I had a conversation a few days ago with an individual that was pretty much black & white in their thinking.

I'd rather this thread not veer off into moral relativism so I'm asking this specifically within the context of the bible regarding the following 2 examples. One is specific to the context of an act regardless of who does it and the other specific to the individual. The examples are random; one could find any number of hypotheticals for either case.

1) Urinating on a city sidewalk vs going behind a bush while hunting out in the boonies.

2) Having an occasional drink isn't an issue. However, if someone is a recovering alcoholic then it's a problem.

My personal belief is that, while there are absolutes, there are conditional sins.

Opinions?

Oxford defines Sin as:

“an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.”

Is there specific divine law that addresses urination by location?

As to the drinking, you either view drinking as a sin or not based your particular sect’s reading of the Bible. If you think someone can drink without sin then anyone can drink without sin, regardless if they are “an alcoholic”. Drinking to excess would seem to covered under a different sin such as gluttony….

The biggest issue with sussing it out is the loss of context due to language originally spoken, then written, then translated, and translated x2 in many cases.

Some transgressions, are against God, those are biggies, and the "argument" is between the transgressor and God. Sort of like two people with an issue between them. Anyone else can have an opinion about it, but the two parties are truly the only ones relevant to the issue.

Second are transgressions of people and people. Those, are actually where other's opinions may have merit (in spite of the perceived contradiction of the explanation of people's opinions from the first example), as transgressions between one or more people, may have impact on people not immediately involved, but can be affected in many ways, and across boundary of time, place and more.

For example, King David and the issue of he and his troops eating the bread in the Temple. It was not permitted due to ritual and was a transgression against God, yet it was "forgiven" due to the need to sustain life, which is a higher calling than obedience to recognizing a ritual.

To elaborate, the ritual was to show honor and respect to God, and provide a "teaching" using symbology of the bread. Similar to the ritual we show for the American Flag. Yet, if a person were needing a tourniquet and nothing else was available. (OK, stretch of an analogy to make the point) two folks skinny dipping, their cloths get washed away, one slips getting out of the water and suffers a severe arterial gash and the other grabs the American Flag, tears it and fashions a tourniquet. (don't ask about why there is a flag, it's an absurd anaolgy to make the point...)

No one would have good justification to hold the person to any degree of "wrongdoing", and to bring any accusation would be a seen by any reasonable person as "self serving". (a case of "being wrong when right").

So, yes, peeing behind the bush, vs peeing on the sidewalk, is "different", because the bush is an attempt to "honor" the spirit/intent of the prohibition of offensive behavior of "Peeing in public", bu doing it behind the bush, rather than blatantly, and knowingly being "offensive" with the act of peeing on the sidewalk. And again, no reasonable person should argue against such an opinion/understanding.

Most all things are about the condition of the heart and mind of people vs people, and/or people vs God.
The condition of one's doing that which is honorable and acceptable with the "guidelines" of our interaction with the Devine and the Creation of the Devine.

It's not complicated, although it can be complex.

But children, unpolluted by things that ruin the innocence of the older person, understand things, simply.

(this is the short version, lots of stuff in the white spaces between the lines and letters that make them up)

All sin is selfish. The difference in your examples is the element of selfishness. So the absolute is selfishness.

There are many flavors of Christianity and even more variations of how the bible is interpreted. I'm going by the bible as I understand it.

From a biblical point of view, EVERYTHING, everything that we, as people, do is tainted or corrupted by sin. If something is tainted by sin, can you say the thing is sinless? No.

The prophet says in Isaiah 64:6 "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags;" And "filthy rags" refers to what women wear during their period in which they are considered ceremonially unclean.

As far as urinating, I see no prohibition in the bible against urinating and I'm not being facetious. I would say it's a cultural thing. In some places in Asia with no public facilities, people do go into alleys and urinate against a wall. Doing so doesn't make them more sinful. I go behind a tree when out on a golf course to relieve myself sometimes.

With regards to alcohol, the prohibition is against getting drunk. How we live our lives as Christians is more personal outside of the clear teachings such as "do not murder, do not commmit adultery, etc." James 4:17 says, "to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."

Christians are people who, through their personal relationship with Jesus Christ, have the Holy Spirit indwelling in them as a deposit and assurance of their redemption. The Holy Spirit is supposed to guide you and help you in your Christian walk along with the Bible and the building up that you are supposed to received as part of being in a local church.

