How long can a Christian go without sinning?

[eternally-gratefull]

ha! Can I try?

Sin= anything that is short of perfection in our character, thoughts and deeds.

I would say God set the standard.. And we may not know what it is until we get to heaven.

 

[Sirk]

You're far too hostile for my taste. I'm going to refuse defining anything or discussing this further with you. You asked what sin was. I gave you a list of what God deems as sin. If you're looking for a definition just use Google.

This sums up my beef with the church. It won't address hard questions and prefers to ignore them. It's easy for it to deem hard questions as hostile and or sinful. The church holds themselves unnaccountable to the truth they claim to hold.

I had someone write this heartfelt post about how mormons have such great family structures and how we should learn from them. I simply asked...isnt it pretty far leap to take from believing they are going to hell and believing we should be learning from them? Lol. I don't know man. Makes it all even more confusing for me.

 

[Desertsrose]

For the 3rd Time, a simple question: DEFINE SIN.

I believe you really know what the definition of sin is.
But in case not, here it is from biblehub.com.

hamartia: a sin, failure​

​

​

Original Word: ἁμαρτία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: hamartia
Phonetic Spelling: (ham-ar-tee'-ah)
Short Definition: a sin
Definition: prop: missing the mark; hence: (a) guilt, sin, (b) a fault, failure (in an ethical sense), sinful deed.HELPS Word-studies
266 hamartía (a feminine noun derived from 1 /A "not" and 3313 /méros, "a part, share of") – properly, no-share ("no part of"); loss (forfeiture) because not hitting the target; sin (missing the mark).
266 /hamartía ("sin, forfeiture because missing the mark") is the brand of sin that emphasizes its self-originated (self-empowered) nature – i.e. it is not originated or empowered by God (i.e. not of faith, His inworked persuasion, cf. Ro 14:23).
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from hamartanó
Definition
a sin, failure
NASB Translation
sin (96), sinful (2), sins (75).

