Not going to church on Sunday: sin or not?

[jane_doe]

Jane please help me understand how your 1st quote above does not contradict the 2nd quote.

Peace!!!

Quote 1) Not a set number. It more depends on the person, their circumstance, their needs, etc. It is something that person should listen to the Spirit about, though their local Bishop may be helpful in discerning.
(An LDS bishop is roughly equivalent to a Catholic priest).

Quote 2) No, because subjective means “based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions”. Sin isn’t something a person can decide.

A person should** listen to the Spirit, **not to their own whims. There’s a vast difference between those two.

 

[Horton]

Quote 1) Not a set number. It more depends on the person, their circumstance, their needs, etc. It is something that person should listen to the Spirit about, though their local Bishop may be helpful in discerning.
(An LDS bishop is roughly equivalent to a Catholic priest).

Quote 2) No, because subjective means “based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions”. Sin isn’t something a person can decide.

A person should** listen to the Spirit, **not to their own whims. There’s a vast difference between those two.

A LDS bishop is in no way equivalent to priest. A priest is a highly educated man who has a further several years of theology training. A priest makes a life long commitment to the Church and her people. Their only work in life is to serve the Lord. Not even close to an LDS bishop.

 

[Peter_J]

Quote 1) Not a set number. It more depends on the person, their circumstance, their needs, etc. It is something that person should listen to the Spirit about, though their local Bishop may be helpful in discerning.

Sounds very Catholic.

 

[adf417]

Quote 1) Not a set number. It more depends on the person, their circumstance, their needs, etc. It is something that person should listen to the Spirit about, though their local Bishop may be helpful in discerning.
(An LDS bishop is roughly equivalent to a Catholic priest).

Quote 2) No, because subjective means “based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions”. Sin isn’t something a person can decide.

A person should** listen to the Spirit, **not to their own whims. There’s a vast difference between those two.

I agree there is a vast difference between them which is why i cant understand why you used them both to explain your position about how sin is not subjective. Without further explanation it seems to me you are defining subjectivity with these two positions. If sin isn’t something a person can decide, what is the pourpose of listening to the Spirit and how is this mode not subjective? Do you agree this mode, listening to the Spirit, has been abused and subsequently has watered down what actual sin is?

Peace!!!

 

[jane_doe]

I agree there is a vast difference between them which is why i cant understand why you used them both to explain your position about how sin is not subjective. Without further explanation it seems to me you are defining subjectivity with these two positions. If sin isn’t something a person can decide, what is the pourpose of listening to the Spirit and how is this mode not subjective?

I’ll try my best to explain this, please let me know if I miss the mark.
As previously defined, "subjective = “based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions”. In other words, according to that person’s humanly desires. A person’s humanly desires do NOT define sin, hence sin is NOT subjective.

What DOES define sin is all knowing God. So if the Spirit tells you something is sinful, then it is sinful. The person doesn’t decide something is sinful, but rather should listen to the Spirit and to follow those directions (thy will be done).

Do you agree this mode, listening to the Spirit, has been abused and subsequently has watered down what actual sin is?

I’m a little uncertain what you’re asking here, so I apologize in advance if I answer the wrong question.
Listening to the Spirit is never watering down sin, because the Spirit does not allow that. Listening to the Spirit is always the right and Godly path.
Now, are there people that substitute their desires instead and falsely claim “I’m following the Spirit”? Yes. Sometimes people do this purposely, sometimes it is unknowingly. That is why developing one’s relationship with God and learning to listen the Spirit are so critical.

 

[Thorolfr]

Not at all. To my knowledge, the only church who views missing services as a sin is Catholic. Rest of churches view it as a missed opportunity for growth, but not a sin.

That’s true of all the Protestant churches I’ve ever belonged to (Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran). I’ve never heard a pastor in any of those denominations say that missing church is a sin.

 

[adf417]

I’ll try my best to explain this, please let me know if I miss the mark.
As previously defined, "subjective = “based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions”. In other words, according to that person’s humanly desires. A person’s humanly desires do NOT define sin, hence sin is NOT subjective.

What DOES define sin is all knowing God. So if the Spirit tells you something is sinful, then it is sinful. The person doesn’t decide something is sinful, but rather should listen to the Spirit and to follow those directions (thy will be done).

I’m a little uncertain what you’re asking here, so I apologize in advance if I answer the wrong question.
Listening to the Spirit is never watering down sin, because the Spirit does not allow that. Listening to the Spirit is always the right and Godly path.
Now, are there people that substitute their desires instead and falsely claim “I’m following the Spirit”? Yes. Sometimes people do this purposely, sometimes it is unknowingly. That is why developing one’s relationship with God and learning to listen the Spirit are so critical.

Do you not see how this paradigm itself begits subjectivity? Surly you see the problem with this within Christianity when so many people justify their position as not sinful these days yet opposing your position on a certain topis, all the while appealing to the Holy Spirit. Sure, you are going to say “well they cannot be following the Spirit” and we might agree on certain topics, but when there is a disagreement, who is listening correctly to the Holy Spirit? They both can’t be. How do you know you are corectly following the Spirit? And how do you know the next guy is being subjective when he is appealing to the same Holy Spirit?

Peace!!!

 

[jane_doe]

Do you not see how this paradigm itself begits subjectivity? Surly you see the problem with this within Christianity when so many people justify their position as not sinful these days yet opposing your position on a certain topis, all the while appealing to the Holy Spirit. Sure, you are going to say “well they cannot be following the Spirit” and we might agree on certain topics, but when there is a disagreement, who is listening correctly to the Holy Spirit? They both can’t be. How do you know you are corectly following the Spirit? And how do you know the next guy is being subjective when he is appealing to the same Holy Spirit?

Peace!!!

(This has zoomed out to include many things beyond church attendance)
There is a huge variety of beliefs in Christianity. One of the areas that Christian groups disagree on is the role of the individual’s interpretation/revelations/beliefs/commune-with-the-Spirit versus larger body of believers and/or leaders.

There are Protestant groups who reject the idea of visible Church authority solely* emphasize an individual’s interpretation/revelations/beliefs/commune-with-the-Spirit. (*This is the claim, but in practice I observe that traditional thoughts/beliefs play a huge part in things). The problem is that when there are conflicts between various interpretations, the result in impass: one person’s interpretation stalemates another. There is no greater authority.

I have heard the above Protestant model criticized on CAF, and I largely agree. I feel that such is impractical and not how God meant things how to things to operate. When Christ ascended, He left us many tools for guidance: the Spirit, and the Church authority/revelation. We are to use BOTH.

(Now obviously I’m not Catholic and do not believe that RCC is Christ’s church. Still, I respect your belief that RCC is Christ’s church. This post is reflecting my beliefs/thoughts, as you asked).

Two tools to guide: the Spirit, and the Church authority/revelation.

Now, to take the case example of church attendance: the LDS church does not specify the frequency in which a person must attend church. Hence, referring primarily to the Spirit. If one is having issues discerning, their local bishop is there to help (as I referenced in post 36).