24 Jul 15
Originally posted by chaney3I suppose most would say that sin is "bad" behavoir.
I have read in numerous posts how Christians are SO willing to call themselves 'filthy sinners'......so that they BOAST the need for Jesus. What exactly is sin? To look at a woman's breasts and say 'wow'? What is sin.....and why.....WHY do humans relent to this sin?
God created us. God created us to enjoy women. What exactly is sin anyway? Why do hu ...[text shortened]... sinners'. What do we do to deserve an eternity of damnation? To look at boobs?
What is SIN?
Is there such a thing as "bad" behavior?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by chaney3God created us. God created us to enjoy women.
I have read in numerous posts how Christians are SO willing to call themselves 'filthy sinners'......so that they BOAST the need for Jesus. What exactly is sin? To look at a woman's breasts and say 'wow'? What is sin.....and why.....WHY do humans relent to this sin?
God created us. God created us to enjoy women. What exactly is sin anyway? Why do hu ...[text shortened]... sinners'. What do we do to deserve an eternity of damnation? To look at boobs?
What is SIN?
God created human beauty. To SEE human beauty is not wrong. To upon with the heart of lust is the wrong.
It is not the first seeing that Jesus warned of as adultery.
It was the second look with deliberate greedy lust that He warned as sinful.
"You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery.
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman in order to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matt. 5:27,28)
This is not about the first SEEING of beauty in a woman.
This is not about the first step.
This is about the THIRD step - looking again "in order to lust after her. "
To see or notice beautiful women is not a sin.
God has designed the female form, and some women are bestowed with noticeable beauty.
Pretty people are like pebbles on the beach. There are many pleasing looking pebbles in the sand. You learn to see them and keep moving. God does not expect you to be a monk away from society so that you cannot see pretty women.
The culture exalts women's form to a point of idolatry to entrap the second and third gaze men to incite their lust. We need the indwelling Holy Spirit for self control. You'll be happier with self control in Christ.
24 Jul 15
Originally posted by chaney3Originally posted by chaney3
I have read in numerous posts how Christians are SO willing to call themselves 'filthy sinners'......so that they BOAST the need for Jesus. What exactly is sin? To look at a woman's breasts and say 'wow'? What is sin.....and why.....WHY do humans relent to this sin?
God created us. God created us to enjoy women. What exactly is sin anyway? Why do human ...[text shortened]... thy sinners'. What do we do to deserve an eternity of damnation? To look at boobs?
What is SIN?
"What is SIN?"
Any and all covert and overt human behaviors which violate His Righteous Norms and Standards as revealed in His Word.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
24 Jul 15
2 edits
Originally posted by chaney3
I have read in numerous posts how Christians are SO willing to call themselves 'filthy sinners'......so that they BOAST the need for Jesus. What exactly is sin? To look at a woman's breasts and say 'wow'? What is sin.....and why.....WHY do humans relent to this sin?
God created us. God created us to enjoy women. What exactly is sin anyway? Why do hu ...[text shortened]... sinners'. What do we do to deserve an eternity of damnation? To look at boobs?
What is SIN?
OT:2398 <START HEBREW>af*j*
<END HEBREW> chata' (khaw-taw' a primitive root; properly, to miss; hence (figuratively and generally) to sin; by inference, to forfeit, lack, expiate, repent, (causatively) lead astray, condemn:
KJV - bear the blame, cleanse, commit [sin], by fault, harm he hath done, loss, miss, (make) offend (-er), offer for sin, purge, purify (self), make reconciliation, (cause, make) sin (-ful, -ness), trespass.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
Paraphrased...To disobey, to miss the mark...
- Joined
- 09 Feb 10
- Moves
- 48656
So many of these posts & threads make me just plain sad. I don't get the name-calling, the insults and the anger. A great majority of us, I would venture to say, struggle with questions of faith and religion...does any of us really know the answers to these really difficult questions? I don't think so. That is where "faith" comes in. By definition, it means trusting and believing in something or someone without actual proof. You either accept this. Or you don't. But honestly, there can never be any room in a healthy debate or discussion for mean-spiritness or a lack of respect towards others' viewpoints.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
24 Jul 15
1 edit
Originally posted by sonship"God's unchanging eternal nature is the unchanging standard of Good."
