Complex Sin
There is no such thing as a simple sin. There are only complex sins, multiple sins in one action.
If I were to steal, the sin will not only be thievery, but probably jealousy, insecurity, perhaps even greed as well.
In a way, this complex sin concept is like the fruit of the spirit.
One fruit, many parts; one action, many sins.
Yes, but lets not focus on sin eh? Lets focus on love, then there is no sin.
Harrison-
Haha, but it seems like love is as complex, if not, even more complex then sin itself.
In my opinion, it does not matter whether it is simple sin or complex.
Sin is sin whether it is cold savage murder/rape compared with a white lie or simply losing your temper on some one else.
On a seperate note, I think it is we humans that make things complex due to our carnal nature in order to find justification for our actions.
Andrew-
That’s true, but we also have to find the root(s) of the problem, so that we can find the solution?
Ah…. so the best “fruit” to illustrate this would be an onion!
Cos you need to peel layer by layer to get to the core.
So I think complex is not really the best word to describe it in this. Cos it more towards decietfulness- being hidden under layers.
This has got me thinking how more difficult it is for us Christians to detect our decietfulness as we do “good works”. Cos unlike your example where you used stealing with the driven sin of jealousy or envy, we might serving hard in ministry but driven by a sin of self-promotion.
That’s why I guess the Pharisees could see their core sin cos it was too hidden by their good works. They were doubly blinded.
“That’s why I guess the Pharisees could see their core sin cos it was too hidden by their good works. They were doubly blinded.”
Sorry I meant to say “the Pharisees could NOT see their core sin”
Andrew-
Fantastic in-depth analysis you have there! Guess we have to all “start peeling”.
Haha!
I think love and sin are actually both quite simple. I don’t think God wants to complicate things for us, but as humans, we make them complex. Does this make sense?