Can sin still disgust us?

[Traveler]

Like Adam and Eve's kids had to do?

I believe you are making assumptions contrary to biological evidence.  Did you know you have Neanderthal DNA?  The percent of Neanderthal DNA increases for non-Africian sub-species.  According to scripture, Adam was the first man and Eve was the first woman.  What the scriptures do not say is that Adam and Eve were the only humans.  -- This thought ought to keep minds busy for a while.

[The Folk Prophet]

I believe you are making assumptions contrary to biological evidence.  Did you know you have Neanderthal DNA?  The percent of Neanderthal DNA increases for non-Africian sub-species.  According to scripture, Adam was the first man and Eve was the first woman.  What the scriptures do not say is that Adam and Eve were the only humans.  -- This thought ought to keep minds busy for a while.

 

How can any believing LDS person hold this point of view? By implication Adam and Eve's children had babies with ape-like creatures that weren't spirit children of God?

 

Nonsense.

[Maureen]

I think that mankind whether they are religious or non-religious make moral judgements all the time. To be surprised that someone who is "non-churched" can make a rational moral judgement is in itself a little judgemental. Juries are picked all the time with a wide range of people from religious and non-religious backgrounds. And in a lot of cases they get it right and either convict or acquit the person charged.

 

McShorty said: Jesus showed them (Matt 12, for example) that some of their sins were man-made sins and not really sin. Which I agree with. In the early 20th century homosexuality was against the law and people were put in prison. PC, do you believe that homosexuality should be deemed a crime and people imprisoned for it or do you believe that mankind has re-thought how criminal it really is? Do you think that gay marriage would really affect society and that you yourself would suffer if gays and lesbians were able to legally marry?

 

Or how about abortion? Do you think people are justified when doctors who perform abortions are murdered? Which is the worse sin?

 

M.

[Guest]

I think that mankind whether they are religious or non-religious make moral judgements all the time. To be surprised that someone who is "non-churched" can make a rational moral judgement is in itself a little judgemental. Juries are picked all the time with a wide range of people from religious and non-religious backgrounds. And in a lot of cases they get it right and either convict or acquit the person charged.

 

McShorty said: Jesus showed them (Matt 12, for example) that some of their sins were man-made sins and not really sin. Which I agree with. In the early 20th century homosexuality was against the law and people were put in prison. PC, do you believe that homosexuality should be deemed a crime and people imprisoned for it or do you believe that mankind has re-thought how criminal it really is? Do you think that gay marriage would really affect society and that you yourself would suffer if gays and lesbians were able to legally marry?

 

Or how about abortion? Do you think people are justified when doctors who perform abortions are murdered? Which is the worse sin?

 

M.

 

In my opinion, there's no "worse sin".  There's sin and there's not sin.

 

Killing can be sinful or it can be righteous.  Killing, by itself, is not sin.

 

Abortion can be sinful or it can be righteous.  Killing an adult person can be sinful or it can be righteous.

 

There's no - this is more sinful than that.  It's just plain sinful.

 

Punishing sinful behavior by sinful behavior is... sinful.

 

Each one of us - even the uncivilized tribal man in the remote jungle that has never seen anything outside of the tribe... or the abused kid locked and left alone in a room... is born with the light of Christ within us.  We are born with a basic understanding of right and wrong.

 

And sinfulness does not have anything to do with whether it hurts me or not.  Gay marriage is sinful, regardless of its effects on me.  Sin separates a person from God.  God's purposes is for the eternal life of man - not some mortal social more.  But, usually, you can find the logic of such eternal laws.  Gay marriage, for example, is an easy logic to follow.  Gender is not interchangeable - a child needs both gender parents.  Just because there are imperfect heterosexual marriages does not make homosexual marriage okay.  Sure, it may not affect my own children.  But it affects God's children and their journey in the Plan of Salvation.  Now, should you work towards ridiculing gay people?  No.  That's sinful.  Should you work towards preserving marriage?  Yes.  That's righteous.

 

In the end, we choose the right according to our understanding of our covenants with God and what work God charged us with.

[The Folk Prophet]

In my opinion, there's no "worse sin".  There's sin and there's not sin.

 

Killing can be sinful or it can be righteous.  Killing, by itself, is not sin.

