I had this discussion with ScottR regarding lessons you should train your children to know.
My question to Scott was whether it was more important to train your children to recognize sin or to know that they are not supposed to judge others.
He basically contends that proscription against judging others is such that it would be covered under the more general learning of what is and is not a sin.
I have the completely opposite viewpoint. That by concentrating on teaching your children to recognize sin (in themselves and others, I assume), you are actually training them to be judgemental people, and thus encouraging one of the most clearly proscribed behaviors in the New Testament.
Anyway, I figure I must just be missing the boat, having never been a parent. I don't really want to say that I'm right and therefore ScottR and most (I fear) of the parents on this board are wrong...
But, this all came about in the context of a comment about homosexuality. From Scott's statement, he would feel that it is more important to teach his children that homosexuality is a sin than to teach them that they should not judge those who are homosexual.
It is in going from the abstract (teach about sin versus teach about being non-judgemental) to the specific (teaching THAT homosexuality is a sin versus teaching your children not to judge those who ARE homosexual) that I have a problem with this doctrine.
I think it is clear that trying to convey to a child that homosexuality should be abhorred while teaching them not to abhor homosexuals is a tall order. And, in essence, would be leading them into the more common sin (and the one Jesus mentioned by name -- as opposed to homosexuality which he never did mention) of being judgemental.
I think Jesus singled this one out not becuase it is a sin, but because it is the big trap for us all.
Oh well... I guess I was wrong on this.
I respect people like ScottR a lot, so when I hear that our views are so different, it does lead me to question mine. But this is something so fundamental to what I thought I knew about being Christian, I'm just concerned I must not know anything...
Can someone help out on this. Maybe there's an easy reconciliation of the two views that I'm just not seeing in my panic...
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, if you don't recognize sin, how can you fix it in yourself?
In overcoming something like alcoholism, isn't recognition the first step?
Your theory is like saying it is far more important to pretend your friend is not flushing their life down the tubes by abusing alcohol than to stage an intervention that might give them back their life.
I truly think that believing it isn't important to recognize sin could only come from believing there aren't any sins that are actually that bad.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
The thought I had, however, was that Jesus didn't say judging people was a sin or was not a sin. He just said specifically don't do it.
I figure that means we shouldn't do it.
And we don't need to worry about what we call it.
Maybe he focussed on that specifically because it was more important than all the other messages he left unsaid (i.e., maybe he really believed homosexuality was a sin, but figured this was a more important message).
Or, he figured everyone he was talking to already knew what the major sins were, but this "new" one was important for them to learn about.
See, I view the call to be non-judgemental as straight from God's mouth, clear as a bell, but not necessarily talking about it as if it is "just another sin."
You and Scott agree, apparently, that it is just another sin and Jesus highlighted it because of that temporary novelty of it for the audience he was currently addressing. That it was nothing all that special for us to be wary of given all the other sins we might fall prey to.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
More like ALL sin, all those things, separate us from God.
It would be more clear if Jesus employed a good technical writer to triage the information and organize it into bullet points, but if Jesus picked a most important commandment, it was to love the Lord. And then later said, if you love me, keep my commandments.
How on EARTH can you keep his commandments if you do not recognize when you are not?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It would be more clear if Jesus employed a good technical writer to triage the information and organize it into bullet points...."
This has inspired me to do a PowerPoint version of the Bible -- unless, of course, one already exists.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that children should be taught to recognize right from wrong, first and foremost. This is, in fact, teaching them to be judgemental. I think children should be taught to be judgemental. After all, if they cannot discriminate right from wrong, they (1) will likely do wrong themselves very often, and (2) will be unable to advise or teach others right from wrong. Both of these are high priorities.
However, I don't believe you can ever teach a child to discriminate right from wrong very effectively unless you teach them to understand others, and to recognize the difference between judging a person's acts to be wrong and judging that person to be bad. If they don't learn this lesson, they will inadvertantly start committing sins, thinking it is justice. They will do things like hate gay classmates, thinking those classmates are choosing to do wrong, when in reality they simply do not share the same belief system, and are under the impression that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are you making us go so deep in thought so early on a Monday morning, Bob?
