Sin is Sin is Sin . . or IS it?

In regards to sin separating the sinner from God, yes. There's no such thing as being "a little separated" from God. You're either in the pool, or out. Standing on the diving board dun't count.

Got hates sin. Period. I can't find a single verse that says God hates some sin less than others.

As far as salvation and relationship with Christ, no. However, as far as earthly consequence, that's a different story. Take for example, stealing a buck and a million bucks. They are both equally sin, both equally hated, and both equally resulting in separation from God. However, the earthy consequence of stealing a buck is considerably less than steaking a million bucks.

 

i read some commentary once that suggested that adam broke all of the ten commandments when he disobeyed Gods commandment not to eat the fruit of a certain tree. but this was a commentary and you know how that can go.

but some will not think it not as serious of a sin to cheat the irs then a small store owner.
human reasoning i am sure.

 

There are degrees of sin.

There are sins.

There are abominations:

Proverbs 6:[16] These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
[17] A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
[18] An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
[19] A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

There is a sin unto death:

1 John 5:[16] If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

 

the bible does say that some sins are an abomination to God, and that would suggest more serious.

 

The Hebrew word in Proverbs translated "amonination" is tow`ebah. It referrs to abhorrence and implies idolatry. Proverbs is telling us that these seven sins, all of which put ourselves ahead of God, cause us to break the commandment forbidding idolatry. These sins are indeed greater, by virtue of the fact that they cause us to sin multiply with one act. Alas, I don't think there's a single person on this board, myself included, who hasn't at least once in life violated one of these abiminations.

 

Well, by that statement, at least we know it wasn't the lying tongue, ha! Sorry for pickin' at ya today.

(not really, LOL)

 

LE, I luv ya like a sister. (and that's not a lying tongue either!!!)

 

(1) Are all sins equal?

Nope...
John 19:11 -- Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."

I John 5:16 -- If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.


(2) Do all sins show different displeasure to God and man?

"Displeasure?" I don't think that can be proved, but the above "sin unto death" and the other posts here referring to the "abominations" and the fact that neither modern socities nor scripture assign the same penalty for every sin/wrong, clearly indicates there are many kinds and degrees of "displeasure."


(3) Are the penalties different in the way we should judge them? (NOT talking about God's judgment, but ours as society/church.

Yes, they have to be, unless murder and jaywalking merit the same penalty.

 

do some sins have a legitimate excuse attached to it? like a person could blame his compulsive lying or stealing because of his home life of boredoms.

 

Legitimate excuse?

I'm going to throw in on this one. I was raised in an extremely strict home with a mother who had/has mental problems. Some days the things I did were okay the next day they might be wrong. Sometimes what I was doing was okay one minute and then I walked out of the house and came back in to be in trouble. I learned very young how to lie. It was one of the 'tools' I used to survive. I could look at my mother and tell her what she wanted to hear whether or not it was the truth. By doing so I spared myself a good bit of abuse.

So was I justified? You tell me.

For my part, as I got older(much older) I considered it to be sin. Something that would come between me and my Lord.

 

Yes this is touchy. Consider the lying tongue for example. Bible says God hates it.
Was not Rahab blessed? What was her claim to fame?
Lying. Yet God the Holy Spirit saw fit to mention her in the hall of Faith, Heb. 11.
Does God say "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"?
Yes, and yet.... There stands Rahab.
No I think this question is loaded.
Are all sins equal, in one sense yes. But there again, one cannot be too dogmatic about ANY sin.
This would only invite one to know the mind of God. And He is MUCH too big for me. I have trouble just satisfactorily answering the thing about Rahab.
Jim

 

There's a difference between a legitimate disease such as alcoholism (which is a body's hyper-dependency on alcohol) and a compulsive action. Compulsive liars know they're lying. However, they've become so skilled at it, it's become a conditioned response. It's still a sin. Alcoholism, otoh, doesn't even require a person to get drunk. Many alcoholics haven't touched a drink in years, and some have never gotten intoxicated.

Then, there are examples where you lie to prevent a sin from taking place, such as Corrie Ten Boom lying about Jews in her house during WWII. Telling the truth might have possibly made her a party to killing. Lying, otoh, prevented killing. Completely justifiable. OTOH, CTB later said she still felt wrong about lying. She knew it was wrong to lie, but that was the most reasonable option open to her.

