Ah, yes, but here's one for you.
If a child had never been taught not to do something-steal, for instance-so had no inkling that it was wrong, and took an apple off a stand without being noticed and without feeling shame or knowing it was wrong, is it considered sin?

If a person is truly doing something evil, though they are fully deceived into thinking it is right, it is still evil. Their perception simply needs enlightening.

Yes, quite interesting, Dawn. You also could say that it is every person's conscience that tells them what is right or wrong, if it has been developed enough to be listened to.

Doing something evil in the name of doing good, and even believing that you're in the right, doesn't excuse the act. Was Hitler evil or good? After all, he truly believed (or else he was demented, which is a definite possibility) that it was his God-appointed mission to extermnate Jews. Yet that didn't make his actions any more worthy or considered to be good. Even the warped sense of "good" in the world's view grasped this.

But I think we have to define evil, and the only way to do that is from God's standpoint. He ultimately decides what is evil and and what is good, so if we don't begin from that understanding, our conclusions will be skewed.

Doing something evil in the name of doing good, and even believing that you're in the right, doesn't excuse the act. Was Hitler evil or good? After all, he truly believed (or else he was demented, which is a definite possibility) that it was his God-appointed mission to exterminate Jews. Yet that didn't make his actions any more worthy or considered to be good. Even the warped sense of "good" in the world's view grasped this.

But I think we have to define evil, and the only way to do that is from God's standpoint. He ultimately decides what is evil and and what is good, so if we don't begin from that understanding, our conclusions will be skewed.

Sin is sin regardless of context.

Yes and no.

Trivially, what you've said here is a tautology and thus automatically true. Anything is always itself.

However, in determining whether a particular action is a sin, we do need context. Is it a sin for a woman to tell her husband she's going to her mother's house? Depends. Is she going to her mother's house? That's a question of context.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Murder, Stealing, any of these things regardless of the situation are wrong.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Murder, Stealing, any of these things regardless of the situation are wrong.

That's a misconception Hitler did not like Christians and especially hated Catholics which many claim he was. Hitler believed that Jews were an inferior race and where weakening Germany and the world's gene pool.

Divine Command Theory?

Where are you two getting your information?
Just a reminder, please back up your history with proof. Don't argue over what you think was true.
Thanks!

Agreed, Killing isn't always murder, but murder is always killing.

Just as taking something is not always theft but theft is always taking something.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Murder, Stealing, any of these things regardless of the situation are wrong.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Okay, here's a thought that just occured to me in light of this statement. What if you have to choose between one or the other? Pick any two sins, say murder and stealing. If a person steals food to save a dying friend, is that wrong? Without the food, his friend would die. If he knew this and didn't steal, and his friend died, would that make him guilty of murder, because he could have prevented it but didn't? I know it's not a perfect example, but how would you handle a more complicated situation like that?

Divine Command Theory is the meta-ethical theory that "what is morally right" or perhaps "the good" is defined as "what God commands." This is not to be confused with the belief that all God's commands are good and morally right, because God is all-good and all-knowing, nor even with the belief that the good and the morally right are rooted in the nature of God Himself. Rather, this is the belief that what is right is what is commanded by God, and moreover, it is right because and only because He commanded it.God could just as easily, under Divine Command Theory, have said "Thou shalt commit adultery," and if He had, it would have been the right thing to do.

Rather, this is the belief that what is right is what is commanded by God, and moreover, it is right because and only because He commanded it.

So is that applicable by way of inference, such as God didn't directly command something, but it can be reasonable deduced as falling under the umbrella of His commands?

I'm not sure this works for the negative, namely, if God didn't command such-and-such, it is automatically evil. After all, he didn't order that we use electronics, but that doesn't make using computers and televisions and phones morally wrong (unless of course you use them for evil reasons).

If someone is holding my five year old sister hostage, and I shoot a round directly into his cranial ocular cavity, he's dead instantly. Many people would say that that was evil. I killed him. But here is the thing. I didn't murder him. I preserved the life of my baby sister.

Some people say it is a sin for me to take that shot (we won't even talk about shoot to wound, because in a hostage situation, you're a fool to think that that will work)-- even Christians will tell me it is-- but the Bible says it isn't. So, evil is in the eye of the beholder.

But if I shoot someone with the intent to murder, it is a sin. Thus evil is no longer in the eye of the beholder. It's sin. Period.

Here's my opinion: Evil is evil, no matter what the intention. Is it wrong to lie? Yes. Is it wrong to lie to save someone else's life? I would still say yes. It is against God's law, and therefore wrong. However, if a third way is nonexistent, then I think we are forgiven for that action even though it was still a sin to commit it.

What is God's law? And is morality essentially legal in nature?