Re: Should one Christian be reponsible for Christianity?

[elliebean]

News Flash: Only gay people get AIDS!

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
[youtube:347txjhq]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypZT4lQHoK8[/youtube:347txjhq]

[Voter]

Yes, but that is not specific to homosexuality because there are many sins listed that "God gave them over" to.

Which makes them all punishments.

It is the result of sin (death) that is the punishment.

While death is a punishment, sin is itself a punishment according to the Bible. Perhaps further explanation would be helpful. Romans 1 seems to tie in to Geneses 6. In Gen 6:3 God says his spirit will not strive with man forever, and sets the time for the flood as 120 years hence. Put this all together and the model is:

- Man tends to sin
- Sin is not the ideal state for man to live in
- So, God's spirit strove with man, i.e. graciously helped men to avoid some sin
- Men were ungrateful and deserved punishment
- God withdrew the restraint of the spirit to some extent
- Men therefore sinned more greatly
- This was punishment, as they were living further from the ideal state

One might even argue that those words have an erie allusion to the AIDS virus, but that's speculation at best if you narrow their subject as homosexual acts only.  Even if, this is a consequence of sin and not the punishment.

I don't understand how you can think that living a more godly life isn't more fulfilling than living a sinful life.

[AnimatedDirt]

Yes, but that is not specific to homosexuality because there are many sins listed that "God gave them over" to.

Which makes them all punishments.

It is the result of sin (death) that is the punishment.

While death is a punishment, sin is itself a punishment according to the Bible. Perhaps further explanation would be helpful. Romans 1 seems to tie in to Geneses 6. In Gen 6:3 God says his spirit will not strive with man forever, and sets the time for the flood as 120 years hence. Put this all together and the model is:

- Man tends to sin
- Sin is not the ideal state for man to live in
- So, God's spirit strove with man, i.e. graciously helped men to avoid some sin
- Men were ungrateful and deserved punishment
- God withdrew the restraint of the spirit to some extent
- Men therefore sinned more greatly
- This was punishment, as they were living further from the ideal state

I don't quite understand how sin, which is transgression of God's law (Rom. 3:20), is a punishment?  One cannot commit punishment to then be punished in hell for committing punishment.  It makes no sense whatsoever.  Maybe you can further elaborate.

One might even argue that those words have an erie allusion to the AIDS virus, but that's speculation at best if you narrow their subject as homosexual acts only.  Even if, this is a consequence of sin and not the punishment.

I don't understand how you can think that living a more godly life isn't more fulfilling than living a sinful life.

I'm confused.  How did you come to this conclusion?  I never made such a claim.

News Flash: Only gay people get AIDS!

Even more confusion.

[Voter]

I don't quite understand how sin, which is transgression of God's law (Rom. 3:20), is a punishment?

Is a person living in more sin better off or worse off than a person living in less sin? I would say worse off, and so sin is both an offense and a punishment. Surely you've heard it said that "[particular sin] is its own punishment" before. It's not an unusual expression.

One cannot commit punishment to then be punished in hell for committing punishment.

Sure they can, if the intrinsic punishment is not complete punishment.

I'm confused.  How did you come to this conclusion?  I never made such a claim.

If god allows people to move from a state of less sin to a state of greater sin, and you don't think that is punishment, then the logical conclusion is that a more sinful life is as fulfilling as a less sinful life.

News Flash: Only gay people get AIDS!

Even more confusion.[/quote]
Yeah that was weird.

[AnimatedDirt]

Is a person living in more sin better off or worse off than a person living in less sin? I would say worse off, and so sin is both an offense and a punishment. Surely you've heard it said that "[particular sin] is its own punishment" before. It's not an unusual expression.

If you put sins into a system of heirarchy, then yes, to a degree.  However, to steal a penny is no worse than stealing $1 Million.  It is still stealing and, according to the biblical teachings, each comes with the same ending punishment.  Death.  Stealing itself, as an action, is not punishment.  All that comes along with stealing (or sin) is a consequence of the action.  The action itself is not punishment.

One cannot commit punishment to then be punished in hell for committing punishment.

Sure they can, if the intrinsic punishment is not complete punishment.

The nature of sin is not punishment.  The nature of sin is pride.  One does not set out to sin out of the longing for punishment.  It is for self-gratification.    

If god allows people to move from a state of less sin to a state of greater sin, and you don't think that is punishment, then the logical conclusion is that a more sinful life is as fulfilling as a less sinful life.

In this, you are making God out as pulling our strings, if you will.  In other words, He causes us to sin as punishment.  I disagree 100%!  When the scripture states, "God gave them over to..." it simply means "God allowed them to...".  When it states that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart", it doesn't mean God didn't allow Pharaoh to chose "right", it means the selfishness of Pharaoh's heart, in opposition to God, hardened his heart...therefore God hardened Pharaoh's heart.  Pharaoh chose freely.  It was his hate or disbelief for God that caused his choice.

