Sula:
Yeah, maybe this is turning into a theological discussion. I have no problem with that myself, especially if one of the thread's questions is inherently theological. That is, is smoking immoral?
Anyway...
Melon:
Yeah, you're right. There's no reason to think a non-political discussion between the two of us will decay into chaos.
Thus, I now return to the discussion at hand.
My response was tailored with the assumption that the person was already Christian. If a Christian acts truly and honestly in love, he cannot sin. As for non-Christians, I refuse to pass judgment.
I agree that if a person acts solely out of love, he will not sin. It just seems to me that your posts imply that a certain amount of deliberate rebellion is necessary to sin against God.
If you didn't imply that, all apolgies.
That said, I don't think deliberate rebellion is absolutely necessary, at least "in the moment." God may be the last thing on his mind when a man commits adultery, but it's no less sinful.
Also, I believe that most people know the basics of morality: that killing, lying, and stealing are wrong. To the degree that they know these moral truth (even outside of knowing about the Bible or believing in God), I believe an atheist or animalist can also sin.
As far as "passing judgment" goes, we certainly can't pass judgment on a personal level, because we don't know a man's heart. But we can still read about, think about, and discuss the nature of sin.
What I am going by is Catholic beliefs and tradition. Sin, by both definition and tradition in this school of thought, is the free and conscious choosing to go against God. Hence, one cannot sin by default or by ignorance.
Here, I agree in the generalities, but probably not in the specifics. Certainly, we were not created to sin "by default", but the idea of original sin lingers. We may not be born sinners, but the desire to have our own way seems to be part of our nature, and it invariably results in our rebellion against God - with, of course, the One Great Exception.
Also, we cannot sin in ignorance, which is why I think infants and the seriously mentally handicapped cannot sin. But I believe that right and wrong is more-or-less universally known; that people in an unkown corner of the world know that murder is wrong before the first missionary ever arrives - and thus
can sin.
Whether these people are also held accountable for their sins or can be redeemed without Christian intervention is one of those questions I have no clue about. One can only trust that the Lord will be just and merciful in His dealings with them.
(And, melon, if you want to know more about the universal nature of morality, or why I believe in it, read Lewis'
The Abolition of Man, which I recommended in another thread.)
Personally, I disagree with the contention that God is, or ever was, vengeful. It is simply a change in perception. When we look at September 11th, for instance, we don't see it as a sign of a vengeful God. If the same event happened to the Israelites, they would have seen it as a sign that God is somehow angry at them. And, if it were in the Bible, rather than stating that terrorists were to blame, they would have probably written that God struck down the towers in anger for the our sins. It's not that the Israelites were deceiving people. It is just that both education and theology is different than back then.
Regardless, assuming that God is angry, that is up to God, not us. While God has the power to judge and smite whomever He very well pleases, the same power is not reserved to us. Our challenge, as stated by Jesus and reaffirmed in Romans 13:8-10 is to live a life of love. Henceforth, if all of our actions are motivated out of love, a Christian cannot sin.
You're right, the Old Testament is full of instances in which God was angry at the Isrealites. Even if the Old Testament isn't entirely factually true (a suggestion that a Christian must find suspicious, particularly the further one gets past the Flood in Genesis), most Christians hold that the Bible contains Truth. In this case, it seems clear that one Old Testament truth is this: God gets angry.
To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence. Deueteronomy 32:35a
But if you question the Old Testament on the validity of this truth, you then question the New Testament, which is built upon its truths in three key ways:
1. The New Testament believes and quotes it; Romans 12:19 references and reaffirms the Old Testament verse above.
2. Christ himself quotes the Old Testament, confirming its authority.
3. Christ himself lived out the Biblical truths.
Let's return to the example of anger, acting on anger, and the special instance of vengeance to see an example of my third point.
In Matthew 21:12-13, we see Christ go to the temple, kick out the moneychangers and those selling sacrificial animals and overturned their tables, saying "ye have made [the temple] a den of thieves."
He was clearly pissed off, and He did act on it. If Christ was fully man and fully God (I believe He was), than we can draw three conclusions:
1. God can get angry and will act on it.
2. Man can get angry and act on it without sinning.
3. Acting on anger is not necessarily vengeance, which is Biblically the domain of God alone, as demonstrated by Romans 12:19 (mentioned above):
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
I think the difference between acting in anger and vengeance is a tenuous one - one in which probably involves pride (which God can certainly have but we are foolish to feign) - but the difference is there.
And anger itself can be good. It just comes down to the idea of "righteous anger", anger because an evil is being done and not because one's ego is being bruised.
I will of course grant that anger is a very dangerous thing - that it's very easy for anger to be selfishly motivated, and easy for justified acts of righteous anger to become revenge. But it's like fire: just because it's dangerous doesn't mean it's bad or not useful.
And, in regards to your mother, I do not know her obviously, but perhaps you should tell her what you told me. Maybe it will drive her to quit smoking? Good luck...
Thanks for the suggestion, but I already have, and she seemed unmoved. That's one of the main reasons I suspect that she's being merely stubborn and not just a woman of remarkable faith.
But here comes the potential contradiction: if faith is the sole means of salvation, as stated by Protestantism and slyly insinuated by the current Pope (implying a doctrine change), then what does it matter if we sin?
As I've been told repeatedly, we're all sinners and all sins are equal in the eyes of God. If, supposedly, a person is saved upon accepting Christ as your Savior, then why would one's sins condemn them? But if they do, then it is faith and good works for salvation...but I've been duly dismissed for mentioning this before. Any clarification?
Actually, your first question (what does it matter if we sin?) is a very important one. Fortunately, it was covered quite well in Romans 6, which begins thus (verses 1-2):
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Since the theology becomes occasionally lost in the King James Version, I will switch for a moment to the New Living Translation for the answer (verses 20-22):
In those days, when you were slaves of sin, you weren't concerned with doing what was right. And what was the result? It was not good, since now you are ashamed of the things you used to do, things that end in eternal doom. But now you are free from the power of sin and have become slaves of God. Now you do those things that lead to holiness and result in eternal life.
As far as most Protestants believe, I think I am safe in saying, Christians are justified by faith alone, but good works are the natural result of genuine faith. You're saved by your faith, you judge your own faith by your works. If you're not striving to do God's will, you may need to re-examine your faith in Him.
Of course, that last issue is worth much more than a paragraph, but I should close this rambling exposition. I hope my thoughts at least helps.