledge of God are not conceptually valuable in essence
Furthermore, one may argue that very notion of propositional truth claims renders counterfactual knowledge for God in which both the enactment upon deeds and the non-enactment upon deeds are counterfactually related in any given feasible world; such that in any given circumstance C one may choose to act in accord with p or non p (propositional truths of a deed-related acts). By the same token, if in any given circumstance C one avoids propagating p and attempts for non-p, then p is still in the viable pool of propositional possibility. Therefore for every given non-p a counter-deed is evoked that substitutes for that potential p….such that every individual will either choose p or non-p when faced with the choice to commit a deed. This Moulinistic viewing lens redefines "deeds" in both the sense of their positive and negative commencements; so that at any given point where a choice is being made on whether to act upon a deed or not, it is logically possible that either the positive or negative contingency of that proposition has been initiated. All such propositions can be rendered then as "deed" related. In light of such truth claims, all men are judged on the basis of both what they do act upon or what they refuse to act upon. This becomes even more acutely apprehensible as one considers the bedrock of divine middle knowledge that such propositions must fall back upon.
Yeah I agree with mahraeel. I haven't listened to the sermon either but there are some seriously obvious differences between some sins, it just defies logic to say that they are exaclty the same.
And can I just add, what does it matter to us whether sins are equal or not? Why do we need to know? We know that we should avoid sin, and we know which deeds are sin, so like what else do we need to know? I cannot see any practical reason (please give me one if one exists) why we should know which sins are worse than others.
Pray for me :)
LISTEN TO THE SERMON,, it is only 16 minutes long, it is very beneficial, and u only have to listen to the first 2 minutes t understand what i am saying.....
Inscrutably so then, it seems that this is what the proponent of a multifaceted perspective of sin must hold. For if one sinful act is substantially greater than another, it follows logically that certain acts of sin are substantially less "evil" than their counterparts; entailing those certain sins are relatively closer to a standard of goodness than are others. Yet, the gospels make incisively clear, I think, that the incompatibility of evil and goodness going so far as to use the analogical juxtaposition of light that futilly attempts to reside alongside darkness. Furthermore, passages like James 3:6 show the dire implications that a relatively trivial wrong, the abuse of the tongue, can have on the entire "course of life", even going so far as to say that "it is itself set on fire by hell." It seems to me then, that a proponent of multi-faceted expressions of sin must revise his initial presupposition to hold that on grounds of noetic experience, certain wrongs are innately more unjust, but that on metaphysically essential grounds, all sin is equally abhorrent.
When considering the reality of transgression, one must remember not to conflate the noetic reality of sin with the essential value of sin. While one may experience a noetic expression of reality that redefines one sin as particularly more heinous than another, it does not therefore immediately qualify that sin as having an equivocal potency over all other sin. For, as James 3:6 implies that the part can corrupt the whole, so too the presence of sin disturbs the entire nexus of purity. For it is morally inconsistent to assert that sin, a severing of man's relationship to Christ, is sufficiently ordered in terms of severity, so that some number of sinful deeds sever the relationship less than others. A relationship that is genuine is constituted by the wholistic collocation of personal attempt, not a democracy of particulars in behavior. Worse yet, it is logically incompatible with divine sovereignty to claim that sin has a greater number of it's members in adherence to "purity" than it 's more severe counterparts.
Inscrutably so then, it seems that this is what the proponent of a multifaceted perspective of sin must hold. For if one sinful act is substantially greater than another, it follows logically that certain acts of sin are substantially less "evil" than their counterparts; entailing those certain sins are relatively closer to a standard of goodness than are others. Yet, the gospels make incisively clear, I think, that the incompatibility of evil and goodness going so far as to use the analogical juxtaposition of light that futilly attempts to reside alongside darkness. Furthermore, passages like James 3:6 show the dire implications that a relatively trivial wrong, the abuse of the tongue, can have on the entire "course of life", even going so far as to say that "it is itself set on fire by hell." It seems to me then, that a proponent of multi-faceted expressions of sin must revise his initial presupposition to hold that on grounds of noetic experience, certain wrongs are innately more unjust, but that on metaphysically essential grounds, all sin is equally abhorrent.
I take that u didn't hear the sermon!!! Just do......
The concept of more evil or less, a sin, doesn't support this mentality of all sins are equal. Against GOD any amount of evil IS evil. But the true factor here is how far does that sin take you away from God.