Okay, as a parent, here's my approach, which I do NOT claim to be right -- parents just have to learn as they go....
In talking about homosexuality with my kids, as in talking about ALL things that as a Christian are considered "sin", we have to first and foremost point out that ALL of us are sinners and fall short without the salvation offered through Jesus. So in other words, we all have sin.
But I do teach them what the bible mentions as sinful -- pointing out scriptures that refer to specific sins and a guiding point in helping them determine right and wrong. And right and wrong choices of behavior.
Now, I have two cousins (different sides of the family) who are homosexual. I am very good friends (?) with both. We e-mail and correspond often and get together. My kids see that I treat this person the same way I treat any other family member or friend.
Now, if they question that -- I point out that ALL my relatives are sinners -- because we all are. I myself was "with child" prior to wedlock some 19 years ago. So I was a sinner. My family didn't turn their back on me. Why should I treat this one person's sin differently than my own?
Hopefully they learn that it is for God to judge and give salvation, not me; not us. That doesn't mean that I don't think it is sin -- it just means that I'm no better.
I won't absolutely say this works perfectly -- my oldest son is very homophobic, to my dismay, and very judgemental of others. My other two kids are more "live and let live," recognizing that they don't believe it is right, but keeping their opinions to themselves.
posted
I’m not a parent either, but I’m thinking that the scripture that might be most helpful here is the “log in your own eye” one. It is important to teach children to recognize sin, but it’s also important to teach them that the main reason for learning it is to recognize it in themselves, not to point it out in others.
It’s not enough to say “we’re all sinners” if the sins we talk the most about are the ones that we personally never commit.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Bob, maybe if you looked at it this way. The worst result of Scott's methos is to create children who are very judgmental and negative towards others. The worst result of your method is to create children who sin constantly because they do not know.
And to be honest, I think that while a worst case sceneroi as caused by any decent parents wouldn't be that bad either way, Scott's seems less likely to reach it's worst since hating is certainly something you can warn your children about so that even if they don't understand the reason for it at first, they can learn the purpose without having to deal with the consequences of sinning to begin with.
posted
I don’t have kids, so I can’t speak to the specifics of how best to impart knowledge on them. However, scripture does not require us not to be judgmental in the sense that we should not make judgments. It requires us not to judge people. At the end of the scene, doesn’t Jesus say “Now go and sin no more?” Obviously, He has a lot more standing to say something like that to someone else than I do, but I think the clear implication is that it is our responsibility to be able to judge behavior as sinful, at least as much as is needed to avoid that behavior ourselves.
Clearly, sometimes Christians are called on to point out the sinfulness of others’ actions. The clearest cases involve when the sin hurts other people. The prime example in our history would be the abolition/civil rights traditions founded in Christianity. I doubt that saying slaveholding and racist repression are sinful would run afoul of the “Judge not lest ye be judged” admonition.
When does calling attention to sin pass into the prohibited judging? I don’t know. I’m much more suspicious of judging when the behavior is “victimless” (in the sense that any sin is actually victimless – not hurting another person). However, my standards of victimless differ quite a bit from the classic libertarian standpoint.
I also think the motive of the person naming the sin are critical. If the person is motivated truly by a desire to help someone else, I have a hard time condemning them. In the scene under discussion, those attempting to stone the woman were obviously not trying to help her.
I’m well aware that base motives can be obscured in “trying to help” someone else – some slave owners justified their actions because it was better for slaves to be enslaved in America than living as “savages” in Africa. Even disregarding the inherent racism in the statement, this ignored the fact it would be better to live free in America than as slaves in America.
The obsession with homosexuality by some Christians has interesting underpinnings. It’s too simplistic to say either “They care about the homosexuals’ souls” or “It’s all based on homophobia.” The truth is probably a very complex mixture of these and other motives.
All that being said, the “Go forth and sin no more” statement is impossible to carry out without knowledge of what behavior is sinful and what isn’t. It does little good to limit a child’s religious education in one respect simply because another necessary portion is hard to teach.
posted
Maybe it's a matter of favorite commandment?
