I’ve heard fundamentalists arguing that sin is an act in pure black & white. There’s no getting around it, sin is the act, or the action.

But this can’t possibly be true!

The idea of marriage proves it!

Some claim that according to the Bible having sex out of wedlock is a sin.

Yet having sex within a marriage is perfectly acceptable and not a sin.

Thus proving unequivocally that sin is INTENT and not the ACT.

Moreover, this nullifies any Christian arguments against being gay!

Since it’s perfectly clear that sin is INTENT and not the ACT, then it follows,…

If a same-gender relationship is a loving relationship of the best INTENT then it can’t be a sin.

The Bible has clearly shown us via the institution of marriage that sin is INTENT and not the ACT.

This has been a public service announcement for the purpose of dispelling ignorant rumors.

Thank you and have a great day.

I don't think it has to be either. I would suggest it's all in the interpretation of the "outside observer."

But then, I have never really believed in the sin concept. I believe it was originally just a misunderstanding of cause-and-effect.

Sin = going against the moral belief system that lives within one

very good post

creativesoul


best definition i have heard in for ever

for those that want bible reference

When you commit a sin, it never "just happens." Sinful acts begin as attitudes or temptations in your mind and emotions.

For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly (Mark 7:21-22).

Each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death (James 1:14-15).

What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? (James 4:1).

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28).

Creativesoul wrote:
“Sin = going against the moral belief system that lives within one”

If that’s true then I think it’s a sin to have to wash dishes.

do you really believe that magic man

or

is you saying you believe that a sin

I guess it’s all in the INTENT Adj,

If your intent is to clean the dishes then it’s not a sin.

But if your intent is to murder bacteria then you’re a sinner of the greatest magnitude.

interesting very interesting

in best arti johnson voice

Without delving too deeply into the argument, Abracadabra, your initial argument is logically incorrect. You are trying to define (sex) as the sin and (out of wedlock) and (within marriage) as the intent. That is not the case. (Sex) without further identity can not be described as sinful or not-sinful. Specification is required. Therefore (Sex out of wedlock) is sinful but (Sex within marriage) is not.

Another way of looking at this, which is more legalistic, but which adequately describes the situation, is that within the Christian framework, only married people are "licensed" to have sex. Having sex without that license (ie: the approval of God) makes the action a sin.

ephraimglass you wrote:

"... Without delving too deeply into the argument, Abracadabra, your initial argument is logically incorrect..."

With all due respect ephraimglass, I invite you to 'delve' into 'abra's post more deeply, as to gain minimal understanding.
Then and only then can your agreement with, or 'apologetic' inerrence defense against 'abra's comments, make any sense.

Delve into it please, and get back to us.

Thank you ephraimglass.

Abra,

'creativesoul' wrote:
"... Sin = going against the moral belief system that lives within one..."

and you 'Abra' replied quite humourously:
"... If that’s true then I think it’s a sin to have to wash dishes..."

I might have it all wrong, but I think that 'creativesoul's contribution is in perfect sync with the message of your post Abra.

If 'creativesoul's own belief system, for example, had it for herself that sex before marriage is not acceptable, (whether sinful or otherwise, that is one's business), I would respect that 100%.

"... sin (or unacceptable for one) = going against the moral belief system that lives within one.."

And since it is clearly the moral belief system within one person at a time, there shall be no imposition of individual moral code to others. Each one is 'reponsible' and 'accountable' to one's own soul and conscience. And each one is respectful of that principle with regards to others,

I subscribe 100% to this idea, unles I have misinterpreted 'creativesoul's point.

perhaps prostitution is a meritorious endeavor if a balance of trade is the issue.

pleasure for one is sustainance for another. On many levels, a quid pro quo approach.

Rahab the harlot was remembered for her participation in an object lesson.

The woman at the well was found to possess genuine and acceptable faith for her participation in an object lesson.

The New Testament says that lusting after another sexually is sin enough. Would that qualify as a dinengenuous and purloined motive for pleasure? It appears so, as an example leading to the defense of greater object lessons about living well.

Pragmatism and reality can be quite subjective concepts.

Proof of that is that my observatios fuel more contention than they settle.

i think sin is an act and the intent of the act rolled into one, as i think a person is their own most stern/ most important judge for something to really be a sin i think the person doing it has to know theyre doing something bad and b guilty

IE a sin is defined by the consequences of it and the guilt it causes, in my humble heathen opinion anyhow

Sin is anything against God. Basically anything God doesn't like is sinful. There's more to it than just that though. IMO

Sin is action, intent, and more.

