How long can a Christian go without sinning?

[PeterJens]

I have a question. And it's not a combative one. If God built into us all those systems and called them good. How can psycology be bad? How can the way the brain works be bad?

Psychology attempted to make people into animals and explain our perception only bounded
by our environment and animal interactions. Freud etc. talked about the subconscious, the ego
and the ID. He put a focus on the sexual drive and reduced everything down to primal desires.
Unfortunately none of this theory has worked except behavioural therapy using emotional
experiences from the past put into the present emotionally traumatic situation. And it works.

This made me think that Jesus in the sermon on the mount was a behaviouralist.
He asked us to obey and then deal with the consequences inside, to get things straight on
foundational issues and grow from there.

Another group observed family interaction and discovered whole families can behave
like a single person, different people taking different roles.

So to summarise, it is a very developing field, and as christians we have much to offer.
For a long time psychologists were against morality seeing it as causing internal trauma,
but things are changing where respect and love is being recognised as important aspects
of healthy living and survival. A lot of people are now developing better integration between
Jesus's teaching on confession and openness and need, to the rise of anxiety conditions that
appear to be increasing rather than decreasing in society with a rediculous level of medication.

 

[Sirk]

Psychology attempted to make people into animals and explain our perception only bounded
by our environment and animal interactions. Freud etc. talked about the subconscious, the ego
and the ID. He put a focus on the sexual drive and reduced everything down to primal desires.
Unfortunately none of this theory has worked except behavioural therapy using emotional
experiences from the past put into the present emotionally traumatic situation. And it works.

This made me think that Jesus in the sermon on the mount was a behaviouralist.
He asked us to obey and then deal with the consequences inside, to get things straight on
foundational issues and grow from there.

Another group observed family interaction and discovered whole families can behave
like a single person, different people taking different roles.

So to summarise, it is a very developing field, and as christians we have much to offer.
For a long time psychologists were against morality seeing it as causing internal trauma,
but things are changing where respect and love is being recognised as important aspects
of healthy living and survival. A lot of people are now developing better integration between
Jesus's teaching on confession and openness and need, to the rise of anxiety conditions that
appear to be increasing rather than decreasing in society with a rediculous level of medication.

freud was a drug addled monster who abused people for selfish gain.
Jesus was the first true psychologist.

 

[Utah]

The skill of empathy is an inoculation against mental health issues. At least the ones that are not totally genetic or the result of injury. And even those ones aren't out of reach from Gods hand.

The reality is that business's are learning that emotional intelligence is a far great quality to have in an employee than a high IQ. People with a high EQ make better employees, employers, coworkers, friends, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, students pastors etc etc.

Hey bro, I think you contradicted yourself in your second paragraph unless I'm not reading it correctly.

 

[Sirk]

Hey bro, I think you contradicted yourself in your second paragraph unless I'm not reading it correctly.

I understand how it could be confusing. EQ is emotional quotient. I think you read EQ as IQ.

Thanks for being an adult and asking. Not that I have ever thought anything different of you, I just thought it worth mentioning as an example to all the non adults around here who like to take something false and just run with it vs asking. Lol. Utah is a leader by example.

 

[Utah]

I understand how it could be confusing. EQ is emotional quotient. I think you read EQ as IQ.

Thanks for being an adult and asking. Not that I have ever thought anything different of you, I just thought it worth mentioning as an example to all the non adults around here who like to take something false and just run with it vs asking. Lol. Utah is a leader by example.

Ah, there you go. I was misreading EQ and IQ. Sorry bro. And thanks for your kind words of correction and building up. I learn a lot from you, my brother.

 

[PeterJens]

freud was a drug addled monster who abused people for selfish gain.
Jesus was the first true psychologist.

I have never liked the freudian theories, largely because there is nothing to
found them on.

And what I am amazed at is though Jesus talked with great EQ, there are many
who do not respond to the simplest of EQ issues or problems.

So Sirk, I know you know more than you often reveal. Why are you so cagey?

