Conference yukon::christian_v7

    AT THE VOTING BOOTH!

    Re: Note 478.1 by JULIET::MORALES_NA
    
>   AT THE VOTING BOOTH!
    
    Could you be more specific, Nancy?  Our voting systems are different to
    yours; we don't have a democracy here.  No bill of rights.  No free
    speech.
    
    James

    One could conceive of a situation where one made a foolish vow/promise
    and then later realized that to keep it would require sinning and yet
    to break it was also sin. (I think)
    

    Yes, and the original vow was made in sin... ;-)

Nope, it is never sinful to realize that you promised to do something
sinful and then to explain that the promise you made cannot be carried
out.

/john

  Is this what you had in mind:

  Rahab the harlot lied to save the Hebrew spies.
  Had she not lied they would have been killed.

  Hank

Rahab is the obvious one, as Hank pointed out.  Though specific cultural
situations cast a different light on certain 'rights' and 'wrongs'...

Phil postulated making a vow which you later realise would be a sin to 
keep or break, and John reckoned it's OK to cancel such a vow, but that 
depends on more than average wisdom.  Like Joshua omitting to consult the 
LORD when the Gibeonites asked for a treaty, then having to keep to his 
promise even though it was against the original rules of occupation (and 
later, David suffered because Saul had tried to wipe them out).

I think Nancy meant that all the options in the voting booth were likely to 
do harm, yet to refrain from voting because of this is also a wrong....  
That's one I have a problem with too ;-}

								Andrew

    James,
       If we allow ourselves the indulgence to sin, then there will always
    be alternatives to the degree of sin we may commit. As an example, I
    went into the military to learn to fly helicopters. Once in the
    service, I was afforded many opportunites to exploit my prideful
    nature. I did, only to find years down the road that I had been very
    sinful. In order for me to discontinue my sin, I would have to sin
    at least one more time, - by breaking an oath.
    
    I agree with what Andrew presented, the examples of Joshua and David
    are key to understanding any neglect to the initial sin presents
    opportunities for choices among sin(s).
    
    PDM

    actually I was thinking more of a personal example from my experience.
    
    perhaps a perusal of the Biblical to break promises note a few back
    (early 400's actually) would help with this some.
    
    p

Examples aside, let's look a bit deeper to the principles involved.

Would God ever correct sin with sin?  Would God want us to continue to sin
because it would be "a sin" to discontinue another sin by breaking an oath?

The underlying principle is this:  do not sin.  
Imagine an oath you take which causes you to sin.  Is this a binding 
oath, such that if you do not fulfill your sinful oath, God will punish
you for breaking an oath?  No!  The oath was made in foolishness and
you may be punished for the foolishness of -making the oath- and not
-breaking the oath-.  You *should* break an oath that causes you to sin
and suffer the consequences of the foolishness.  

I've thought a bit about some of the scriptures regarding punishment of 
foolish servitude (and should make a study of this).  We have made much of 
the prodigal son still being a son when arguing Calvin and Wesley, but 
when do we ever consider the chastening of the Lord - receiving a whipping
for our foolishness *out of love* to correct us and make us more pure?
In today's America and more recently the stir over the caning in Singapore,
many of us go to the extreme to say that any physical punishment (no matter
how light or severe) is inappropriate.  But this is not the case in the
Bible.  King David was given "Either three year's famine; or three months 
to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies 
overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the Lord, even the 
pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the Lord destroying throughout 
all the coasts of Israel."  (1 Chronicles 21:12a)

We don't like to think of punishment.  We've never liked it as children as
we ourselves pushed and tested the boundaries of our parent's permissiveness.
Yet, punishment and discipline is a necessary part of growth.  We may have
to suffer for foolishness, but as David said, "I am in a great strait: let 
me fall now into the hand of the Lord; for very great are his mercies; but 
let me not fall into the hand of man."  Be reminded that David was restored
to the Lord!  How great were his sins and foolishness!  How terrible were 
his consequences!  How loved of the Lord was he!

Back to the topic of sinning to prevent sin:  Do not sin.  Be holy (separate) 
as God is holy.

Mark

| <<< Note 478.10 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>


| The underlying principle is this:  do not sin.

	The underlying problem is defining sin. One may believe that not going
to church every Sunday is a sin, while another may not believe this to be true.
Until grey areas are gone on defining sin, one can only try to not do what they
believe is a sin. 





