You Just Keep Sinning

[learner]

to AvalonXQ.

I am an atheist. Am I sinning?
Would I be sinning If I took the Agnostic view?

 

[AvalonXQ]

to AvalonXQ.

I am an atheist. Am I sinning?
Would I be sinning If I took the Agnostic view?

If you ask me to speculate, I would assume that you have probably sinned at some point; the Bible says pretty categorically that we all sin. If you ask me to judge you, I'm afraid I cannot; it's not my place.
If your question is whether or not atheist belief itself is a sin, I don't think so, no. Perhaps it is a sin against God; no Scriptures are coming to mind that indicate this.
Whenever we choose to do something we know to be wrong, we sin. And if you've ever sinned, you've separated yourself from God.
Sin has to be a conscious choice to be a sin. That doesn't mean you have to believe in God or even in sin when you do it, but it does believe you have to understand that you're doing something wrong.

 

[Monster Machine]

If your question is whether or not atheist belief itself is a sin, I don't think so, no. Perhaps it is a sin against God; no Scriptures are coming to mind that indicate this.

Atheist

–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. For whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

I don't think atheists will be sitting in the clouds with the Chosen in the end based on John 3:16.



I appreciate the effort you have given in explaining your definition of what would constitute a sin.

If I am reading your posts correctly, Avalon, you believe that you and your group are interpreting the bible the correct way and if you aren't, you're at least open to changing your views.

But how is it then, that the Baptists believe you are covered for all sins when you become a christian, while the methodists believe you can lose your salvation via sin? The methodists believe if your actions cause a brother to stumble, then you're in sin as much as the brother. The baptists believe they are absolved of all of this.

If the two groups are reading the same text, how are they coming up with a chasm of difference between this important tenet?

Monster

 

[AvalonXQ]

Atheist

–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten. For whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

There's little question that an atheist won't be able to accept the gift of Jesus and be cleansed of their sins. That's a different question, though, than whether or not atheism is itself a sin.
Again, it may be; I just can't think of the scriptures that confirm it. Certainly idolatry is a sin, and perhaps atheism by its nature results in idolatry. I'm just not ready to judge any specific activity or action as a sin without more Biblical support than what I've seen so far.

I appreciate the effort you have given in explaining your definition of what would constitute a sin.
If I am reading your posts correctly, Avalon, you believe that you and your group are interpreting the bible the correct way and if you aren't, you're at least open to changing your views.
But how is it then, that the Baptists believe you are covered for all sins when you become a christian, while the methodists believe you can lose your salvation via sin? The methodists believe if your actions cause a brother to stumble, then you're in sin as much as the brother. The baptists believe they are absolved of all of this.
If the two groups are reading the same text, how are they coming up with a chasm of difference between this important tenet?

The basic answer is that they aren't primarily reading the texts to arrive at their views. Starting from the text, each has built a dogma that includes extra-Biblical guidebooks, policies, authorities, rules, creeds, etc. It is these elements of their philosophy, not Scripture itself, that leads to these doctrinal differences.
From another side, though, I might disagree with you that it does matter which of these things you believe. It seems pretty academic to me, since in practice both groups expect their memberships to work to live lives free of sin. In practice the only difference is that the Methodists will say a sinning brother has fallen away while the Baptists will say that he was never really saved in the first place.
I can say more, but would another thread be a more appropriate place for this?

 

[Bob from NJ]

A "sin" is anything that takes a person farther away from god, whether actions or thoughts.

This is a dangerous notion that can be misconstrued BIG TIME; I know, cause I lived that way for years, censoring my own thoughts 24x7 and it's gonna take the rest of my life to undo the damage I did to myself.

Music, arts, TV, movies, fun, games, lust, earning money, EVERYTHING is un-pious (impious?) If you're not praying 'without ceasing' if your focus falls away from God for an instant, that's "Sin".

In the independent/fundamentalist/holiness view there's "sins" and "sin".
Sins are individual misdeeds, crimes and actions that break God's law.
"Sin" is more a condition, that we're all rotten unworthy fallen creatures hell-bent to do evil in every thought and deed. It's a poisonous way to believe cause your own thoughts and motives can't be trusted. You can never grow or be a fulfilled person if you consider yourself inherently evil.

Don't you see, EVERYTHING takes us 'farther away from God'?? If you look at the sunset you better give God the glory real quick otherwise you're lusting after clouds; if you're enjoying a hobby you're sinning cause you're thinking about your model trains or whatever and that takes your thoughts off God, so all hobbies are really idolatry in disguise.

 

[AvalonXQ]

This is a dangerous notion that can be misconstrued BIG TIME; I know, cause I lived that way for years, censoring my own thoughts 24x7 and it's gonna take the rest of my life to undo the damage I did to myself.

Music, arts, TV, movies, fun, games, lust, earning money, EVERYTHING is un-pious (impious?) If you're not praying 'without ceasing' if your focus falls away from God for an instant, that's "Sin".

