Christians Don't Sin

[Member 1743]

There isn't enough understanding here as to the origin and nature of sin. The only kind of entity that does not sin is Christ, so to be sinless, you'd want to be "in" Christ, so-to-speak. Sinners won't understand what it means to be "in Christ", nor what is the nature of sin. If told what sin is, a sinner would likely disagree. Probably most who call themselves Christians would disagree with what i have to say about sin. Man was conceived in sin, so-to-speak. If a Christian is a man, then do the math. There are many notions about God/Christ that are sins. Indeed, sin encompasses all false ideas/notions about God/Christ, ideas and notions that do not reflect the true nature of God/Christ. A world that does not reflect the true nature of God/Christ is conceived in sin. To be in such a world is to be in sin. The solution is to be "in Christ" instead.

Still

[tabibito]

The points being made:

• Trying to make general principles out of a passage that refers to a highly specific instance is not recommended. Would we make a general principle that having a child by a prostitute is approved?
• The fact that one passage supports the claim that a general principle is in force does not validate the attempt to claim that an unrelated passage supports that same principle. The fact that baptism washes away sin does not validate the claim that Jesus needed his sins to be washed away.

[Member 1743]

I would appreciate feedback.

ok

The most common of these reworked/redefined (i.e. lying) words I come across:
* repent
* sin (sin itself, redefining it to warp the summation of its relevance and handling)

I applaud the effort to be consistent, but your analysis still falls short of the scope and nature of sin. It doesn't help to be consistent off of a faulty premise. Otherwise one may become part of the problem not the solution. The effect of your efforts functions something like a devils pitchfork, torturing sinners. Sinners are tortured enough by their own assumptions (false notions and ideas) about God/Christ. Time for some relief.

It's not possible for a man to not sin, since to be a man is to be a sin/sinner. As such man is a "slave" to sin. Name a man whatever you wish, the name does not set the man free. Nor is there a reliable list of sins that, if you could avoid them, you, as a man, could be sinless. Torture is increased when you insist there is such a list, and it can be obeyed. I will add one more to the list of sins: breathing. Now, how are you going to avoid this?

Breathing is a sin because it's a sin to be a man. This is an example of consistent logic. But if you start with the premise that it's not a sin to be a man, then you start from a faulty premise and no amount of cologne will make the theology smell better. You are starting from the same premise that the "hypocrit-ians" are starting from, and so, your solution does not smell better.

Start from the doctrine that man is/was conceived in sin; stay consistent with that; and then you have a chance to escape from sin given more sound doctrine. You will not see the way of escape while you stay loyal to your premise.

Still

[tabibito]

Two concepts that are pointed to by Still Christ:

• Reworking the definitions of words. One of the words subjected to redefinition is sin.
  Where a distinction is not made between "sin" and "temptation", Where temptation is mis-defined as a sin, it becomes a relatively easy process to demonstrate that sin is unavoidable.
• The argument that sin is unavoidable hinges on a second concept, easily broken by a question.
  Which sin can a person not stop committing?

[Member 1743]

The argument that sin is unavoidable hinges on a second concept, easily broken by a question.
Which sin can a person not stop committing?

Lists of children sins can be boiled down to a source or parent sin (the origin of sin). This source sin leads to a multiplicity of idols, one of which is called "man", which is an image of it's maker, so-to-speak. If man could recognize his involvement in this process, especially the maintenance of this status, he might be able to do something about it. Specifically, man could unplug the source that powers man's apparent existence, refusing to be a sin anymore. Otherwise, man exists as a "slave to sin" so-to-speak, sinning as naturally as breathing, unable to exist without sin.

Jesus got down to the core of this issue by recommending man lay down his life (for Christ's sake). That's because the very apparent existence of man is a sin, not just the various official and unofficial lists of sins a man might indulge. The death of man is the death of sin, but each man must decide when he wants to implement this death for his own person. Jesus showed the way, or at least illustrated that it is necessary to die (so-to-speak) for a man to live as Christ lives. Those Christians who do not want to die yet simply redefine what it means to die for Christ's sake.

I suggest that, as a slave to sin, this is the only choice a man has to be free.

