Can sin still disgust us?

[prisonchaplain]

During a lesson about being careful with judging, and urging folk to offer gentle corrections, preferably grounded in strong spiritual relationships, I ask, "Is there ever a case where the sin just has to be judged, and the sinner 'put out?'"  A few said no.

 

Then I turned to the one case in the New Testament in which someone was put out of church:

 

1 Corinthians 5: 1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

 

Then I stopped and said, "This was 2000 years ago.  Can I stop for a minute and just say ICK???!!!" 

 

One of the class, who'd witnessed disgusting behavior in her short life time, responded by saying "That's [explative] up!"       

 

That raised some eyebrows.  I don't encourage course language in church, or elsewhere.  Nevertheless, I grabbed ahold of the sentiment and said, "How refreshing!  This young person still has the capability to be disgusted by sin!  Schools, teachers, classmates, Hollywood--they all pound us with, "Who's to judge?  Who's to say?  How about the Word of God?  How about God himself?  How about basic human morality???

 

The church was proud of this fellow.  Perhaps they said that he and his mom (perhaps step mom) were in a committed relationship.  They were, after all, two consenting adults.  The only noise to be heard was the heretical "Grace grace grace grace."

 

Grace is beautiful.  I need it still.  However, it is God's response to repentance, not stubborn sinning.

 

Maybe we're in trouble when there's a vulgar utterance in the church, and the preacher is actually relieved that someone still has a sense of righteousness? 

[The Folk Prophet]

Last time I said something was [explative] up I was called a bigot. :)

 

"Messed" up...I said "messed up". what did you think I said?!

[Palerider]

Last time I said something was [explative] up I was called a bigot. :)

 

"Messed" up...I said "messed up". what did you think I said?!

Were watching you .......Lol

[Traveler]

During a lesson about being careful with judging, and urging folk to offer gentle corrections, preferably grounded in strong spiritual relationships, I ask, "Is there ever a case where the sin just has to be judged, and the sinner 'put out?'"  A few said no.

 

Then I turned to the one case in the New Testament in which someone was put out of church:

 

1 Corinthians 5: 1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

 

Then I stopped and said, "This was 2000 years ago.  Can I stop for a minute and just say ICK???!!!" 

 

One of the class, who'd witnessed disgusting behavior in her short life time, responded by saying "That's [explative] up!"       

 

That raised some eyebrows.  I don't encourage course language in church, or elsewhere.  Nevertheless, I grabbed ahold of the sentiment and said, "How refreshing!  This young person still has the capability to be disgusted by sin!  Schools, teachers, classmates, Hollywood--they all pound us with, "Who's to judge?  Who's to say?  How about the Word of God?  How about God himself?  How about basic human morality???

 

The church was proud of this fellow.  Perhaps they said that he and his mom (perhaps step mom) were in a committed relationship.  They were, after all, two consenting adults.  The only noise to be heard was the heretical "Grace grace grace grace."

 

Grace is beautiful.  I need it still.  However, it is God's response to repentance, not stubborn sinning.

 

Maybe we're in trouble when there's a vulgar utterance in the church, and the preacher is actually relieved that someone still has a sense of righteousness? 

 

I am confused with this post – I think???  And now I must be careful because of what is judged as being harsh and not caring.  To me the whole religious, “Don’t be judgmental thing” is a sick and wrong religious as well as anti-religious joke.  Why?  Because accusing, thinking or believing someone of being judgmental is being judgmental. 

 

I do not believe that humans evolved enlightenment and intelligence to end up stupid and making stupid decisions.  As we navigate the labyrinth of life we must make decisions and choices – in short we must become judgmental.  The problem is not so much making a choice as it is not learning anything from it.  Being able to learn and modify behavior is the very essence of intelligence.  Thus the problem is not so much is making poor choices but in refusing to learn anything form the choices me make and therefore not adjusting our behavior from intelligently considering what we have done.

 

I have come to understand I was raised quite differently than just about everybody I know.  My parents never once ever praised me for doing anything.  Their mantra was always, “You could have done better.”  For example, when I was in grade 6 the school I attended has an annual fundraiser selling tickets to a grade school talent showcase production.  I broke all records for selling tickets and for the entire history of the school and my record was never even challenged and will not be now because the school does not exist anymore (I almost sold more that the rest of the school).  When I was honored by the school – my parents simply said, “Do not let this go to your head – you know you could have done a lot better.”

 

Now back to this post.  What I believe is meant by not judging is thinking we have figured on a case by case basis who is going to what kingdom of glory.   It seems to me that most religious individuals tend to do exactly that – thinking they have it made or someone else is excluded from blessings.  That is the judgment I believe the scriptures are warning us against.  The problem is that the mighty can and often do fall and the beaten down often arise from the ashes of failure. 