 

Biblically justified? Probably not. Was it understandable? Completely. While it was technically a sin, it carried no worldly price to pay. I'm sure you, looking back on it, feel bad that you had to lie. But you did what you had to do. It's a lesser of evils situation. You chose the lesser of evils. While your example is extreme, I think everyone on occaision is out in a "lesser of evils" situation.

 

There's a difference between a legitimate disease such as alcoholism (which is a body's hyper-dependency on alcohol) and a compulsive action. Compulsive liars know they're lying. However, they've become so skilled at it, it's become a conditioned response. It's still a sin. Alcoholism, otoh, doesn't even require a person to get drunk. Many alcoholics haven't touched a drink in years, and some have never gotten intoxicated.

[/QB][/QUOTE]
I am sorry , but I must respectfully tell you that this is in error.
Alcoholism is NOT a disease. It is a learned behavior which has accelerated to the point of compulsion. Been there-done that. Just like the compulsive liar in you example. Seen all the arguements pro and con. It boils down to the FACT that alcoholism was never considered a disease until the US Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of such designation: this happened in 1954. This case came about because some drunk found himself a lawyer willing to pursue the idea that the drunk was NOT RESPONSIBLE for his BEHAVIOR which led to a conviction. Ultimately the feller was aquitted (I believe, will check this further) and we have been led down the path of this lie ever since this decision. Much like another LOBBY currently vieing (sp?) for acceptance in our society these days.
Jim
FYI: Read "Alcoholics Anonymous comes of Age", also "Alcoholics Anonymous".
And now let's return to the subject of the thread.

 

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse disagrees with you. Their FAQ states unqeuivocably that "Yes, alcoholism is a disease."

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/faq/q-a.htm#question2

OTOH, if your'e referring simply to a "problem drinker", then you're correct. A large proportion of problem drinkers are not alcoholics.

 

Luke 12:10. "And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him ; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him. "

 

There's a difference between a legitimate disease such as alcoholism (which is a body's hyper-dependency on alcohol) and a compulsive action. Compulsive liars know they're lying. However, they've become so skilled at it, it's become a conditioned response. It's still a sin. Alcoholism, otoh, doesn't even require a person to get drunk. Many alcoholics haven't touched a drink in years, and some have never gotten intoxicated.

[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I am sorry , but I must respectfully tell you that this is in error.
Alcoholism is NOT a disease. It is a learned behavior which has accelerated to the point of compulsion. Been there-done that. Just like the compulsive liar in you example. Seen all the arguements pro and con. It boils down to the FACT that alcoholism was never considered a disease until the US Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of such designation: this happened in 1954. This case came about because some drunk found himself a lawyer willing to pursue the idea that the drunk was NOT RESPONSIBLE for his BEHAVIOR which led to a conviction. Ultimately the feller was aquitted (I believe, will check this further) and we have been led down the path of this lie ever since this decision. Much like another LOBBY currently vieing (sp?) for acceptance in our society these days.
Jim
FYI: Read "Alcoholics Anonymous comes of Age", also "Alcoholics Anonymous".
And now let's return to the subject of the thread. [/QB][/QUOTE]
AMEN AV1611Jim! AMEN!! Double AMEN!!

Alcoholism and Drug Addiction and Gambling Addiction and Pornography Addiction and Pedophilia and all the rest are NOT Diseases! They are CHOICES! PLAIN AND SIMPLE!

The Great Lie of SATAN himself! You are not responsible for the evil you think and do!

 

Isn't disease itself a result of sin in man and the world around him? I think this brings up a very good issue.

Is "disease" an excuse for sin, if in fact it is a result of sin entering the world. If disease is a result of (original) sin, no matter what one's definition of that is, then disease is a manifestation of sin. In other words, rather than getting bogged down by disease being used as an excuse to sin, we should realize that there would be no disease if sin was not at its root cause anyway. All disease has sin, even if just Adam's sin or original sin at work in the heart of each of us at its root. It doesn't matter if something is a disease or not, because even disease has sin as its root.