Jesus has persuaded me, it is often my reluctance to share that has stopped Him
being able to use what He has brought into my life. I am really a simply guy, with
a simple outlook. Because of my weaknesses I have developed a lot of de-stressing
strategies, the biggest one is Jesus and the cross. Love does not get simpler than that.

So it does make me wonder, have you given up on being healed inside?
You are a good man, and I would want to encourage you, no matter how cynical you
feel about me. All I testify to is a place of peace and resolution, and there I am.

God is good, and forgiveness and love refreshing to my soul. I can literally feel so
refreshed praising my Lord for how He has blessed me, not out of I am anything, but
just thanks. For me a lot of things I have gone through, it is just by hanging on and trusting,
nothing more, not of myself but Him. For me recently to go through my families photos and
history, to review all the people and incidents, makes me feel alone and also blessed, separated
from my past and yet one with the walk.

It is sad for me that my sister and brother could not walk with me, but their emotional states
limits what they can cope with. But that is life, and the work the Lord can bring into a life, to
cope and see and hopefully bring blessing to other.

 

[Sirk]

I have never liked the freudian theories, largely because there is nothing to
found them on.

And what I am amazed at is though Jesus talked with great EQ, there are many
who do not respond to the simplest of EQ issues or problems.

So Sirk, I know you know more than you often reveal. Why are you so cagey?

Jesus has persuaded me, it is often my reluctance to share that has stopped Him
being able to use what He has brought into my life. I am really a simply guy, with
a simple outlook. Because of my weaknesses I have developed a lot of de-stressing
strategies, the biggest one is Jesus and the cross. Love does not get simpler than that.

So it does make me wonder, have you given up on being healed inside?
You are a good man, and I would want to encourage you, no matter how cynical you
feel about me. All I testify to is a place of peace and resolution, and there I am.

God is good, and forgiveness and love refreshing to my soul. I can literally feel so
refreshed praising my Lord for how He has blessed me, not out of I am anything, but
just thanks. For me a lot of things I have gone through, it is just by hanging on and trusting,
nothing more, not of myself but Him. For me recently to go through my families photos and
history, to review all the people and incidents, makes me feel alone and also blessed, separated
from my past and yet one with the walk.

It is sad for me that my sister and brother could not walk with me, but their emotional states
limits what they can cope with. But that is life, and the work the Lord can bring into a life, to
cope and see and hopefully bring blessing to other.

I think in many ways anyone here that was paying attention or looked back on my time here could see a man going thru all the stages of grief. Sometimes multiple ones at the same time. Sometimes reverting back to ones I thought I'd been done with. Maybe some who didn't outright see it just knew enough to be my friend. The ones who chose to attack me maybe even represented in some way the people I lost who I was in mourning over. I think I pined for the acceptance of people I would NEVER get it from. Still a loss..but in the end..a very liberating freeing one. If you catch my drift.

"Blessed is he who mourns, for he will be comforted."

I see a lot of people in mourning here who don't quite know how to get it done.

 

[PennEd]

I have a question. And it's not a combative one. If God built into us all those systems and called them good. How can psycology be bad? How can the way the brain works be bad?

The question is a fair one, but I believe God said that BEFORE man fell. After, He says all have sinned and there is no one who is good.

 

[Locutus]

The length of time between posts........

 

[Sirk]

The question is a fair one, but I believe God said that BEFORE man fell. After, He says all have sinned and there is no one who is good.

I get that. Is it because a virus got into our programming?

 

[maxwel]

Define resolution and peace. LOL I'm only messing with you.

Then again, since you do have an understanding of my beliefs over a period of time, it should be noted that you more than likely know that I know what sin is, and therefore to establish its definition is somewhat moot (as you know my stance).

But hey, we're pass that. I looked up the movement you mentioned and I don't think its completely accurate to describe what I am saying as synonymous with that movement. They are accused of sinless perfectionism or "entire sanctification."

1. Let's not rely on what each of us "more than likely" thinks; it's bad planning to debate about what each of us "thinks" the other "thinks".

It's much easier to just be clear.