Still

[tabibito]

Lists of children sins can be boiled down to a source or parent sin (the origin of sin). This source sin leads to a multiplicity of idols, one of which is called "man", which is an image of it's maker, so-to-speak. If man could recognize his involvement in this process, especially the maintenance of this status, he might be able to do something about it. Specifically, man could unplug the source that powers man's apparent existence, refusing to be a sin anymore. Otherwise, man exists as a "slave to sin" so-to-speak, sinning as naturally as breathing, unable to exist without sin.

Jesus got down to the core of this issue by recommending man lay down his life (for Christ's sake). That's because the very apparent existence of man is a sin, not just the various official and unofficial lists of sins a man might indulge. The death of man is the death of sin, but each man must decide when he wants to implement this death for his own person. Jesus showed the way, or at least illustrated that it is necessary to die (so-to-speak) for a man to live as Christ lives. Those Christians who do not want to die yet simply redefine what it means to die for Christ's sake.

I suggest that, as a slave to sin, this is the only choice a man has to be free.

Still

I like it. It is rough and not wholly accurate, but the core is sound enough - but in its present form can't be considered valid. The difficulty lies in the underlined section ...

I would add that learning to "hunger and thirst for righteousness" is a key element, and one that takes time to develop.

[Member 1743]

I like it. It is rough and not wholly accurate, but the core is sound enough - but in its present form can't be considered valid. The difficulty lies in the underlined section ...

I would add that learning to "hunger and thirst for righteousness" is a key element, and one that takes time to develop.

It is difficult for man to re-consider the validity of his existence. I say "apparent" existence because man's appearance is just that, an appearance. It is something that is seen, so-to-speak. But this seeing is not valid, and requires cooperation from each seer. I mind can see Christ instead, whose existence is valid, being real. The alternative is to see a substitute for Christ, man, and watching man die.

Still

[One Bad Pig]

It doesn't help to be consistent off of a faulty premise. Otherwise one may become part of the problem not the solution.

Agreed.

It's not possible for a man to not sin, since to be a man is to be a sin/sinner. As such man is a "slave" to sin. Name a man whatever you wish, the name does not set the man free. Nor is there a reliable list of sins that, if you could avoid them, you, as a man, could be sinless. Torture is increased when you insist there is such a list, and it can be obeyed. I will add one more to the list of sins: breathing. Now, how are you going to avoid this?

Breathing is a sin because it's a sin to be a man. This is an example of consistent logic. But if you start with the premise that it's not a sin to be a man, then you start from a faulty premise and no amount of cologne will make the theology smell better. You are starting from the same premise that the "hypocrit-ians" are starting from, and so, your solution does not smell better.

This is a splendid example of starting from a faulty premise. That your premise leads to the conclusion that breathing is sin should be a clue that something is wrong with it. Man was created without sin. When sin entered the world through Adam, man acquired a propensity to sin, but did not become sin. When our bodies are transformed in the Resurrection we will no longer have the propensity to sin associated with our mortal bodies, but I'm pretty sure we'll still be breathing. As we become more like Christ, we become more like perfect man, and sin less.

Start from the doctrine that man is/was conceived in sin; stay consistent with that; and then you have a chance to escape from sin given more sound doctrine. You will not see the way of escape while you stay loyal to your premise.

Still

Basing a doctrine on a passage from the Psalms (where language tends toward the poetic and hyperbolic) is probably not a good idea.

[Christianbookworm]

ok


I applaud the effort to be consistent, but your analysis still falls short of the scope and nature of sin. It doesn't help to be consistent off of a faulty premise. Otherwise one may become part of the problem not the solution. The effect of your efforts functions something like a devils pitchfork, torturing sinners. Sinners are tortured enough by their own assumptions (false notions and ideas) about God/Christ. Time for some relief.

It's not possible for a man to not sin, since to be a man is to be a sin/sinner. As such man is a "slave" to sin. Name a man whatever you wish, the name does not set the man free. Nor is there a reliable list of sins that, if you could avoid them, you, as a man, could be sinless. Torture is increased when you insist there is such a list, and it can be obeyed. I will add one more to the list of sins: breathing. Now, how are you going to avoid this?

Breathing is a sin because it's a sin to be a man. This is an example of consistent logic. But if you start with the premise that it's not a sin to be a man, then you start from a faulty premise and no amount of cologne will make the theology smell better. You are starting from the same premise that the "hypocrit-ians" are starting from, and so, your solution does not smell better.