Human nature being what it is, maybe our favorite commandments are the ones we don't have a problem with, and so can congratulate ourselves on being good.
Like a bishop of mine said, it's no problem keeping the law of chastity if you haven't had a date in six months.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most moral systems show this sort of conflict between legalism and idealism. On one side, there is the idea of an absolute set of laws that are followed for their own sake. On the other, there is the idea that there is some sort of ideal or principle that forms the foundation for these laws. So, sinning in the first case would be transgressing any of the list of laws, while in the second case, it would acting in violation of the underlying principle.
In the Christian tradition, idealists have siezed upon verses such as Matthew 22:36-40:
quote:Then a lawyer asked our Lord Jesus, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” Jesus' answer: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.”
and Rom. 13:8-10:
quote: Be under obligation to no one - the only obligation you have is to love one another. Whoever does this has obeyed the Law. The commandments, "Do not commit adultery; do not commit murder; do not steal; do not desire what belongs to someone else" - all these, and any others besides are summned up in the one command, "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." If you love others, you will never do them wrong; to love, then, is to obey the whole Law.
In psychological studies of morality, people who express a legalistic orientation tend to be much more likely to depersonalize other people. In studies where we've been able to examine morals formation under stress, such as the Milgram and Robbers' Cove experiments, we've found that the desire to hate or do bad things to other people often leads to creation of moral rules that say that this is ok.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just curious why Bob chose to pose this question here, instead of over on his Voy Forum -- where there are many more highly religious people who can perhaps better answer his question...
posted
Kat, My stand is that it's more complex than that. Sure it's a letter of the law thing versus a spirit, but it's also more an expression of what people believe about human nature.
If you believe that people are (without divine intervention) irredeemably evil, then there is no hope of anyone ever acting mainly out of love for any one else. However, if you believe that people are either at their base good, or immature and selfish but with the possiblity of developing into mature and unselfish, then you're probably going to push for love over all.
Philosophically, I'm a quasi-Taoist, which has it's basis in the statement, "Thou art that." This essentially is one step beyond Jesus' formulation of the Golden Rule. Instead of loving my neighbor as myself. I'm pretty much loving another aspect of myself as myself. So, it's pretty clear where I stand.
Taoism and its philosophical cousin, Buddhism, have another interesting basis that fits in here too. In Taosim, there is a rejection of rules because distorting virtue. In Taosim, the edenic paradise was destroyed when people started to impose rules on it, when people put names to what can't be captured in words. In Buddhism, the fundamental sources of evil are identified as fear and desire. Action can only be righteous if it's done for it's own sake, rather than because of desire for reward or fear of punishment.
These ideas were especially meaningful to me (although I'm not on board with the blind optimistic humanism of the Taoists) because psychology has, for the last 60 years or so, been proving that the naive behaviorism (i.e. reward people to make them do something more, punish them to make them do it less) that I see as on of the fundamental assumptions of western society in the last 2000 or so years doesn't actually work. To put it another way, scientific studies have been showing that the Buddhists were right. Fear and desire aren't the wellsprings of good behavior. The lead instead to distortions of the right and the good.
In regards to children, they, like all of us, have conflicting motivational systems. Yes, they are definitely selfish, but, they are also empathetic. Our job as adults is to provide them with an environment where their selfishness decreases and their empathy increases. Certainly they need rules, but, as studies of different parenting styles have shown, these rules have to be meaningful and guided by underlying principles, rather than autocratically imposed on them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you believe that people are (without divine intervention) irredeemably evil, then there is no hope of anyone ever acting mainly out of love for any one else. However, if you believe that people are either at their base good, or immature and selfish but with the possibility of developing into mature and unselfish, then you're probably going to push for love over all.
What if you believe that people are, without divine intervention, irredeemably broken (evil is too loaded a word for what I mean) but also believe that there is no one in whom the divine hasn’t intervened?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, It all comes down to whether you believe that people can love without God forcing them to. If people are all broken and then God fixes them all, I don't really see how that would be different from them not being broken in the first place.