 

Abortion can be sinful or it can be righteous.  Killing an adult person can be sinful or it can be righteous.

 

There's no - this is more sinful than that.  It's just plain sinful.

 

So... The fact that I spent money going out to eat this weekend that I shouldn't have, thereby committing the sin of not living within my means, is just as bad as had I gone out and murdered someone?

 

Abortion can be righteous? How can taking an innocent child's life be righteous?

[Guest]

So... The fact that I spent money going out to eat this weekend that I shouldn't have, thereby committing the sin of not living within my means, is just as bad as had I gone out and murdered someone?

 

Abortion can be righteous? How can taking an innocent child's life be righteous?

 

If you spending that money caused you to break your covenants - thereby it being sinful - then yes, it's as bad as if you murdered someone.  You're still headed far from God.  Yes, especially if you're Catholic, there's venial sin and mortal sin... there's a reason those don't exist in LDS belief.  Yes, murdering someone carries bigger eternal consequences... but in the end, spending money that caused you to break your covenants leads you in the same place as murdering someone... far from God.

 

Yes.  Abortion is not an automatic sin in LDS belief - in Catholic yes.  In LDS belief, the teaching on pre-mortal existence as opposed to the Catholic teaching of spirits getting created with the body at conception gives abortion a different perspective.  A woman raped and getting pregnant, for example, may abort a child after an appeal to the Holy Ghost with the guidance of her bishop.  That is not sinful.

[The Folk Prophet]

If you spending that money caused you to break your covenants - thereby it being sinful - then yes, it's as bad as if you murdered someone.  You're still headed far from God.  Yes, especially if you're Catholic, there's venial sin and mortal sin... there's a reason those don't exist in LDS belief.  Yes, murdering someone carries bigger eternal consequences... but in the end, spending money that caused you to break your covenants leads you in the same place as murdering someone... far from God.

 

Yes.  Abortion is not an automatic sin in LDS belief - in Catholic yes.  In LDS belief, the teaching on pre-mortal existence as opposed to the Catholic teaching of spirits getting created with the body at conception gives abortion a different perspective.  A woman raped and getting pregnant, for example, may abort a child after an appeal to the Holy Ghost with the guidance of her bishop.  That is not sinful.

 

O...k....

 

I didn't realize I was as evil as a murderer. Thank you for setting me straight.

[Guest]

O...k....

 

I didn't realize I was as evil as a murderer. Thank you for setting me straight.

 

You're welcome.  Glad to be of service.

[Maureen]

In my opinion, there's no "worse sin".  There's sin and there's not sin.

 

Killing can be sinful or it can be righteous.  Killing, by itself, is not sin.

 

Abortion can be sinful or it can be righteous.  Killing an adult person can be sinful or it can be righteous.

 

There's no - this is more sinful than that.  It's just plain sinful.

 

Punishing sinful behavior by sinful behavior is... sinful.

 

 

Your first sentence makes sin very black and white, while the rest of your statement, moves sin into a variety of grey areas.

 

God may view any sin with no variation, but human beings tend to put sin in classes from bad to worse. And like MrShorty pointed out, people also makes things sinful that really aren't.

 

M.

[The Folk Prophet]

The idea that there is no degree to sin is entirely unsupportable. The very fact that there is a sin that cannot be forgiven means that there are, indeed, degrees to sin.

 

I can hardly recall a more ridiculous concept than the idea that any sin is just as bad as murder.

 

Some sins require church discipline. Some do not. Hmm...could that be because there are degrees of sin?

 

The fact that all sins lead you away from God in no way leads to a no-difference-in-severity conclusion. That's nonsense logic. Clearly some sins lead you further away from God than others and are more difficult to repent of. Obviously.

[estradling75]

If we classify Sin based on their effect between us and God they are all the same.  If we classify Sin based on their Repent-ably then they can be very different.

[Guest]

The idea that there is no degree to sin is entirely unsupportable. The very fact that there is a sin that cannot be forgiven means that there are, indeed, degrees to sin.

 

I can hardly recall a more ridiculous concept than the idea that any sin is just as bad as murder.

 

Some sins require church discipline. Some do not. Hmm...could that be because there are degrees of sin?

 

The fact that all sins lead you away from God in no way leads to a no-difference-in-severity conclusion. That's nonsense logic. Clearly some sins lead you further away from God than others and are more difficult to repent of. Obviously.

