Fundamentalist's "Sins" v Bible's "Sins"?

Those were by far the most bizarre posts I have read in quite a while...........

 

Wow, that is quite a contrast to this list. How long ago did you change affiliations?

 

I moved away for school several years ago and stopped being observant, but didn't technically withdraw till last year.

 

observant - interesting, that's the same word Jews use to describe their adherence to their law.

 

Is it is a sin for your smiley to be smoking a pipe?

 

Is it is a sin for your smiley to be smoking a pipe?

</font>[/QUOTE]Are you kidding, to hear some people reason around here, even the use of any type of smiley would be a sin. EX. The smiley face came to be popular during the hippie movement soooo since that movement was so ungodly the smiley (by association) has to be too. Let's just hope someone never puts one on the front of thier bible. uh oh, better not shop at Walmart!!! Just joking.

 

While these activities may not be found in Scripture verbatim, there is a Scripture applicable as to why Christians should avoid most of them.

1 Thess 5:21-22 says "Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil."

We disciplined a church member some time ago who allowed her boyfriend to stay in her basement. Now, there is nothing in the Bible that says "Thou shalt not let thy sweetheart sleep in thy house". Now, she says they don't sleep together, and so does her 15 year old daughter, and we trust their word, but, is there appearance of evil here or not.

Dancing may be in the Bible, but with the kind of dancing nowadays ? Going to movies and watching DVD's at home may not be a named sin in the Bible, but, taking the Lord's name in vain is, adultery is, fornication is, love of money is, and do those actors and actresses revere the Lord's Name ? What are the most common themes of movies today ?

The Bible says Abstain from all appearance of evil. That's the rule to follow.

 

Yes, I think some things are sin at some time that are not at another. For instance, sex before marriage is a sin when after marriage it is not. It was a sin in the OT to wear clothing of mixed material. It is not today. We might say the same about certain practices. 50 years ago it may truly have been a sin to wear certain clothing because it was "statement" clothing that made a statement that was unbiblical. The same clothing has lost its cultural baggage today and is no longer a sin to wear. So I don't think it is cut and dried like doctrine is. I do agree with you on doctrine however. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm looking for thoughts or clarification on this/these point(s).

The example Pastor Larry gives about sex is really more of a context issue rather than a sin issue. What I mean by that is that sex is a creation of God, it's how & when we use it that determines if it is sinful or not.
Sex before marriage?: Sin.
Sex within marriage?: Not Sin.
Those contextual aspects of sex are eternally unchanging as to whether they are or are not sinful. In my original statement, taken in context, sex outside of marriage will never be not a sin; and sex within marriage cannot become sinful. Those eternal constants aren't going to change.

As to the example of mixed material clothing- was wearing it once inherently sinful, or was it the act of disobedience to the O.T. law in regards to wearing it that made it sinful? Maybe I'm missing something, but I would think that it was the act of disobedience that constituted the sin, and not anything inherently sinful about simply wearing clothing made of mixed materials. Parents face this same distinction in disciplining their children all the time.
We make rules that we expect our children to follow, rules which may change from time-to-time (for example as the child grows older). The basic actions in-and-of-themselves that the rules prohibit may or may not constitute actual sins (e.g. "You must be home by 9:00 p.m."). Is it a sin (i.e. against God's law and an affront to His holiness) to come in at 9:05 p.m.? No, the sin is in the act of willful disobedience. In the O.T. example, the sinful act was in the act of disobedience itself, rather than there being anything inherently sinful about wearing mixed-material clothing. The same principle would apply to other O.T. law issues, such as the consumption of shellfish. In essence, is eating lobster permissible today because God at some point changed His mind about it's inherent sinfulness, or because we're no longer committing a breach (disobedience) of defunct O.T. law? IMHO it would be because it's no longer an act of DISOBEDIENCE, which in regards to God has always been, is now, and always will be SIN.

Thoughts? Am I off-track here?

