Can sin be excusable?

[MrRadish]

I know one of the fundamental principles of Christianity is that Jesus' sacrifice means that, if we renounce our sins, we can theoretically all be absolved of our them, but I was wondering if you could view personal circumstances as making a sin less grave in one person than in another.

Let us take, for example, a poor, starving family who's provider is forced to steal to survive, and when they steal they make sure it's from people who can spare the supplies. The provider is breaking one of the Ten Commandments. Are they better or worse than someone who breaches a lesser commandment for no good reason?

What about the soldiers in the trenches in World War One? The conditions were absolutely abysmal, particularly for the French, British and British Colonial troops during major battles such as that of the Somme (the Triple Alliance (mainly Germany and Austria-Hungary - sorry for double brackets) had better trenches, albeit with inferior food). For a tiny scrap of relief in the four long years the war lasted, many of them visited prostitutes (thus committing adultery) or engaged in activity viewed as sinful. But are they as sinful as someone who does that in peacetime?

 

[red77]

I know one of the fundamental principles of Christianity is that Jesus' sacrifice means that, if we renounce our sins, we can theoretically all be absolved of our them, but I was wondering if you could view personal circumstances as making a sin less grave in one person than in another.

Let us take, for example, a poor, starving family who's provider is forced to steal to survive, and when they steal they make sure it's from people who can spare the supplies. The provider is breaking one of the Ten Commandments. Are they better or worse than someone who breaches a lesser commandment for no good reason?

What about the soldiers in the trenches in World War One? The conditions were absolutely abysmal, particularly for the French, British and British Colonial troops during major battles such as that of the Somme (the Triple Alliance (mainly Germany and Austria-Hungary - sorry for double brackets) had better trenches, albeit with inferior food). For a tiny scrap of relief in the four long years the war lasted, many of them visited prostitutes (thus committing adultery) or engaged in activity viewed as sinful. But are they as sinful as someone who does that in peacetime?

Good question, I think that circumstances can often dictate how serious a level of say any particular crime is, if someone steals a loaf of bread due to poverty it's hardly the same as someone stealing a PS2 for their own entertainment, the same with lying, if someone lies in order to protect someone then I doubt that it would be a sin at all as oppose to some one who lies purely to save their own skin, I think it's like many things in life, not exactly 'black and white'....

EDIT: As Elohyim quite rightly pointed out to me there's nothing wrong in lying if it's to save your own life in situations either, :thumb: I think the intent behind the 'sin' is often the real issue....

 

[elohiym]

I know one of the fundamental principles of Christianity is that Jesus' sacrifice means that, if we renounce our sins, we can theoretically all be absolved of our them, but I was wondering if you could view personal circumstances as making a sin less grave in one person than in another.

All sin is grave, but men have taken it upon themselves to determine what is sin based on their subjective interpretations of laws. They are selectively indignant towards some acts while they ignore or excuse their own acts. God's standard of righteousness is love, and one can commit an act motivated by love (man towards man or God towards man) that can violate the letter of a law but not be sin.

Mat 12:1-7

1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

 

[MrRadish]

How true. And yet looking at some of the beliefs both here and in many other places, many people seem to forget this.

 

[red77]

How true. And yet looking at some of the beliefs both here and in many other places, many people seem to forget this.

Sometimes it's easier to condemn than to look at the whole picture unfortunately....

 

[elohiym]

How true. And yet looking at some of the beliefs both here and in many other places, many people seem to forget this.

Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

That's not hyperbole.

 

[Lighthouse]

I know one of the fundamental principles of Christianity is that Jesus' sacrifice means that, if we renounce our sins, we can theoretically all be absolved of our them, but I was wondering if you could view personal circumstances as making a sin less grave in one person than in another.

Let us take, for example, a poor, starving family who's provider is forced to steal to survive, and when they steal they make sure it's from people who can spare the supplies. The provider is breaking one of the Ten Commandments. Are they better or worse than someone who breaches a lesser commandment for no good reason?

What about the soldiers in the trenches in World War One? The conditions were absolutely abysmal, particularly for the French, British and British Colonial troops during major battles such as that of the Somme (the Triple Alliance (mainly Germany and Austria-Hungary - sorry for double brackets) had better trenches, albeit with inferior food). For a tiny scrap of relief in the four long years the war lasted, many of them visited prostitutes (thus committing adultery) or engaged in activity viewed as sinful. But are they as sinful as someone who does that in peacetime?

Why not ask the person who can spare, if they can help you out, instead of stealing from them?

And yes, fornication, whether adultery or not, is a sin, no matter where you are.

 

[MrRadish]

Why not ask the person who can spare, if they can help you out, instead of stealing from them?

Sorry, yes, unclear; what I meant was assuming a lack of charity.

And yes, fornication, whether adultery or not, is a sin, no matter where you are.

Indeed, but is it really fair to say, when you consider the horrific, horiffic conditions in which they were forced to exist and the guilt that many of them felt about doing it, that they should be consigned to eternal suffering on dying?

