Why Saints Sin and Sinners Get Saintly

"People who selected themselves as nonsexist in one study, for example, tended to choose a man for a job over a woman who was a little less qualified. "In that case, when they affirmed to themselves that they were nonsexist, they were more likely to attribute their decisions to external causes rather than to sexism.""

So it would be non-sexist to choose the lesser qualified candidate based on gender?

Interesting and I'm leaning toward accepting the hypothesis. But the experiment doesn't really convince me as being rigorous enough because morality is such a strong yet subjective thing that governs one's entire life. These experiments simply couldn't encompass such a large scope.

I wonder if the study group considered that many people who give to charities make very considered choices every year, give to them, and then decline on principle to respond to further offhand solicitations.

ARE MOST SAINTS ROOTED IN SIN?

Perhaps this is but another example of Buddha's saying that opposites coexist.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www,omatumr.com

First of all, what does one consider as a "saint"?

As a Christian, one of hte most fundamental things I recognize about morality is that human beings cannot live up to any moral standard. We cannot even live up to our own standards, much less God's standards.

In Genesis 6:5, we are told that every imagination of man's heart is only evil continually, thus it is not surprising to me at all that "saints" sin all the time, the Bible makes no attempt to gloss over that fact, and is, in part, written to prove this fact to anyone naive enough to think otherwise. See also Romans chapter 7. "The good which I would do, I do not. The evil which I would not do, I do..." This is the sin nature, and even the most righteous and moral and Godly person alive, whoever that may be, at times finds himself subject to it, particularly if they start being motivated by self justification.

The typical trap is the guy who preaches against the "surface problems" of adultery or other sexual immorality. Though he may be correct in what he teaches, yet he turns to God and justifies himself based on his "good works" of having not cheated on his spouse, or having not committed any physical act fornication or adultery of any kind. Yet this act of self justification does not actually justify him in any fashion before God or man. (see Jesus parable about the pharisee who thanked God that he wasn't an adulterer or a publican, or other "immoral" persons, etc).

What happens with such a person is they are what God says about them (i.e. everyone is evil,) and are instead saying, "hey, at least I'm not as bad as so and so..." Well, this self justification is itself a sin, and is basicly calling God a liar. Once this decision is made, it is like eating the forbidden fruit all over again. The person can do nothing but fall further away, even though they claimed their intention was to do good.


In reality, anyone who gives to charity merely as some sort of attempt to "balance" the good or evil they have done, is in fact, not doing "good" at all, because they still did so for a selfish reason: self justification.

That is, if your reason for giving to charity is because it makes you feel better about yourself, whether consciously or unconsciously, then your donation is itself an act of selfishness, even IF you have no outward self serving motivation to do so. That is, even if it has nothing to do with the applause or attention of others, if you are giving simply to make yourself feel better or for what you think are "brownie points" with some moral system or with God, then you are still doing evil, namely in the form of self justification or self righteousness.

Even if you manage to give with 100% perfect intentions, good deeds do not "offset" evil deeds. Morality and good deeds are not some sort of currency to be spent with God or man, though men often view it as such.

As a christian, I can unashamedly say that any "brownie points" from good deeds I may have done, such as donating to charity or church or even a stranger on the street, cannot possibly make up for the sins I have committed, even especially relatively recently.

This doesn't make me a hypocrite, though admittedly, I am one, but not for this reason. :)

I'm a sinner, that's why I need a savior.

Both Christians and unbelievers often view heaven and hell as little more than "reward" and "punishment" for faith or lack thereof, or even catasrophically for good deeds or lack thereof. Many creationists including even the majority of professing Chrisitans, have a faulty notion of "goodness" whereby they incorrectly believe that if they do "enough" good that it somehow makes them a "good" person, in spite of however much evil they may have done. This is a faulty notion which all of us have likely adhered to at one time or another. Thus, among many Christians, Christ is reduced to a mere, "get out of hell free card," as they often have not given any of this honest thought, nor especially actually bothered to read their Bibles, or for that matter, study humanity directly.

This cannot be the whole story though.


In the greater scheme of things, the "reward" for a good deed is irrelevant. Oh, it is nice and greatly appreciated, especially in the resurrection, I'm sure, but neither reward nor guilt nor even conviction should be necessary or even relevant to moral decisions.

The fact is, if we were all inherently "good" as psychologists often claim, then we would do what is right even without reward, because it is the right thing to do. The fact that we usually need an extra reward to do what is right, and often don't do right even when presented with a reward for doing so, AND on top of that, negative consequences for doing evil, proves mankind is inherently evil, and indeed, even seems to prefer it that way.

====

All saints are rooted in sin, and certainly before salvation.

"Christ died for sinners, of whom I am chief."
"All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

and from Isaiah
"All our righteousnesses(i.e. the good things we do,) are as filthy rags(Hebrew implies menstruous cloth)".

===
Anyway, this article is essentially about two of the most important FALSE doctrines in the history of humanity: Self Justification by works, and also "license to sin" i.e. "brownie point system".

Either way, it is still just as rotten as Isaiah's example of a menstrous cloth.

The only solution is the Biblical one, i.e. "Deny yourself and take up the cross daily and follow Jesus." As Jesus is the only person who has ever lived a sinless life, in our stead, and has suffered all consequence and death in our stead.

In John 15:5 Christ says that witout him we can do nothing, so then to anyone who claims to be a "Saint", it should be obvious that even if they in fact have good motivations, they cannot actually do "good" except that God himself does it through them.

Both Christians and unbelievers have a clearly wrong interpretation of what "Sainthood" (the biblical term, not the corporate church organization term,) actually means.

Christians are not perfect. Anyone who even remotely starts to think of themself as a "good" person is starting to depart from the true Christianity which is taught in the Bible. Nevertheless, as we see in Romans 6:1-3, 15-16, neither salvation nor any past "good" deeds give us a "license" to commit immoral acts. i.e. "What shall we say then, shall we sin that grace may abound? God forbid, how shall we who are dead unto sin live any longer therein?"

So then, the notion that a person can call themself a Christian, call themself a "Saint," and yet indefinitely and habitually live any old way they please because "Jesus died for me," is totally and completely bogus, and such a person has likely never been a true Christian i.e. "Saint" to begin with.

"Moderation in all things". Wonder what would have happened if they had solicited a much larger charitable donation?