 

We are all given intelligence and we ought to be on a journey to learn and become better.  Part of becoming better individuals is helping others in particular with the lessons we have learned.  I see nothing wrong with telling someone that if they insist in making stupid decisions that we are not going to forever support and that we will part company.  We should be very clear on what it is we support and what it is that we do not support in the vast spectrum of behaviors.  I see nothing wrong with telling a friend that if they insist on walking certain paths – that you will not accompany them.  I see nothing wrong with telling someone that what they are choosing to do is sick and wrong.  I also believe you should be intelligent enough from your own experience to show both by word and by example a better way.

 

One of the great lessons I learned in life is to not go into battle with someone that that will not behave properly in the battle despite how much you love them.  And to make that fact very clear – long before the battle begins.

[prisonchaplain]

I found what I consider to be the flip side of this coin.  Apparently there are some who find a red flag in the LDS emphasis on modesty.  They claim that meta analyses have been done, and there is proof positive that women are being controlled by being told 6X more often than men, to....drum roll please...cover their shoulders!  I know...shocking...apalling!  The article went on to explain that shoulders represent power, and the patriarchy wishes for women to keep theirs hidden.

 

Meanwhile, back at the church in Corinth, a man is "involved" with his father's wife.  Meanwhile there are whole denominations that have decided the mores of scripture don't really apply today, because the situation is somehow different, based on new scientific revelations about how people relate and love, that the prophets of old just didn't understand.

 

The masses have resurrected the golden cow, while the faithful fuss about whether they can uncover their shoulders.  Does the LORD laugh, cry, both....or something else?

 

BTW TRAVELER, I don't see where your confusion is.  My bottom line is that we are not wrong in adhering to and promoting godly morality.  To say good is good and bad is bad, as you say, is intelligence, not hate.  In the OP, I am basically appreciating that a young person, obviously not raised in church culture, could blurt out that an immoral scenario was deeply messed up [explative edited out].  I found it refreshing.  It gave me hope. 

[SGMan]

 

 

Maybe we're in trouble when there's a vulgar utterance in the church, and the preacher is actually relieved that someone still has a sense of righteousness? 

The whole purpose for Christ's coming was for the sinner and not the righteous. 

Mark 2:17 (KJV)

17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Was it Mary or Martha that got Jesus' accolades?

[prisonchaplain]

Mary was praised for seeking Christ's presence.  Martha was NOT blamed for her work.  Rather, she was encouraged to make the first thing the first thing.

 

I'm not sure how this is relating to a problem in larger Christianity--that sin no longer concerns us much.  We're so eager to fit in, be relevant, be 'relational' 'missional' etc., that we have decided to help God out, by downplaying the sin stuff, and bold-facing the grace.

 

Grace is essential for salvation.  We don't come to God clean.  However, where's the need for grace if we've become convinced there's no right or wrong?  In fact, if post-modern relativism is correct, the ancient cry of Christian grace seems somehow judgemental too.

[Blackmarch]

During a lesson about being careful with judging, and urging folk to offer gentle corrections, preferably grounded in strong spiritual relationships, I ask, "Is there ever a case where the sin just has to be judged, and the sinner 'put out?'"  A few said no.

 

Then I turned to the one case in the New Testament in which someone was put out of church:

 

1 Corinthians 5: 1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

 

Then I stopped and said, "This was 2000 years ago.  Can I stop for a minute and just say ICK???!!!" 

 

One of the class, who'd witnessed disgusting behavior in her short life time, responded by saying "That's [explative] up!"       

 

That raised some eyebrows.  I don't encourage course language in church, or elsewhere.  Nevertheless, I grabbed ahold of the sentiment and said, "How refreshing!  This young person still has the capability to be disgusted by sin!  Schools, teachers, classmates, Hollywood--they all pound us with, "Who's to judge?  Who's to say?  How about the Word of God?  How about God himself?  How about basic human morality???

 

The church was proud of this fellow.  Perhaps they said that he and his mom (perhaps step mom) were in a committed relationship.  They were, after all, two consenting adults.  The only noise to be heard was the heretical "Grace grace grace grace."

 

Grace is beautiful.  I need it still.  However, it is God's response to repentance, not stubborn sinning.

 

Maybe we're in trouble when there's a vulgar utterance in the church, and the preacher is actually relieved that someone still has a sense of righteousness? 

well said.

I find it interesting that one of prophet Nephi's prayers to God was for him to fear and quake and tremble at the mere sight of sin.

And ya we're probably in trouble- morality in media that is pervading everywhere isn't far from promoting the kinds of relationship that is mentioned in first corinthians....

Let alone death and murder as a means to solve problems.

I can see why an individual would be thankful that someone else recognises that that is a problem, even if they were vulgar in their expression of it.