​

​

​

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 266: ἁμαρτία

ἁμαρτία, (ας, ἡ (from 2 aorist ἁμαρτεῖν, as ἀποτυχία from ἀποτύχειν), a failing to hit the mark (see ἁμαρτάνω. In Greek writings (from Aeschylus and Thucydides down). 1st, an error of the understanding (cf. Ackermann, Das Christl. im Plato, p. 59 Anm. 3 (English translation (S. R. Asbury, 1861), p. 57 n. 99)). 2nd, a bad action, evil deed. In the N. T. always in an ethical sense, and 1. equivalent to τό ἁμαρτάνειν a sinning, whether it occurs by omission or commission, in thought and feeling or in speech and action (cf. Cicero, de fin. 3, 9): Romans 5:12f, 20; ὑφ' ἁμαρτίαν εἶναι held down in sin, Romans 3:9; ἐπιμένειν τῇ ἁμαρτία, Romans 6:1; ἀποθνῄσκειν τῇ ἁμαρτία and ζῆν ἐν αὐτῇ, Romans 6:2; τήν ἁμαρτίαν γινώσκειν, Romans 7:7; 2 Corinthians 5:21; νεκρός τῇ ἁμαρτία Romans 6:11; περί ἁμαρτίας to break the power of sin, Romans 8:3 (cf. Meyer); σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας the body as the instrument of sin, Romans 6:6; ἀπάτη τῆς ἁμαρτίας the craft by which sin is accustomed to deceive, Hebrews 3:13; ἄνθρωπος τῆςἁμαρτίας (ἀνομίας T Tr text WH text) the man so possessed by sin that he seems unable to exist without it, the man utterly given up to sin, 2 Thessalonians 2:3 (Winer's Grammar, § 34, 3 Note 2). In this sense ἁμαρτία(equivalent to τό ἁμαρτάνειν) as a power exercising dominion over men (sin as a principle and power) is rhetorically represented as an imperial personage in the phrases ἁμαρτία βασιλεύει, κυριεύει, κατεργάζεται, Romans 5:21; Romans 6:12, 14; Romans 7:17, 20; δουλεύειν τῇ ἁμ. Romans 6:6; δοῦλος τῆς ἁμ. John 8:34 (WH brackets; G omits τῆς ἁμ.); Romans 6:17; νόμος τῆς ἁμ. the dictate of sin or an impulse proceeding from it, Romans 7:23; Romans 8:2; δύναμις τῆς ἁμ. 1 Corinthians 15:56; (the prosopopaeia occurs in Genesis 4:7 and, according to the reading ἁμαρτία, in Sir. 27:10). Thus, ἁμαρτία in sense, but not in signification, is the source whence the several evil acts proceed; but it never denotes vitiosity.
2. that which is done wrong, committed or resultant sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act (ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστιν ἡἀνομία, 1 John 3:4);
a. generally: James 1:15; John 8:46 (where ἁμαρτία must be taken to mean neither error, nor craft by which Jesus is corrupting the people, but sin viewed generally, as is well shown by Lücke at the passage and Ullmann in the Studien und Kritiken for 1842, p. 667ff (cf. his Sündlosigkeit Jesu, p. 66ff (English translation of the 7th edition, p. 71f)); the thought is, 'If anyone convicts me of sin, then you may lawfully question the truth and divinity of my doctrine, for sin hinders the perception of truth'); χωρίς ἁμαρτίας so that he did not commit sin, Hebrews 4:15; ποιεῖν ἁμαρτίαν and τήν ἁμαρτίαν John 8:34; 1 John 3:8; 2 Corinthians 11:7; 1 Peter 2:22; ἔχειν ἁμαρτίαν to have sin as though it were one's odious private property, or to have done something needing expiation, equivalent to to have committed sin, John 9:41; John 15:22, 24; John 19:11; 1 John 1:8 (so αἷμα ἔχειν, of one who has committed murder, Euripides, Or. 514); very often in the plural ἁμαρτίαι (in the Synoptative Gospels the singular occurs but once: Matthew 12:31); 1 Thessalonians 2:16; (James 5:16 L T Tr WH); Revelation 18:4f, etc.; πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν, James 5:20; 1 Peter 4:8; ποιεῖν ἁμαρτίας, James 5:15; also in the expressions ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν, ἀφιέναι τάς ἁμαρτίας, etc. (see ἀφίημι, 1 d.), in which the word does not of itself denote the guilt or penalty of sins, but the sins are conceived of as removed so to speak from God's sight, regarded by him as not having been done, and therefore are not punished. Ἐν ἁμαρτίαιςσύ ἐγεννήθης ὅλος thou wast covered all over with sins when thou wast born i. e. didst sin abundantly before thou wast born, John 9:34; ἐν ταῖςἁμαρτίαις ἀποθνῄσκειν to die loaded with evil deeds therefore unreformed, John 8:24; ἔτι ἐν ἁμαρτίαις εἶναι still to have one's sins, namely, unexpiated, 1 Corinthians 15:17.
b. some particular evil deed: τήν ἁμαρτίαν ταύτην, Acts 7:60; πᾶσαἁμαρτία, Matthew 12:31; ἁμαρτία πρός θάνατον, 1 John 5:16 (an offence of such gravity that a Christian lapses from the state of ζωή received from Christ into the state of θάνατος (cf. θάνατος, 2) in which he was before he became united to Christ by faith; cf. Lücke, DeWette (especially Westcott, at the passage)).
3. collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many: αἴρειν τήν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου, John 1:29(see αἴρω, 3 c.); ἀποθνῄσκειν ἐν τῇ ἁμαρτία John 8:21 (see 2 a. under the end); περί ἁμαρτίας, namely, θυσίας (Winers Grammar, 583 (542): Buttmann, 393 (336)), expiatory sacrifices, Hebrews 10:6 (according to the usage of the Sept., who sometimes so translate the Hebrew חֲטָאָה and חַטָּאת, e. g. Leviticus 5:11; Leviticus 7:27 (37); Psalm 39:7 ()); χωρίςἁμαρτίας having no fellowship with the sin which he is about (?) to expiate, Hebrews 9:28.
4. abstract for the concrete, equivalent to ἁμαρτωλός: Romans 7:7 (ὁνόμος ἁμαρτία, opposed to ὁ νόμος ἅγιος, Romans 7:12); 2 Corinthians 5:21 (τόν ... ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν he treated him, who knew not sin, as a sinner). Cf. Fritzsche on Romans, vol. i. 289ff; (see ἁμάρτημα; Trench, § lxvi.).