Start from the doctrine that man is/was conceived in sin; stay consistent with that; and then you have a chance to escape from sin given more sound doctrine. You will not see the way of escape while you stay loyal to your premise.

Still

@#!$

If breathing is a sin, then how do you explain Jesus of Nazareth? Do you deny the Incarnation or the perfection of Christ? You breath when you talk. You are saying that aerobic life is morally wrong somehow.

[Member 1743]

Agreed.

This is a splendid example of starting from a faulty premise.

Agreed it IS a premise; faulty, no.

That your premise leads to the conclusion that breathing is sin should be a clue that something is wrong with it.

Or, there could be something wrong with breathing, which is synonymous (pun intended) with existing.

Man was created without sin.

Now here is the faulty premise. We've heard this before somewhere, if not by every religion to date.

When sin entered the world through Adam, man acquired a propensity to sin, but did not become sin.

Got to back up a bit. A world in which an Adam is placed is a sin more original than anything blamed upon Adam. This world is prescribed, that is, whatever takes place is written (so-to-speak) "before the foundation of the world". What Adam/man did/does was/is to be expected. Prophecy, if it operates at all, operates upon this phenomenon. Such a world is not Christ's world.

When our bodies are transformed in the Resurrection we will no longer have the propensity to sin associated with our mortal bodies, but I'm pretty sure we'll still be breathing.

There's not a lot of difference between this brand of resurrection and the concept of reincarnation except number of times expected to resurrect, and quality of existence thereafter. But with this wish, let me assure you that reincarnation is what you will receive. You can then re/define what sin is to suit your propensities. Meanwhile, resurrection is better understood as spiritual process, or a mental process, but not a fleshly process.

As we become more like Christ, we become more like perfect man, and sin less.

Christ is perfect spirit. On the other hand, flesh is naturally at opposition to spirit. There is nothing like perfection. Man cannot go there, so-to-speak. Perfection is requisite to abide with/in Christ. There is only one way to resolve this discrepancy. Re-defining man, perfection, sin, and Christ in such a way won't get us there.

Basing a doctrine on a passage from the Psalms (where language tends toward the poetic and hyperbolic) is probably not a good idea.

It would be a coincidence if Psalms supported this premise. I did not base it off of any of those liturgists.

Still

[Christianbookworm]

Still Christ, are you a gnostic???

[Member 1743]

@#!$

If breathing is a sin, then how do you explain Jesus of Nazareth? Do you deny the Incarnation or the perfection of Christ? You breath when you talk. You are saying that aerobic life is morally wrong somehow.

I don't deny the perfection of Christ, nor the immaculate conception of Christ. But the conception of Christ, as well as Christ's perfection pre-date the foundation of a world full of men, and the ways they are conceived. So you have to explain to me why Jesus went through motions called "baptism". Please no, we've heard it before, let me explain to you. Water baptism is a symbol/parable of a washing. A symbol/parable is just that, a physical demonstration of a spiritual principle. Man/flesh exists like dirt on the perfect Christ. When man is washed away, Christ stands perfect/clean. Baptism is a process Jesus completed, after which he stood clean as Christ. You and i have been asked to "follow".

The sins of the world are taken away by taking away a world of sin. Ultimately, baptism washes away the entire world of the god-of-this-world, so-to-speak. It is not the world of Christ. There is no breathing in the world of Christ as there are no lungs, no stomachs, no feet, no hands. If you must breath to live, it implies you can die if you stop breathing. But there is no dying in the world of Christ, and as a bonus, nothing that could jeopardize your life.

Still

[Member 1743]

Still Christ, are you a gnostic???

If you mean is it ok if you issued a fatwah on me, no not ok. ;)

I don't define my outlook as such, but Christians would be better off if they were not so antagonistic to that brand of theology.

Still

[mossrose]

I think I will be antagonistic to any heresy, thanks.

[Member 1743]

I think I will be antagonistic to any heresy, thanks.

Let us just hope and pray then that the antagonism expresses itself as apologetics. In the old days, issues were resolved with book burning, bloodshed, and other forms of force, usually preceded by a rash rush to judgement. Spiritual learning is better served by careful consideration of viewpoints, before closing the door of the mind to new information. Judgement is not man's strong point.