 

You don't read very well.

 

The entire post starts with IN MY OPINION.

 

That's my view of sin.  You can have any view you want.

 

And it is very supportable.  IN MY OPINION... being far from God is terrible - regardless of how I got there.  There's no... it's less terrible because I'm only a mile away from God whereas I'm 10 miles away doing something else.  1 millimeter away is terrible.

 

You can compare yourself and feel better that you are better than a murderer.  I don't compare myself to murderers so I can feel better for my sinfulness.

[The Folk Prophet]

You don't read very well.

 

The entire post starts with IN MY OPINION.

 

That's my view of sin.  You can have any view you want.

 

And it is very supportable.  IN MY OPINION... being far from God is terrible - regardless of how I got there.  There's no... it's less terrible because I'm only a mile away from God whereas I'm 10 miles away doing something else.  1 millimeter away is terrible.

 

You can compare yourself and feel better that you are better than a murderer.  I don't compare myself to murderers so I can feel better for my sinfulness.

 

In a bit of a mood today there?

 

I'm stepping out of this conversation. It is hurtful and not productive. I cannot help but feel I've contributed to the hurtful side of it, for which I apologize.

[prisonchaplain]

PC, do you believe that homosexuality should be deemed a crime and people imprisoned for it or do you believe that mankind has re-thought how criminal it really is? Do you think that gay marriage would really affect society and that you yourself would suffer if gays and lesbians were able to legally marry?

 

Or how about abortion? Do you think people are justified when doctors who perform abortions are murdered? Which is the worse sin?

 

M.

 

Homosexuality, to my knowledge, was never a crime in the U.S.  Most churches do not condemn someone for being attracted to the same gender.  The Bible prohibits men from lying with men and women from lying with women.  The word "abomination" comes up.  1 Cor 6 tells us that those who DO these things will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.  It's the deed that is sin, not the inner temptation we may struggle with.  So, were sodomy laws a wise use of limited law enforcement resources?  Probably not.

 

Does same-sex marriage hurt ME?  Indirectly, yes.  My children, at ages 9-13, are almost daily having to defend their belief that it is wrong.  The 13-year old even has friends who say that Canada is right to prohibit graduates of Christian law schools from practicing the profession.  They agree that NFL players should be fined for tweeting that it is inappropriate for gays to french kiss on TV, when children will be watching.  So, gay marriage hurts because it is part and parcel of moving our culture towards greater tolerance of sin and greater intolerance towards those who uphold traditional Christian values.

 

Further, I believe the Bible.  It says that when nations that claim to be under God do not follow him--when they go after immorality instead--troubles await.  Call me superstitious, but I really do believe that God will allow troubles to come to America (or any nation really), if we consecrate what he has forbidden, and we persecute those who stand for godliness.

 

As for abortion, vigilante murders are a terrible sin.  Yet, so is killing an unborn baby.  A moral society would not allow them, hardly ever--if ever.  In a pluralistic society, exceptions will likely have to be made for rape, incest, or serious danger to the mother's health.  Even in most of those cases, my private counsel would be, if possible, not to punish the baby for the sin of another.

[Maureen]

Does same-sex marriage hurt ME?  Indirectly, yes.  My children, at ages 9-13, are almost daily having to defend their belief that it is wrong.  The 13-year old even has friends who say that Canada is right to prohibit graduates of Christian law schools from practicing the profession.  They agree that NFL players should be fined for tweeting that it is inappropriate for gays to french kiss on TV, when children will be watching.  So, gay marriage hurts because it is part and parcel of moving our culture towards greater tolerance of sin and greater intolerance towards those who uphold traditional Christian values.

 

Human beings are sinful. We can't get away from sin because we are all sinful. Whether we lived 1000 years ago or twenty years ago, sin has not changed, it still exists. Whether you are Christian or Jewish or Hindu or Pagan, you are sinful. Societies have had to tolerate sin because it's everywhere, it's part of society. We can't avoid not tolerating it because it's part of us, we would go crazy if all we thought about was "How am I going to tolerate myself, since I am a sinner?" Sure, societies have had to make and enforce laws for the betterment of civilization; but making gay marriage a crime, does not better anyone. Why focus so much on the sin and instead focus on the good parts of being human. Sure, the couple down the road maybe gay, and you find that disturbing, but they also have good qualities because even though they are sinners just like you, they are also God's creation and he loves them just as much as he loves you. I prefer a "live and let live" philosophy. I will do my best to be a decent human being and hope others think similar and let God deal with mankind his way.

