Christians Don't Sin

[Michael]

Christians having complete and full forgiveness for their sins is not the same thing as "not being able to sin." And I didn't ask "how" I asked "why." Christians are no different than anyone else in that regard, so "why" do you think that God forgives the imperfections of Christians, but doesn't forgive the imperfections of non-Christians?

As you meant it, He doesn't. The "imperfections" you refer to are sins, and He forgives anyone who turns from them. Problem 1: To turn from your sins, you must acknowledge that you have a problem (i.e. your sin), yet to do so, you must acknowledge God as real, since sin is only sin if there is a God who says good is good and bad is sin. Therefore, you technically have to believe in God to turn from your sins. Problem 2: If you turn from your sins, you are a Christian.

The true problem is the confusion of the definitions of "believe" and "Christian" with what the mainstream perversion of Christianity (I call "hypocrit-ianity.") have changed the meanings of these words to. Changing the definitions of words so that one's religious profession can still meet the wording of the source material (Bible) while not meaning what the wording of the source material said, is really pointless religion, as the Bible also says (Their religion is in vain.)

[Michael]

JimL, you are really hitting false (hypocrit-ianity) on the head. That is why I call them false, and not Christianity as false.

Really? Is someone forcing christians to sin. I guess just non christians go around sinning freely heh?

If you are sinning, it is by choice, either intentional, or the intentional neglecting of dealing with habituated sins (because one doesn't take God seriously and give true value to Him). There may be INITIAL ignorance; a new convert may not understand all the ramifications of their conversion at the outset. BUT, 1. Their HEART has been changed, so the vast majority of sins which they don't yet know of, will not be committed by default, since they won't have darkness in their heart ruling them anymore. 2. Ttheir TOP priority, now being God, would include to seek out what is good and what is not, so that they are GOOD, like their Father! But a true convert, will immediately turn AWAY FROM all sin that they know, and also immediately from all sin that they learn of. A false "convert" makes excuses for sin, in order to continue to allow it, as their true father, their true heart DEMANDS; in fact, noting that I quoted "convert" I am indicating a point--they have NOT converted, ergo NOT a convert, but merely having a religious profession.

The devil makes you do it?

Again, they will make any excuse they can to avoid personal responsibility. I mean, they will SAY that they are personally responsible for their sins, as we ALL are, but then EVERYTHING they say after that point, will NEGATE the definitions of "personal" and "responsibility." Such as, the devil (NOT ME) MADE (I CAN'T HELP IT = NOT RESPONSIBLE) me do. I was BORN (I CAN'T HELP IT = NOT RESPONSIBLE) this way [inbred sin--another fallacy of false religion attempting to reduce their responsibility for their sins (Bible says "INTO" sin, NOT "WITH.")]

Wouldn't it be better if you tried to live a moral life because you believe it is the right way to live, rather than because God wants you to.

God wants you to, because it is the right (GOOD) way to live' God is not arbitrary (only seeming to be to those who don't know Him, and those who oppose Him, such as the false-professing religious ppl.)

Why not? Is it because when christians sin its different then when non-christians sin.

The way you mean it, NO. However, in truth it is. If a Christian sins, it should only be because he/she knew no better (didn't yet understand it as sin when they did it), and will immediately make EVERY effort (forget this fake, professed "try" dung with little to NO time or effort at all). THIS is COMPLETELY different from those who know and don't care enough to DO WHATEVER it takes to ENSURE that they stop IMMEDIATELY and PERMANENTLY (not to mention, that a true conversion/internal change should make this process not only FAR easier than one would think, with the current perspective of one who is NOT already converted to seeing things the GOOD way (inherently God's way). In fact, a true internal conversion would make the "required" change SO desirable, as to seem impossible to stop it. I.e. Ppl do what they want and NOTHING will stop them; so ... if you change what you want (INTERNAL CONVERSION), you will do it, and NOTHING will stop you. Don't think religion/religiously; CHANGE. I mean, if WHO you are stinks so bad, then CHANGE. Change your beliefs and you change who you are. And don't confuse changing your beliefs with changing your thoughts. Your beliefs control your feelings; your feelings control your actions. So, if your beliefs, feelings and actions are not all in alignment (Hey! Paul said something like that; faith without works it DEAD (= nonexistent, not merely "weaK"; weak is weak, and dead is DEAD.), then there is a disconnect along the chain, and for MOST ppl that is their beliefs. They think that they know what they believe, but their actions belie and PROVE their true beliefs.

Yet, as you admit, christians go on sinning just like everyone else.

They do not. False-profession, deluded, confused, MISLED ppl claim this. Christians wouldn't dare! GOD took sin serious enough that He allowed HIS OWN SON to DIE (as well as be TORTURED and DEGRADED) INNOCENTLY, to deal with this GRAVE issue.

And yet christians are no different in their imperfections than non-christians.