 

Glad SOMEONE caught my subtle humor!

I grew up with "smoking is a sin" preached. Never did find that verse in the KJV! I feel it is a dirty, vulgar habit and should not be practiced by believers who are supposed to be controled by the Spirit and not the addictions of drug nicotine.

Now I believe that smoking won't send you to hell, but that you will definitely smell like you've been there . . </font>[/QUOTE]I too grew up frequently being on the receiving end of many an anti-smoking sermon.

I hope I don't step on any toes here (not intentionally doing so to anybody), but they often seemed to come from some preacher who carried an extra 70-odd pounds or so up to the platform. Now, I myself don't smoke- but that's always seemed a gross example of the need to remove the beam from their own eye first.

Obesity often goes hand-in-hand with hypertension, diabetes, high-cholesterol, and many other dangerous, potentially fatal conditions.

A heart-attack or a stroke will kill a body just as surely (and usually more quickly) than lung-cancer will. In contrast to smoking though, gluttony has always been one of the sins that Christians look the other way from.

My two cents.

 

Timothy1769: Yes, that was somewhat intentional.

At first I abused my newfound freedom from unscripturally imposed regulations--I watched too much TV and went to too many movies, for example, and that includes seeing some I shouldn't have. But now that the novelty has worn off, I'm coming back into a proper balance. I'll watch what's acceptable or good to watch--rated as family entertainment--and be more careful and discerning. I still haven't shed the beard or the hats or shoes, and any printed fabrics I now wear are very subdued. I still won't go near lapels or neckties. But I've gradually been reintegrating historic Catholic-Protestant holidays back into my life, and I had a few sips of champagne at a celebration a few years back but felt too guilty to do it again. Once legalism has become a second nature to you, it's a long process to rid yourself of it. I still browse wistfully through Amish hardware catalogs, and I still have a nostalgic Amish calendar up on my wall every year.

LarryN: Yes, but let's keep in mind, the main diseases smoking causes are heart attacks and strokes. Smoking is a BIG risk factor for those--not that obesity isn't.

 

[[/qb][/QUOTE]What is naviety? Is it anything like naivete? Does it rhyme with piety? [/QB][/QUOTE]

-------------------------------------------------
Right, you got me on that one. It is naivety or naiveté, if you please.

It's a biggy--a typo. You'll never believe this but I realized it and continued typing with intentions of going back & correcting. Also, "sarcsism" is sarcasm. Forgot that one too. It's those little synaptic connections that I'm missing. Suppose I should be more careful and consult Webber's.

 

Glad SOMEONE caught my subtle humor!

I grew up with "smoking is a sin" preached. Never did find that verse in the KJV! I feel it is a dirty, vulgar habit and should not be practiced by believers who are supposed to be controlled by the Spirit and not the addictions of drug nicotine.

Now I believe that smoking won't send you to hell, but that you will definitely smell like you've been there . . </font>[/QUOTE]I remember well a young man who had just come to Christ that told me he had quit smoking pot and was trying to quit smoking tobacco. Wouldn't you know it the very next day he comes to church and the preacher preaches on the ills of tobacco. I cannot think of a growing Christian that does not have the conviction that they shouldn't be smoking anf if they are they should quit. So when the pastor is preaching about smoking he is preaching to the dead and those who most likely are not reading God's word and growing as a Christian. On another occasion I was working on a man's home remodleing it. He was a Baptist. I saw the hugew pile of beer cans. Never said a word. Just prayed for him. Then after a few weeks he asked me about Jesus drinking wine. I told him that Jesus did drink wine and did not get drunk. Howevere I do not drink because I do not want to be an offense to anyone so as to hinder the gospel in a person's life. I never said a word to him about his beer. But God used what I said and several months later he threw out the beer. The Holy Spirit convicted him not me. He had heard numerous sermons in why it is wrong but also knew that Jesus drank wine. He had never resolved the issue in accordance with what Jesus did, what scripture teaches and what he heard preached. That man became my friend and we still communicate today. That was 13 years ago.

