Are all sins equal?

[bluethread]

Given the events of the last year is it wrong to condemn all lawless violence, and acceptable to permit some forms of lawless violence while viewing other forms of lawless violence as absolutely unacceptable to the exclusion of all other forms of lawless violence?

[bluethread]

I noticed that you side stepped the issue of the law. Though the white supremacists had a permit for their protest, Antifa were engaging in unlawful assembly. That said, are you also saying that they were just innocent bystanders?

According to the Washington Post, the counter demonstration did have a permit.
www.washingtonpost.com news fact-checker - president trumps false claim that counter demonstrators lacked a permit
Now let's not argue about which claim is true. The president, who has been lying more than any other president in the history of the USA or the professional journalists who cite their sources. It is a moot point.

I stand corrected. That being the case, the fault lies with the authorities that failed to impose proper time and location restrictions.

The debate is about unlawful violence. The counter demonstrators didn't run over pedestrians, killing one and injuring others. The counter demonstrators didn't come armed with clubs, torches or guns. The counter demonstrators are not the ones seeking to memorialize those who violently battled to suppress human rights.

So please present evidence that there was violence on both sides.

The driver was not part of the white supremacist march, but was an individual, who may have identified with the white supremacists, who drove into the counter protest in another part of town. Again, if the government had the right to ban any weapons under the reasonable time and location rule. Apart from the car the rest of the violence appears to be the he said, she said type. However, CNN and NBC reported that Antifa did foster violence there. That is not the same people, but the confusion is understandable, IMO. As I said, the proper response is reasonable limitations and police enforcement.

… the focus of the government should be on maintaining the rule of law, not favoring one ideology over another.

Maybe it is just me, but I think that if a bias is shown, the agents of the government of the USA should side with the supporters of the protection of human rights. They should be against those who identify with the enemies of the nation in the 1860's and the 1940's.

Not in this country. The government should stick to enforcing the law and let the conversation take care of itself, as long as there is no direct verbal assault.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 6 by benchwarmer]

I don't interpret those verses as you do. Can you recongize that not everyone interprets the bible as you do?

JW

Jesus told people to buy swords. What is unclear about that? Were they going to use the swords to make kabobs for dinner?

Yes, I recognize the Bible can be interpreted any way one likes. I just find it odd when perfectly clear actions such as buying a sword need to be tap danced around to avoid some premise.

You boldly made a claim and now I'm asking why some people were told (by Jesus no less) to go buy swords. I'm curious what interpretation spins sword buying into a call of non violence. Perhaps Jesus misspoke and meant buy shields? Those could be used in a non violent way to defend themselves. Swords?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 6 by benchwarmer]

I don't interpret those verses as you do. Can you recongize that not everyone interprets the bible as you do?

JW

Jesus told people to buy swords. What is unclear about that? Were they going to use the swords to make kabobs for dinner?

Yes, I recognize the Bible can be interpreted any way one likes.

Well then given the above it is reasonable to conclude an alternative interpretation is possible which is what I hold.

Jesus told people to buy swords. What is unclear about that?

It doesn't have to be "clear" or "unclear", you yourself have just said that the bible can be interpreted any way one likes, you didn't say "the unclear verses can be interpreted any way they want" those were your own words, so there is no reason to doubt or find "odd" something you have said is an intrinc part of the book.


The only "claim" I made is that I do not interpret the verse as you do. You will just have to take my word on that as it was not a "claim" so much as a statement of belief. I do not believe the passage is teaching what you conclude it is. You youself upheld that "claim" by stating catagorically that the bible can be interpreted any which way.




JW

[historia]

I would condemn all forms of lawless violence.

Then you should condemn Antifa and other far-left groups whose express purpose is to engage in violence.

As bluethread mentioned above, Peter Beinart's recent article in the Atlantic, "The Rise of the Violent Left", provides a decent introduction to this group's violent activities, some of which are directed at anyone who is a Trump supporter, and not just white supremacists or fascists.

