Originally posted by ColettiLOL. OK, Coletti. Too funny. "Clear signs of being a reprobate." LOL.
A brother will occasionally tell a lie, but he will repent when he realized his mistake. But a murder has either planned his kill, or has let hate build up in him until he looses control. These are clear signs of being a reprobate. A brother might take something that is not his, but the Spirit will convict his conscience and he will repent.
As I said before, you have a long path ahead of you. Did Christ ever call anybody "reprobate" and not "brother?"
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHe called some hypocrites, and vipers, and even lawyers!. He did not call all men brothers.
LOL. OK, Coletti. Too funny. "Clear signs of being a reprobate." LOL.
As I said before, you have a long path ahead of you. Did Christ ever call anybody "reprobate" and not "brother?"
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThose who were not included as brothers was because they did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. Everyone is a sinner, but not everyone is a believer.
But for any that he did not call brother, were they excluded by virtue of being sinners, or even terrible sinners? Would Christ call any murderer viper instead of brother?
Originally posted by ColettiRight. So, isn't it fair to say that only non-believing murderers are reprobates, and that there could be believing murderers, who are not reprobates? That is, murdering is not incompatible with current brotherhood, since brotherhood allows for sin and only disallows disbelief, correct? That is, murdering has nothing to do with brotherhood status; only belief does, and belief is compatible with sin.
Everyone is a sinner, but not everyone is a believer.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesMurdering is incompatible to being a believer. A current believer will not commit premeditated murder. Being a brother means being less likely to commit sin - not that one can eliminate all sin. Blatant and premeditated sins are evidence of being unsaved. It is incorrect to say the sin has nothing to do with brotherhood, because a brother is one who will hate the sin nature that he still has, and will with time "mortify the flesh" - the inherent sinful nature - so that his will be less sinful with time. Faith in Christ makes one a believer, a brother - but the effects of having saving faith is a turning from sin.
Right. So, isn't it fair to say that only non-believing murderers are reprobates, and that there could be believing murderers, who are not reprobates? That is, murdering is not incompatible with current brotherhood, since brotherhood allows for sin and only disallows disbelief, correct? That is, murdering has nothing to do with brotherhood status; only belief does, and belief is compatible with sin.
Originally posted by ColettiIf you really believe any of these things, then you understand very little of Christ's message.
Murdering is incompatible to being a believer. A current believer will not commit premeditated murder. Being a brother means being less likely to commit sin - not that one can eliminate all sin. Blatant and premeditated sins are evidence of being unsaved.
Originally posted by NemesioSo, yes, when someone makes angry, I am letting them control me because I am failing to recognize that I have many other emotional responses from which to choose.
One of the ways in which a person can deal with anger is by
recognizing that it is a response to something; unless you are
unwell, anger requires a stimulus.
Upon recognizing that anger is a reaction among many possible
ones, one can liberate him/herself from anger by choosing other
reactions. Becoming angry is to let the angering thing contr ...[text shortened]... iling to recognize that I have many other
emotional responses from which to choose.
Nemesio
Wow. I have met so very few people who know this. I didn’t learn it until quite late in my life—until then I believed that feelings, which I am here using synonymously with emotions, were beyond our ability to choose. I didn’t believe it until I did it.
Basically, it is not so different from learning to hit a baseball. It requires three things: (1) assent to at least the possibility that you can do it (enough to try anyway); (2) learning/adapting techniques (such as refocusing your thoughts); and (3) practice. Since the underlying emotions probably mostly derive from the survival instinct, they kick in—as you note—quickly (and it is important to realize that the anger/fear reaction, for example, is appropriate in a physically threatening situation).
Refocusing takes time, but the time-lapse can be reduced by practice. For example: someone who becomes angry because their lover has jilted them might go to the theatre to see a comedy—while they are caught up in the humor, they “forget” to be angry. That’s a pretty “crude” technique with a pretty long lapse-time, but it illustrates the point in a way many people may be familiar with.
There’s a famous Zen story along these lines. A seeker (Huiko, if I remember right) sought out the First Patriarch of Zen, Bodhidharma—
Bodhidharma: What can I do for you?
Huiko: My mind is always agitated. I want to learn how to calm my mind.