 

[valiant]

Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.
1 Thess 5:11

Amen.

It is obvious to me, some appear to be determined to discourage hungering and thirsting
after righteousness

.

No one on here discourages 'hungering and thirsting after righteousness'. But we do discourage those who think they can achieve the righteousness of Christ,

If we are called to walk righteously, to learn, to perfect our walk and our calling, it is to
stand in opposition to this to discourage people or even to say there is no point to it at all.

we no not discourage walking righteously. What we do discourage is a false sense of attainment.

If one holds this is just a mirage of righteousness to show how weak and feeble we are,

it ends up undermining all morality or holiness God has shared.

It is not a mirage of righteousness. And we are weak and feeble. but the righteousness we can 'attain' to is an imperfect righteousness, like Lot's. We cannot attain to the righteousness of Jesus Christ. And what fools we are to even think we can.

To suggest we can attain the righteousness of God is folly. We can be made separate (holy) as God is separate, but we cannot attain God-likeness,

 

[BenFTW]

I believe you really know what the definition of sin is.
But in case not, here it is from biblehub.com.

hamartia: a sin, failure​

Original Word: ἁμαρτία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: hamartia
Phonetic Spelling: (ham-ar-tee'-ah)
Short Definition: a sin
Definition: prop: missing the mark; hence: (a) guilt, sin, (b) a fault, failure (in an ethical sense), sinful deed.HELPS Word-studies
266 hamartía (a feminine noun derived from 1 /A "not" and 3313 /méros, "a part, share of") – properly, no-share ("no part of"); loss (forfeiture) because not hitting the target; sin (missing the mark).
266 /hamartía ("sin, forfeiture because missing the mark") is the brand of sin that emphasizes its self-originated (self-empowered) nature – i.e. it is not originated or empowered by God (i.e. not of faith, His inworked persuasion, cf. Ro 14:23).
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from hamartanó
Definition
a sin, failure
NASB Translation
sin (96), sinful (2), sins (75).Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 266: ἁμαρτία

