Are we prisoners of sin

quote:

---

But before we can set out with this topic there is one question I'm sure that will almost certainly always pop up, and that is, "is there such a thing as sin?"

---

Yes wrong behavior does exist within a society or group. Some religions use the term "sin" to describe an act that violates a moral rule or code of conduct decreed by a divine entity. Sin is not something that exists in its own right or initiates action. Violating a moral rule or code is not necessarily evil. IMO evil is very extreme badness.The average person has the capacity to do right or wrong. People make choices on a daily basis whether to do right or wrong.

quote:

---

Not only does sin seem much more evil for the believer but the believer is furiously fighting to limit his daily dose of sin, so to be sure this is certainly a miserable state of being as Paul again said here, "Wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?"

---

People don't get a "dose" of sin and doing wrong isn't any worse for a believer than for anyone else. Actually, it should be easier. The believer is supposedly given moral rules and codes of behavior. Cut and dried. The believer is (or should be) constantly taught that they should repent and be forgiven if they transgress. IMO, some Christians have difficulty because they don't really know God's moral rules or codes of behavior for them and aren't taught how to repent.Repenting means one actually changes their way of thinking. If a person still wants to do what is wrong, but only refrains from doing wrong due to a law or code; that person hasn't changed their thinking.

quote:

---

Now the gist of this thread. If man is inseparable from his sin than he must be doomed (Proverbs 13:6 Live right, and you are safe! But sin will destroy you; Romans 6:23 for the wages of sin is death.).

---

Doomed how? Wrong behavior does make life more difficult.

quote:

---

Well I think there is by definition sin is a transgression of God's will, missing the mark set up by God. This is what sin is and considering the Ten Commandments and considering our present states I would say that sin is altogether alive and doing well.

---

The published Ten Commandments and the rest of the laws in the Bible are from an ancient civilization. Laws and codes of behavior adjust with each civilization. Morals and ethics are sometimes at odds in the workplace.

quote:

---

The connection was that he obtained flesh God is spirit, and he now obtained the corruptible flesh of men, so now he could take on the sin eventually on the cross, in his divine state God would not have been able to take sin on because he is a holy God this means that he is pure, without sin, and righteous.

---

Since God did not require sacrifices to atone for sin, the death of Jesus doesn't atone for anyone's sins. A mistake or wrong action cannot be undone and can't be "taken on" by another. The person still suffers the consequences of their actions. If they repent they can be forgiven for the mistake or wrong action.Jesus taught and preached repentance not that his death would be an atonement. If you read Leviticus 16, you will see that the actual scapegoat that supposedly "took on" the sins of the people was not sacrificed. It was set loose in the desert.The sacrifices in Leviticus are similar to us paying a parking ticket. It is the penalty for wrong behavior.

quote:

---

First of all she adds the following statement which is not found in God's statement and that is "neither shall ye touch it" secondly she is implying uncertainty to what God said "would happen if you ate it (the fruit) note God said for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Eve replaces the surely die with lest ye die, therefore displaying doubt about a command of God.

---

Eve was talking to a snake, not taking part in a debate or quoting God. The difference is irrelevant. The snake is not Satan. You're adding to the story.The Adam and Eve story is one story that tells how mankind supposedly came to know good and bad, as opposed to the animal kingdom.Right and wrong are concepts that change as mankind changes.Sin still does not exist as a thing that acts on its own.

quote:

---

This was for sure the chief purpose behind the entire Jewish sacrificial system.

---

I said God (you know the powerful God) did not require sacrifice to forgive sins. Mankind decided sacrifices were necessary. There's a difference.

quote:

---

You have shown not to understand the doctrine of atonement, go on brush up on this and then we can talk again about the role of Jesus in salvation.

---

We aren't talking about salvation. We are discussing sin and that sin is not a thing that acts on its own. In the course of this the misconception that the sacrificial system atoned for sins was brought up.I understand the doctrine that is usually presented and it is incorrect. There are no sacrifices for intentional sin and as I pointed out earlier the scapegoat that supposedly "took on" the sins of the people was not sacrificed. The scapegoat was set loose in the desert. (Leviticus 16)So people who are struggling against portions of their belief system's moral code or code of behavior, haven't changed their thoughts. IOW, they haven't repented. The way to stop "sinning" is to stop wanting to do what is considered wrong by the belief system or God; depending on which one we consider more important.Mankind has the capacity to do wrong and mankind has the capacity to not do wrong. No big mystery.BTW, Revelations has nothing to do with Genesis. The snake is just a snake.

quote:

---

I have found that in many cases it is not intellectual hurdles that keep someone from believing in God rather it is more spiritual than that. People just don’t want to give up their sinful ways, because they love being in sin so much, they are enjoying themselves to the fullest and the thought of having to give up all of these pleasures just isn’t thinkable for them. My opening post deals with the problem of sin. Sin is enjoyable but it has a huge downside, and that is death, spiritual death that condemns the doer to hell.