[LegendarySandwich]

Is a person living in more sin better off or worse off than a person living in less sin? I would say worse off, and so sin is both an offense and a punishment. Surely you've heard it said that "[particular sin] is its own punishment" before. It's not an unusual expression.

The punishment I get for "sinning" is the best punishment I've ever got, then.

[elliebean]

Is a person living in more sin better off or worse off than a person living in less sin? I would say worse off, and so sin is both an offense and a punishment. Surely you've heard it said that "[particular sin] is its own punishment" before. It's not an unusual expression.

The punishment I get for "sinning" is the best punishment I've ever got, then.

I can see how one might reach that conclusion.
[spoiler:1g451pp4][/spoiler:1g451pp4]
 

[AnimatedDirt]

The punishment I get for "sinning" is the best punishment I've ever got, then.

Therein lies the absurdity of "to sin" is punishment.  If sin were a punishment, then by definition sin would be disliked.

[Stevil]

I don't quite understand how sin, which is transgression of God's law (Rom. 3:20), is a punishment?

Is a person living in more sin better off or worse off than a person living in less sin?

Please correct me if I am wrong:
A non Christian does not have the concept of sin and hence there is no such thing as living in or living without sin for a non Christian.

For a Christian I expect the Christian faith and community will grow guilt within the sinner. Guilt is not a nice feeling and can rot the inner soul or conscience of a person and hence could be seen as a punishment.
For a non Christian looking into the Christian world it can be seen as a cruel tough love approach where Christians put guilt onto each other for simply being human.

[Voter]

The punishment I get for "sinning" is the best punishment I've ever got, then.

Therein lies the absurdity of "to sin" is punishment.  If sin were a punishment, then by definition sin would be disliked.

Incorrect, as people don't necessarily have the perspective to dislike sin.

Sure, before I was saved, I thought I liked sin. Now I know a better way and regret the years wasted to sin. Sin was, indeed, its own punishment to an extent.

[Asmodean]

Incorrect, as people don't necessarily have the perspective to dislike sin.

Sure, before I was saved, I thought I liked sin. Now I know a better way and regret the years wasted to sin. Sin was, indeed, its own punishment to an extent.

...Saved from what? Why did you need saving from it..? And what is the point of regretting what has past? It is a waste of time. Look forward in stead.

[LegendarySandwich]

The punishment I get for "sinning" is the best punishment I've ever got, then.

Therein lies the absurdity of "to sin" is punishment.  If sin were a punishment, then by definition sin would be disliked.

Incorrect, as people don't necessarily have the perspective to dislike sin.

Sure, before I was saved, I thought I liked sin. Now I know a better way and regret the years wasted to sin. Sin was, indeed, its own punishment to an extent.

With the correct perspective, you can think that winning a million dollars in the lottery is a bad thing, too.

I'd rather have the perspective that "pornography is awesome and not immoral" than "pornography is a sin and will ruin my life and my poor, innocent soul". Maybe that's just me.

[Voter]

With the correct perspective, you can think that winning a million dollars in the lottery is a bad thing, too.

I'd rather have the perspective that "pornography is awesome and not immoral" than "pornography is a sin and will ruin my life and my poor, innocent soul". Maybe that's just me.

No, it's lots of people, but hopefully not AD, whom I was addressing.

[AnimatedDirt]

With the correct perspective, you can think that winning a million dollars in the lottery is a bad thing, too.

I'd rather have the perspective that "pornography is awesome and not immoral" than "pornography is a sin and will ruin my life and my poor, innocent soul". Maybe that's just me.

No, it's lots of people, but hopefully not AD, whom I was addressing.

Definitely not the perspective.  Simply, at the core, while I agree we do things we don't like to do, knowing sin and what it ultimately causes to us and what it did to our Savior, we are still sinners and "delight" in sin.  If sin was not attractive, we wouldn't participate in it.  If all sin had immediate reprocussions of pain and/or discomfort to self or others, we'd easily avoid it.  But as Legendary Sandwich mentions, sins includes things we like and see no problem initially otherwise sin wouldn't be a problem.

I do see where you may be coming from.

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.

[Voter]

Definitely not the perspective.  Simply, at the core, while I agree we do things we don't like to do, knowing sin and what it ultimately causes to us and what it did to our Savior, we are still sinners and "delight" in sin.  If sin was not attractive, we wouldn't participate in it.  If all sin had immediate reprocussions of pain and/or discomfort to self or others, we'd easily avoid it.

There are negative repercussions other than pain and discomfort, and those may take proper perspective to recognize. Consider the pornography example. It doesn't cause immediate pain or discomfort, but it does detract from the user's ability to form and maintain stable romantic relationships. There are psychological studies that show this.