In the independent/fundamentalist/holiness view there's "sins" and "sin".
Sins are individual misdeeds, crimes and actions that break God's law.
"Sin" is more a condition, that we're all rotten unworthy fallen creatures hell-bent to do evil in every thought and deed. It's a poisonous way to believe cause your own thoughts and motives can't be trusted. You can never grow or be a fulfilled person if you consider yourself inherently evil.

Don't you see, EVERYTHING takes us 'farther away from God'?? If you look at the sunset you better give God the glory real quick otherwise you're lusting after clouds; if you're enjoying a hobby you're sinning cause you're thinking about your model trains or whatever and that takes your thoughts off God, so all hobbies are really idolatry in disguise.

You're right; that IS a very destructive attitude. Fortunately I don't live that way. I don't accept the idea that practically every thought we have is chock-full of godless evil; instead, I generally assert that sin and evil are aberrations. Humans are good creatures by default, and so evil is an unfortunate corruption.
I certainly wouldn't want to live the way you described.

 

[kuroyume0161]

I generally assert that sin and evil are aberrations. Humans are good creatures by default, and so evil is an unfortunate corruption.

There is no evidence that humans are good (which is a very subjective term in itself), especially by default. Historically speaking, humans tend to be, on the whole, rather capricious towards each other, other life, and anything else. Your stance marks an idealized set of values or criteria which you assign to humans as default so that you can then categorize so-called 'evil' as an aberration. That view doesn't agree with reality.

Humans are animals. We have instincts and social constructs which are part of our evolutionary past. I've never heard a cognizant argument that defines 'good' and 'evil' acts to other animals (well, mosquitoes are evil but that's just my opinion). If the acts of other animals are natural and neither good nor bad (to some degree of variation we might consider), why is it implied that humans are inherently good or evil?

Since we do live in social groups we have also evolved patterns of behavior which tend to be more beneficial to the group (and hopefully the species) than maleficent. This does not mean that these behaviors always manifest beneficially. War. Should I continue? I'll just say that group fighting is usually a good behavior between competing groups (marking/defending your territory, preserving your resources, etc.) as it is a means to preserve and propagate your group. But that doesn't mean that it is beneficial does it? Along with such clashes come possible death, loss of resources, and other bad side-effects. Not so black and white anymore is it. Do you fight or do you run? What drives the need for such clashes? Does it have a benefit that extends beyond the short-term?

 

[Matt the Poet]

There's little question that an atheist won't be able to accept the gift of Jesus and be cleansed of their sins.

What is this 'cleansing'?

If it's just saying sorry, trying to make amends where possible and making an effort to be a better person and not repeat your behaviour, what stops me from doing this in the absence of this 'gift of Jesus'.*

If it's something other than this, what is it, why is it necessary, how does it benefit either the wronged party or myself and what do you believe the consequences are if I decide not to bother?

*In the event of answers based on things said in the bible I refer you back to my previous post about the nature and moral benefit of the 'faith' I apparently require to take this one book at its word above all the other available works of moral philosophy written since.

 

[Lanzy]

In the eyes of any particular atheist (me for instance), being an atheist cannot ever be a sin (to me). Maybe its a sin to you or someone else (my mother?) but I don't really care. It can be no more of a sin than being a dancer or stamp collector.

 

[D'rok]

I interpret these things in context. The context is obvious: Who did God prevent from doing these things? Am I in that group?
Answer: the Isrealites, and no.
I'm a Christian. If you find me the part of the Bible that instructs Christians not to eat pork, I'll stop. Instead, what we have is multiple books of the New Testament focused on reminding Christians that they are not bound to follow Jewish law, and explaining why that is and how it works metaphysically.
The Bible includes many instances where God gave specific instructions to specific groups at a specific time. The Bible also includes instructions given generally to Christians. It is not an excercise in arbitrary judgment or re-interpretation to figure out which is which; the Bible itself makes clear to whom instructions are given, when, and why.

I accept this argument, as far as it goes. There's no reason why a Christian should obey OT law. What I can't accept is that a just, loving God really did make all those silly rules and command and/or commit all of those OT atrocities. Who cares if they no longer apply, post-Jesus? I refuse to accept any notion of sin derived from such a contemptible villain, even if he has been "reformed".

There is no context that can reconcile genocidal OT God with loving NT Jesus, unless OT God is completely repudiated. In which case, he isn't God. Either way, we're better off with non-Biblical notions of sin - i.e., ethics/morality. That way, it is really hard to rationalize genocide by appealing to "context".

 

[AvalonXQ]

I accept this argument, as far as it goes. There's no reason why a Christian should obey OT law. What I can't accept is that a just, loving God really did make all those silly rules and command and/or commit all of those OT atrocities. Who cares if they no longer apply, post-Jesus? I refuse to accept any notion of sin derived from such a contemptible villain, even if he has been "reformed".

I understand your position. Personally, I have no issue with a God having the traits and history that Bible ascribes to Him doing the things the Bible says that He does, any more than I find it immoral for me to delete programs on a computer or kill off characters in a video game or novel that I write. But I can understand why, being unwilling to accept the reality of the God of the Bible, you would be pretty unhappy with the fictional character you believe the Bible portrays.