Of course, theologically, as you know, I believe that God as decribed in the Christian Old Testament is an evil god, so, from my perspective, it does matter why and how God "fixed" them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
The question comes down to, should you teach your children right from wrong, or love thy neighbor. While I really want to say, love thy neighbor should be all of the law, the ideas of right and wrong must come first.
I think the greatest commandment, divine suggestion, good thing, is to love others. (Not sex--Love) To teach this to children creates children who can do little harm, accept to themselves when they love too much, trust too easilly, and become prey to those who love no one.
Yet the concept of Love Thy Neighbor is difficult for children to grasp. They can much easier grasp good and evil/right and wrong. I don't mean they can decide what is good and what is evil, but they can decide that doing good is what you are supposed to do, and doing bad/evil is wrong.
Then we guide them on what is good and what is evil based on our own beliefs.
To some, homosexuality is bad. To others, condeming others is bad.
The question is how much emphasis do you place on the list of sins, the list of bad things and the biblical law that surrounds it. If you teach a strict "Law" filled version of religion you will loose the followers the first time they run across a thing they know is good--loving thy neighbor, but that goes against the law.
The child has an Uncle who lives with a woman he is not married to. The woman is nice, pleasant, caring, and friendly. Should the child condemn her and the child's Uncle as sinners? That will hurt these good people.
The Child learns that "Thou Shall Not Kill." The child see's on TV the US Bombing and shooting our enemies. The legalist tries to explain, "No, its Thou Shall Not Kill unless....."
The child discovers loop holes and technicalities and exceptions. The child is on its way to becoming a lawyer.
basically, you have to teach good and evil, right and wrong. You just also have to avoid being to dogmatic about it, or you will loose them.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jesus had something say about that, too. Matthew 5:39-41
quote:"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles."
Jesus was, by the standards of his time and of ours, a freaking nut-job. For example, the guy forcing you to walk a mile with him is a reference to a law giving the Roman forces occupying Israel the right to force any citizen to carry their pack for a mile. Jesus is telling people to willingly give aid to their most hated enemies.
I am constantly suprised (ok, I'm really not, but it sounds nice to say.) when people talk about the comfort they find in Jesus. He's not a comfortable guy. To follow Jesus is not to be just, but rather to be beyond justice. At the strictest level, there is never any justification for harming another person, no matter what. Following Jesus is not something you can achieve; it's not an accomplishment. It's a constant struggle.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, I don’t think God forces anyone to love. But I don’t think people are capable of love without God. Fortunately, God’s love is available to everyone, therefore everyone is capable of love. (Whether/how one chooses to exercise that capability is another question.)
And you already know I strongly disagree with you on the OT thing, so I won’t go into it again. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem is with the word 'sin'. When I was a kid, It'd have been hard for me to have understood that people could be sinners and still be good people. Sin is a very loaded word, it brings up connotations of black poison in my mind.
Though I'm not a parent, I was raised by one who I think was very good at what she did. She taught me that some things were bad and not to be done, but that if you were weak and did these things, you could be forgiven and not do it again. At least, this is what I assume she taught me, because whenever I feel like condemning someone for what they do, I'm forced to remember what I've done in my life.
Of course, my upbringing wasn't the most conventionally Christian one. In fact, though I believe in God and call myself Christian, there are many points in which the scriptures and I disagree. But in my untested opinion, the best way to teach kids to be accepting and also the difference between right and wrong is to make sure that they understand the latter while knowing that they can eventually be forgiven.
Of course there's always a chance that someone would take the 'always forgiven' edict to its extreme and do bad things just because they knew they'd be forgiven... When I was a kid I thought about that. But I decided that if they meant to do it because they knew they'd be forgiven, they didn't feel bad about what they'd done and they wouldn't be forgiven anyway.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The child has an Uncle who lives with a woman he is not married to. The woman is nice, pleasant, caring, and friendly. Should the child condemn her and the child's Uncle as sinners? That will hurt these good people.
What an interesting choice for an example. As it happens, my children have an uncle who lives with a woman he is not married to. She is nice, pleasant, caring, friendly, and I can hardly wait to call her "sister". No one in my family would condemn either one of them (though all of us are sinners, both them and us). However, because they aren't married, when they come to stay the night, they have to sleep in seperate beds. My house, my rules. They have honored that without complaint. My brother joked with me, telling me that they would not be sleeping in seperate beds when we came to stay the night. I love my brother -- he slays me.
