terter Posted June 13, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 14 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 473 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/14/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 13, 2007 I'm reading a study of Exodus and Lev and the author is talking about the sacrifices were based on just unintentional sins. I've never read that before - I've always thought it was sin - unintentional and intentional. Could you enlighten me? Thanks! I appreciate your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ger_Tzedek Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 I'm reading a study of Exodus and Lev and the author is talking about the sacrifices were based on just unintentional sins. I've never read that before - I've always thought it was sin - unintentional and intentional. Could you enlighten me? Thanks! I appreciate your time. terter: The idea that "all sin is the same" is a gentile protestant idea. It is not scriptural, either in the Hebrew Scriptures or the Christian Scriptures. Not only are some sins intentional and others not, but they do different amounts of damage to the victim, and different amounts of damage to the sinner. There is simply a difference between how stealing a pencil will effect my relationship with G-d, and how being a serial killer will effect my relationship with G-d. The only thing that all sins have in common is that they are all sins, meaning that they adversely effect us, others, and our relationship with HaShem. So? A cold and ebola are both viruses too. Should we reduce medicine to "healthy or not" ?????? This sort of "all or nothing" thinking is just absurd and dysfunctional at face value. The only reason this silly theology developed was as a means to answer the person who says, "Well I've never done anything seriously sinful." Of COURSE they need a savior. But we don't need to get silly about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraught Posted August 9, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 105 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,741 Content Per Day: 0.28 Reputation: 28 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/23/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/30/1959 Share Posted August 9, 2007 So? A cold and ebola are both viruses too. Should we reduce medicine to "healthy or not" ?????? This sort of "all or nothing" thinking is just absurd and dysfunctional at face value. Thank you for this insight. I am curious if you think this is relevant to my long-held thought that sin is also unique to the person that what may be a serious sin for one person is not for another. (Excepting the 'Commandments', of course.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ger_Tzedek Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 So? A cold and ebola are both viruses too. Should we reduce medicine to "healthy or not" ?????? This sort of "all or nothing" thinking is just absurd and dysfunctional at face value. Thank you for this insight. I am curious if you think this is relevant to my long-held thought that sin is also unique to the person that what may be a serious sin for one person is not for another. (Excepting the 'Commandments', of course.) If Sue is ignorant that, for example, its a sin to cohabit even if she is in love and engaged, it is still a sin. However, it is less serious than for Bob, if Bob is quite aware that love notwithstanding, and engagement notwithstanding, cohabitation is a sin, and chooses to do it anyways. Why? Because Sue is not consciously and willfully rebelling, and Bob is. Sue will still pay the consequences of having sinned -- she may, for example, find out that any man willing to shack up with her isn't very likely to actually marry her; she may end up with a child and no ring, etc. However, it will be Bob who will deal with the serious blow -- a severed relationship with HaShem. He has become the prodigal who walked out the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terter Posted August 10, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 14 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 473 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/14/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 10, 2007 Read again yesterday by another author (in the Matthew Henry commentary this time) about unintentional sins. Thanks for your input Ger_Tzedek. By the way, I've been trying to find out how many wives Saul had. Seems all the polygamy verses (I am NOT for polygamy) had to do with men making those decisions. There's one verse, II Sam 12:8, though that says "gave thee" "wives." When 1 verse doesn't line up with all the other scriptures on that topic (in this case one husband and one wife), I wonder where the problem is. In relationship to this verse, I've only been able to find 1 wife for Saul because 2Sa 21:11 "And it was told David what Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, the concubine of Saul, had done." This scripture gives the name of 1 wife - 1Sa 14:50 "And the name of Saul's wife was Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz: and the name of the captain of his host was Abner, the son of Ner, Saul's uncle." If Saul only had one wife, then the problem is the translation in II Sam 12:8. Just wondering if you might know. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chris777 Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 (edited) Well said Ger, the fact that some sins are worse than others should also be common sense tbh Edited September 11, 2007 by Chris777 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts