I've been wrestling with the notion of "all sins are equal". We've been talking about homosexuality and the consensus that I'm getting from my class is: "sin is sin...lying, stealing, cheating, homosexuality; it's all the same". I'm wondering where this train of thought is coming from...I've been digging around in my Bible but...maybe I'm missing it. Can one of you "experts" lend a hand, please?
Good question. I think it falls into at least two categories, which can't be mixed: The sins of the damned (or the unsaved). The sins of the saved (or the sins of the forgiven). For the damned, sin is sin. They are hellbound unless they become born again through the risen Lord Jesus Christ who will one day return to this earth in power and in glory to reclaim it as our Lord and our God. Then there is the question of the sins of the saved. Is there a consequence? Is one type of sin worse than another? Are there specific sins that will bring spiritual judgement upon us quicker than other types of sins?
I didn't look at it like that but...I'm talking about for the unsaved person. So for one unsaved person to commit murder, it's the same as another one telling a lie? *Sins of the saved...that's an interesting point. I never considered categorizing it like that before. I asked this question: Does the church discrimante against homosexuals? Believe it or not, I got an extremely wide range of answers. Some felt that the church does and that homosexuality is "not that big of a deal, just like alchoholics, or drug addicts" and they kept saying "sin is sin" and since we all sin, it's wrong to single out homosexuality. It was an interesting class (to say the least) but I was really shocked at the liberal attitude. <--Not everyone in the class had that attitude, it was just a few but they were plenty.
While certainly no expert, I offer the following: First, the most often used words in the Old and New Testaments for sin are hata and hamartanein, respectively. Both words mean "to miss the mark." Second, the Greek New Testament uses the word parabasis to describe violations of the Law of Moses. This word means to violate or transgress. Third, the Apostle Paul uses the word paraptoma which means "to fall beside or deviate from the right path." Fourth, another word, anomia, meaning "lawlessness," is used in a few NT verses. Prior to the coming of Christ, there were attempts to classify various types of sin. There have been attempts to make distinctions between moral sins and venial sins. The bottom line, according to some theologians, is that degrees of sin depend on the knowledge and willfulness of the sinner. Remember the teaching of Paul in what some scholars refer to as "action in light of privilege," in Romans 2:14-16.
To paraphrase Jeshua, if you've broken one part of the Law, you're guilty of breaking the whole. So in that respect, sin is sin in that it seperates us from a G-d who is holy and without sin. However, the Commandments He gave to Moses on Sinai were in an order that seems pretty close to what my mind would consider importance. The commandments to put G-d first, and to never worship idols near the front, commandments of honoring parents and not committing murder towards the middle, commandments against lying and coveting towards the end. My best guess is that some sins have more damaging effects, such as worshipping one other than the one true G-d, while others have less harmful effects, such as drooling over the neighbor's restored 1963 Corvette, but that all sin is sin in that it seperates us from G-d and makes it impossible for us to be reconciled without the sacrifice of Jeshua as the once-and-for-all-time Passover Lamb. Just my ham fisted attempt at understanding what's probably not capable of being fully understood.
From a strictly Jewish perspective, the posts by Jimmy Clifton and little fauss are correct (though the more common word is "chet", my transliteration). Jewish "sin" isn't to be seen as the soul destroying thing Christian sin is. Life presents the Jew with a series of choices. For each choice there is a righteous way and one or more unrighteous ways. It is the function of the Law to instruct the Jew which is the righteous way. Note, please, that belief has nothing to do with it. Heaven has nothing to do with it. Hell has nothing to do with it. Salvation has nothing to do with it. Now, a Jew can make a righteous choice or an unrighteous choice. In either event, he remains a Jew and will be faced with the next choice. He wil then make a righteous choice or an unrighteous choice. He will then be faced with the next choice, and so on. Eventually, it adds up to a life. One immediate consequence is that an ignorant Jew cannot be a righteous Jew. Another consequence is that mystical knowledge is irrelevant to living righteously. Another consequence, or pre consequence, I suppose? is that the Jew is born with both an evil urge and an urge to do righteously. There is no "original sin". Another consequence is that the Jew alone is responsible for his choices and only his choices. (There is some debate about minor children)
I'd like to know the weight of each sin so I can maximize my fun relative to ultimate consequences. I'm ready to start, so I hope you folks can come up with the answer soon.
The question is in jest, obviously, but I personally think some of the most "fun" sins are the least ultimately destructive, and some of the most destructive sins are the ones that result in the least fun for the sinner. Example: I personally think the greatest and most diabolical sin, at bottom, is prideful arrogance. Why? Because it will blind one utterly to G-d. A prideful man who looks down upon others as cut from inferior cloth will not likely see the need for help from anyone or anything, and will be extremely unlikely to go down on bended knee before G-d. In my opinion, it was pride that caused the religious leaders of Jeshua's day to reject Him--He didn't fit their preconceived stereotype. They expected a warrior and statesman Messiah to cast the Romans out of the Middle East, re-establish the Kingdom of Israel, and expand the territory beyond even King David's dreams. What they got was a sorrowful but deeply loving little man (if it be lawful to call Him a "man", to quote the Jewish historian Josephus) from an insignificant villiage, the son of a blue-collar contractor, who told them to submit to authorities, pray for their enemies, wash others' feet, and be a servant of all. They rejected Him because of their pride. This Messiah just wasn't glamorous enough for their exalted view of themselves. Pride fools you more than any other sin, it blinds you to your relative place in the universe and your dirtiness and smallness as compared with an all-powerful and perfect G-d. You will not accept Him "as a child"--which is the only way to know Him--if you're prideful. Pride was the original sin in a sense; it caused Lucifer and 1/3 of all angels to be cast out of Heaven. They thought they knew better. Pride also is one of the most miserable states in which one can be. I've never met a prideful person who seemed content in any way. They are almost uniformly miserable, being always on guard that one should prove to be better, smarter or more worthy than they. They are in a constant state of hateful jealous envy of those higher than them and condescending, smirking satisfaction when contemplating those beneath them. What a lonely state! I struggle against pride and vanity, though it's absurd that I should, knowing my limitations, failings and relatively feeble mind. Now the sins of the flesh such as: drunkeness, gluttony, and various lusts decay the spirit, but at least there's something there that brings people together--such as the comradery of the bar--and at least the decay tends to bring one face-to-face with one's own failings. Not so the arrogant! I believe far more drunks are brought to a recognition of their failures and ultimately bow before G-d in desperation than high society snobs. It's why C.S. Lewis said, to paraphrase: The self-righteous prig in the church pew may be closer to the fires of hell than the prostitute in the gutter. But it's preferable to be neither.
I appreciate all of your insight. We had our class last night and it went very well. The conversation centered around: John 19:11 "Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except, it were given thee from above: therefore, he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. " Although I am not a "theologian" yet, I was really impressed by my class and their attempt at really trying to understand this issue. Over the past couple of years, I've been really shocked at the lack of dialogue (sp) in the church concerning this critical issue. I told them (my class) that I got some help from you guys and I really do thank you all for taking the time to expose me to a different school of thought.
When they didn't have anything else to do, the Rabbis considered what will be the first question asked of a new arrival in Heaven. (This is a literary device for debating about what is most important to God.) Two answers have come down to us, one fairly obvious, at least to a Jew, and the other truly remarkable for its insight, I think: "Were you honest in your business dealings?" and "Did you avail yourself of the innocent pleasures a gracious God provided you with?" Note, please, that neither question appears to have anything to do with faith or doctrine. Certainly, neither question has ANYTHING to do with being Jewish. Of course, being honest in business inplies a great deal about personal morality and being a decent human being. It also, more subtly, implies something about pursuing learning. But the second question says worlds more, I think. Life is a gift from God. Even I believe this. To be joyless is to be cruel, prideful, judgmental, and nasty and to spread misery to those around you. To be joyless is to spit in the face of God as your thanks for his great gift of life. And to be joyless is a choice, I think. There is such a thing as clinical depression, we're told, but sometimes I think we choose joylessness because we don't want to be seen as "undignified" or "silly". We take ourselves MUCH too seriously, which is, I suppose, another form of baseless pride. And now I wish you all, this Friday evening, a Shabbat of peace, rest, and joy!
This may scare you, but you're starting to sound like some of my Christian friends. What you say about pride is the absolute truth, and certainly G-d fully intends us to enjoy life's pleasures, to experience joy. Otherwise, so much of the Hebrew scriptures wouldn't be written in such beautiful and sensual poetry. There'd be no 22nd book. G-d wouldn't have exorted us to live life abundantly. Thanks for the wishes, I'm looking forward to Shabbat at sundown tonight, always do, it's like a mini-Pesach.
No, not talking about faith, nor am I harboring illusions that you're about to bow down before the One I call Messiah. I just like hearing words like that from you. I honestly believe that whether you'd care to admit it or not, that G-d's Chosen--of which you are apparently a member--in spite of all the persecution throughout the millenia, are blessed and that they retain a certain wisdom and mindset that comes from the One who made them. IMHO, their innate wisdom, relative success and very existence in spite of that fact that virtually every great civilization in history has sought to wipe them out is a testimony to some power beyond the natural. Happy Shabbat!
Disraeli said something like that...when asked by the Queen for proof of God's existence, he replied, "You Majesty, the Jews!" Course, Disraeli had his own religious baggage. When he turned 13, instead of a bar Mitzvah, his father had him baptized into the Church of England. Professionally, a brilliant move. Personally, I am not so sure.
