Responsible for what you know- is this accurate?

[RonC]

Hey Chappie, you citations are on target... I am adding to them the repeated requirement for atonement prior to forgiveness in each instance.

Leviticus 4
13And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty;

14When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation.

20:… and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

22When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty;

23Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish:

26:… and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

27And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty;

28Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned.

31:… and the priest shall burn [it] upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

Ignorance of the law does not release one from responsibility for sin... Ignorance of the law does not immunize one from suffering consequences of sin... Ignorance of the law does not absolve one of sin... Ignorance of the law does not exempt one from the need for atonement for sin... Ignorance of the law does not bestow forgiveness on one for one's for sin.

[beforHim]

I don't see how getting sacrifices for sins unknown necessarily means that those unbkown sins are counted against us. I can say I agree that "why else would they be there, would they be required, etc.", but it's not necessary, you know?

[RonC]

I don't see how getting sacrifices for sins unknown necessarily means that those unbkown sins are counted against us. I can say I agree that "why else would they be there, would they be required, etc.", but it's not necessary, you know?

The what is the forgiveness about? Forgiveness for what?

[RBerman]

I don't see how getting sacrifices for sins unknown necessarily means that those unbkown sins are counted against us. I can say I agree that "why else would they be there, would they be required, etc.", but it's not necessary, you know?

You're not making a positive argument. What do you do with the way God provided a specific way for the atonement of "unknown sins"? Why did God bother to do such a thing?

[beforHim]

The what is the forgiveness about? Forgiveness for what?

You're not making a positive argument. What do you do with the way God provided a specific way for the atonement of "unknown sins"? Why did God bother to do such a thing?

I think when you find out an act/thought is a sin- in this meaning it was harmful and unloving- it would then be harmful and unloving in itself to not feel sorry for the sin, thus not feeling sorry would be a sin in itself, and hence giving a sacrifice for it (the original sin commited) is appropriate- appropriate to show you're sorry and are asking to be forgiven. This is not some "systematic theology", this is real life, you know.

I used to not know it hurt my wife when I called her goofy (we call each other names al the time, but I guess she had a bad past with this particular one)- one day she told me she didn't like it, at all, and I felt bad and said I was sorry. I could've easily been like, "Well, ok, I won't say it anymore, dear", and then not apologize because when I did say it in the past I didn't know it hurt her. But how childish is that! So we see not some systematic theological apologetic in these sacrifices, but real life everyday situations to be dealt with. Pretty sweet.


And as a side note:
And really, I wasn't trying to make a "positive" argument, just stating (what I thought was) the obvious. I didn't thnk I needed to argue for

1) God commanded sacrifices for unknown sins
2) God never told exactly why these sacrifices where commanded
|therefore|
3)We do not know why they are there

I was going for deductive reaonbing, not inductive reasoning. Via inductive reasoning, we can get to the "why" of it. If my reasoning is faulty, or if I'm doing logic wrong, forgive me. I'll definitely follow logic were it leads

[RBerman]

And really, I wasn't trying to make a "positive" argument, just stating (what I thought was) the obvious. I didn't thnk I needed to argue for

1) God commanded sacrifices for unknown sins
2) God never told exactly why these sacrifices where commanded
|therefore|
3)We do not know why they are there

I was going for deductive reaonbing, not inductive reasoning. Via inductive reasoning, we can get to the "why" of it. If my reasoning is faulty, or if I'm doing logic wrong, forgive me. I'll definitely follow logic were it leads

I should have thought it was obvious why sacrifices were commanded for "unknown sins." It's the same reason sacrifices are commanded for other sins: Sin offends a holy God.

[Sparko]

Romans 2 covers the question nicely:

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Basically I think this is saying that even if somebody doesn't know about the gospel or the law or sin, they do have a god given conscience and know right from wrong. So when they do things they know is wrong by their own conscience, they they know they are guilty and their own conscience condemns them. That means when they face God they can't claim ignorance because they themselves know they did things that were wrong.

[bling]

You're not making a positive argument. What do you do with the way God provided a specific way for the atonement of "unknown sins"? Why did God bother to do such a thing?