---

Just because something brings one pleasure does not make it wrong. If a woman is constantly told she is ugly she will eventually believe it, the same goes for a person being constantly told they are sinful when the characterization is not based on the persons actual actions. It is a way to keep people feeling bad about themselves. To keep them down.Constant wrong behavior or wrong thinking can take its toll on a person's physical and mental health. Extreme wrong behavior can cause physical death.As far as hell goes, pretty much everyone goes to hell. Hell is nothing more than the grave.Maybe you could list some specific behaviors that are considered to be a sin.

quote:

---

I don't think that you are justified in making this quote but you are entitled to it anyway, God gave us a freedom and no one but you can deny yourself that freedom, but about the words we utter, God does say in Mathew 12:36 And I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

---

He is exactly right. The concept of sin is a religious one. I would add that even within religion it seems to have lost its meaning. Other than rituals, the religious make wrong decision just like the nonreligious.The Pharisees were the clergy of the time and Jesus considered their actions hypocritical just as many clergy are today and have been through history. Nothing new. But I prefer to read full paragraphs as opposed to one liners. The paragraph containing the verse you shared concerns discerning fruit. IOW, you shall know them by their fruit. Jesus is saying the same thing I've been saying, all mankind is not inherently bad. Just like animals there are humans who are more aggressive than others. Morals and codes of conduct are determined by civilizations and it changes through the ages. That is the same thing that Paul is saying in Romans 2. Even those who don't have the written Jewish law in front of them are capable of good behavior.

quote:

---

Mat 23:25 A curse is on you, scribes and Pharisees, false ones! for you make clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of violent behaviour and uncontrolled desire.
Mat 23:26 You blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the plate, so that the outside may become equally clean.

---

Make sure your Bible quoting is accurate. Jesus was just calling them hypocrites as some clergy tend to be. The verse accused them of greed and self indulgence, not violent behavior and uncontrolled desire. That's why I feel that Christians are confused about what actually constitutes sin and the concept of sin has lost its meaning even among the religious.One does not need religion to abhor "evil" and cleave to good.

quote:

---

So to all of you who are pushing for this attitude answer me, why should I be good? And also answer what being good is and what being bad is if we don't have a measuring rod so to speak with which to determine if a particular behavior is good or bad. If a practice is acceptable in my eyes then why shouldn't I pursue. If there is no absolute moral canvas against which to compare our daily behavior than morality becomes relative than I may well decide for myself what good is? Why don't we all decide for ourselves what good is.

---

Animals have codes of behavior. Humans live in groups and interact on individual levels, community levels, and national levels. Humans make codes of behavior to facilitate harmonious relations. In the "Wild West" days of the United States, area out west were lawless. People did as they pleased. Some lived peacefully together and others were more agressive. At some point people created laws to keep themselves safe from the more agressive individuals/groups. These laws fit the needs of the time.When we join clubs there are rules that go with membership. So if you want to be part of the family, club, religion, community, state, or country; you make a choice of following the codes of behavior set down by the group. If you choose not to follow the rules you will suffer the consequences deemed necessary by the group. Some codes may overlap or conflict. The individual has to decide how to deal with the issue.The Bible contains the laws of an ancient theocratic civilization. Some of those laws are still applicable today and are part of our secular legal system. Most are not. Due to the change in civilization, the legal system has expanded greatly.So the answer to "why should I be good" depends on what you want out of life and whether the actions you take to get what you want is contrary to the laws of the land. Human authority is what determines a civiliation's code of behavior or the laws of the land.Mankind does decide what is good. The majority or those in power decide the laws of the land.

quote:

---

If I wanna kill somebody I should be allowed because this is right for me, if that person doesn't want to die and believe that murder is wrong tough luck to that individual.

---

You asked why you should do good, not why others should allow you to do what you want. There is a difference and I explained how groups function and that your choice to behave good or bad depends on what you want from life.In our society today (United States) you can choose to kill a person, but you will suffer the consequences. The community has decided that killing is wrong. As long as you are a part of that community, they will expect you to abide by those laws.

quote:

---

Who gives them the right to tell me that I may not act according to what I think is right, since neither of us have a list pointing this out, and sent me to rot in jail if I simply wish to live up to my set values, values that suit my life.