ἁμαρτία, (ας, ἡ (from 2 aorist ἁμαρτεῖν, as ἀποτυχία from ἀποτύχειν), a failing to hit the mark (see ἁμαρτάνω. In Greek writings (from Aeschylus and Thucydides down). 1st, an error of the understanding (cf. Ackermann, Das Christl. im Plato, p. 59 Anm. 3 (English translation (S. R. Asbury, 1861), p. 57 n. 99)). 2nd, a bad action, evil deed. In the N. T. always in an ethical sense, and 1. equivalent to τό ἁμαρτάνειν a sinning, whether it occurs by omission or commission, in thought and feeling or in speech and action (cf. Cicero, de fin. 3, 9): Romans 5:12f, 20; ὑφ' ἁμαρτίαν εἶναι held down in sin, Romans 3:9; ἐπιμένειν τῇ ἁμαρτία, Romans 6:1; ἀποθνῄσκειν τῇ ἁμαρτία and ζῆν ἐν αὐτῇ, Romans 6:2; τήν ἁμαρτίαν γινώσκειν, Romans 7:7; 2 Corinthians 5:21; νεκρός τῇ ἁμαρτία Romans 6:11; περί ἁμαρτίας to break the power of sin, Romans 8:3 (cf. Meyer); σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας the body as the instrument of sin, Romans 6:6; ἀπάτη τῆς ἁμαρτίας the craft by which sin is accustomed to deceive, Hebrews 3:13; ἄνθρωπος τῆςἁμαρτίας (ἀνομίας T Tr text WH text) the man so possessed by sin that he seems unable to exist without it, the man utterly given up to sin, 2 Thessalonians 2:3 (Winer's Grammar, § 34, 3 Note 2). In this sense ἁμαρτία(equivalent to τό ἁμαρτάνειν) as a power exercising dominion over men (sin as a principle and power) is rhetorically represented as an imperial personage in the phrases ἁμαρτία βασιλεύει, κυριεύει, κατεργάζεται, Romans 5:21; Romans 6:12, 14; Romans 7:17, 20; δουλεύειν τῇ ἁμ. Romans 6:6; δοῦλος τῆς ἁμ. John 8:34 (WH brackets; G omits τῆς ἁμ.); Romans 6:17; νόμος τῆς ἁμ. the dictate of sin or an impulse proceeding from it, Romans 7:23; Romans 8:2; δύναμις τῆς ἁμ. 1 Corinthians 15:56; (the prosopopaeia occurs in Genesis 4:7 and, according to the reading ἁμαρτία, in Sir. 27:10). Thus, ἁμαρτία in sense, but not in signification, is the source whence the several evil acts proceed; but it never denotes vitiosity.
2. that which is done wrong, committed or resultant sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act (ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστιν ἡἀνομία, 1 John 3:4);
a. generally: James 1:15; John 8:46 (where ἁμαρτία must be taken to mean neither error, nor craft by which Jesus is corrupting the people, but sin viewed generally, as is well shown by Lücke at the passage and Ullmann in the Studien und Kritiken for 1842, p. 667ff (cf. his Sündlosigkeit Jesu, p. 66ff (English translation of the 7th edition, p. 71f)); the thought is, 'If anyone convicts me of sin, then you may lawfully question the truth and divinity of my doctrine, for sin hinders the perception of truth'); χωρίς ἁμαρτίας so that he did not commit sin, Hebrews 4:15; ποιεῖν ἁμαρτίαν and τήν ἁμαρτίαν John 8:34; 1 John 3:8; 2 Corinthians 11:7; 1 Peter 2:22; ἔχειν ἁμαρτίαν to have sin as though it were one's odious private property, or to have done something needing expiation, equivalent to to have committed sin, John 9:41; John 15:22, 24; John 19:11; 1 John 1:8 (so αἷμα ἔχειν, of one who has committed murder, Euripides, Or. 514); very often in the plural ἁμαρτίαι (in the Synoptative Gospels the singular occurs but once: Matthew 12:31); 1 Thessalonians 2:16; (James 5:16 L T Tr WH); Revelation 18:4f, etc.; πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν, James 5:20; 1 Peter 4:8; ποιεῖν ἁμαρτίας, James 5:15; also in the expressions ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν, ἀφιέναι τάς ἁμαρτίας, etc. (see ἀφίημι, 1 d.), in which the word does not of itself denote the guilt or penalty of sins, but the sins are conceived of as removed so to speak from God's sight, regarded by him as not having been done, and therefore are not punished. Ἐν ἁμαρτίαιςσύ ἐγεννήθης ὅλος thou wast covered all over with sins when thou wast born i. e. didst sin abundantly before thou wast born, John 9:34; ἐν ταῖςἁμαρτίαις ἀποθνῄσκειν to die loaded with evil deeds therefore unreformed, John 8:24; ἔτι ἐν ἁμαρτίαις εἶναι still to have one's sins, namely, unexpiated, 1 Corinthians 15:17.
b. some particular evil deed: τήν ἁμαρτίαν ταύτην, Acts 7:60; πᾶσαἁμαρτία, Matthew 12:31; ἁμαρτία πρός θάνατον, 1 John 5:16 (an offence of such gravity that a Christian lapses from the state of ζωή received from Christ into the state of θάνατος (cf. θάνατος, 2) in which he was before he became united to Christ by faith; cf. Lücke, DeWette (especially Westcott, at the passage)).
3. collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many: αἴρειν τήν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου, John 1:29(see αἴρω, 3 c.); ἀποθνῄσκειν ἐν τῇ ἁμαρτία John 8:21 (see 2 a. under the end); περί ἁμαρτίας, namely, θυσίας (Winers Grammar, 583 (542): Buttmann, 393 (336)), expiatory sacrifices, Hebrews 10:6 (according to the usage of the Sept., who sometimes so translate the Hebrew חֲטָאָה and חַטָּאת, e. g. Leviticus 5:11; Leviticus 7:27 (37); Psalm 39:7 ()); χωρίςἁμαρτίας having no fellowship with the sin which he is about (?) to expiate, Hebrews 9:28.
4. abstract for the concrete, equivalent to ἁμαρτωλός: Romans 7:7 (ὁνόμος ἁμαρτία, opposed to ὁ νόμος ἅγιος, Romans 7:12); 2 Corinthians 5:21 (τόν ... ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν he treated him, who knew not sin, as a sinner). Cf. Fritzsche on Romans, vol. i. 289ff; (see ἁμάρτημα; Trench, § lxvi.).

