9
   

Would it have been possible for Jesus to have sinned?

 
 
midnightcowboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 09:19 pm
@neologist,
No. Nothing is intrinsically good or bad therefore sin does not exist. Man invented that too, another mental prison for us, or rather, them.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 12:06 pm
@midnightcowboy,
midnightcowboy wrote:

No. Nothing is intrinsically good or bad therefore sin does not exist. Man invented that too, another mental prison for us, or rather, them.
How remarkably astute!
How then do you define the indiscriminate killing of innocents we read of each day in our rapidly diminishing newspapers?
Good? or Less Good?
midnightcowboy
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 05:59 pm
@neologist,
Which innocents please?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2009 07:17 pm
@midnightcowboy,
midnightcowboy wrote:

Which innocents please?
Are you serious?
If there is no such thing as sin,all would be innocent. Right?

But, to simplify things, what of those infants and children who suffer as collateral damage to acts of war?
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 09:33 am
@neologist,
My definition of sin is that which we choose to do or fail to choose not to do that is harmful to ourselves and/or others. The 'innocents' would be those who have no opportunity or ability to choose.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 10:18 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

My definition of sin is that which we choose to do or fail to choose not to do that is harmful to ourselves and/or others. The 'innocents' would be those who have no opportunity or ability to choose.
Your definition of innocent should help Cowboy to focus.
Thanks.

The Bible mentions an unforgivable sin: sin against the holy spirit. A discussion of that concept would broaden your definition of sin but derail this thread.

The Bible avers that Jesus committed no sin of either kind. That gets us back to the question of whether it would have been possible for Jesus to have sinned.

Were it not possible, one would have to ask why Satan tempted him and more directly: What is the meaning of Hebrews 5:8: "Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered."?
Intrepid
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 08:22 pm
@neologist,
Of course, it would have been possble for Jesus to sin. Bottom line is that He did not.

As you say, He would not have been tempted if it was not possible that He could have commited sin.
0 Replies
 
midnightcowboy
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 10:09 pm
@neologist,
How are they innocent? And of what?
midnightcowboy
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 10:17 pm
@neologist,
I am entirely focused Fox.

What I am saying is all this stuff you are discussing is totally subjective. What to one is a sin is not to another. What is right to one is not to another. As such we all have different sets of values and cannot therefore generalise about right and wrong.

Someone mentions innocents. Such as innocent babies and those killed as collateral damage. Who can say what those supposed innocents were? Were they part of a resistance group? Babies are part of a family and whilst not knowingly contributing to such groups they do form a part of any "disguise" adopted by that group. As such their families remove them from the "innocence" tag.

Many acts of war assume anyone in the way to be "not innocent" at all. Another judgement which I don't agree with but I find it very difficult for anyone here to say to me what is right and what is wrong.

Anything at all is nothing until a human being adds judgement to it by interpreting the act or thing with their set of values.

Sick, but cannibals see nothing wrong with eating people. I do, but they don't. And so on. It's a matter of opinion, not fact.

Humans create right and wrong, always. With opinions as you are all doing right now.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 12:20 am
@midnightcowboy,
midnightcowboy wrote:

How are they innocent? And of what?
Foxy's definition above is a good place to start
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 09:12 am
@midnightcowboy,
midnightcowboy wrote:

I am entirely focused Fox.

What I am saying is all this stuff you are discussing is totally subjective. What to one is a sin is not to another. What is right to one is not to another. As such we all have different sets of values and cannot therefore generalise about right and wrong.


It is true that we all differ in our perceptions, beliefs, and values and it is unlikely that any two persons would ever agree on all matters identified as sin or not sin. But nevertheless those things which are harmful to ourselves and/or others are a constant whether or not we recognize that they are. There is a Bible passage that illustrates the problem:

Quote:
(Exodus 34:6-7) - "Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."


This is written from the ancient Hebrew perspective that everything that happens to us is via the Word of God and God is the direct cause of all that happens to any of us. It cannot be taken 100% literally from a 21st century understanding because the actual impact is blunted in many other passages that also recognize that much of what we endure is brought on by our own actions and God does not literally punish the children for the sins of their fathers.

Once you put all the teachings, thoughts, observations etc. together though, a clear teaching does emerge. There are consequences for sin, which would of course explain why a loving God would be against it, and those consequences can extend far beyond our immediate existance and far into the future. We cannot negate those consequences simply because we don't believe that a sin is a sin.

Quote:
Someone mentions innocents. Such as innocent babies and those killed as collateral damage. Who can say what those supposed innocents were? Were they part of a resistance group? Babies are part of a family and whilst not knowingly contributing to such groups they do form a part of any "disguise" adopted by that group. As such their families remove them from the "innocence" tag.

Many acts of war assume anyone in the way to be "not innocent" at all. Another judgement which I don't agree with but I find it very difficult for anyone here to say to me what is right and what is wrong.


Again those who had no part in an action; i.e. had no ability to choose in decisions made or actions attempted or accomplished--no ability to alter or change the outcome--are the innocents in any given situation. It does not matter what other sins they might have committed.

Quote:
Anything at all is nothing until a human being adds judgement to it by interpreting the act or thing with their set of values.

Sick, but cannibals see nothing wrong with eating people. I do, but they don't. And so on. It's a matter of opinion, not fact.

Humans create right and wrong, always. With opinions as you are all doing right now.


Again what any one of us considers to be right or wrong is irrelevant. It is the effect or result of what we choose to do that determines whether it is sin. If our negative thoughts, hate, prejudices, lusts, covetousness erodes our spirit, withers our soul, changes us into less than we could be, those things are sin whether or not we recognize them as such and whether or not they directly affect anybody else. Our choices and actions that damage our body or have adverse affect on others now or later are also sin whether or not we recognize them as such. And of course our words and actions that hurt others now or later are sin. Remember the definition of sin is that which harms ourselves and/or others--it does not necessarily have to be recognized as sin.

And we have all sinned and fallen short of perfection.

Jesus could have but he didn't.

But yes, this is my opinion and I do not require anyone else to share it.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 09:25 am
@Foxfyre,
Thanks, Foxy.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/19/2019 at 04:27:07