No it is not.
The Euthyphro dilemma is not a dilemma for the Christian because a third aternative exists. When it comes to morality, God does not look toward another standard beside Himself. Nor does He arbitrarily announce what is good by fiat.
If He looked to a higher Governor He would not be God, but the standard beyond Him would be God.
If ...[text shortened]... His nature. The standard we know as the Moral Law issues out of from the nature of God Himself.
Is that really a third alternative, or is it just that what God announces by will not change?
I think the problem you "solve" is that the Dilemma does not really include "arbitrary" ("based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system" )
Here is a pretty good rendition of the Dilemma:
The Euthyphro dilemma rests on a modernised version of the question asked by Socrates in the Euthyphro: “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?”
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/christian-ethics/divine-command-theory/the-euthyphro-dilemma/
Where there is a better discussion than I could offer.
It does depend on whether you accept divine command theory: "the theory that all moral truths are dependent on God’s will".
The addition of "arbitrary" is actually a red herring. It is not in the Dilemma. It is put there as a target.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
24 Jul 15
3 edits
Originally posted by JS357The Euthyphro dilemma rests on a modernised version of the question asked by Socrates in the Euthyphro: “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't suppose to be aware of this ?
I started my post based upon this understanding.
The Euthyphro Diimma discussed by William Lane Craig.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
24 Jul 15
Originally posted by chaney3Sin is what kills man.
I have read in numerous posts how Christians are SO willing to call themselves 'filthy sinners'......so that they BOAST the need for Jesus. What exactly is sin? To look at a woman's breasts and say 'wow'? What is sin.....and why.....WHY do humans relent to this sin?
God created us. God created us to enjoy women. What exactly is sin anyway? Why do hu ...[text shortened]... sinners'. What do we do to deserve an eternity of damnation? To look at boobs?
What is SIN?
Sin leads to death.
Sin is what caused God to sacrifice His Son for you.
Sin is what separated man from God.
Sin is the cause of all the death, destruction and heart ache since the beginning.
Sin was exposed by the Law.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
24 Jul 15
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357It does depend on whether you accept divine command theory: "the theory that all moral truths are dependent on God’s will".
The addition of "arbitrary" is actually a red herring. It is not in the Dilemma. It is put there as a target.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I am not sure this is a valid complaint.
A nature doesn't do or decide anything.
I am not saying the nature of God decides to say what is good.
I am saying the nature of God IS the good.
If God commands He does so out of His nature which is the good.
But if He doesn't command but is silent, His nature is still the good.
What God is defines it.
If He does not will, His being is still the good. However, He does will out of what He is.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
24 Jul 15
Originally posted by sonshipSorry I implied you needed schooling. I know you don't.What I was keying off on was the word arbitrary. It's not inherent in the Dilemma. In fact your rebuttal works better without it.
[b] It does depend on whether you accept divine command theory: "the theory that all moral truths are dependent on God’s will".
The addition of "arbitrary" is actually a red herring. It is not in the Dilemma. It is put there as a target.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I am not sure this is a valid ...[text shortened]... t.
If He does not will, His being is still the good. However, He does will out of what He is.[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
24 Jul 15
Originally posted by JS357Don't mind some schooling. I need to know if it is good schooling.
Sorry I implied you needed schooling. I know you don't.What I was keying off on was the word arbitrary. It's not inherent in the Dilemma. In fact your rebuttal works better without it.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think God is the highest being or do you believe some abstract object is on a higher level than God ?
The Ultimate Good = some transcending abstract object ?
The Ultimate Good = a highest living one ?
Which would make more sense to you ?
Do you believe mercy, kindness, love, exists as abstract objects? If so why need I be obligated to these abstract objects ?
The number 10 is an abstract object. But it doesn't DO anything.