Having a disease, whether mental or physical, whether a result of abuse or "insert name of root cause here," is not an excuse or license of sin, unless one uses it as such. If one uses it as such, then you'd better be truly schizophrenic. Otherwise, if you know the difference between right and wrong, then you're responsible.

The "no fault" idea is a belief of unregenerate people. "I can't help it, therefore, I'm not responisible for my actions." However, I think the biblical response is that "even if your actions come as a result of mental illness, abuse, etc., you are still responsible for your actions as an individual." Not only that, if you have some sort of condition that has environmental or biological tags attached to it, then you are responsible to work through that as an individual, take your medicine, etc. as well as pursue spiritual holiness in your relationship with God (assuming you are a Christian...if not, that's a whole other area of responsibility there too). Likewise, the church should be a place that helps that person work through those conditions. It requires a degree of transparency with each other as brothers and sisters in Christ that does not foster secrecy and at the same time honors confideniality. Too many times, people open up about their problems and end up having their confidentiality violated. They end up in secular support groups and report that they got more help from them than from their churches, or worse yet they get bad advice from those organizations and follow it, instead of godly counsel and bearing of each other's burdens that Scripture instructs us to do. That's surely not good.

Likewise, those that set up the conditions that led your illness, like in cases of abuse...child abusing parents or wife beating husbands are usually from household where they were abused or their fathers abused their wives, etc. share in some responsibility, not for that person's individual actions, but for the environmental conditions in the home or community that messed that person up." In other words, even if something is a condition that must be worked through, that is not an excuse for personal sin. Likewise, the responsibility of personal sin does not excuse the parents of the adult for the home life and conditions that helped foster the deficiencies and desires that planted the seeds that that person later harvested in life when acting out on those things. E.g. those persons can't say, "Well, I'm not responsible." The answer is, "You aren't responsible for that person's actions, but you are responsible for something else of your own, if, in fact, that person did model the treatment of his wife after the way you treated your wife or the treatment of his children after the way you treated your children." People don't just do things in a vaccuum.

Why? Because "disease" of all types is a manifestation of sin and because of man's inhumanity to man. Sometimes the sin is just "original sin," sometimes it is "systemic" or "generational" sin. Like av1611 says, some sins are "learned behaviors." Well, they learned it somewhere, didn't they. That doesn't excuse the behavior, but their individual behavior doesn't excuse the behavior of the teachers or those around them that reinforced the environmental conditions that triggered their abusive behavior, alchoholism, or whatever else. Some sins thrive on environments of secrecy (like child abuse, sexual sins, and drug abuse). Those environments do not excuse the individual doing the abuse, but neither do they excuse the other parties. Therefore, it is incumbent upon both parties, not neither party, not one party, to repent for their sins.

True life story time:

I remember a couple in a church I was in a few years ago that was having marital problems. They were my Sunday School teachers. It came out, because of a breach of confidentiality that the wife had been sexually abused as a child by her father. Even though they had several children, my teachers' sex lives were becoming affected and so their marriage was too, because her father had recently died, and with his death all those childhood traumas started coming back to haunt her. Well, that became the talk of the church thanks to the local busybodies. (We all know them; we've all encountered them). Dotcha know that did nothing to help the situation. They ended up getting a divorce, which was sad, because, maybe if a few people had kept confidence, then they would not have lost their trust in the rest of us. Who's responsible? Well my teachers are for getting a divorce. The wife is for not having worked through things with her father and the unforgiveness in her heart that fueled her sexual anxieties. The husband is responsible for being impatient with his wife. The busybodies and those that started passing on the information (and making it grow into something more, and you DON'T want to know what the final product of the gossip was compared with the truth, you can only imagine) were for gossiping. The leadership of the church was responsible for not nipping the gossip in the bud when it started. The father was for his abuse of his daughter was responsible. That's how systemic sin can be...all because one man sexually abused his daughter as a child, and who may have been the victim of child sexual abuse himself, which adds another layer. NOBODY is excused from individual responsibility, but they all need to repent...all from one act sometime in the past by somebody none of us even knew. THAT is the fruit of sin in the lives of our church and this couple (who really did and now do love the Lord greatly but just had some bad, bad, BAD things happen to them), and "disease" if we say that pedophilia is a disease. Yes, it is, and it's a sin, and that's the kind of results that kind of sin can have.