Question about the rapture!

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Aquila

One of the things that has always troubled me is how broadly "sin" is defined in most cases. To some... a simple argument with your spouse is a sin. Some would say a glance at a woman in a swimsuit is sin. Some say a glass of wine is sin. Some say cigarrettes are sin. Some say short sleeve shirts are sin. Some say shorts are sin. Some say pants on a woman is sin. Some say having a different opinion from your pastor's is sin. It gets so convoluted that before you know it everyone is arguing over what "sin" is. Sin is a heaven or hell issue. It cannot be vaguely defined. God is holy and God is more than capable of communicating his desires to mankind. It only makes sense that God's Word would define "sin" properly. I don't look to the Law of Moses or the Jewish traditions to define sin. I look to the Ten Commandments (the Law of God) which is a reflection of the Heavenly Ten Commandments in the Heavenly Tabernacle in Heaven. I believe that the Ten Commandments define sinful actions. Some might say that some things aren't in the Ten Commandments. Really? For example some argue that homosexuality isn't mentioned in the Ten Commandments. True, if you go by letter of the law. But if you look at "Thou shalt not commit adultery." one could argue that any form of sexual intercourse that is outside the bonds of marriage is an affront to the institution of marriage itself and therefore adulterates it in our society. So one could argue that homosexuality falls under violating the spirit of the Seventh Commandment. I know I like to cut up and stir things up around here on the forum but I've had some very serious conversations with both brothers and sisters struggling with the notion that something they do is a "sin" and that God will never forgive them. Things ranging from watching television to an adolecent boy's healthy interest in girls. It hurts me when I watch people sobbing in the emotional/spiritual pain and fear that God hates them over something that I firmly don't believe that Scripture would condemn them over. So I set out to try and define what truely are "sinful" actions.

Well... you have my thoughts.

What bothers me most about your stance Aquila is that you totally see how wrong it is for others to broadly define what sin is yet you go straight to the 10 commandments and start broadly defining them...

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by jfrog

What bothers me most about your stance Aquila is that you totally see how wrong it is for others to broadly define what sin is yet you go straight to the 10 commandments and start broadly defining them...

I noticed that, too. But I wasn't gonna say anything.

[RandyWayne]

Just going back to a previous comment, would a NORMAL Christian who is obviously leading a sinless life (for the most part) now have Jesus permission to cast the first stone?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Just going back to a previous comment, would a NORMAL Christian who is obviously leading a sinless life (for the most part) now have Jesus permission to cast the first stone?

Nope Jesus was sinless and he never casted a stone...

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Nope Jesus was sinless and he never casted a stone...

But Jesus DID give permission in this case knowing that they all had sin in their lives. But for a NORMAL Christian who is sinless, would it not have been OK? After all, He DID give the go ahead.......

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

But Jesus DID give permission in this case knowing that they all had sin in their lives. But for a NORMAL Christian who is sinless, would it not have been OK? After all, He DID give the go ahead.......

Jesus was sinless and he didn't stone her. Apparently his go ahead wasn't really a go ahead but a simple way of defusing the crowd by getting them to think about all the wrongs that they had done.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Jesus was sinless and he didn't stone her. Apparently his go ahead wasn't really a go ahead but a simple way of defusing the crowd by getting them to think about all the wrongs that they had done.

I know I know. Jesus KNEW that all the woman's accusers had sin in their lives so there would be no takers to his offer. BUT, we have some here who have said that a NORMAL Christian can and does lead a sinless life (with the occasional shortcomings -which should be few and far between).

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by jfrog

What bothers me most about your stance Aquila is that you totally see how wrong it is for others to broadly define what sin is yet you go straight to the 10 commandments and start broadly defining them...

To some degree yes. As with the example of homosexuality, it's clear that such a lifestyle violates the concepts of intimacy in marriage alone. Where would wearing wedding bands fall? Perhaps under the 10th Commandment if one was coveting another's wedding band...but I think you get my point.

I'm not saying that this is the absolute path to follow. I am saying that it's the best idea I've found. If something violates the Ten Commandments in some way, it's sin.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Aquila

To some degree yes. As with the example of homosexuality, it's clear that such a lifestyle violates the concepts of intimacy in marriage alone. Where would wearing wedding bands fall? Perhaps under the 10th Commandment if one was coveting another's wedding band...but I think you get my point.

I'm not saying that this is the absolute path to follow. I am saying that it's the best idea I've found. If something violates the Ten Commandments in some way, it's sin.

But why can't I interpret the 10 commandments even more broadly than you do? Why can't someone say any number of things besides homosexuality is against the 10 commandments and put some kind of argument forth. Why can't someone interpret the commandment against bearing false witness to include even white lies or telling a joke in first person? Why can't someone interpret the commandment against no graven images as no christmas trees and no easter bunnies and no pictures of the cross?

Where is the line for how broadly we can interpret the 10 commandments?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

I know I know. Jesus KNEW that all the woman's accusers had sin in their lives so there would be no takers to his offer. BUT, we have some here who have said that a NORMAL Christian can and does lead a sinless life (with the occasional shortcomings -which should be few and far between).

I think they agree that there is a time for mercy... they just find that time to come about far less often than the rest of us