Glen

 The undelying problem for *some* is defining sin..When the Holy Spirit
 becomes part of one's life, one becomes aware rather quickly just what 
 sin is.



 
 Jim

	Jim D., I agree with you that the grey areas will be around until He
comes again. But what I found kind of amusing about your response was many
times I have been told things are wrong, and was then told the reason I do not
see them as being wrong is because I have not listened to the Lord, not that He
didn't tell me.



Glen

 "I used to sin and love it...now I sin and hate it"


                          A man in my church.


 How true this is.  There are things I used to do that no one could 
 convince me was sinful.  There are things I used to do, that I suspected
 were wrong, but I did them anyway because *I* loved doing it.  Once
 saved through the conviction of the Holy Spirit and through the Word of
 God (funny how these all work together) it all changed.  Those things I
 loved so much, that were a part of my daily existance, suddenly, through
 little effort on my part, appeared to me as being wrong, and they were
 gone.  And, occasionally when I slip and sin, I do *hate* those things
 I do..remarkably like Paul described in Romans 7.


 Jim

| <<< Note 478.15 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Be there" >>>


| How true this is.  There are things I used to do that no one could convince me
| was sinful.  

	And why was that Jim? Was it because you truly believed inside that
these things were not sins or because you did not want to listen?

| There are things I used to do, that I suspected were wrong, but I did them 
| anyway because *I* loved doing it.  

	This is an area we are all guilty of at some time or another. If we
question the action, then we should look into it and find out. God will show
you, as you have said, if the action is right or wrong.

| Once saved through the conviction of the Holy Spirit and through the Word of
| God (funny how these all work together) it all changed.  

	Jim, can you honestly tell me that everything you believe is a sin will
also be a sin to anyone whom you believe is a Christian? I guess I have a hard
time believing that the Bible tells us what is or is not a sin, and as long as
we follow the ones the majority agree on, that's ok. To me that says nothing.
God has and keeps showing me the various sins I have done, and stops me from
doing others. He is who I will confide in.



Glen

RE:               <<< Note 478.16 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>


>| How true this is.  There are things I used to do that no one could convince me
>| was sinful.  

>	And why was that Jim? Was it because you truly believed inside that
>these things were not sins or because you did not want to listen?


 The World told me it was OK, if that was what I wanted to do.."Do your own
 thing".




>| Once saved through the conviction of the Holy Spirit and through the Word of
>| God (funny how these all work together) it all changed.  

>	Jim, can you honestly tell me that everything you believe is a sin will
>also be a sin to anyone whom you believe is a Christian? I guess I have a hard
>time believing that the Bible tells us what is or is not a sin, and as long as


Its all there in the book.  Like I did, for a while, I chose not to believe it,
then trusting Christ and receiving the Holy Spirit, it all became as clear as
the nose on my face.  Now its just a matter of "Trust and obey".  The Bible,
prayer, and the Holy Spirit..put them all together, and you have the answer.


Jim

> God will show you, as you have said, if the action is right or wrong.

The written word has also been given to show whether an action is right
or wrong.  Sin is not only defined by an inner conscience (which is wrongly
named at times as the Holy Spirit prompting us), though the Holy Spirit
will use the conscience to convince (and convict - in feeling) a person
of sin.  As we all know, we can dismiss this convincing and sere our conscience
to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.  The Word endures where feelings
(whether perceived as from the Holy Spirit or conscience) fail to instruct
us properly as to what is sin and what is not.  

Because there are so-called gray areas does not mean that that which is
black and white is part of the "gray area."  And let's define gray area
a bit further, shall we, as those actions of the child of God that are
contrary to the Lord's will but not objectively a sin.  For example, 
Jonah ran the other way when God called him to go to Nineveh.  Running
in a particular direction is no sin, except that it was *DISOBEDIENCE*.

Disobedience turns gray to black, and gray never makes black less black.
Disobedience (in every case) to God is sin, way back to the garden.
Disobedience is rebellion towards God.  Disobedience will damn a soul.

But then, Glen, all this is nonsense to you since you have stated no
faith in the entire Word of God and pick and choose that which edifies you.

Mark

 Interesting comments, Mark, re: Conscience..I'm reading a book by
 John MacCarthur right now called "The Vanishing Conscience" which
 covers much of what you had to say.

 
 Excellent book..



