Are you sinless or a sinner?.... - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Matt L · #16 01-01-2007, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuan

You non-Christians have no right to answer this thread. It does not pertain to you.

If that is indeed the case, this thread is even more pointless. Your bible gives you the answer, "All have sinned."

Unfortunately, I don't think that this book holds the correct answers.

Kuan · #17 01-01-2007, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

Are Christians the only ones who believe in sin?

I think it might be more interesting to discuss the nature of sin. One of its interesting social features in my opinion, is the way in which the doctrine of sin undermines utopian visions of justice and equity. Certainly in its Augustinian version, it also stops deliberate efforts of social improvement by tagging on the idea of predestination. So sin seems to be in some serious tension with capitalism as well as socialism.

The assumption is that sin is a necessary consequence of God, as is all else in this world. Therefore, one cannot sin without a God.

kerry · #18 01-01-2007, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carleton Hughes

Unrestrained capitalism is the real sin,not some barren spiritual concept which is the invention of men,all created to maintain the existing social order of the few over the many.

I'm certainly tempted to see unrestrained capitalism as the real sin, but it seems, at least from an ideological perspective, that capitalism needs to deny original sin in its traditional format. For if we are all born in sin with no hope for improvement or redemption by our own effort, then acceptance of our fate seems to produce a social malaise. Capitalism needs a stronger sense of free will than sin can allow because it needs people to imagine an improved future for themselves connected to their own deliberate acts of will.

kerry · #19 01-01-2007, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuan

The assumption is that sin is a necessary consequence of God, as is all else in this world. Therefore, one cannot sin without a God.

Could the Buddhist notion of desire function as a social equivalent to sin, albeit without a God?

Botnst · #20 01-01-2007, 09:37 PM

Define sin.

B

Matt SD300 · #21 01-01-2007, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Define sin.

B

Hey Bot..whats your veiw on sin??

I know never ansewer a Q. with a Q..but i gotta know what you think?..

Botnst · #22 01-01-2007, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt SD300

Hey Bot..whats your veiw on sin??

I know never ansewer a Q. with a Q..but i gotta know..

That is why I asked for your definition so that I could answer your question accurately. It is your poll, your question, you define it. Then I'll vote. After I vote I'll be delighted to discuss with you (all) what it means to sin ... or not.

Bot

Matt SD300 · #23 01-01-2007, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

That is why I asked for your definition so that I could answer your question accurately. It is your poll, your question, you define it. Then I'll vote. After I vote I'll be delighted to discuss with you (all) what it means to sin ... or not.

Bot

Thats it Bot... more time on the porch for you.....

Kuan · #24 01-01-2007, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

Could the Buddhist notion of desire function as a social equivalent to sin, albeit without a God?

Of course, from a relativistic POV, every culture has its own ideas about social mores, right and wrong. I think the point here though is whehter or not one can sin in the Christian sense if one doesn't believe in God.

But of course, I shouldn't say of course, after all, for some, moral relativism is itself a sin.

Carleton Hughes · #25 01-01-2007, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

I'm certainly tempted to see unrestrained capitalism as the real sin, but it seems, at least from an ideological perspective, that capitalism needs to deny original sin in its traditional format. For if we are all born in sin with no hope for improvement or redemption by our own effort, then acceptance of our fate seems to produce a social malaise. Capitalism needs a stronger sense of free will than sin can allow because it needs people to imagine an improved future for themselves connected to their own deliberate acts of will.

Point conceded.There is a great social malaise,perhaps because of the ease with which our material desires can be achieved,a temporary salve,but in the end a hollow one.
Want a 40"flat screen tv?,just put it on the card,want to waste money remuddling a perfectly good house,go right ahead,get your ass in debt for a lifetime.

Never,in my 44 observant years have I seen so much waste of resources in accumulating worthless material goods,building pasteboard an plastic-covered kennels with such useless space as costs a King's ransom to heat,no wonder few people have any savings.

Is some sort of religion or spirituality the answer?well,as aught I can see whatever it be that makes one concentrate on the essentials of honesty,economy and the satisfaction of simply BEING is jake with me.

Organised religion,as we are aware,has served as the chief political stabilising and propaganda force in many nations,and as a corollary,to perhaps remind man of his true nature,which generally goes unheeded

The problem is one cannot legislate greed,lust,envy and the possibility of opportunistic theft,human nature being what it is,simply turn on the idiot box and view some advertisements that appeal to our baser {and most dominant}insticts.

My Gramps once said these things go thru cycles,he lived thru it all,the prosperity of the '20's and the comeuppance of the depression.

Each generation seems doomed{uh,predestined?}to repeat the same mistakes as previous ones.

GermanStar · #26 01-01-2007, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

Could the Buddhist notion of desire function as a social equivalent to sin, albeit without a God?

No, a personal impediment to happiness is not the equivalent of sin. My take on it is that desire harms oneself, while sin harms others, although given the Buddhist concepts of oneness and connectivity, I suppose the distinction between harming oneself and harming others is relatively obscure.

Bill Wood · #27 01-01-2007, 10:05 PM

Ahh, based on the 3 most recent polls in this forum I can describe the population here as sinners who will likely eat cloned meat but will not vote for Hillary.

That's an interesting demographic to market to

t walgamuth · #28 01-01-2007, 10:10 PM

if you believe in sin you must be by definition a sinner.

if you are a true believer, though, you will strive to live an exemplary life.

tom w

Matt SD300 · #29 01-01-2007, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webmaster

Ahh, based on the 3 most recent polls in this forum I can describe the population here as sinners who will likely eat cloned meat but will not vote for Hillary.

That's an interesting demographic to market to

Oh Man...now thats FUNNY!!!

kerry · #30 01-01-2007, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanStar

No, a personal impediment to happiness is not the equivalent of sin. My take on it is that desire harms oneself, while sin harms others, although given the Buddhist concepts of oneness and connectivity, I suppose the distinction between harming oneself and harming others is relatively obscure.

Christians typically believe that sin is putting self in place of God. Putting God in place of self leads to true happiness. Seems an awful lot like Buddhist no-self to me. Living an egoless life = living for God?

View Poll Results: sinless or sinner
sinless	5	11.36%
sinner	39	88.64%
Voters: 44. You may not vote on this poll