[Traveler]

...

 

BTW TRAVELER, I don't see where your confusion is.  My bottom line is that we are not wrong in adhering to and promoting godly morality.  To say good is good and bad is bad, as you say, is intelligence, not hate.  In the OP, I am basically appreciating that a young person, obviously not raised in church culture, could blurt out that an immoral scenario was deeply messed up [explative edited out].  I found it refreshing.  It gave me hope. 

 

The problem - as I see it.  If something was not learned from the "[explative edited out]" and a behavior altered - then we have failed to help.  The object lesson is not in some far away theoretical situation but in dealing with the here and now.  To me this is another lesson of life.  To learn to deal with what we are dealing with.   The lesson is not so much to figure out what is best in some thought up circumstance but to learn and improve upon what we are experiencing.  I can understand that it was refreshing that one time - but not so much the next time.  I am not talking about the next time at church.  I am talking about the next opportunity they have in life.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm still not sure what the problem is.  Obviously I did not lay out the entire session.  The focus of the OP was on the recognition--by a young, 'unchurched,' person that some things are very wrong.  Of course we discussed how to help one another overcome sin.  When/how to offer correction.  And yes, there were some mature ones that came along side and encouraged the individual to work on losing the vulgar expressions.  Is that the concern, or am I still missing the point?

[Traveler]

I'm still not sure what the problem is.  Obviously I did not lay out the entire session.  The focus of the OP was on the recognition--by a young, 'unchurched,' person that some things are very wrong.  Of course we discussed how to help one another overcome sin.  When/how to offer correction.  And yes, there were some mature ones that came along side and encouraged the individual to work on losing the vulgar expressions.  Is that the concern, or am I still missing the point?

 

As I see it - the first lesson in learning is how to learn.  Or as the old saying goes - feed a person a fish and for that meal you have prevented them from starving to death - but teach a person to fish and you have prevented them from starving for a lifetime.   I guess what I am in essence saying - why teach someone how to fight off a tiger if they are threatened by a pack of wolves?

 

Many years ago I was taught by a religious teacher - that when facing a day or any specific challenge that I should pray to my Father in Heaven and tell him how I planed to face the challenge and ask for his assistance.  Then afterwords pray again to my Father and explain to him how things had gone and turned out.

 

I have found that this method of learning is a very productive way of learning quite quickly what I need to change in my life.  Be it my planning or my execution of a plan.   It is not that I have found the lecture (someone tell and someone try to listen) ineffective - just that such method never seems to be focused on what most needs to be the focus.

[Bini]

I was a bit confused by the original post, but after reading what's been shared, I think I can comment. In a religious studies class I took some time ago, the teacher challenged the students to consider whether or not there's such a thing as universal morality, regardless of culture and religious beliefs. Most of us agreed that, yes, there is such a thing. Many of the students were diverse in faith, we had non-Christian and Christian, and I was the only Mormon. There was one student that felt very strongly that universal morality did not exist. He brought up murder. Everyone in class was quick to agree that murder is wrong. But he insisted that in some tribes and clans, taking another's life out of vengeance, is perfectly acceptable. I can't remember what the class's verdict was in the end, but I do watch a lot of National Geographics, and what he had said that day rang true, there are cultures (granted mostly remote) that see no wrong in taking a life if that person has done you wrong.

 

What I'm getting at is that while certain moral codes are absolute no brainers, it's interesting how other people abide little or not at all to that same moral code. Therefore, in respond to the OP title, sin might not disgust the masses as much as we think. Of course, I realise PC is speaking mainstream.

[The Folk Prophet]

or....perhaps sin disgusts the masses, but they enjoy being disgusted.  

[prisonchaplain]

What concerns me, more than the masses, is that I am being desensitized.  Things that used to outrage me now cause me to shrug.  I sometimes wonder if I would have been much better than Lot, had I lived in Sodom/Gomorrah.

[Bini]

Things that used to outrage me now cause me to shrug.

 

Like what?

 

I guess for me, I haven't changed much in terms of what I found to be morally right and wrong, I feel the same mostly over the years.

[SGMan]

Mary was praised for seeking Christ's presence.  Martha was NOT blamed for her work.  Rather, she was encouraged to make the first thing the first thing.

 

I'm not sure how this is relating to a problem in larger Christianity--that sin no longer concerns us much.  We're so eager to fit in, be relevant, be 'relational' 'missional' etc., that we have decided to help God out, by downplaying the sin stuff, and bold-facing the grace.

 

Grace is essential for salvation.  We don't come to God clean.  However, where's the need for grace if we've become convinced there's no right or wrong?  In fact, if post-modern relativism is correct, the ancient cry of Christian grace seems somehow judgemental to

 

Mary was praised for seeking Christ's presence.  Martha was NOT blamed for her work.  Rather, she was encouraged to make the first thing the first thing.