Still, when the time comes, I will tell my children that this isn't the way God wants us to conduct our sexual relationship.
Just because we disagree with someone's choices doesn't mean we have to therefore condemn them. I really wanted my brother to get married in a church and get lots of premarital counselling. I told him so, since we are close enough that I can do that without hurting him or our relationship. He's going to marry his excellent girlfriend in Vegas in a few weeks. I think this is a poor choice, but you know what? I'm not the one getting married. I made my pitch, gave my reasons, and did so only because we have a relationship that could sustain that sort of conversation. He's choosing otherwise, and I'm going to go to his wedding and cheer them both on.
So ultimately, it comes down to love, not sin. Do you love the person you think is making a bad choice? Have you loved them well enough that your opinion matters to them? And do you love them enough that even when they make that choice you disagree with, you keep on loving them, not love-the-feeling, but love-the-action?
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The child has an Uncle who lives with a woman he is not married to. The woman is nice, pleasant, caring, and friendly. Should the child condemn her and the child's Uncle as sinners? That will hurt these good people.
This reminds me of an incident that caused a hoopla between my parents and some of their friends. My parents are fairly hard-core anti-alcohol, except for medicinial purposes, and taught us it was a drug. I guess from the brain chemistry standpoint they are right.
However, this got them into extreme hot water, when their 4 year old son (my brother) was offered some Kool-Aid by some friends of theirs at a large social gathering in honor of some other mutual friends. After seeing a couple of beers in the fridge, my brother went running into the area where the adults were going "Mommy Daddy, they have drugs in their refrigerator!" This led to some social upheaval for a while, when multiple friends were upset at my parents for teaching their kid they were "evil"!
posted
I guess my point above is, it doesn't really matter whether you state it in the positive or the negative. "Don't hurt others" or "Love your neighbor as yourself" (and yes these are paraphrases and I know they aren't quite equivalent)
The hard part is trying to instill tact into a 4 year old. Some of us never learn.
posted
Ryuko brings up an excellent point about the word “sin.” It has so many different definitions and connotations that it’s difficult to use it in conversation except in defined communities where everyone shares the same context. I remember a conversation on Hatrack last year when someone referred to X as a sin and another poster demanded to know, “so you think I’m damned to hell just because I X?” The first poster said, “no, where did you get that idea?” The discussion derailed, with the responding poster seeming incapable of defining “sin” as other than “something Christians think I’ll go to hell if I do.” Since none of the Christians posting were defining it that way there was much confusion.
I know people who won’t sing “Amazing Grace” because they don’t want to call themselves “a wretch.” And then there’s John and Charles Wesley (founders of Methodism) who both frequently referred to themselves as “the chief of sinners.”
Do you (generic ‘you’) think of sin as the violation of a law or the violation of a relationship? Is it a crime or an illness? A deliberate act of malice or a failure to act in love? A mistake you can learn from and then forget about or a really big, horrible mark on your permanent record?
(Note: although those all ended up as pairs, they aren't intended to define two opposing options.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll give you this father's opinion. I am not a christian, but for the purposes of this discussion sin and wrong can be the same thing. This is a wonderful discussion and it is very interesting to see how far folks go to research their foundation in teaching children. I happen to think that our highest calling is to (at least attempt to) teach children.
I think the concepts have to be mutually exclusive at times. I agree with many others - teaching right and wrong is tantamount. More to the point, teaching them to embrace values and use those values in determining the type of person they will be is the objective. As a parent, you have no better tool in helping your child protect themselves and to encourage free will and right minded thinking.
This is somewhat separate from judging others. Those who don't conform to your definition of right in a particular area should not be discounted. The point here is that the whole of a person is valuable and single point discrimination is wrong. History is full of dastardly actions of baseless discrimination (Hitler's Aryan Nation, slavery of any sort, nationality, etc.). Humanity shares a common bond - much in the same way that you would bandage a stranger's wounds, you should be open and nondescrimating in your intial review of your fellow humans.