---

If you are a part of a club, community, state, country, etc. there is a list of what is acceptable behavior and what is not. It is the legal system. The animal kingdom even has rules of conduct.

Hey Nosey,

quote:

---

Thus for those of the population whose innate moral sense is broken (that is those who are intrinsically amoral or even evil) there is a plan B-- this is what religion is. It imposes morality on those broken individuals from the outside to protect society from them.

---

Isn't that essentially what our legal system is? The Ten Commandments and the rest of the rules in the OT were the legal system for the nation of Israel. There were real time consequences for breaking them.Modern Christianity doesn't function as a legal system, no real time consequences for unacceptable actions. The secular legal system still takes care of that. In some cases clergy who have committed adultery or theft are left in their positions.So is a Christian really deterred by the future wrath of God or the secular legal system? Since Christians are supposedly saved from the Godly consequences of "sin", what's the deterrant? IMO, that's the conflicting idea within Christianity. They don't have a clear set of rules and real time consequences.

quote:

---

Was Hell created by God or by humans?

---

Humans. Both versions of it. The grave and the underworld.
What you're questioning is also created by people and not the people that wrote the Bible.

quote:

---

so why do we have police and law courts. Surely we do all believe in sin which is a breaking of law whether they are Gods laws of mans.

---

Sin is not something to believe in. It is a word used by many religious today to describe moral wrongdoing or an offense against God not just any mistake or wrongdoing.Elective abortion is considered immoral, but it's legal.Is speeding considered immoral or an offense against God?
Is one considered immoral if they don't pay their taxes? Is it an offense against God?Someone who doesn't believe in God or isn't religious would just say the action is immoral.

Out of curiosity, what do you think absolute means?In the responses to you it has been made clear that laws, rules, etc. adjust with the needs of the civilization. They don't all remain unchanged. Even the rules in the Bible didn't remain unchanged. That's the purpose of the Oral Law to adjust for the change in their civilization.Slavery was the accepted way of life, but not owning slaves didn't make the person immoral. God made no rules for or against slavery. Rules were provided in Exodus 21 concerning Hebrew slaves. Some parents sold their children into servitude to get money, but they were also supposed to be released in the seventh year except for women.As someone has already said, you're using your own morality to judge other culutres and past cultures. Each group has their own standard of living. Why is that difficult to accept?

quote:

---

Expressing finality with no implication of possible change this is the definition of absolute.

---

But that isn't the definition of absolute. From the link I provided the closest meaning to what you're thinking is: 4: having no restriction, exception, or qualification But the laws in the Bible do have restrictions and exceptions.Paul presents the idea that we are prisoners of sin. Not God or Jesus. Where does scripture actually declare this? This would be the OT not the NT.From what we’ve discussed so far we know that a wrong action can’t imprison anyone, but a person can be imprisoned for a wrong action. So Paul is speaking figuratively and not literally. Paul is making a case for his gospel. Paul is personifying his battle with wrong and right decisions. Remember, Paul is a man who has killed. He killed Christians, so he had violent inclinations. Paul using his own experience doesn’t make it universal or from God.Paul said the wages of sin is death, not God and just as Paul is not God; the scripture is not God. Scripture simply means writing, so we don’t know if Paul was inspired by the OT or another writing. Another problem is the way the Jews wrote at the time. They would take snippets from various places to make one idea. Today we wouldn’t consider that to actually support a position. Paul brings out the same concept that no one is righteous in Romans 3:10-18 Verses 10-12 is pulled from Psalm 14:1-3 (Psalm 53:1-3 Same words). The song is talking about fools, not everyone.verse 13 is pulled from Psalm 5:9 and Psalm 140:3.
The song is talking about wicked men.Verse 14 is pulled from Psalm 10:7.
The song talks about their enemies and men of violence.Verses 15-17 is pulled from Isaiah 59:7-8 and/or Proverbs 1:16.
Isaiah is talking about the wicked, not all humans.Verse 18 is pulled from Psalm 36:1.
This verse is also talking about the wicked.So the concept that no one can do good, no one is righteous is pulled out of context from centuries old songs which are written about the people's feelings in a specific time frame concerning the wicked not everyone. The songs are also not God speaking.Jesus did not present this concept. He came for the lost not the righteous. So he felt that some people were capable of good behavior.But then Paul wasn’t debating he was creating a need and then teaching a concept to satisfy that need. Paul was teaching that legalistic keeping of Torah does not save. IOW he is teaching against your meaning of absolute. Just as Jesus did.Edited by purpledawn, : Add signatureEdited by purpledawn, : Correct spellingEdited by purpledawn, : CorrectionEdited by purpledawn, : Fixed link

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

The connection that Jesus had was with Adam who was the only other man to have ever lived who was, for a time, sinless.
Like Adam, Jesus was not conceived in sin, his father was God and not any man.