No, no, no. He wants you to define sin.

 

[BenFTW]

This sums up my beef with the church. It won't address hard questions and prefers to ignore them. It's easy for it to deem hard questions as hostile and or sinful. The church holds themselves unnaccountable to the truth they claim to hold.

I had someone write this heartfelt post about how mormons have such great family structures and how we should learn from them. I simply asked...isnt it pretty far leap to take from believing they are going to hell and believing we should be learning from them? Lol. I don't know man. Makes it all even more confusing for me.

There was no hard question, but there was a hardness and lack of meekness to his discourse. The hostility was in reference to his tone.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Isaiah 6:5
So I said: “Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, The Lord of hosts.”

I think this will be all of us if we stood face to face with the Lord right now.. . Even Daniel, and John bowed in fear as dead when they were confronted with a heavenly being..

 

[valiant]

No, no, no. He wants you to define sin.

lol do you mean 'known sin', or the heart of sin. And what do you even mean by sin?. lawlessness? lack of faithfulness? The failure to do all the good we can?. As regards the last, are you omniscient?

 

[Sirk]

There was no hard question, but there was a hardness and lack of meekness to his discourse. The hostility was in reference to his tone.

Id say it was more your perception of his tone. He offended you and being offended by an offense against you is a sin. So chalk one up for you today! .

 

[maxwel]

You're far too hostile for my taste. I'm going to refuse defining anything or discussing this further with you. You asked what sin was. I gave you a list of what God deems as sin. If you're looking for a definition just use Google.

What I've always thought of you.

Ben,

I don't dislike you.

And I'm sorry if this sounds hostile.

I think you're a nice guy, and a good serious Christian, who has a few controversial views... nothing wrong with that.

I've always thought of you as a good guy.



Your approach to THIS discussion has become illogical.

However, what you're embarking on in this thread is extremely illogical,
and you need to come to terms with that, if you want to be considered a reasonable, or biblical person.

You must DEFINE that word you want to discuss.

No one, in any serious debate, anywhere in the world, would take you seriously for 5 seconds, and EVEN SPEAK TO YOU,
if you weren't willing to DEFINE the word you want to discuss.

What you're doing is illogical, and thus absurd.
If you know it's illogical, and you continue... then you're actually moving into the realm of dishonesty.



Why it's logical, biblical, and necessary to define terms, and explain verses:

In previous posts, I've explained everything very very thoroughly.
I've explained why it's both logical, and biblical, to give YOUR meaning and YOUR definition,
and why is it NOT acceptable, logically or biblically, to just toss out verses as a faux explanation, or to refuse to define terms.

I have explained the rationale very very precisely.

I have explained these things rationally, logically, and biblically.

And you still refuse to cooperate with biblical or logical necessities.


You must define the word you wish to discuss.
If you refuse, you are being illogical and unbiblical,
and if you continue, you will have moved from the realm of controversial...
all the way into the realm of dishonest.

 

[valiant]

There was no hard question, but there was a hardness and lack of meekness to his discourse. The hostility was in reference to his tone.

lol did you HEAR him? or did you just assume it?

 

[valiant]

I had a thought.

I got it wrong all along. You guys are hungering and thirsting to walk righteously, and
to know His presence in our hearts, day in, day out.

And you are actually encouraging me to press on towards to the goal of being in the likeness
of Christ. And you want to encourage Ben in his observation, righteousness is a good thing,
let us walk in it through the power of the Cross and Jesus who has overcome the world,
Amen.

you're slowly catching on. but beware of false attainment.