I know of young christians for which listening to rock and roll was sinful for a time. It would be the same for alcohol. Anything that you put ahead of God in your life is sin.

So if by conditional, you mean something may be a sin for you but not for me or it may be a sin under these conditions and not a sin under a different set of conditions, I would agree with you. But truly, until we have complete redemption and are living in our new redeemed bodies, everything we do is corrupted by sin. it is only God's grace and Jesus' blood that covers our sins and makes what we offer as worship and sacrifice acceptable in his sight.

KBob,

Sin is sin. Circumstances do not determine whether a behavior is sinful. Sinful behavior is biblically defined as "rebellion". For example: peeing on a municipal sidewalk is not sin. The sin is in violating the municipality's ordinance prohibiting public urination, because the act is rebellion against the municipality's governmental authority. Such an ordinance doe not violate God's law and is, therefore, a legitimate law and obedience is required.

In your second example, imbibing in the presence of an alcoholic is not sin if there is no law prohibiting it. But, if a Christian does imbibe in the presence of a known alcoholic brother in Christ, he does sin; because, he violates Paul's command to the Church to refrain from causing a brother, who is less mature in his walk with Christ, to stumble. Again this is rebellion, because it is a violation of authority; and, all authority is given by God.

Sin is not always sin.

It is not a sin to kill. It's a sin to kill the wrong person. Or the right person at the wrong time.

There is a difference between sin and crime. Urination on the sidewalk isn't "sin," against god's laws, but against man's. That makes it a crime, not a sin.

Whether it remains a crime behind a bush is a matter of local jurisdiction, but would generally fall to whether or not it occurred in public view. Either way, not a sin against god in a biblical sense, but certainly potentially punishable by law.

To look at a woman is not sin. To look at her with lust is sin; Christ taught that to do so is to commit adultery in one's heart, and that the thought of sin equates to sin as much as commission of the act; what one does in one's heart, how one thinks and believes, is the higher law. One need not physically commit the act. As a man thinks, so is he, we are told, and that man looks on the outward appearance, but god, upon the heart.

Sin is subjective to judgement, which is reserved for god, except that we are counseled (with correct translation) to be careful with our own judgement, because with what judgement we use, so we shall also be judged. To judge incorrectly is sin. To judge, is not.

Failure to forgive is sin. God may choose, man may not: of you, the scripture says, it is required to forgive all men. Forgiveness is not conditional, nor limited to the number of repeat offenses. So what of a violation of the law? Man answers for his violation of the law, but answers to the law, and man answers for his violation of gods law, but answers to god.

Man is also responsible for observance of god's law to the degree of which he is aware. Under man's law, ignorance of the law is no excuse, yet often it is: willful intent is a powerful component of determining the degree of violation (and man's law is certain subject to not only a black and white decision: did one violate the law, but also did one intend, and what was one's intent?).

Man is responsible for observance of god's law, subjective to god's judgement (call it moral relativism if one will, but god reserves that right). Where one has greater knowledge of gods law, one has the greater responsibility; where much is given, much is required; what is sin to one, is not necessarily sin to another, and what is sin in one circumstance is not sin in another. One is cautioned against absolutes and the judgement thereof: refrain from questioning the mote in another's eye, we are told, lest we miss the beam in our own.

Man is given conscience and "the light of christ," and an inherent recognition of what may be sin, but that is a delicate thing, easily dulled and damaged, and to do so and thus not recognize sin does not negate one's responsibility to avoid it, or for transgression.

"Conditional sin" lends the notion that sin is allowable based on a table of qualifying elements or events (you may urinate in public, but only in the following cases...). Sin against man is different than sin against god. Both are subject to judgement. Both involve events or acts which may involve acts of commission, or omission. Both depend on intent. David had multiple partners and concubines and didn't sin until he took a married woman by subterfuge; Uriah's wife. His sin was "conditional," because the circumstances matter, as does intent, knowledge of the law, and in many cases, the law itself.

quote:

I'd rather this thread not veer off into moral relativism

Sin is the ultimate expression of Moral Relativism though.

What is a sin for one is not a sin for another. Not even for all Christians: What is a sin to a Mormon may not be a sin to a Catholic, what's a sin for a Catholic may not be a sin for an Universalist and so on.

How do you even define sin without moral relativism?