---

The connection was concocted by Paul. Jesus never claimed not to have sinned. If he hadn't sinned he would not have needed to be baptized by John (Mark 1). If no sins were committed, Jesus would not have needed a baptism of repentance.

quote:

---

I must say though that Adam & Eve had every reason not to trust the serpent. For one, Adam lived for a long enough time to be able to name all the animals. He knew snakes could not talk ( but the snake never spoke to Adam, it only spoke to Eve) so when eve told him what had happened, he should have known immediately that something wasnt right.

---

You're adding to the story. The Adam and Eve story really doesn't have anything to do with what Jesus taught about repentance. Paul taught the idea of a sinful nature and created the connection with Adam. Mankind received the knowledge of good and evil, not the nature of good and evil. The snake is just a snake. The story was a device to explain why mankind is the way it is. It was appropriate for the time.The sinful nature, original sin, conceived in sin etc., are not concepts that God or Jesus presented to mankind. They are concepts developed after the death of Jesus by Paul or later religious leaders.Giving life to Paul's personification of sin, doesn't help believers understand what Jesus taught and doesn't mean that all people have difficulty behaving correctly.

quote:

---

You left out the part where John tried to prevent Jesus from being baptized? According to John, Jesus did not need to be sacrificed.

---

You're quoting a different author. The Book of Mark does not have that statement and it's irrelevant anyway since the outcome is the same. Jesus needed the baptism of repentance. Which means he needed to repent of any sins to that point. So again, if no sins were committed or could have been accidentally committed Jesus would not have been persistent. Why do you think God was pleased with Jesus? Just because be got wet? No, because he repented.

quote:

---

The sinful nature of mankind was not invented by Paul...the Jews had a whole system of worship that revolved around the need to atone for sin via the sacrificial blood of animals. Sacrifices had been practiced for thousands of years before the Apostle Paul explained sin to christians.

---

I didn't say that Paul invented it, I said he taught it. Odds are Paul was teaching about one half of man's nature: the selfish half. Human nature according to Judaism is a dual nature. The selfish nature is necessary for survival. Within civilization the selfish nature has to be curbed so people can live in harmony.God did not require sacrifices, only repentance. All sacrifices weren't about sin, plus the sin offering was only for unintentional sins. Death was only for malicious and intentional sins.If God or Jesus felt that mankind was incapable of not intentionally harming others, then no one would have been considered righteous and yet there were many righteous people in the Bible. Jesus said he came for the lost, not the righteous.Unfortunately when people talk about sinful nature or being a prisoner of sin, they aren't really talking about survival. The need to survive is an instinct. That's why I asked cedre earlier to list what is considered a sin today.Given that idea behind the "sinful nature", in the first century the extremely poor would be more apt to "sin" than those whose survival needs are met. So in that sense, yes mankind would be guided by the need to survive. This is where the idea of mercy comes into play. The spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law.In the first century a poor person might need to steal food to survive. Which is worse, stealing food to survive or stealing food when it isn't necessary to one's survival?In today's world where the laws of the land are not made by religion, what constitutes "sin"? Christianity has no laws to break.

quote:

---

How did Paul personify sin???

---

Personification
treating an abstraction as if it were a person, endowing it with human-like qualities Sin and grace have been personified in this verse. They are presented as royalty. People reign. Actions can't reign. Here sin is presented as a paymaster. Again giving sin human qualities the capability to produce, seize and put to death. Which Paul obviously didn't mean literal death since he was writing. Sin portrayed as a jailer.Personification is a literary device. That's why I keep saying that sin is not a thing, it is just a name for a particular action. So sin cannot literally hold us prisoner.Edited by purpledawn, : Added text.

quote:

---

I dont agree with that for the reason that even non religious people have a conscience

​

this conscience tells them when they've made a mistake or a bad decision...the conscience is a part of each of us and it didnt take any religion to tell us about it.

---

But does the conscience come preprogrammed. I would say no. If it did we wouldn't have to train our children in what is right and wrong.Adam and Eve didn't know what was right and wrong supposedly. Only after they had eaten from the tree with the knowledge of good and evil did they know that it was wrong to go against what God said. We tell our children not to touch something, but they don't know that it is wrong to go against what we say until the first time they do and suffer the consequences. That is why if no consequences are suffered the child continues to disobey.A conscience doesn't come preprogrammed with the current laws.