The big question - Does this mean we should like indiscriminately? I taught my child that the answer was 'absolutely no'. We have to be judgemental in determining the who, why and how that surrounds us and makes us more valuable folks. But it is important that we look at others as a whole. Sexual orientation, religion, profession, etc. are just bit players in our overall make up.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't speak as a Christian, but I can speak as a father. I've tried to instill strong ethics in my sons, but I've never used the word "sin." That, to me, implies a moral definition. If I had to come up with a secular definition, I'd say that sin lies in deliberately and unnecessarily hurting others.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: think it is clear that trying to convey to a child that homosexuality should be abhorred while teaching them not to abhor homosexuals is a tall order.
Yes it's a tall order, but it's a responsibility Christian parents have, and one they should take very seriously.
I want my kids to know what sin is. And what it isn't. Sin doesn't damn you, sin doesn't send you to hell. Sin separates you from God. In essence since we're all born sinners, no one is SENT to hell at all. We are only saved from our fates by the sacrifice Jesus made for us. I deserve hell because I AM a wretch. I sing the song very proudly.
My kids and I have talked about homosexuality. Well, I should qualify that my oldest (now 11) and I have talked about it. And I did stress that one should not hate anyone that is committing a sin because then you would have to hate the world. Instead, you should pray for that person that they will find forgiveness for the sins they practice just as you pray every night for God to forgive you.
By emphasizing to your children that they are just as much in need of grace as anyone else, I hope that they will never become judgmental. Instead I want them to be thankful for what God has done for them and I want them to treat others with compassion and love. By recognizing their own sins, they can lead a life that draws them closer to God and can instill in them a love for other people. That is my prayer for my kids. I also pray that I'm adequate to the job, because I feel so very inadequate so many times.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've never used the word "sin." That, to me, implies a moral definition. If I had to come up with a secular definition, I'd say that sin lies in deliberately and unnecessarily hurting others.
Javert Hugo:
quote: Isn't that A sin, rather than the definition of a sin?
See therein is exactly the conflict dkw is talking about about definitions for the word "sin"
To throw in a conservative Christian definition of sin for contrast
"Sin is any word thought or deed against God's Will"
It has died down as a trend, from what I am aware of but this definition is the reason why "Finding God's Will for Your Life" seminar type things became extremely popular for a while. The idea was that you could be sinning even if you didn't mean to be if you hadn't researched God's Perfect Will for your life thorougly (and of course these people had the inside track to God)
posted
I don't think so, kat. The classification of sins, in Christianity, has always seemed to me to be just separating different ways one can violate Chris' (Or altenatively, Christ's) rule. Whether the hurt is financially, physically, emotionally, the hurt almost always exhibits itself as pain in the subject of your sinning.
Whether you take a lamp, a limb, or a lover, fundamentally are these not all springing from the same thing? A decision that is destructive to God's Work, that is (knowingly or not) ultimately objectifying the other as inferior, as separate from God's Plan?
The conflict I see, is the realization of this idea, in some form, and the fact that there are people out there who would make those decisions, either in spite or in ingnorance.
posted
Okay, we have the following possible definitions for sin:
1. Intentionally and unnecessarily hurting others. 2. Violating one of God's commandments. 3. Anything that separates a person from the Lord.
I think the last two would encompass the first.
Where do you get your definition of sin from? The word sin itself implies a judgement (of God). Wouldn't God be the one to define it?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Sin is any word thought or deed against God's Will"
This is the definition I'd use.
But I believe God is perfectly good, and that therefore God's Will would have to be for us to do good, and that all wrong acts would therefore be against His Will. Hence, I would say a sin is equivalent to any wrong act.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to come back to the letter versus the spirit of the law thing. I think I figured out what troubled me about that definition. For people in the legalistic tradition, the letter is the spirit of the law. There is no underlying principle, other than submission to the authority that laid down the list.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, isn't that saying that those who follow the letter of the law believe the letter of the law IS the spirit of the law?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: My kids and I have talked about homosexuality. Well, I should qualify that my oldest (now 11) and I have talked about it. And I did stress that one should not hate anyone that is committing a sin because then you would have to hate the world. Instead, you should pray for that person that they will find forgiveness for the sins they practice just as you pray every night for God to forgive you.