 Jim

>Disobedience turns gray to black, and gray never makes black less black.
>Disobedience (in every case) to God is sin, way back to the garden.
>Disobedience is rebellion towards God.  Disobedience will damn a soul.

To clarify this black and white and gray issue: there is sin and righteousness
and neutrality.  Neutrality is the state of an action or thing in isolation
of an attitude (leaning, disposition).  Alcohol has no inherent evil in 
isolation of its abuse and misuse.  Sex has no inherent evil in isolation 
of its abuse and misuse.  Definition of abuse and misuse comes from
the highest authority, in which case (and in this conference) that 
authority is God (the same one in the Bible).

Obedience to definition is righteousness.  It is an attitude expressed properly
towards a neutral action or thing.

Disobedience to definition is sin.  It is an attitude expressed improperly
(rebellion) towards a neutral action or thing.

Because some actions and things are neutral in isolation of the attitude,
some would declare that performing these actions and using these things
are also neutral.  This is wrong.

We are made to take ANYTHING that is "gray" and make it "white" or "black."
That is to say, when we take the neutral act of sex and put it in the
proper context, it is no longer neutral (gray) but righteous (white). If
we abuse or misuse it, we turn from neutral (gray) to sin (black).

So, in reality, there is NO GRAY once it is touched (or acted on) by 
any of us.  We either use or misuse, and it cannot remain gray.
So there is only righteousness or sin, folks.  Black and white.
Gray merely waits to be changed into black or white; you and I can
never exist in the gray.

Mark

 Hmmmm....

    Could I have some more examples please?  And less discussion on the
    definition of sin?  ;-)
    
    Feel free to make the following assumption in order to answer my base
    note; a sin is an act which is in disobediance with the Ten
    Commandmants as found in the Pentateuch.
    
    Can you state examples of situations in your own lives or other lives
    where you have had to choose the lesser of two sins?
    
    James

| <<< Note 478.17 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Be there" >>>


| >	And why was that Jim? Was it because you truly believed inside that
| >these things were not sins or because you did not want to listen?


| The World told me it was OK, if that was what I wanted to do.."Do your own
| thing".

	Oh.... ok. But that is not what *I* was talking about. *I* was refering
to something that you, the individual believes is NOT a sin. 

| >	Jim, can you honestly tell me that everything you believe is a sin will
| >also be a sin to anyone whom you believe is a Christian? I guess I have a hard
| >time believing that the Bible tells us what is or is not a sin, and as long as


| Its all there in the book.  

	But that's just it Jim. You say it is all there in the book, but it
really comes down to the interpretation of that book.

| Now its just a matter of "Trust and obey".  The Bible, prayer, and the Holy 
| Spirit..put them all together, and you have the answer.

	I believe all 3 help things go a long way. But I while I would put my
trust in prayer, I would put my trust in the Holy Spirit, Jesus, God, that is
where my trust ends.


Glen

| <<< Note 478.18 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| The written word has also been given to show whether an action is right
| or wrong.  

	depending on who does the interpreting......

| Because there are so-called gray areas does not mean that that which is
| black and white is part of the "gray area."  

	Mark, there are many areas that you may not consider grey, but other
Christians do as they do not agree with your version of <insert scripture>.

| And let's define gray area a bit further, shall we, as those actions of the 
| child of God that are contrary to the Lord's will but not objectively a sin.  

	Mark, nice of you to put limits on this. But it doesn't work that way.
Grey areas are what they are. You trying to hold them down to what YOU, Mark
Metcalfe, a HUMAN BEING, wants them to be does not mean that you have touched
on the entire thing. 

| But then, Glen, all this is nonsense to you since you have stated no faith in 
| the entire Word of God and pick and choose that which edifies you.

	What ever Mark..... what ever.....


Glen

    Glen, 
     I would say you are mistaken. Check scripture, especially I
    Corithinians. You will find there that to which Mark is speaking. All
    things are permissible, yet not all things are benficial. I agree with
    Mark and his observation. I suppose some could argue agains this
    observations, then it raises the question, "Why?"  The truth is within
    each man to descern the gray. Once resolved, it is either white or
    black. God himself has told us, be one way or the other, but the luke
    warm he will spit out of his mouth. (See Revelations Glen.)
    
    PDM

>    Feel free to make the following assumption in order to answer my base
>    note; a sin is an act which is in disobediance with the Ten
>    Commandmants as found in the Pentateuch.