2. Your current beliefs are probably derivative of the Keswick movement in some roundabout way.

As far as precisely what you believe... only YOU can say exactly what you believe.

That's what we're doing it.

 

[PeterJens]

I think in many ways anyone here that was paying attention or looked back on my time here could see a man going thru all the stages of grief.

Brother, my condolences.

 

[maxwel]

Hi Maxwell, comments are in blue within your post.

Originally Posted by maxwel

1. "My opinion is that Maxwell was being pretty."

I think you're pretty too.



Okay, maybe so. But considering Ben's comments about sin, I'm pretty sure we can find the definition he's speaking of. Yes?


2. "we all know what sin is."

A. That isn't necessarily the case... people have very different views on the word, both in concept and in particulars.
B. Sin is a term that is very broad, and covers a great many things people don't usually consider.
C. Since this entire thread is about SIN, then we should start, logically, with a precise definition of what the OP considers sin to be.

To define precisely what you're discussing is simply the most rational place to begin.

Do you require a definition for every topic, for every thread?

3. I'm aware that asking a person to "define terms" seems anal retentive, and even petty,
but it's simply the logical place to start a discussion... and often this alone resolves all problems.

A. To discuss vague terms, would mean, necessarily, we could never come to agreement because we'd never be discussing the exact same thing.

B. To define terms, and be able to discuss the EXACT same thing, means we have the ability to FIND RESOLUTION.

* Therefore, to demand that we define terms, is actually a step toward resolution, and peace... not a step toward conflict.

Only when it's obvious that the OP's definition and yours are different. Are you a lawyer?

1. "Okay, maybe so. But considering Ben's comments about sin, I'm pretty sure we can find the definition he's speaking of. Yes?"

Since Ben was good enough to answer my question, I now have a starting place in my dialogue with him.

That's really all I can say right now.



2. Do you require a definition for every topic, for every thread?

A. Since you can see I don't ask for a definition in every thread, thereby receiving from your own experience a clear answer to your question before you ask it... should I just assume you're poking me for entertainment value?

That's ok.
It's all good.



B. If your real question is to know why I was so demanding of Ben to give a definition to a common word... it's because I felt that, in this case, that was the clearest path forward.

I think that is the basis for this whole misunderstanding... there is a path forward.
I'm not here to troll Ben in endless circles, but to go through some logical discussion with a path forward.



3. When I said definitions are useful to find resolution, you said,
"Only when it's obvious that the OP's definition and yours are different"

This is self refuting. How can I even KNOW if the OP's definitions are different than mine if I don't ask him what HIS are?

 

[PennEd]

I get that. Is it because a virus got into our programming?

Yes, that's a good analogy. Sin has corrupted all our code, and Jesus is our only virus cure!

 

[Depleted]

well in my view CAPS LOCK only shows emphasis. it shows nothing about tone. but then you are a youngster

Who isn't a youngster to you? lol

I'm kind of stuck in no-man's land with cap-locks. Early Internet etiquette said it's yelling, but early BB and forums didn't give italics, underline or bold choices. So, yup, it was used for emphasis. I still catch myself removing caps when proofing something I read, and then choosing italics, underlining or bold. (No etiquette yet on when to use which.) I forget. And sometimes I don't proof, so it goes out as a cap-lock.

Other times I feel like I'm repeating the same thing several times, so I cap-lock the part I think the OP is missing -- the thing that gets me to repeat. It's not yelling yet. It's raising my voice to catch that one word or one phrase.

And I will admit it is yelling when I'm not being heard at all. Frustration. Not a good character trait on me.

 

[Depleted]

We are speaking in terms of practicality, not in judicial standing.

Dominion is practical. It's how we're governed. It's how we live.

I don't get how it could be a judicial standing. It's not a court decision. Even courts are governed by whoever rules.

 

[Depleted]

You're livid about something that isn't even true!.... That I wish ill on you or your dad.... Have fun being livid for no reason.

I was livid because you mock people with Alzheimer and consider everyone, but you, needs to be treated as if they are one.