Belle - I enjoyed your overall comments (it was definitely that indefinite style that us 'not exactly sure what we are doing' parents use). While I think I know the answer, I have a question on the above part of your comments:
What do you teach your children with regard to deeper relationships with folks that have a strong attachment to sin (such as homosexuality)? This would be more along the lines of a deep friendship, not as lover.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This will require more thought. My initial response was that of course you need to teach your child what is sin. But the more I think about it, the more sin is covered by the "love your neighbor as yourself" commandment from Christ.
I was trying to think of other situations where a parent should teach a child what is sinful or wrong that most would agree on. One of those that I came up with involved my nephew. He is now 10 and has always been the biggest kid in his class. He is a very good natured kid now, but when he was very young (about 3 or 4), his parents had a few problems because he was using his size against other kids to get his way. His parents had to explained to him that his behaviour was wrong. We can all agree that this is a case where the parent does need to say what is right and what is wrong. I don't know, maybe not.
But of course, that example falls pretty easily under the "love your neighbor as yourself" commandment.
What about tithing? I know it's another area of contention amongst Christians, but is it a sin not to tithe and should you teach your child that? I think it also could fall under the "love your neighbor as yourself" commandment, as the money will be used to help others in many ways.
But where does that leave a parent when faced with an issue like homosexuality? I believe it is a sin, but it doesn't really have a victim. I don't think it follows loving your neighbor, but does that mean I shouldn't convey my beliefs to my son?
Yes, I will tell him what things my beliefs tell me are sinful. But one thing I also hope to instill in my son is that as he grows older, he will need to seek God himself and not simply rely on what I've told him.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm afraid if I get deeper into this it'll quickly become a "Why I'm Not a Christian" post, and so I'll gracefully bow out.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Henry, I'm not sure exactly what you mean? What do I teach my kids about people that are homosexual and are just friends not acting on it? Or what do I teach them about us being friends with a person who is a homosexual?
It's late and I haven't eaten lunch, my brain is not working on all cylinders. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been chewing on this one a lot. It deeply disturbs me, but I have been having a hard time coming up with an appropriate response. Bear with me.
quote: I respect people like ScottR a lot, so when I hear that our views are so different, it does lead me to question mine. But this is something so fundamental to what I thought I knew about being Christian, I'm just concerned I must not know anything...
I think it depends on what you respect about ScottR's views. I believe it is possible to still be a good Christian with the views you hold. You are just emphasizing a different part of God's word because it touches you more, but I think in the spirit of the word, that is okay. It does not mean that you don't know anything about being a Christian.
quote: I have the completely opposite viewpoint. That by concentrating on teaching your children to recognize sin (in themselves and others, I assume), you are actually training them to be judgemental people, and thus encouraging one of the most clearly proscribed behaviors in the New Testament.
For me, this comes with my percieved abuse of many Christians of judgement. Because I have seen this viewpoint abused, I would swing towards your end of the spectra that teaching children not to be judgemental is more important than teaching them about sin. However, here are where the other views that I hold (such that homosexuality in a committed relationship is not a sin) conflict with views of other good Christian souls. I also believe that there are too many ways to interpret the bible to make a strict moral code and that we on earth can never know the true will of God, we can only glimpse through our own limited minds and hearts.
The trouble is, though, how to teach morality to your children as well as temperence. If they should be willing to accept everyone and not be judgemental, why should they be any more critical of themselves? Can you still teach them to be passionate and accepting?
I think it can be done. You have to first teach them your morals as fact, but as they learn and grow, teach them how to open their minds and find for themselves where the inconsistencies are and why you hold the views you do.
Posts: 1777 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or what do I teach them about us being friends with a person who is a homosexual
That's it Belle.
I reread my stuff and it doesn't appear to be your fault. I was writing that comment between three conversations and just assumed some words got typed...
Oh well - at least I am the only one that has to be around me all the time.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