More toughts on,

'creativesoul' post:
"... Sin = going against the moral belief system that lives within one..."


In general,

I get the recurring impression from some posters comments, that it is not enough to have solid and undisputable morals for onself.
That it would somehow only be certain morals, and only from the bible, and only interprepreted in a certain way, and only if the fundie in chief agrees with the interpretation, that one is then to be deemed 'moralistically' certified!!!

That amounts pretty much to the apparent collective psychosis which morally paralyses the US these days.

The overall 'protestant/anti-intellectualism/fundamentalism' has no freedom to consider and conceive morality and faith outside of the bible, and thus outside of the adpative and expandable 'interpretive' perspective of the infallible book.

Fundies will have to come up for air soon, and realize that morality, higher ethics, and higher purpose in life exists and thrives outside of the 'straight-jacket-pool-dumped' fallacies they are insisting on asphyxiating themselves.

A moral belief system today cannot be based on the whims of a single individual. That is whimsical, not moral, and certainly not a system. and certainly not what IMO 'crative soul' is suggesting with:

"... (a) moral belief system that lives within one..."

Through education, applied and self directed learning, and living in an organized society, most freely chose to adopt and integrate perfectly acceptable and honorable ethics and moral conduct codes. While the bible can very well be the choice of some, it is by no means the only source, nor is it necessarily the best source for some.

No one is to judge that one is of lesser moral or ethical standing, or requires 'christian-protestant-fundamentalist-word-for-word-bible-dogma' correcting or education, in order to be considered morally 'OK', or 'jesus-return-ready'.

In that light, a moral system founded on undisputed ethical and time honored religious, or non-religious moral laws from around the world, is a perfectly sound moral belief system as suggested by 'creativesoul',

"... Sin = going against the moral belief system that lives within one..."


... regardless of what the word for word selective interpretation of the book by some may end-up claiming.

Lizard, I thought you said you couldn't be a heathen

Abra;

Allow me to examine your post closely if I may:

==============================================================
"I’ve heard fundamentalists arguing that sin is an act in pure black & white. There’s no getting around it, sin is the act, or the action.
==============================================================
This is partially true. You have described an particular attribute of sin - however, you have not defined it. Sin is also a LACK of action (as in the case of omission. Not doing something that would be right), also there is the sin of thought. Which I suppose would be intent. Lust, Hate, envy, would be an example of such. There's no "action" involved with these.

==============================================================
But this can’t possibly be true!

The idea of marriage proves it!

Some claim that according to the Bible having sex out of wedlock is a sin.

Yet having sex within a marriage is perfectly acceptable and not a sin.
============================================================

However, you are assuming this is an acceptable and valid premise because some "interpret" this to be so. It is also a valid interpretation to state that having sex with someone is the definition of marriage. It is what marriage is defined as being in Genesis - and re-iterated by Jesus in Matthew. So it's unclear whether or not this premise can be accepted as valid and exclusive.

===============================================================
Thus proving unequivocally that sin is INTENT and not the ACT.
===============================================================

Since you have not stated any valid premises yet - you haven't PROVED anything.

==============================================================
Moreover, this nullifies any Christian arguments against being gay!
=============================================================

So now you are going to take an unreliable "proof and use it to prove something else? I tought you said you were a Mathematation.

=============================================================
Since it’s perfectly clear that sin is INTENT and not the ACT, then it follows,…
=============================================================

So - if one repeats an invalid truth, does it now make it valid?

===============================================================
If a same-gender relationship is a loving relationship of the best INTENT then it can’t be a sin.

The Bible has clearly shown us via the institution of marriage that sin is INTENT and not the ACT.
===============================================================



===============================================================
This has been a public service announcement for the purpose of dispelling ignorant rumors.

Thank you and have a great day.
===============================================================

Speaking of ignorance... oh, nevermind

Eljay wrote:
“Since you have not stated any valid premises yet - you haven't PROVED anything.”

What are you saying?

That was a perfect Archimedean proof.

Premise #1: The act of sex outside of marriage is a sin.
Premise #2: The act of sex inside marriage is not a sin.
Conclusion: Sin is dependent on context and motive and therefore cannot be just an act.

It’s a PREFECT Archimedean proof.

You couldn’t ask for anything more!

Archimedes himself would have approved.

Archimedes loved to screw!!!

His design for extracting water from its source used the principle of a screw within a hard case.

One of the most effective examples of gleaning something useful from an otherwise unattainable source.

I will leave now but i'm leaving my obnoxious humor behind!!!