Why should we be in a moral duty relationship to an abstract object which does nothing ?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
24 Jul 15
Originally posted by sonshipI don't think about it in terms of objects. I believe we come to have moral duties by entering into associations with other moral agents and moral victims (entities that can suffer). Interconnections are made based on agreements to act according to agreed rules. According to the link I cited yesterday, we start with a reward/punishment moral theory (which is hardly a moral theory) and eventually (may) reach a social contract level, then some abstract this to universal ethical principles. Some variation on the "negative golden rule" encapsulates this.
Don't mind some schooling. I need to know if it is good schooling.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think God is the highest being or do you believe some abstract object is on a higher level than God ?
The Ultimate Good = some transcending abstract object ?
The Ultimate Good = a highest living one ?
Which would make more sense to you ?
...[text shortened]... g.
Why should we be in a moral duty relationship to an abstract object which does nothing ?
"God" can be a metaphor or representation of the entity to which we owe duty, "Justice" can be another. And people are free to use whatever metaphor works for them. The Greeks parceled out ideals and associated each with a god. The metaphor DOES something by working for the person. Some metaphors, like "fatherland" or "my race" might work in a way we don't all agree is good.
Why shouldn't we be in a moral duty relationship to an ideal, whether it is God, justice or Dike the goddess of justice, etc? And each of us is the one who enshrines that ideal. Get people together in enshrinement of a particular representation and you have a religion if it enshrines a god, you have a movement if it enshrines say, human rights,, etc. There is no reason that it DO more than inspire and represent our ideals.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 Jul 15
2 edits
Originally posted by JS357I don't think about it in terms of objects. I believe we come to have moral duties by entering into associations with other moral agents and moral victims (entities that can suffer). Interconnections are made based on agreements to act according to agreed rules. According to the link I cited yesterday, we start with a reward/punishment moral theory (which is hardly a moral theory) and eventually (may) reach a social contract level, then some abstract this to universal ethical principles. Some variation on the "negative golden rule" encapsulates this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am interested to know if you believe in a final and ultimate balancing of the moral scales in a real sense. I see what you say about social contracts. But this is very subjective and preferential.
I am wondering not about temporary expediency but ultimate moral justice in an absolute finality.
Jesus Christ spoke of "the day of judgment" and "the last day" as an ultimate setting of the crooked straight.
I see what you mean it terms of temporary contracts which might work for us for awhile. But in an ultimate sense your explanation seems to amount to an arbitrary expediency based on something like majority opinion.
Jesus spoke of a day of judgement on all things moral. The secrets of men's hearts are revealed. You know we can get away with many things before man. He taught that we can get away with NOTHING to this Universal Corrector ( Who also is a Universal Savior from our in-equalities, our iniquities ).
"And I say to you that every idle word which men shall speak, they will render an account concerning in the day of judgment. For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned." (Matt. 12:36,37)
And again:
" For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He wills. For neither does the Father judge anyone, but H has given all judgment to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son even as they honor the Father.
He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him." (John 5:21-23)
This is a final setting of the scales of morality in balance in a universal sense by the Son of God. Keep in mind the He is also the Savior from Divine condemnation.
The interplay of the human conscience of every created man and woman will come into play in this matter of final moral judgment.
" ( ... the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness with it and their reasonings, one with the other, accusing or even excusing them )
In the day when God judges the secrets of men according to my gospel through Jesus Christ." (Romans 2:15b - 16)
And the Bible says that the judgment of God "IS ACCORDING TO TRUTH", not someone's or someones' subjective fleeting opinions or a expedient social contract.
"For we know that the judgment of God IS ACCORDING TO TRUTH upon those who practice such things." (Romans 2:2)
Plurality is good. Multiculturalism is good and understandable.
But we must beware of an overreaching relativism which renders Justice as illusory on a ultimate scale.
There is "TRUTH" and a final judgment according to truth.
How about we suspect that the Creator of the billions of details, known and unknown yet, about the workings of the universe has not only the ultimate power but the ultimate Authority to balance the moral scales according to truth ?