God does not want us to even worry about sins we are not sure we commited. We have enough problems with the sins we knowingly commited.

[Chappie]

God does not want us to even worry about sins we are not sure we commited. We have enough problems with the sins we knowingly commited.

When an unknown sin from our past becomes known to us, it is no longer an unknown sin.

[bling]

When an unknown sin from our past becomes known to us, it is no longer an unknown sin.

I really think the "unknown" sins are sins we did not realize we were commiting at the time, so they remain unknown sins.

[Chappie]

I really think the "unknown" sins are sins we did not realize we were commiting at the time, so they remain unknown sins.

OK...

[RonC]

I think when you find out an act/thought is a sin- in this meaning it was harmful and unloving- it would then be harmful and unloving in itself to not feel sorry for the sin, thus not feeling sorry would be a sin in itself, and hence giving a sacrifice for it (the original sin commited) is appropriate- appropriate to show you're sorry and are asking to be forgiven. This is not some "systematic theology", this is real life, you know.

I used to not know it hurt my wife when I called her goofy (we call each other names al the time, but I guess she had a bad past with this particular one)- one day she told me she didn't like it, at all, and I felt bad and said I was sorry. I could've easily been like, "Well, ok, I won't say it anymore, dear", and then not apologize because when I did say it in the past I didn't know it hurt her. But how childish is that! So we see not some systematic theological apologetic in these sacrifices, but real life everyday situations to be dealt with. Pretty sweet.

This is personal, so I chose not to comment on it.

And as a side note:
And really, I wasn't trying to make a "positive" argument, just stating (what I thought was) the obvious. I didn't thnk I needed to argue for

1) God commanded sacrifices for unknown sins
2) God never told exactly why these sacrifices where commanded
|therefore|
3)We do not know why they are there

They are there because words, actions, thoughts all have consequences. Sinful ones (ones which stray from the path which Jesus illuminates for us) have sinful consequences. Righteous ones (ones which are on the path Jesus illuminates for us) have righteous consequences. Ignorance does not eliminate consequence. If one is off the path, one is off the path… and we are each responsible for our own straying from the path…

I was going for deductive reaonbing, not inductive reasoning. Via inductive reasoning, we can get to the "why" of it. If my reasoning is faulty, or if I'm doing logic wrong, forgive me. I'll definitely follow logic were it leads

Simple: Words, deeds, thoughts, actions all have consequences. Jesus taught that you know the tree by the fruit. You know if you are walking the walk and not just talking the talk by the consequences.

[beforHim]

should have thought it was obvious why sacrifices were commanded for "unknown sins." It's the same reason sacrifices are commanded for other sins: Sin offends a holy God.

*tentatively and meekly* Then maybe this sacrifice is for the sin alone (in this case), and not the sinner. But like I said earlier, it is definitely a sin to presume you've never sinned in the past and hence not to say your sorry for unkown sins, or for when you find out a sin, not to be sorry for it. This (not being sorry for what you unkowingly did) reeks of pride and an unsumpathetic atitude.

They are there because words, actions, thoughts all have consequences.

So your argument, in short, would be that when we see bad consequences (bad fruit, as Jesus calls it), we know we sinned in the past? This makes no sense, but I don't think this is what you're saying. I think you're arguing against something not yet brought up. I wasn't asking "why have sacrifices for unknown sins" because I think they're not bad- I was arguing "why be punished for unkown sins, when if they're unkown, it would be immoral for God to hold us acountable"

As many people have said (and as the Bible and human experience seems to indicate), everyone has a conscience, everyone has "the law written on their heart", everyone knows when they are acting sinfully hence they have no excuse. This is the only thing which undermines my original statement (and I agree with this)- but how can one be respoonsible for the sin of, say, not knowing that their is a personal, trinitarian God? I mean, sure we can see a higher power via creation in general, and eventually via longing, logic, philosophy, scriptures, etc. But doies everyone really get that far? If not, shouldn't we ONLY be held accountable for what we DO know?