 

[stonesoffire]

Would you be surprised to know that it seems a lot of believer's answer to this is hardly but a day? Recently a pastor at my church was asked this question and his response to the question, "Can a Christian not sin for a day, a week, a month, or a year?" was "I don't think so." Of course he left himself open for criticism and said if anyone wants to teach him better to just pull him to the side. He wasn't being definitive, but always keeps an open stance because he believes the Lord can show people stuff that he is missing.

Anyways, I find it peculiar is all. This seems to be a Christian stance on sinning, that we can hardly go a day or a week without sinning. Yet, I don't find this stance in the Bible. We don't get a warning from the apostle Paul or in any of epistles stating something like, "You're not perfect. You're going to keep sinning, but keep going." or, really any statement that you will sin, but rather if you do sin (we have an Advocate with the Father).

We are told to not use our liberty as an occasion or opportunity to entertain the flesh but to serve in righteousness. We are encouraged to reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive unto God, because as Christ died and rose, we did we (represented in baptism). You'll see the epistles stating who we are in Christ. Righteous loving people, zealous of good works. All of this speaks to walking in righteousness, even saying that sin doesn't have dominion over us because we are not under the law but grace.

Why is our response to this question hardly but a day when scripture states we've been set free? Why is it so hard for a Christian to believe a believer can go a long period of time without sinning or even a short period of time? Have we not died to sin? Did not this propensity get taken from us, where we have the choice to sin (having had the old man be crucified)?

To think that the leadership in the Church believe that we cannot go any period of time without sinning is baffling. What has happened to sanctification? Does God not chastise? Do we not have the fruit of the Holy Spirit? Did not Christ die to set us free, to make us who were once dead now alive in Him, having been born-again? Where is our liberty, to not sin, but to serve in the newness of the spirit? Aren't we supposed to awake to righteousness and sin not?

This isn't talking about sinless perfectionism, this is talking about the mindset of the Church in relation to sin. They still see themselves in chains, when God says that sin shall not have dominion over you. What is the reasoning for this?

Ben

Wouldn't the truth be that sin has no dominion over us because there is no law to condemn?

 

[PennEd]

What I've always thought of you.

Ben,

I don't dislike you.

And I'm sorry if this sounds hostile.

I think you're a nice guy, and a good serious Christian, who has a few controversial views... nothing wrong with that.

I've always thought of you as a good guy.



Your approach to THIS discussion has become illogical.

However, what you're embarking on in this thread is extremely illogical,
and you need to come to terms with that, if you want to be considered a reasonable, or biblical person.

You must DEFINE that word you want to discuss.

No one, in any serious debate, anywhere in the world, would take you seriously for 5 seconds, and EVEN SPEAK TO YOU,
if you weren't willing to DEFINE the word you want to discuss.

What you're doing is illogical, and thus absurd.
If you know it's illogical, and you continue... then you're actually moving into the realm of dishonesty.



Why it's logical, biblical, and necessary to define terms, and explain verses:

In previous posts, I've explained everything very very thoroughly.
I've explained why it's both logical, and biblical, to give YOUR meaning and YOUR definition,
and why is it NOT acceptable, logically or biblically, to just toss out verses as a faux explanation, or to refuse to define terms.

I have explained the rationale very very precisely.

I have explained these things rationally, logically, and biblically.

And you still refuse to cooperate with biblical or logical necessities.


You must define the word you wish to discuss.
If you refuse, you are being illogical and unbiblical,
and if you continue, you will have moved from the realm of controversial...
all the way into the realm of dishonest.

This man has impeccable logic, and is rarely rattled. I'm amazed that Ben looked at anything you said with hostility. Uncomfortable questions often elicit irrational, and hostile responses from those that don't like a question posed.

You're assessment of the OP seems pretty spot on. Ben IS a good guy. But like most of us, his pride pops up from time to time. He felt perfectly ok with a very hostile post toward Lynn, but doesn't see the hypocrisy in the attack.

 

[BenFTW]

What I've always thought of you.

Ben,

I don't dislike you.

And I'm sorry if this sounds hostile.