Here's a common example; You have a choice-save your dog that you love or save a stranger. Whoever you choose to save lives, the other dies.

Most people will choose the stranger. Sanctity of life etc. Moral Relativism.

Now what if you knew the stranger was a drug dealer, child molester and talks in the theatre? Do you still save the stranger? Or do you save your dog that you love and fuck that guy because he sucks? Again Moral Relativism.

And lets be honest, quite a few people who would otherwise save the stranger would in fact save their dog under the circumstances of this example.

Sin is, has, and always will be subjective to one's culture and the context of that culture.

The term 'conditional sin' isn't part of the biblical lexicon.

Sin is simply breaking the law of God.

As to your example, drinking alcohol is not sinful, but drunkenness is. What I think you are getting at is the context of the action. Sex in the context of a marriage is not sinful. Sex outside of marriage is sinful.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:
Sex outside of marriage is sinful.

And yet the bible is rife with cases in which it is not.

Context.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:
Sex outside of marriage is sinful.

And yet the bible is rife with cases in which it is not.

Context.

No, it isn't

It sure is. You remind me of the baptist preacher I used to enjoy a lemonade with on occasion, on his porch. One day I asked him about baptism for the dead, to which he said, "that's not found in the bible." When I pointed to the verse, he tore the page from his bible, and tossed it over the railing.

"It's not found in my bible," He repeated.

Second time, he was right.

^Sns3guppy, can you provide a couple of those scriptural references? (Not challenging, just curious.)

You do realize the difference between descriptive passages and prescriptive passages, right?

Does Paul mention baptism for the dead in 1 Cor 15? Of course, but he nor anyone else is saying that we should do it.

Paul was referencing resurrection, and invoked a practice of Christianity at the time, which was the performance of the ordinance not only of baptism for the living, but for those who were no longer living. He asked the question of why else perform baptism for the dead, if the dead don't rise; his point was that the dead do rise, hence the reason for the ordnance.

You are correct, that Paul wasn't "saying we should do it." He referred to the ordinance as practiced, and using that to illustrate that resurrection was an expected component of belief.

Context.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
^Sns3guppy, can you provide a couple of those scriptural references? (Not challenging, just curious.)

2nd Samuel, 12:13. Nathan, the prophet, has addressed King David regarding his wives and concubines, and the taking of one additional wife. The additional wife is the subject of the discussion, in which Nathan advises David (the same David from whom is the Christ's lineage) sinned. David did not sin with his numerous wives, and concubines, who were given him by god. David's only sin amid those to whom he was married, and not married, was his sending Uriah to his death, in order to take Uriah's wife as David's own.

The concubines and wives were given to David by God, and David did not sin with the wives and concubines, because they were given him from God. Uriah's wife was given to Uriah by God, and David took that away, and took that which God gave to Uriah, for himself; for this, he lost his exaltation.

Nathan advised David that although the sword would never be taken from David's house, God had "put away" David's sin (of sending Uriah to his death, and taking Uriah's wife), and David "would not die." This did not excuse David in the case of Uriah, or imply that he would not be punished, but was a more immediate consequence.

David fell, but not not because of his wives (to whom he was married) and his concubines (to whom he was not). He fell because of his lust for Uriah's wife, and his subsequent crime of causing Uriah's death, and ultimately for the adulterous act of taking Uriah's wife as his own.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:
Sex outside of marriage is sinful.

And yet the bible is rife with cases in which it is not.

Context.

Any references for this one, sns3guppy?

See above.

Also consider that Christ's birth was not the product of a sexual relationship between Christ's mother, Mary, Mary's husband, Joseph.

When I posted about marriage, it was not to attack the LDS members' beliefs. It was to address the OP's question.

To further clarify my point, read Matthew 19:3-9. In verse 5, the Greek word for wife is γυναικὶ which is a singular noun.

And yet the bible is rife with plural marriage, ordained of God. Go figure.

Context.

This is obviously a point of view issue, but I've never considered God condoning man marrying more than a single wife (at a time).

Accept it as man's being given the right to choose for the most part his lot? Yes, but not condoned.


Above, drifting from the OP but to answer that question, I hold that not adhering to the ordinance of man are a sin yes, but not to the point of losing one salvation over it.

Consequences yes, losing salvation, no. I've never catalogued those issues as conditional sin, drinking for example is perfectly okay but for those of us who've had issue with that in the past - probably wise to abstain.