 

[D'rok]

I understand your position. Personally, I have no issue with a God having the traits and history that Bible ascribes to Him doing the things the Bible says that He does, any more than I find it immoral for me to delete programs on a computer or kill off characters in a video game or novel that I write. But I can understand why, being unwilling to accept the reality of the God of the Bible, you would be pretty unhappy with the fictional character you believe the Bible portrays.

I don't think you do understand my position. I am not unhappy with the fictional character of God any more than I am unhappy with the fictional character of Sauron. I am unhappy with the moral consequences of believing that fictional character to actually be the father of creation. Consequences like devaluing humans by equating them to a computer programs or video game characters. In other words, I am unhappy with believers. In fact, I think you just gave one of the most despicable rationalizations of genocide that I've ever read from a believer. You have confirmed precisely why no one should take a Christian seriously on the subject of sin.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I don't think you do understand my position. I am not unhappy with the fictional character of God any more than I am unhappy with the fictional character of Sauron. I am unhappy with the moral consequences of believing that fictional character to actually be the father of creation. Consequences like devaluing humans by equating them to a computer programs or video game characters. In other words, I am unhappy with believers. In fact, I think you just gave one of the most despicable rationalizations of genocide that I've ever read from a believer. You have confirmed precisely why no one should take a Christian seriously on the subject of sin.

That's certainly your option. Personally, I find your lack of love and respect for the Existor to be pretty despicable. Then again, I also don't see why you have such an issue with a creator justifiably taking back the life he gave his creations.
The truth is, you cannot accept Christian morality without also accepting the nature of God; the two go hand in hand.

 

[Matt the Poet]

The truth is, you cannot accept Christian morality without also accepting the nature of God; the two go hand in hand.

I ask again: do you have any reason why I need to accept either?

Note that I'm not asking why I need to accept any kind of morality, just why I need a Christian one. What's wrong with me working this stuff out for myself? What is lost if I choose to behave morally without actively professing a belief in your (or, indeed, any) God?

 

[D'rok]

That's certainly your option. Personally, I find your lack of love and respect for the Existor to be pretty despicable. Then again, I also don't see why you have such an issue with a creator justifiably taking back the life he gave his creations.
The truth is, you cannot accept Christian morality without also accepting the nature of God; the two go hand in hand.

Well, even though I don't understand why it doesn't sicken you, I have to give you a nod for owning up to the nature of the biblical God. Most Christians that I've talked to just deny it or gloss over it. As long as you don't desire to apply Christian morality modeled on the God of the Bible to secular law, than we can likely co-exist quite peacefully. Otherwise, I'll have to sic Oliver on you.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Otherwise, I'll have to sic Oliver on you.

Okay, that made me lol.

 

[six7s]

I'm a Christian. If you find me the part of the Bible that instructs Christians not to eat pork, I'll stop. Instead, what we have is multiple books of the New Testament focused on reminding Christians that they are not bound to follow Jewish law, and explaining why that is and how it works metaphysically.

Please, do provide an example of a book in 'the New Testament focused on reminding Christians that they are not bound to follow Jewish law', perhaps citing a particularly pertinent chapter and verse

TYIA

 

[fromdownunder]

Please, do provide an example of a book in 'the New Testament focused on reminding Christians that they are not bound to follow Jewish law', perhaps citing a particularly pertinent chapter and verse

TYIA

Didn't Paul cover that one with his "New Covenant"?

Norm

 

[kuroyume0161]

Didn't Paul cover that one with his "New Covenant"?

Norm

How does Paul trump Jesus?

God is just so direct and clear when he transmits information to people through revelation. Just do a Google search (Jesus law) and you find even the believers aren't sure if the OT laws are still valid or not, to what degree, and how far it reaches. The 'Sermon on the Mount' says one thing, John 14 says another, and so on.

It is a particularly nasty sticking point in christianity which has been the cause of strife and sectarianism for millenia. Let's face it. What was Paul going on about? Oh, that's right. He wanted christianity for the gentiles and Peter wanted it only for Jewish people. For Paul to promote a 'new convenant' makes explicit sense because otherwise christianity was simply an extension of Judaism which would exclude gentiles.

Find all of the Gospel quotes of Jesus where he is discussing OT law and see how clear the message.

 

[Elizabeth I]

So do you eschew shellfish, pork, cheeseburgers, and 60/40 cloth? Or are those prohibitions some of the ones you "interpret in context"?

I interpret these things in context. The context is obvious: Who did God prevent from doing these things? Am I in that group?
Answer: the Isrealites, and no.
I'm a Christian. If you find me the part of the Bible that instructs Christians not to eat pork, I'll stop. Instead, what we have is multiple books of the New Testament focused on reminding Christians that they are not bound to follow Jewish law, and explaining why that is and how it works metaphysically.
The Bible includes many instances where God gave specific instructions to specific groups at a specific time. The Bible also includes instructions given generally to Christians. It is not an excercise in arbitrary judgment or re-interpretation to figure out which is which; the Bible itself makes clear to whom instructions are given, when, and why.

Why am I not surprised? Like everyone else, you cherry-pick which pronouncements will govern your behavior.

What about, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"?

Yes, I know. You interpret that one "in context" too.