I think you're a nice guy, and a good serious Christian, who has a few controversial views... nothing wrong with that.

I've always thought of you as a good guy.



Your approach to THIS discussion has become illogical.

However, what you're embarking on in this thread is extremely illogical,
and you need to come to terms with that, if you want to be considered a reasonable, or biblical person.

You must DEFINE that word you want to discuss.

No one, in any serious debate, anywhere in the world, would take you seriously for 5 seconds, and EVEN SPEAK TO YOU,
if you weren't willing to DEFINE the word you want to discuss.

What you're doing is illogical, and thus absurd.
If you know it's illogical, and you continue... then you're actually moving into the realm of dishonesty.



Why it's logical, biblical, and necessary to define terms, and explain verses:

In previous posts, I've explained everything very very thoroughly.
I've explained why it's both logical, and biblical, to give YOUR meaning and YOUR definition,
and why is it NOT acceptable, logically or biblically, to just toss out verses as a faux explanation, or to refuse to define terms.

I have explained the rationale very very precisely.

I have explained these things rationally, logically, and biblically.

And you still refuse to cooperate with biblical or logical necessities.


You must define the word you wish to discuss.
If you refuse, you are being illogical and unbiblical,
and if you continue, you will have moved from the realm of controversial...
all the way into the realm of dishonest.

If you would have taken the time to read some of the posts you would see I already did that when going back and forth with FreeNChrist. In fact, I used, if I remember correctly, three different ways to define sin. I'll toss out some general definitions for you, if you insist, but I am not being dishonest or avoiding the question. You simply missed the point at which I already defined it.

-Falling short of God's glory
-The opposite of God's nature
-Disobedience to the will of God
-Whatever is not of faith
- Missing the mark
-Not meeting God's perfect standard of righteous (this one was pointed out by me listing sins).

There are actually quite a number of ways to define sin, chief among them might be doing the opposite of the two greatest commandments.

 

[Sirk]

I have another definition for sin.

Living in the future is a sin because you are taking for granted the gift contained in the present with worry. If you are living in the past you are taking for granted the gift of the present by living in regret.

I think we need to consider the pre fall Adam and Eve to understand sin. They did not have a care in the world. Not one. They didn't care about what they'd eat. They didn't care about the future or the past. They lived fully and completely in the present. Can you do that? I know I can't.

 

[stonesoffire]

Rom 6:14　 For sin will not have mastery over you, because you are not under Law but under grace.

Why even be concerned about what sin is? We have died to this...and are risen new.

Our failures come from forgetting who and what we are now...and acting as if we are not dead. Old habits.　

 

[gb9]

After dealing with mentally ill people, emotions have everything to do with every aspect of
life, and experiences seriously damage and distort people as they go through life.

I am sorry you are unaware of this, but we just have to agree to disagree.

Now it may sound trite but those who repress their hurts and defences to the extent that
they do not recognise they are there, are the ones who believe emotions are not involved
at all, just like you are describing.

And I know I have no bridge over to you until you see this in yourself, because this is how
we learn the rules, not in theory but in practice.

if you want to learn the rules, read post #283, over and over, until you learn the Biblical definition of sin. if you want to learn it. if.

 

[BenFTW]

This man has impeccable logic, and is rarely rattled. I'm amazed that Ben looked at anything you said with hostility. Uncomfortable questions often elicit irrational, and hostile responses from those that don't like a question posed.

You're assessment of the OP seems pretty spot on. Ben IS a good guy. But like most of us, his pride pops up from time to time. He felt perfectly ok with a very hostile post toward Lynn, but doesn't see the hypocrisy in the attack.

I do not perceive how any of his questions would be deemed uncomfortable or hard (as Sirk said). He simply asked what the definition of sin was. The hostility, if you didn't notice it, was the caps-lock at certain points representing impatience and even taunting.

PS: I'm not making a big deal about this, you guys keep bringing it up.

 

[valiant]

I do not perceive how any of his questions would be deemed uncomfortable or hard (as Sirk said). He simply asked what the definition of sin was. The hostility, if you didn't notice it, was the caps-lock at certain points representing impatience and even taunting.

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