Shouldn't Christians Let the Ignorant Be?

[Oreoracle]

Obviously, one of the main goals of a Christian is to reduce the amount of sin in the world, and certainly not increase it. I noticed that many members here mention that a criterion of sinning is that you have to know what you’re doing is a sin, or you have to be willingly denying you’re conscience if you don’t know (you’re conscience is supposed to be sufficient proof that you’re sinning in many situations). Now, imagine that someone is doing something that would be considered a sin, but they have no awareness that it is sinful (they don’t feel that it’s bad either, which eliminates intuitive/conscience awareness). They are also likely to continue this sinning for some time, even if they were aware. Anyway, they have a chance of commiting it again once they gain knowledge that it is considered sinful. So the question is: should a Christian tell this person they’re sinning (or, more accurately, they’re doing something considered sinful)? Like I said, they’ll actually be sinning if they repeat the action knowing it to be sinful. In reality, someone who does this is likely generating more sin by making the ignorant aware of their errors. Thus, it would appear to be wrong to do so.

Are the two goals of getting people closer to God by understanding sin and reducing sin contradictory at times?

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

You seem to be on the right track, for the most part. Especially if you apply this to “Abstinence Only” education, which statistically isn’t very effective. There needs to be more explanation and way more effort to get people to understand.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[Snerticus]

Well, I guess I look at it this way… God wants us closer to Himself, but God also does not want us to sin. By being ignorant of sin, our culpability of it decreases greatly however we are still doing something God does not want us to do. So we are still not as close to God as we could be.

Another thing… are sins of omission. If we just “let the ignorant be”, we ourselves would be sinning by not telling them they are sinning.

Lastly, did Jesus let the ignorant be, or did he come to preach the Gospel to sinners? Like He said, a healthy man does not need a physician, but a sick man does.

God Bless,
Snert

 

[judechild]

There is a reason why “instructing the ingnorant” is a spiritual work of mercy; it’s more dangerous for that person to be in ignorance. True, with knowledge comes responsibility, but it’s much easier for a person to lose his or her soul without the instruction and discernment that comes from the Church. Invinsible ignorance is a problem, not a savior. To explain the faith to someone is not about us, it’s not about control, and it’s not about who’s got the biggest religion statistically; it’s all about giving people the best chance to get into union with God (heaven). Let’s all pray tonight for those who have not yet heard of Jesus.

 

[manualman]

Ignorance mitgates the CULPABILITY of the sinner, but it has NO negation on the inherent effects of sin. Analogy helps. If an employee hasn’t been trained to know not to run the lift truck before deploying the safety outriggers, then it isn’t his fault if he tips the truck over. But if that truck kills somebody in the process, that person is just as dead regardless.

Remember, that sin is NOT just an activity on an arbitrary of forbidden things. Sins are sins because they inherently are behaviors that damage a humans ability to give and receive love.

People are NOT better off in ignorance.

 

[Oreoracle]

Another thing… are sins of omission. If we just “let the ignorant be”, we ourselves would be sinning by not telling them they are sinning.

Oh yeah…the sins of omission destroy my argument. I forgot about those.

Remember, that sin is NOT just an activity on an arbitrary of forbidden things. Sins are sins because they inherently are behaviors that damage a humans ability to give and receive love.

If that’s your idea of the nature of sin I’m likely to agree. But I suppose that depends on how you define “love”.

I’ve heard many say that it’s arbitrary when I called their rules on the grounds that they did not do damage, though (other than to one’s connection with God, I suppose).

 

[manualman]

I’ve heard many say that it’s arbitrary when I called their rules on the grounds that they did not do damage, though (other than to one’s connection with God, I suppose).

I’m not sure what you mean by “when I called their rules…” Many make the argument that certain behaviors do no damage, so they can’t be sins. Little white lies, or swearing using God’s name in vain when no-one else is around to hear it, for example. But whether YOU see any damage or even believe that there is any or not is irrelevent. GOD says such things damage our souls when He defined them as sins. I find Him a reliable judge of such matters! Damage to our connection with God is the very definition of damage to our ability to love and receive love.

 

[baylee]

Maybe it shouldn’t matter, but I see a difference between telling someone about a mortal sin vs a venial sin…especially if they are Catholic and are receiving communion.

 

[fix]

The Pope wrote this before he was pope:

In the course of a dispute, a senior colleague, who was keenly aware of the plight to being Christian in our times, expressed the opinion that one should actually be grateful to God that He allows there to be so many unbelievers in good conscience. For if their eyes were opened and they became believers, they would not be capable, in this world of ours, of bearing the burden of faith with all its moral obligations. But as it is, since they can go another way in good conscience, they can reach salvation. What shocked me about this assertion was not in the first place the idea of an erroneous conscience given by God Himself in order to save men by means of such artfulness—the idea, so to speak, of a blindness sent by God for the salvation of those in question. What disturbed me was the notion that it harbored, that faith is a burden which can hardly be borne and which no doubt was intended only for stronger natures—faith almost as a kind of punishment, in any case, an imposition not easily coped with…