Again, as you mean it, toward the mainstream hypocrit-ianity, you are correct. But that is only because, according to their own source material (Bible), they are not Christian, by the very definitions given. In fact, I just read a "treatise" attempting to explain that "sinning Christians" were the norm, but that hypocrites were the ones who were not truly Christians; but they made the mistake of going on to explain what a hypocrite was, and what they described, all biblically-derived, was what all of mainstream ALLEGED-Christianity (that false-professing hypocrit-ianity to which I've referred--the mainstream "Christianity") does. I.e. They inadvertently explained that only hypocrites were false Christians and NOT saved, and then inadvertently explained how all ppl who profess Christianity and sin are hypocrites.

[Michael]

Verily Mary the Mother of God was saved by her son.

Saved from what, exactly, if she never sinned. (Self-refuting theology?) Also, if the Bible is God's Word, and it said that ALL have sinned, was it wrong in Mary's case, and therefore not God's Word?

[Michael]

This has been a long discussion in the Catholic Church. The Church Fathers were quick to point out that Mary was the greatest believer in all of history, and the one to be given the most grace by whatever standard you care to choose. The perfection and purity, the glory of Christ implies that his throne would have to be very great as well.

So there was mostly consensus that Mary never sinned during her life. However the question remained whether she was born immaculately, as a new Eve, free of any stain of sin, even Eve's. And while there had been a consensus for this for most of the time, it was only recently it was made a dogma binding on all Catholics to believe.

I'm not going to turn this into a discussion on the glories of Mary, though I love talking about them.

If Mary was sinless and born immaculately, then wasn't she the FIRSTborn? And then why wasn't SHE the savior? Why did we need yet another immaculate, begotten of the Father, etc.?

[Michael]

In other words its Adams fault that you sin? And whose fault was it that Adam sinned?

Not Adam's direct fault that anyone else sins; this is another attempt at blame deflection by false-profession mainstream "Christianity." THROUGH Adam sin ENTERED the WORLD, not entered YOU. We are born INTO sin, NOT WITH sin. We are born into an immersive environment of lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and the pride of life--all of which cause/lead to sin. It is "insanely" impossible to live without sin when we are basically brainwashed and ~infinitely peer-pressured into it from birth. But, that is why, when we are able to think for ourselves, and then CHOOSE to follow the crowd, the path of least resistance, to NOT CARE whether what we do is True or good, that THEN we OURSELVES are responsible for our own actions.

First off no one lives what we would call a sinless life unless we have no personal sense at all of right and wrong,...

I'm guessing this is presumed using a black swan fallacy.

... and if a reward is the only reason for your not sinning then that is hardly a thing to be honored by a God.

True. This is what is commonly referred to as "saved by works." If you are not sinning, so that you can get into heaven, then you are thinking that you are "buying" your way in with your works. Also, this has the cart before the horse, so to speak. The change is internal, the results are seen external. If you change your motivations, what will happen to your actions? This is "common sense" in that regard.

[QUOTE=JimL;182068]No, not believing, is not choosing sides, its simply not believing. There are people who are every bit as good in their personal life as a practicing christians are who just don't happen to believe in being rewarded with eternal life for it.

Re. not choosing sides, the statement to which you are referring, talked about choosing sides, but what would that even mean in his context? What does it mean to "choose a side" and then not JOIN IN AND PARTICIPATE FULLY? SAY the WORDS "choose God's side," then ACT like they've chosen their OWN/FLESH/WORLD/SIN side. If someone has CHOSEN a side, GET OVER THERE AND JOIN THEIR CAMP, IMMERSE YOURSELF IN THEIR CULTURE AND BE ONE OF THEM; DON'T GO OVER TO THE OTHER TEAM'S SIDE AND CLAIM THAT YOU ARE STILL ON GOD'S TEAM'S SIDE; GIVE IT YOUR ALL, rather than ALLEGED "effort" WITHOUT SUBSTANCE. "lacking the power thereof." How foolish it would seem if some sports player went over to the other team in the middle of the game, and then helped the other team once in a while, yet claimed that they were still on the first team's side. RIDICULOUS!! "Well, I only do it occasionally." Then it should be THAT much easier to quit, eh?

We are imperfect beings Sparko, so it is already fact that we will not live perfect lives, and belief in Jesus obviously doesn't change that.

You are assuming that false-professing "Christians" have "belief in Jesus." What level of belief that they have, or their regard for Him, wouldn't change their state of perfection. You have to believe that Jesus is REALLY real. You have to believe that He DID mean what He said. You have to believe that He DID conquer sin and death (and not just some convoluted religious expression).

Yes, Jesus was the sacrificial lamb who died in order that your continued sinning would be forgiven by him. That makes about as much sense as a screen door on a battleship!

Jesus did not die for anyone to continue sinning. Saying that one does not "continue" to sin because one only does it occasionally, is still continuing to sin ["occasionally" =/= once, hence it is a continuation. PLUS where is the DEATH to sin that Jesus with HIS power would have PERFECTED? Did HE fail? Is HE weak? Or is only the false-professer not really having what they think or want to believe that they have (without having to give up the old life--see rich young ruler result, who refused to give up his old life as well)? Where is the POWER of your alleged "experience?"]

... You choose the side of pay back rather than doing what is right for its own sake. If there is a God whose actions do you think he would honor more, those seeking a reward, or those who act on principle.