1John 5:1  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and
every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
  2  By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and
keep his commandments.
  3  For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his
commandments are not grievous.


Many so-called Christians have absolutely no problem with the first verse
here.  "I believe that Jesus Christ is born of God and I love him so I must
be born of him."  But lip service falls short of the definition of who is
and who is not a Christian.  Verse 2 and 3 completes the thought in verse 1 
by clarifying what it means to love God: "that we keep his commandments."

So we see that obedience and disobedience are key elements in love and 
rebellion.  Rebellion against what?  The commandment - that which is 
DEFINED by the highest authority.

Glen demonstrates that there is no definition among human institutions and
no human has the greater authority to define right and wrong for obedience
or disobedience.  But God does, to which even Glen agrees.  We simply 
disagree as to what God defines and who God is.  And because of these
"interpretations," the attempt is to show that every interpretation is
as good or as flawed as the next - an equal playing field [of guesswork].

But for Bible-believers, there is definite definition from the Highest
Authority, because the Bible is inspired in its entirety by God even though
it was written by [inspired] men.  As we also know, there is legitimate
interpretational disputes of the Word, and there are also illegitimate
disputes which are not interpretational at all but editing, deleting, or
complete changing of what was written.  These noninterpretations are 
pathways to death.

Copntinuing in 1 John 5:

  7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

We understand the Word here to mean Jesus, as stated in John 1:1  "In the 
beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."
Yet, in a very real sense, all that is inspired in the Bible is the word
of God and a subset of the Word that is God.  Jesus is begotten of the Father,
and the Holy Spirit proceeds from these two, eternally One.  The Word and
the word are not separable.  The Word and the word are not separable.

James Cameron mentions the 10 Commandments.  Jesus summed up all the 
commandments into 1 which states simply, "Love God with everything you
are."  If you commit any sin, you break the first commandment.

Phil Morano correctly states that "all things are permissible, yet not 
all things are beneficial."  All things are neutral, until the attitude 
of the heart is applied (that is, appropriate or inappropriate context).
The 10 commandments are a broad codification of the simply premise to 
put God first; to love because God is love.

If all things are permissible, then why can't I drink to excess?  
In fact, you can (that is why it is permissible) but because drinking to
excess elevates you and the liquor above God, it is not beneficial, breaks
the law of love in many ways, some of which may not even be apparent 
(especially to the guy who says, "I'm not hurting anyone"). 

Back to the Word: Jesus, himself, said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments."
It is easy for someone to say, "well, [insert immoral behavior] isn't one of 
his commandments" but saying it doesn't make it so to anyone except the 
person who says it.  Come Judgment Day, the highest Authority will impose
definition, and claiming an alternate definition will not suffice nor will
it be considered ignorance of the truth because one has convinced themself
of another [non]truth.  (And one could also say, "there's not going to be
a Judgment Day."  Plug your ears and close your eyes; but the Truth in the 
Word will come about as sure as God exists.)

Mark

As for choosing the lesser of two sins:  the Bible tells us not to sin.
The Bible also tells us to make wrongs right (where possible).

However, one example would be the famous debate as to whether it would
have been better to murder Adolph Hitler to prevent the murder of many, many
others.  Murder being considered a sin, it would be committing sin to 
murder the man who caused murders.  

Some do not believe in the death penalty because of this.  I do not
share this view.  Read the account of Ehud and Eglon, where the Lord
provided deliverance of Israel through an assassin.  Also, the wars
of the Israelites were used as divine judgments against some peoples.
In other words, is all killing a sin?  The Bible says, "Thou shalt not kill."
And being more properly translated, it says, "You shall not murder."

What is murder?  Is warfare murder?  Is assassination murder?  In what
context?  In all contexts?

To answer these questions, consider the definition of good and bad, right and
wrong, and Who makes the definition and has the authority to do so and why.
Was God a murderer when He rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah?
He killed many people this way.  Was God a murderer when he drowned the people
of the earth inthe Great flood, or Pharoah's army in the Red Sea?  If not,
why not?  If so, how do you support this contention?

When you decide this, then go back and think about the concept of the
"having to choose between the lesser of two sins."