Bodhidharma: Well, let’s see this agitated mind of yours…
Huiko (a bit confused): Well, I can’t show it to you just now…
Bodhidharma: You see, I have already shown you how to calm your mind.
Of course, we become conditioned and habituated (even addicted?) to our emotional responses, and even with practice and skill, we occasionally slip and indulge those emotions that we claim to not want. (“But, Doctor, I’m happier when I’m depressed!” ) Also, of course, once one learns these things, one can no longer escape responsibility for one’s emotions…
Originally posted by Coletti
A chronic and unrepentant liar is just as much the a reprobate as an unrepentant murderer (think of Tookie Williams). And it takes conscious effort to murder and to be a chronic liar - a will to sin rather than a will to obey.
I'm not sure Tookie was a good example. First of all, he denied the murders and, at best,
the circumstantial evidence was shakey. That having been said, he did repent of his
lifestyle, confessing to and apologizing for his actions in the Crips gang. And, he attested to
his contrition by the ways in which he tried to give back to the community. He may not have
been a 'brother' when he committed his crimes (of which murder may or may not have been
one), but his actions preceding his execution indicate someone with a changed heart, someone
'regenerated' to use your term.
A brother will occasionally tell a lie, but he will repent when he realized his mistake. But a murder has either planned his kill, or has let hate build up in him until he loses control. These are clear signs of being a reprobate. A brother might take something that is not his, but the Spirit will convict his conscience and he will repent.
This entails that ever 'brother' has repented and made amends for his sin. A person who lies
has 'lost control' (to use your phrase) at the moment, just like the murderer. Or, perhaps, that
person intended to lie in advance, just like a premeditated murderer. The analogy can be
applied both ways. Yes, lying about why you were late from work is less of a crime in a
social context, but is it less of a sin? If so, on what Scriptural basis do you make this
determination?
And, can we determine that a person who is unrepentent for any sin is not a brother?
St Paul clearly does not make much differentiation between sins. Consider what the author
of I Timothy 1:8-11 --
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitmately. This means understanding that
the law is laid down not for the innocent, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless
and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers,
fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound
teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
In there we see the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th commandments listed side by side. This suggests
equality.
Can you find a passage that emphasizes murder as a greater sin than lying? (Please,
recognize that I know it is a greater crime.)
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIf you know it is a greater crime, then what is your question? Murder is punishable by death, lying is not. One may look up the different penalties for different forms of sin to see that they are not all treated the same.
...Can you find a passage that emphasizes murder as a greater [b]sin than lying? (Please,
recognize that I know it is a greater crime.)
Nemesio[/b]
The question that DrS asked was can a murder be a brother in Christ. I said, a brother in Christ will not commit murder.
In general, murder is a greater sin then lying because it takes a greater effort and determination to murder than lie. And it does more damage (in general). The issues is not so much one of which does God consider a greater sin, but is one greater evidence that a person is unregenerate. Some sins provide stronger evidence that a person is unsaved than others.
Originally posted by Coletti
If you know it is a greater crime, then what is your question? Murder is punishable by death, lying is not. One may look up the different penalties for different forms of sin to see that they are not all treated the same.
These are all man-made constructs -- crime, punishment and so forth. We are talking specifically
about sin. That is my question. On what basis do you opine that murder is a greater sin than
lying?
In general, murder is a greater sin then lying because it takes a greater effort and determination to murder than lie. And it does more damage (in general). The issues is not so much one of which does God consider a greater sin, but is one greater evidence that a person is unregenerate. Some sins provide stronger evidence that a person is unsaved than others.
For a second, let's look at the words of Jesus. Jesus says that anger murders his brother in his
heart. Obviously, Jesus, Son of God, is unconcerned with 'damage,' because damage is an
external and bodily thing. Jesus was concerned with the state of one's soul. A person who is
angry at his brother suffers similarly to one who muders his brother. This sort of statement, which
is paralleled in many other NT texts, undermines any claim you have for the idea that certain sins
provide evidence that one is or is not a Christian.
A person who yells at his brother in anger is scarcely different (according to Jesus) than the one
who murders him, inasfar as it pertains to his Christian-ness.
Or do you read that passage differently?
Nemesio