 

I'm not sure how this is relating to a problem in larger Christianity--that sin no longer concerns us much.  We're so eager to fit in, be relevant, be 'relational' 'missional' etc., that we have decided to help God out, by downplaying the sin stuff, and bold-facing the grace.

 

Grace is essential for salvation.  We don't come to God clean.  However, where's the need for grace if we've become convinced there's no right or wrong?  In fact, if post-modern relativism is correct, the ancient cry of Christian grace seems somehow judgemental too.

Sin should concern us. An innocent, sinless man gave His life because of sin. We need to realize that sin has captured a beloved of God's and God desperately wants to help that beloved freed from it. I think to see them as victims is the way to have the eyes of Christ. It's the pharisees that want to throw stones, and we all know what kind of words our King had for the attitude of the pharisee.

[prisonchaplain]

Bini, I don't mean that I've changed my mind about what I will do and not do.  It's more that as society embraces ever greater depravities I feel this sense of resignation.  Even here, you'll see plenty of posters say things like that gay marriage is now inevitable.  Maybe it is, but shall we allow our "salt" to cease being "salty?"  "Ah well...it is what it is," may be our greatest error.

 

SGMan, I have no desire to stone anyone.  Rather, to remind the victims that they are victims.  Sin is bad.  It's not gray.  it's not a friend.  It is the product of a thief...a liar...a murder.  We should flee it, not embrace it, or look the other way, or murmur, "Who's to judge?  Who's to say?"

[SGMan]

SGMan, I have no desire to stone anyone.  Rather, to remind the victims that they are victims.  Sin is bad.  It's not gray.  it's not a friend.  It is the product of a thief...a liar...a murder.  We should flee it, not embrace it, or look the other way, or murmur, "Who's to judge?  Who's to say?"

Agreed.

[MrShorty]

Maintaining an appropriate level of disgust towards sin is important. The pattern of "despise -> tolerate -> embrace" is unfortunate.

 

But isn't part of this learning to discern sin? The "cliche" example I think of is the way the ancient Israelites approached the Sabbath. They were so "disgusted" by the sin of profaning the Sabbath that they had created multiple rules (sins) around what it meant to honor the Sabbath. Jesus showed them (Matt 12, for example) that some of their sins were man-made sins and not really sin. It seems to me that some of these difficult issues really come down to how do we discern what is sin and is not sin.

 

A lot of the difficulty is that we know it is possible for man to misinterpret and call something sin (evil) that is not really sin. We also know that it is possible for man to call something good when it is really evil (Isaiah 5:20).

[Bini]

Ok, I'm following where you're getting at PC. Like I said, I too, was a bit confused by the original post.

[MaggieM]

well, I think that reaction is from our biological revulsion for having sex with close family members. We instinctively know that that causes genetic problems. 

[rayhale]

I was a bit confused by the original post, but after reading what's been shared, I think I can comment. In a religious studies class I took some time ago, the teacher challenged the students to consider whether or not there's such a thing as universal morality, regardless of culture and religious beliefs. Most of us agreed that, yes, there is such a thing. Many of the students were diverse in faith, we had non-Christian and Christian, and I was the only Mormon. There was one student that felt very strongly that universal morality did not exist. He brought up murder. Everyone in class was quick to agree that murder is wrong. But he insisted that in some tribes and clans, taking another's life out of vengeance, is perfectly acceptable. I can't remember what the class's verdict was in the end, but I do watch a lot of National Geographics, and what he had said that day rang true, there are cultures (granted mostly remote) that see no wrong in taking a life if that person has done you wrong.

 

What I'm getting at is that while certain moral codes are absolute no brainers, it's interesting how other people abide little or not at all to that same moral code. Therefore, in respond to the OP title, sin might not disgust the masses as much as we think. Of course, I realise PC is speaking mainstream.

I think you need to read the Old Testament; it has lots of verses describing how it is okay to stone someone to death if they committed certain sins. Even in the New Testament there is a woman who is accused of sin, the Jewish leaders of the community brought her to Jesus to judge, with stones in their hands. There are ancient maximums and other sayings that were either always, or never, even when there are obvious exceptions with those “rules”.

[The Folk Prophet]

well, I think that reaction is from our biological revulsion for having sex with close family members. We instinctively know that that causes genetic problems. 

 

There is nothing instinctive about it at all. That is learned.

[MaggieM]

There is nothing instinctive about it at all. That is learned.

okay, you can think that. I just believe that our biology takes over and tells us that incest isn't a good idea because that would be a genetic disaster. 

[SGMan]

well, I think that reaction is from our biological revulsion for having sex with close family members. We instinctively know that that causes genetic problems. 

Like Adam and Eve's kids had to do?