 

[Lighthouse]

Sorry, yes, unclear; what I meant was assuming a lack of charity.

If no one will give, go kill your own food.

Indeed, but is it really fair to say, when you consider the horrific, horiffic conditions in which they were forced to exist and the guilt that many of them felt about doing it, that they should be consigned to eternal suffering on dying?

Who said they have to be consigned to Hell?

 

[MrRadish]

If no one will give, go kill your own food.

Yes, yes, fine. Sorry. I must be being very unclear. I mean that if there's no other way of getting decent food.

Who said they have to be consigned to Hell?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Bible said that, unless redeemed, sinners would, in fact, not be admitted into Heaven.

And what I was driving at is would they be more likely to go to Heaven/be good in the eyes of God or 'a good Christian' (an abstract notion, I know) than someone in less sire circumstances who had committed a lesser sin?

 

[Lighthouse]

Yes, yes, fine. Sorry. I must be being very unclear. I mean that if there's no other way of getting decent food.

Do you have an example where that's an issue?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Bible said that, unless redeemed, sinners would, in fact, not be admitted into Heaven.

Yes, it does. And?

And what I was driving at is would they be more likely to go to Heaven/be good in the eyes of God or 'a good Christian' (an abstract notion, I know) than someone in less sire circumstances who had committed a lesser sin?

Anyone who is redeemed goes to Heaven, no matter what sins they may have committed. No one is more or less likely to go than anyone else. However, some people may be less likely to accept His grace than others.

 

[Open Arms]

How true. And yet looking at some of the beliefs both here and in many other places, many people seem to forget this.

No Calvinist have forgotten this. "All sin is the same" mindset.

 

[MrRadish]

Do you have an example where that's an issue?

Perhaps in the depths of Africa, where next to nothing that grows can be found and the only food is in the hands of the very rich?

Or in a city during a famine?

A

nyone who is redeemed goes to Heaven, no matter what sins they may have committed. No one is more or less likely to go than anyone else. However, some people may be less likely to accept His grace than others.

Does this mean that good deeds are pointless, if one's fate hinges on whether at the last you accept redemption? (sorry if I'm being obtuse)

 

[red77]

Perhaps in the depths of Africa, where next to nothing that grows can be found and the only food is in the hands of the very rich?

Or in a city during a famine?

A

Does this mean that good deeds are pointless, if one's fate hinges on whether at the last you accept redemption? (sorry if I'm being obtuse)

No, good deeds are definitely not pointless as is evidenced by the parable of the good samaritan, there is no mention of whether the samaritan has faith but the emphasis is placed on his practical kindness and compassion for a fellow human being who is in sore need of help, I love this parable because it also speaks of boundaries being broken where the samaritan is regarded as the least likely to help the man because of his actually just being a samaritan - much like the boundaries that people can put up because of racial/skin colour differences etc.....it is such a powerful story on how we should treat each other as human beings - aka love thy neighbour as thyself - no matter who they are or where they come from.....

 

[Silk Queen]

No, good deeds are definitely not pointless as is evidenced by the parable of the good samaritan, there is no mention of whether the samaritan has faith but the emphasis is placed on his practical kindness and compassion for a fellow human being who is in sore need of help, I love this parable because it also speaks of boundaries being broken where the samaritan is regarded as the least likely to help the man because of his actually just being a samaritan - much like the boundaries that people can put up because of racial/skin colour differences etc.....it is such a powerful story on how we should treat each other as human beings - aka love thy neighbour as thyself - no matter who they are or where they come from.....

I love that too red77. :thumb:

 

[red77]

I love that too red77. :thumb:

:cheers:

 

[Ktoyou]

“love thy neighbour as thyself”

That is the hardest deed of them all; at least for me it is inequitably the most difficult!

 

[MrRadish]

The easiest way to obey "Love thy neighbour as yourself" is to develop a low self-esteem. Of course, this does kind of ignore the spirit behind the rule. But if we're going for a completely literal interpretation, who cares?

Only joking.

I agree that you do need good deeds, I was just conjecturing from Lighthouse's argument that "No one is more likely to go to Heaven than another".

 

[poptart]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Bible said that, unless redeemed, sinners would, in fact, not be admitted into Heaven.

And what I was driving at is would they be more likely to go to Heaven/be good in the eyes of God or 'a good Christian' (an abstract notion, I know) than someone in less sire circumstances who had committed a lesser sin?

Brought into the world from the seed of Adam, we are all spiritually separated from God -- we can NOT meet him.

So any such scenario of "this sin is not so bad because ...." is folly.
The person is apart from God, and he simply can not meet God until he takes the Christ.

 

[MrRadish]

Brought into the world from the seed of Adam, we are all spiritually separated from God -- we can NOT meet him.

So any such scenario of "this sin is not so bad because ...." is folly.
The person is apart from God, and he simply can not meet God until he takes the Christ.

OK, in that case, we might as well not even try to live decently; it's pointless designating sin if the only thing that matters is 'taking the Christ'.