 

M.

[Guest]

In a bit of a mood today there?

 

I'm stepping out of this conversation. It is hurtful and not productive. I cannot help but feel I've contributed to the hurtful side of it, for which I apologize.

 

I think we're on the "we're completely misunderstanding each other" portion of our convo... which, hey, we have to acknowledge that we've improved a lot, I think!   I think this is the first in a long time that we struggled, right? 

 

Okay, I re-read my post and I think I understand where we got derailed...

 

On my side, I didn't see/feel any hurtful things from you.  And I didn't intend to dish out hurtful things.  I thought we were being funny and lighthearted even... I thought you'd appreciate my witty comeback on the You're welcome!  But yeah, I forgot the very important smiley (but TFP... I thought you know me by now to know that was supposed to be light hearted!).  First of all, my very first post was in direct response to a post but addressing the OP directly - Can sin disgust me?  It doesn't touch gospel doctrine definition of grades of sin or what-not.  It is completely - Can sin disgust me... Me, personally.  And how I, personally, react to seing sinful behavior.  It does not apply to anybody else but me.  It's how I deal with things.  So, your response kinda made me shake my head because it was like you telling me I'm illogical for feeling that way... which I know wasn't your intent, you were just saying you see things differently... which is fine... so I responded repeating my assertion that it is logical to me because that's how my brain reacts to sin...

 

But, I think the problem is this sentence:

"If you want to compare yourself to a murderer..."

 

I think that came off as me wagging my finger at you for comparing yourself to a murderer...

 

That's not the mood I was trying to portray.  I was merely saying in an academic manner - you (you specifically, not a general you, because I was talking directly as a response to your statement and not people in general) see grades of sin - this being more sinful than that - because you compare sins (and by extension, the people who sinned) one against the other.  So, when looking at sin this way, then we can say, I'm sinful but better than a murderer... or grabbing a piece of candy from the check-out counter is better than swiping the entire till... or having sex with your girlfriend is better than being addicted to porn... or this is worse than that because more people are hurt, the hurt is deeper, or it requires a more intense path of repentance.

 

I don't see sin that way (we're talking about PC's OP... how sin disgusts us)... I don't see that killing somebody is a worse sin than swiping candy from the cashier because for me... they're both taking us away from God.  This results in me not judging people one worse than the other... grading sin.  Of course, I'm not on the disciplinary council, nor will I ever be a bishop, so I don't have any authority for that kind of necessary judgement (to determine the path to repentance).  So, when I swipe candy from the counter, I don't feel better that at least I didn't grab the entire till.  I am just as remorseful as if I swiped the entire till... or if I see somebody swipe the entire till, I don't judge them and treat them harshly than if they only swiped a candy.

 

But, it's not that I feel disgust for everybody who sin like they're murderers.  No.  More like, my digust for murderers is no more than somebody who swipes candy from the counter.  They are wayward children of God and sin differently than me.  I'm going to protect myself from them, of course, I'm going to protect my children or anybody else from them, and my cry for their repentance will be loud, but I can still love them.

 

Remember that thread when we were talking about a guy with a knife to my kid's throat and I have a Ruger in my hand... how if I pull that trigger out of hate for the guy it is a sin, but if I pull that trigger out of love for my kid, then it isn't?  And how I said I don't know if put to that test if I can keep hate out of my heart?  So, yes, my principle maintains that the guy is a wayward child of God and his sins are not greater than mine, so I shouldn't hate him... but my fear has always been that when put to that test, I will fail that test and I will pull that trigger out of hate...

 

Love your neighbors as yourself... it has no exceptions... not even for the murderer.  And that's my way of doing that... not "grading" sin... I leave that to the bishop.  Sin is sin and I cry for repentance for the murderer and the candy swiper...

[applepansy]

 

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

 

We are all sinners even those who the world considers "righteous."