The most dishonest president ever, who falsely claims that there has been violence on both sides.

I agree with you that Trump is pathologically dishonest -- and, in my opinion, wholly unfit to be president of the United States. Moreover, his reluctant condemnation (and even qualified defense) of far-right groups is morally repugnant.

Nevertheless, he's not always wrong. And here there is some truth in his comments that there was violence "on many sides," even if Charlottesville was perhaps not the most egregious example of far-left violence, nor the time to bring this topic up, since the president needs to unequivocally condemn white supremacy.

The counter demonstrators didn't come armed with clubs, torches or guns.

I'm afraid this is simply mistaken. Chris Mondics at the Philadelphia Inquirer nicely summarizes what several witnesses on the ground reported and what much of the video and photographs out of Charlottesville confirm:

Most of the counterdemonstrators were peaceful, but some showed up with semiautomatics of their own and at one point formed a defensive perimeter around a counterdemonstration staging area, according to the New York Times. Other counterdemonstrators wielded baseball bats, clubs, bottles, and chemical sprays.

This is actually the crux of the problem. The weaponry we saw from far-right groups in Charlottesville was, at least in part, a direct response to the increased violence and weaponry from far-left groups at previous events.

Both of these radical groups are feeding off of each other, and ultimately giving moral cover to white supremacists who can now claim that their right to free speech is being impinged and their own violence is merely self-defense.

[Petrameansrock]

All sin is the same before God so from God's perspective it doesn't matter if you get angry at someone or kill someone, it has the same penalty, death. However, from a human perspective it only makes sense to have different penalties for sins that are viewed as illegal. Because from a human perspective we punish murder because someone died as a result. But from God's perspective he punishes murder (with eternal damnation unless you repent) because it is a violation of His Law and therefore sin.

[2ndRateMind]

Are all sins equal? No. Are all virtues equal? No.

But they are both aspects of character, and qualitative not quantitative.

Understanding which sin, or which virtue, is greater or lesser than another is a matter of appreciation, not measurement. And that requires a thing called adequaetio, literally, being of character adequate to the judgment, which in turn requires both experience and reflection on that experience.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ttruscott]

All sin is the same before God so from God's perspective it doesn't matter if you get angry at someone or kill someone, it has the same penalty, death. However, from a human perspective it only makes sense to have different penalties for sins that are viewed as illegal. Because from a human perspective we punish murder because someone died as a result. But from God's perspective he punishes murder (with eternal damnation unless you repent) because it is a violation of His Law and therefore sin.

Well done, but to say that HE punishes murder because it violates the law is to miss (maybe) the reason for the law, which is given only to sinners to convict them of their sinfulness so they may be brought to repentance: Romans 7:7 ...I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law." and Romans 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the Law. For the Law merely brings awareness of sin.

They were punished because they were unrighteous as proven by their breaking the law.

Of course the trouble with this view is that Adam and Eve in their supposed innocence were given the command not to eat...

[Bust Nak]

For those who says all sins are equal before God according to the Bible. How do you reconcile that belief with the following verses:

"Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."

"Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

"And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."

It seems this one particular sin (or one set of sins) is not equal to others.

[Bust Nak]

You boldly made a claim and now I'm asking why some people were told (by Jesus no less) to go buy swords. I'm curious what interpretation spins sword buying into a call of non violence. Perhaps Jesus misspoke and meant buy shields? Those could be used in a non violent way to defend themselves. Swords?

If you bought all the swords, then the violent people won't have any!

[ttruscott]

For those who says all sins are equal before God according to the Bible. How do you reconcile that belief with the following verses:

"Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."

"Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

"And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."

It seems this one particular sin (or one set of sins) is not equal to others.

It is the sin that creates the choosers character, his nature, as eternally sinful, not because it is the worst sin but because it rejects YHWH for being a force of evil, the creator of evil and motivated by evil...which separates the chooser from HIS mercy and grace and from HIS promise of salvation for all sin.

The difference is in the person's self chosen relationship with GOD, elect or not elect, not the nature of the sin.