- - -

You know, it seems revelation comes (and was meant to come) in stages anyway, as a baby wouldn't look at the grand canyon an d think "Wow! There must more", and a 12 year old most likely wouldn't be able to undertand the Kalaam in all it's details and intricacies. And people who've NEVER had contact with the outside world (which is getting less and less) should not be held responsible for knowing what scripture tells us. What I'm not saying: God can't reveal (eg Peter "you're the Christ", or Paul/Saul on the D. Road, or Cornelius) stuff to any person/people He choses. It just seems like some people He doesn't reveal certain things to, so who am I to say "Since you should know X-Y-Z but act as if you don't, I'm qassuming you don't know God".

(Sorry for any misspellng, I'm on break at work but now must go back before I get into any trouble! )

[RonC]

So your argument, in short, would be that when we see bad consequences (bad fruit, as Jesus calls it), we know we sinned in the past?

Yes… only not necessarily in the past, in the present as well… we do something we think or believe is correct or justified or appropriate and sometimes we see the consequences immediately…

This makes no sense, but I don't think this is what you're saying. I think you're arguing against something not yet brought up. I wasn't asking "why have sacrifices for unknown sins" because I think they're not bad- I was arguing "why be punished for unkown sins, when if they're unkown, it would be immoral for God to hold us acountable"

My dispute here would be with regard to the essence of the divine nature of the creator. The concept of the Creator as the punisher/rewarder may not be a mature one. Did the Tsunami punish those who did not understand what was happening and stayed on the beach fascinated at the ebbing of the waters and reward those who did understand what was happening and recognized that an ebbing of that nature was the precursor to a Tsunami and either fled to the hills or sailed out past the ebb point? Or did they reap the consequences of their understanding/beliefs?

As many people have said (and as the Bible and human experience seems to indicate), everyone has a conscience, everyone has "the law written on their heart", everyone knows when they are acting sinfully hence they have no excuse. This is the only thing which undermines my original statement (and I agree with this)- but how can one be respoonsible for the sin of, say, not knowing that their is a personal, trinitarian God?

Nowhere does Jesus teach that ignorance of doctrine is a sin. It is ignorance… Jesus clearly says of children that “of these is the kingdom of heaven…” and there is no evidence that these children knew the doctrine of the trinity… nor for that matter is there evidence that Noah did and he is described as “righteous”…

I mean, sure we can see a higher power via creation in general, and eventually via longing, logic, philosophy, scriptures, etc. But doies everyone really get that far? If not, shouldn't we ONLY be held accountable for what we DO know?

The Book says: We reap what we sow… It does not say: We only reap what we knowingly or consciously sow…

You know, it seems revelation comes (and was meant to come) in stages anyway, as a baby wouldn't look at the grand canyon an d think "Wow! There must more", and a 12 year old most likely wouldn't be able to undertand the Kalaam in all it's details and intricacies. And people who've NEVER had contact with the outside world (which is getting less and less) should not be held responsible for knowing what scripture tells us. What I'm not saying: God can't reveal (eg Peter "you're the Christ", or Paul/Saul on the D. Road, or Cornelius) stuff to any person/people He choses. It just seems like some people He doesn't reveal certain things to, so who am I to say "Since you should know X-Y-Z but act as if you don't, I'm qassuming you don't know God".

You may be putting a value on intellectual “knowledge” that obscures understanding. Thomas a Kempis said it better than I can ever hope to: What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? (Imitation of Christ)

A child may see a parent as punishing them at certain times and rewarding them at other times. As the child matures they begin to see that the punishment/reward understanding they had was appropriate when they were little, but that it really is a lovingly supportive allowing of the child to reap the consequences of their choices. The same may be true of our perception of the Creator as we grow in faith and understanding.

(Sorry for any misspellng, I'm on break at work but now must go back before I get into any trouble! )

Damn straight!

[RBerman]

*tentatively and meekly* Then maybe this sacrifice is for the sin alone (in this case), and not the sinner.

It doesn't seem to me that Scripture encourages us to separate the sin and the sinner in the way you suggest. Sin isn't something external to us. It's part of our nature; that's why we do it.