[prisonchaplain]

Sure, societies have had to make and enforce laws for the betterment of civilization; but making gay marriage a crime, does not better anyone. Why focus so much on the sin and instead focus on the good parts of being human. Sure, the couple down the road maybe gay, and you find that disturbing, but they also have good qualities because even though they are sinners just like you, they are also God's creation and he loves them just as much as he loves you. I prefer a "live and let live" philosophy. I will do my best to be a decent human being and hope others think similar and let God deal with mankind his way.

 

M.

 

 

Err...uh...:::cough:::  Society did not make gay marriage a crime.  There was no such thing as gay marriage.  Marriage, by definition, was the legal union of a man and woman--most often solemnized by a religious authority.  The cultural battle today is not because of aggressiveness on the part of traditional marriage advocates, but because of assertiveness on the part of gay marriage advocates.  If you support gay marriage, then assertiveness may be appropriate, but lets call this what it is, and not pretend that traditionalists tried to take away something.

[The Folk Prophet]

We are all sinners even those who the world considers "righteous."

 

Right on!

 

Mark 2:17 is not meant to exclude anyone. We all need Christ's grace. The idea that Christ somehow meant that some people did not need Him just doesn't work.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm going to openly admit to being smart alek here--perhaps a sin in itself.  Yes, everyone is a sinner.  Do we need to try so hard to underline, bold-face and italicize the fact?  In other words, just because we stumble, fumble, and fail, does not mean that God's standards are deficient.  We are to strive for righteousness.  The whole point of this string is to ask if we have somehow given up on righteousness.  Oh well, we're all sinners.  So?  Does that really mean we should stop speaking prophetically to society?  That we sometimes fail means we should just give up, and let our baser instincts reign? 

 

Again, as the Apostle Paul asked, should we sin so that grace may abound?

 

And further, as Paul answered his own question:  GOD FORBID!

[applepansy]

I'm going to openly admit to being smart alek here--perhaps a sin in itself.  Yes, everyone is a sinner.  Do we need to try so hard to underline, bold-face and italicize the fact?  In other words, just because we stumble, fumble, and fail, does not mean that God's standards are deficient.  We are to strive for righteousness.  The whole point of this string is to ask if we have somehow given up on righteousness.  Oh well, we're all sinners.  So?  Does that really mean we should stop speaking prophetically to society?  That we sometimes fail means we should just give up, and let our baser instincts reign? 

 

Again, as the Apostle Paul asked, should we sin so that grace may abound?

 

And further, as Paul answered his own question:  GOD FORBID!

Sin is abhorrent.  We should never become immune to the awfulness of sin.

 

But human nature gets used to things:

 

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien

As to be hated needs but to be seen;

Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,

We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

--Alexander Pope

 

While we are all sinners we should always strive to be righteous.

[woundedknee]

It sounds as if this kid could be a relative of J. Golden Kimball.  

 

Sin ought to disgust people.  Not that we can stop ourselves from sinning.  We will sin.  We at least can repent of it.  When we start to look on sin with tolerance the path is already chosen.  There are many these days, even in the church, who quit looking on sin as something disgusting.  They are starting to embrace it and look at themselves as enlightened.  To me, that is scary.

 

Still...it is so wonderful to have a Savior providing us the gift of grace. We cannot make it otherwise.  

 

 

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]

Not that we can stop ourselves from sinning.  

 

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. It implies no choice. That goes against what we know to be true. We have our agency. We have choice.  I think it more accurate to say that we will all choose to sin, not that we cannot help ourselves.

[Urstadt]

The masses have resurrected the golden cow...

 

In counseling, that golden calf is cognitive-behavioral therapy.

 

When I read the OP, I had some ideas of what I wanted to say. But it's all pretty much been well-covered by other posts. :)

[Traveler]

Just a note and observation about sin.  As much as I would personally like sin to be abhorrent the simple truth, at least for me, is that not only is there some attractiveness associated with sin – but sin can also be habit forming.  I have decided to avoid sin but it is not because it is abhorrent.  The sins I have the most problems avoiding are both fun and exciting and they are not that difficult to rationalize if it comes down that that sort of thing. 

 

The problem for me with sin is not in finding some excuse to be involved with sin – my problem is the hassle that comes from trying to repent of sin.  In fact I am convinced that it we could somehow make repentance truly as easy as many say it is at church – I would be much more willing to try a lot more sins.