Mark

We're wandering round the fringe of the topic, rather than giving James the
examples he's looking for.  Agreed the principles are relevant when one
begins to examine a case in detail, but so far we seem to have a shortage
of cases to apply it to!  I can't readily call up modern examples - the
heaviest I can think of, off the cuff is Jephthah, who was under oath to
sacrifice the first out of his house, who turned out to be his daughter. 
The oath was out of order, but it was still an oath before the LORD.  His
presumed ignorance of the law precluded him realising that he was caught
between two sins...  Granted there are also variations in how the
fulfillment is seen.... 

Then there was Saul's oath in 1 Samuel 14:24 ... :44-45, which is left 
hanging with a question mark over the result.

But I guess the sort of example you're looking for, James, is more of the
situational type where, for instance, someone's life depends on concealment
of the truth under threat (as, for instance, those challenged who concealed
Jews from the Nazis during WWII). 

Or the 'defend aggressively or see your loved ones suffer' type of situation...

I heard of a girl during the times of the Covenanters in Scotland, who was
on her way to communion as proscribed by the authorities.  She was stopped
by the soldiers, who asked her where she was going.  I rather think a quick
oprayer (and response) zipped up and down faster than EMail.. ;-).  She
replied "To the funeral of my elder brother...".  The truth, represented in
disguise....  It made the soldiers turn away...


								Andrew

Let's not forget that Jesus had people beset him with "unavoidable" situations
by the Pharisees.  "Should a man pay taxes to Caesar?"  "A woman is
widowed seven times for seven brothers... who's wife is she?"  We see the
end of it, now, but at the time they thought that no matter what answer
Jesus gave, they'd have him caught in his words.  I loved it when Jesus
asked them where John the Bapstist's baptism was from.  He turned the tables
on them.

Perhaps we need to examine the "cut and dried" definitions of sin - such as
whether lying and bearing false witness are the same, whether killing and
murder are the same, stuff like that.  The cut and dried definition of sin
is disobedience to God.  The definition of disobedience is not so cut and 
dried because beyond the foundational tenets, there are other calls to 
obedience.

MM

    Overall I am mildly disappointed, but thanks for your input, Andrew.

.0>    Can anyone provide some specific examples where a person has been
.0>    forced to pick the lesser evil and yet still sin?

.30>    Overall I am mildly disappointed, but thanks for your input, Andrew.

Perhaps, the answer to your question is no.  Why are you mildly disappointed,
James?

      Hi,
    
        I haven't really read this string, but I think its impossible
        to _have_ to sin in the future because of something in the
        past (unless of course the past somehow prevents one from 
        exercising faith).
    
        I just believe that one can exercise faith.
    
                                                    Tony

    Re: Note 478.31 by TOKNOW::METCALFE
    
>Why are you mildly disappointed,
    
    Because I thought "Surely yes, they will know!" and they didn't.
    
    James

>    Because I thought "Surely yes, they will know!" and they didn't.

Do you know?  And will you tell us?  (I hate trick questions.)

MM

    Re: Note 478.34 by TOKNOW::METCALFE
    
>Do you know?  And will you tell us?  (I hate trick questions.)
    
    Reversing the answers.  I will tell you.  I don't know.
    
    James

    If you don't know [if there is an unavoidable sin situation], then
    perhaps there isn't, in which case you shouldn't be disappointed,
    unless you were the one who was banking on there being a sin situation
    that was unavoidable.
    
    Which brings to my mind: if there was the possibility of maneuvering
    another person into a no-win sin situation, Satan would not have only
    tempted Jesus.  
    
    Mark

    The word says that we will not be tempted beyond that which we are
    able, that God will always provide the way of escape.  Often times we
    don't take the way of escape, however, when God provides it.  An
    example might be with pre-marital sex.  The way of escape is usually
    way before the heaving petting stage (once you get to that point, its
    hard to turn the hormones off).  I also don't see anything in scripture
    to indicate "levels" of sin.  To God all sin is the same, its sin.  So
    I don't think there is an unavoidable sin situation.
    
    The good news is that Jesus already took care of our sin problem on the
    cross (Gal 2:20).  I have been crucified with Christ and it is no
    longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.  I believe that too
    often we focus on what Christ has already delt with, instead of
    focusing on allowing Him to live His life in and through us.  The goal
    of the Christian life is NOT to stop sinning, its to know Christ, and
    the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings. 
    I believe our focus should always be on Christ and who we are in Him.
    
    Bing
    
    

	Bing, good note. I really liked it. It says a lot.


Glen