When I meet some people for the first time the baggage they have is incredible. But one thing I want is to teach them to walk with God. I want them to have the convictions that God wants not according to what I say. When I pray for them It seems to never fail that they begin to form their own convictions and so often they ask me about mine. When they ask they are listening for answers because they have probably been struggling with the idea/s.

 

Have you undergone synaptic remapping? It could be a side-effect of that! (I saw it happen to Teal'c, Daniel Jackson, and Jack O'Neill.)

 

^A SG-1 reference. I like that.

It does seem that Baptists have a long list of taboos not necessarily linked to any Bible passage. Christian liberty is not something stressed in our churches, to say the least.

(Is this smiley acceptable, or is it too frivolous?)

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by paidagogos:
What is naviety? Is it anything like naivete? Does it rhyme with piety?

-------------------------------------------------
Right, you got me on that one. It is naivety or naiveté, if you please.

It's a biggy--a typo. You'll never believe this but I realized it and continued typing with intentions of going back & correcting. Also, "sarcsism" is sarcasm. Forgot that one too. It's those little synaptic connections that I'm missing. Suppose I should be more careful and consult Webber's.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you undergone synaptic remapping? It could be a side-effect of that! (I saw it happen to Teal'c, Daniel Jackson, and Jack O'Neill.)
_________________________________________________

Nope! I do all the programming myself. Actually, I do object-oriented structured synaptic recombination using psi and delta techniques with pseudo-synaptic modulation. These are my own modified forms of the original omega protocols. In fact, I have been quite successful with no observable side effects and greatly enhanced output. I expect to complete my research and begin my dissertation soon. I would appreciate any input that you may have. Thanks.

BTW, what does this have to do with piety?

 

Yes, I think some things are sin at some time that are not at another. For instance, sex before marriage is a sin when after marriage it is not. [snip]

-------------------------------------------------
The above is a dangerous statement. It is too imprecise and overly generalized. See below. Furthermore, it opens the door to relativism. The end of relativism is existentialism.

--------------------------------------------------

 

A lot of pablum has been served up in this forum regarding specific behaviors that are sin. The concensus seems to be that anything is okay if there is no specific Scriptural prohibition. This is pure ignorance and cannot be Scripturally substantiated. Take smoking for instance. There is certainly no "Thou shalt not smoke" found in Scripture but there are principles that apply.

1. Tobacco and nicotine are highly additive. The Bible teaches that we are to be controlled by the Holy Spirit and not some eternal influence.

2. Smoking is harmful to the body and Scripture teaches that we accountable of how we use the body.

3. Smoking may affect our testimony and witness in certain circles.

4. Smoking may cause other Christians to offend their conscience by following one's example. This is a violation of the Law of Love (i.e. Law of Christ).

Those who want to argue this issue, I fear, are more interested in justifying their practice and pleasing self than pleasing God. Would not the loving, committed Christian give up his habit to achieve the greater good? It is a question of self and submission.

Furthermore, Christian liberty is not the issue. Christian liberty is freedom from sin, not the freedom to sin. Liberty is not license. Lust (desire) and flesh are no longer the master but Christ is our Lord. Read Romans 6. Again, it is a question of whom we seek to please--self (lust, desire, flesh) or God.

If you want real thoughtful debate, address the issues. Nuff said.

 

Hey! I think it is entirely appropriate because it is an inanity like the comment. It fits.

Do you understand Christian liberty? Please define it. It is not license to do as you please or to satisfy your lusts (desires). According to Romans 6, it is the liberty (freedom) to do righteousness and serve God.

Perhaps you would like to rectify the lapse in Baptist teaching and explain, with Scriptural support, exactly what Christian liberty is. I suspect that Christian liberty is used more often for its connotation than its dennotative meaning.

Your move!