And, keep playing this game, over and over again. Chase me around the site, nip, nip, nip until I give you a chance, only to be bitten by you again. And with great joy you get to tell everyone how hateful I am.

You are to Christianity what Justin Beifer is to Japanese opera.

Now, time to chuckle with your buds and boohoo about how badly you are mistreated.

 

[Desertsrose]

I had to say something outside the quotes to be able to post.

1. "Okay, maybe so. But considering Ben's comments about sin, I'm pretty sure we can find the definition he's speaking of. Yes?"

Since Ben was good enough to answer my question, I now have a starting place in my dialogue with him.

That's really all I can say right now.

I meant in the other scriptures, but fair enough.



2. Do you require a definition for every topic, for every thread?

A. Since you can see I don't ask for a definition in every thread, thereby receiving from your own experience a clear answer to your question before you ask it... should I just assume you're poking me for entertainment value?

That's ok.
It's all good.


LOL - I assumed that, yes. Just wondered why this particular thread needed a definition of sin before you could reply since it seemed like Ben's understanding of sin was accurate before he gave you the definition you were looking for.

B. If your real question is to know why I was so demanding of Ben to give a definition to a common word... it's because I felt that, in this case, that was the clearest path forward.

I think that is the basis for this whole misunderstanding... there is a path forward.
I'm not here to troll Ben in endless circles, but to go through some logical discussion with a path forward

Thanks for sharing your reasoning. You sure didn't have to answer to me, but I appreciate that you did. It did seem unnecessary, but I guess you have your reasons why.

3. When I said definitions are useful to find resolution, you said,
"Only when it's obvious that the OP's definition and yours are different"

This is self refuting. How can I even KNOW if the OP's definitions are different than mine if I don't ask him what HIS are?

It seemed to me he did, but I guess what you were looking for you didn't find within his answers. You just seemed overly demanding. But that's my view and I apologize for saying you were being petty. I look forward to your reply.

Not a lawyer then?

SaveSave​

 

[BenFTW]

1. "Okay, maybe so. But considering Ben's comments about sin, I'm pretty sure we can find the definition he's speaking of. Yes?"

Since Ben was good enough to answer my question, I now have a starting place in my dialogue with him.

That's really all I can say right now.



2. Do you require a definition for every topic, for every thread?

A. Since you can see I don't ask for a definition in every thread, thereby receiving from your own experience a clear answer to your question before you ask it... should I just assume you're poking me for entertainment value?

That's ok.
It's all good.



B. If your real question is to know why I was so demanding of Ben to give a definition to a common word... it's because I felt that, in this case, that was the clearest path forward.

I think that is the basis for this whole misunderstanding... there is a path forward.
I'm not here to troll Ben in endless circles, but to go through some logical discussion with a path forward.



3. When I said definitions are useful to find resolution, you said,
"Only when it's obvious that the OP's definition and yours are different"

This is self refuting. How can I even KNOW if the OP's definitions are different than mine if I don't ask him what HIS are?

Through observation? A couple people already said that it looked to them like I already did define sin, which is why I told you I did but still, to please you, I went ahead and made a list of definitions (and provided a list, prior of specific sins). But yeah, when I mentioned observation, I mean that you've read my posts for quite some time and even in simply observing the posts here on this thread you could see what I mean by sin.

God 's word is straightforward on what is sin, I would think as Christians we would have that definition down. lol As you said, however, we can now move forward.

 

[garee]

Through observation? A couple people already said that it looked to them like I already did define sin, which is why I told you I did but still, to please you, I went ahead and made a list of definitions (and provided a list, prior of specific sins). But yeah, when I mentioned observation, I mean that you've read my posts for quite some time and even in simply observing the posts here on this thread you could see what I mean by sin.

God 's word is straightforward on what is sin, I would think as Christians we would have that definition down. lol As you said, however, we can now move forward.

One thing you offered in your list was; anything that is not of faith is sin.

To help define that, I would ask, anything that is not of whose faith or whose work seeing faith, without works is dead
?