Correct again. The point is internal conversion, rather than external religion/"conversion." Internal conversion by necessity (i.e. inherently) CREATES external conversions. If you do good, so that you may feel or think that you are good, then you have your reward--your good feelings towards yourself, your self-agrandizing, ego, pride, emotional-feel-good). If you do good BECAUSE it IS good, then that means that it is in your heart and you DESIRE goodness--conversion. Principles which are good show conversion; cherry-picking convenient, personally desirable, etc. principles, would be no different than those "pay back" folks, who already have their reward (their thoughts and feelings of self-agrandizement etc).

[Darth Ovious]

No, that's way too simplistic. I simply pointed out that, if true, the expression of sin represented by the fall was a necessary and inevitable precondition of an ultimate tree-free environment that Christianity promises. I think a tear-free environment doesn't make any sense, and the best way to explain how non-sensical it is is by asking tough questions about the fall that the church rarely acknowledges, if ever.

So you admit that having a perfect standard to aim for is OK then? You're just having a whine because it's not possible to achieve in this world.

[whag]

So you admit that having a perfect standard to aim for is OK then? You're just having a whine because it's not possible to achieve in this world.

No. You're still referring to your analogy which is way too simplistic. Your work expects accidents and never intended to torture the first person who had an accident. Your work also never implied that an accident free environment was possible, where as Christianity implies that it was possible for Adam and all descending generations to behave perfectly.

I'm not whining. I'm rather pointing out that human beings actually triggered a series of events that had to happen. There was no possible way it couldn't happen, so blaming human beings (Adam) for doing it as soon as possible doesn't make sense. It's part of the teleology to get to the ultimate "end state", it would seem.

[tabibito]

Romans 5:12

_{12 13} (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. ₁₄ Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Hmmm.

[whag]

Romans 5:12

_{12 13} (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. ₁₄ Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Hmmm.

That verse is interesting. How else does it relate to the concept of sin needing to be actualized to effect the ultimate end environment?

Re: bold: I always thought Enoch presented a conundrum here, since he represents the best example of someone who had not sinned and God decided to spare him death.

[tabibito]

That verse is interesting. How else does it relate to the concept of sin needing to be actualized to effect the ultimate end environment?

Re: bold: I always thought Enoch presented a conundrum here, since he represents the best example of someone who had not sinned and God decided to spare him death.

In the Hebrew it just says "he walked with God. God took him." (in the Septuagint) ... "he was not", which is pretty much equivalent to the English "he was no more"
....
I don't know what basis Hebrews 11:5 (Enoch did not see death) has, but it doesn't seem to be in the scriptures recognised by the churches. (and they have decided to un-recognise some scriptures that were accepted by the founding apostles.) Could there be something in Rome's Bible, or Constantinople's or one of the other Orthodox churches? Or did it wind up in the discard pile I wonder.

Romans 5:12 is one that I keep mulling over without any result ... there are only two things that I can state with certainty:
This death isn't a reference to physical death.

[whag]

In the Hebrew it just says "he walked with God. God took him." (in the Septuagint) ... "he was not", which is pretty much equivalent to the English "he was no more"
....
I don't know what basis Hebrews 11:5 (Enoch did not see death) has, but it doesn't seem to be in the scriptures recognised by the churches. (and they have decided to un-recognise some scriptures that were accepted by the founding apostles.) Could there be something in Rome's Bible, or Constantinople's or one of the other Orthodox churches? Or did it wind up in the discard pile I wonder.

That's crazy that a well-recognized, oft-repeated scripture is likely a flight of the author's fancy.

Romans 5:12 is one that I keep mulling over without any result ... there are only two things that I can state with certainty:
This death isn't a reference to physical death.

Yes, death appears to be part of the engineering effort to effect a tear-free heaven. Satan and human beings can't really be to blame if God's intention was to actualize and use death.

[tabibito]

That's crazy that a well-recognized, oft-repeated scripture is likely a flight of the author's fancy.

This is an interesting reconciliation of the issue. It took all of five seconds' consideration to demolish the idea - on grammatical grounds.

Yes, death appears to be part of the engineering effort to effect a tear-free heaven. Satan and human beings can't really be to blame if God's intention was to actualize and use death.

I consider actualisation and utilisation of sin and death as a kind of plan B, one that was almost inescapable, but not 100% certain. It is, again, a matter of God knowing all possible futures, rather than just knowing "the" future.

[whag]

This is an interesting reconciliation of the issue. It took all of five seconds' consideration to demolish the idea - on grammatical grounds.

I consider actualisation and utilisation of sin and death as a kind of plan B, one that was almost inescapable, but not 100% certain. It is, again, a matter of God knowing all possible futures, rather than just knowing "the" future.

I admire the candidness of your Christian presentation. You seem to have no problem at least acknowledging this inescapable, for lack of a better word, difficulty. It seems awfully difficult to me. I know many Christians who'd have a real problem perceiving the actualization of sin as part of the teleology of God. This borders on heresy to some.

[Roy]

Is grave-robbing a sin?

[whag]

Is grave-robbing a sin?

I don't understand the question.