Hey Philo. I am interested in what sort of mechanism you would replace the concept of sin with.

Sin, from a Judeo-Christian perspective, is a transgression of God's Law. Without the Law there would be no sin.

The Bible speaks about the "mystery of lawlessness", which is one of the signs of the end of the age.

I take this to mean, that men will do away with the concept of sin [ignoring for the moment, that if the Law is transcendent, whether simply pretending it doesn't exist is sufficient to do away with it] as it is considered a burden and/or cumbersome to one's life-style.

I have given this some consideration. It seems to me, that if a system of ethics or moral standards, is not derived from a transcendent or unchanging source, then the only alternative is a system which is changing.

That is, what is deemed right or wrong, will be variable and dictated soley by the whim of the individual or the populace.

There is recent historical evidence to support this. Stalin, saw fit to murder 30 million of his own people, for purely pragmatic reasons. They were deemed unfit to live.

How do you tell a Stalin he is wrong?

Brian

• Sorry, I kinda forgot there were two posts, - philosofir - May 21, 2001 - 23:30 UTC
  • Christian law versus biblical law - yanniru - May 22, 2001 - 11:54 UTC
    • Christian law versus biblical law - yanniru - May 24, 2001 - 12:37 UTC