If I am not a sinner, do I need a savior?

[waitasec]

The heart of sinfulness is rampant individualism. Everything is connected. If I am in God, you are in God, so if I sin against you, God's already involved. Sin isn't particularly individual. We have to think more systemic than that. Jesus isn't a personal savior. Jesus is the reconciler of humanity.

how is my sin against you a rebellion against god...if i am not in god?

my sin affected you and now you have the choice of how to react

 

[sojourner]

how is my sin against you a rebellion against god...if i am not in god?

my sin affected you and now you have the choice of how to react

But you are in God. It is inevitable, from the Xian perspective.
this debate is dangerous, in that it seeks to measure apples by the orange's yardstick. Atheists need not concern themselves with sin, since sin is defined as "that which separates us from God," and atheists do no include God in their paradigm. Therefore, the only way sin can be discussed is from a POV in which God exists and is present in the life of humanity, and if you assume that, then you also must assume that you are, in fact, "in God."

 

[waitasec]

But you are in God. It is inevitable, from the Xian perspective.

so my perspective doesn't count

this debate is dangerous, in that it seeks to measure apples by the orange's yardstick. Atheists need not concern themselves with sin, since sin is defined as "that which separates us from God," and atheists do no include God in their paradigm. Therefore, the only way sin can be discussed is from a POV in which God exists and is present in the life of humanity, and if you assume that, then you also must assume that you are, in fact, "in God."

it's dangerous because it lifts the issue of double standards up to the surface...

 

[Katzpur]

i don't get that...people still die.

Yeah, they die, but they will live again. If it were not for Christ, death would be final.

i don't get that either...
the consequence of sin is death..
people still die.

From the LDS perspective, and probably from the perspective of some other Christians as well, there are two things which are referred to as "death": Physical death and spiritual death.

(1) Physical death is the separation of the physical body and the spirit which gives it life. It is not a result of sin. It's a result of being mortal. Jesus' Atonement guarantees that all who have ever lived with live again.

(2) Spiritual death is the separation of man from God, an estrangement. It comes about only as a result of sin. Jesus' Atonement makes it possible for us to be reconciled to God without having to bear the consequences for our sins.

if i sinned against you, now you have to deal with the BS ...how can god forgive that? it has nothing to do with god because this is between me and you....

I disagree. It has everything to do with God in my opinion. But that requires some explaining. To me, sin is the intentional transgression of a religious law or moral principle. If a Mormon has a drink of wine, this is a sin because Mormons are of the understanding that God has commanded us not to drink alcoholic beverages. You, on the other hand, could have a drink of wine and it would not be a sin because you would not be acting in disobedience to something you believed was wrong. On the other hand, if you were to sin against me, it would have to be by acting in some way which you recognized as wrong. If you stole from me, for instance, you would probably recognize that you had violated a principle your conscience told you was wrong. Whether you believe in God or not, when you sinned against me, you would have also sinned against God, since He is offended by the way you treated me. That may or not make sense to you, but I can assure you that once you have kids, and somebody bullies one of them, you will be offended by their bullying and you will not be able to tell youself that because the bully beat your kid up and not you, it's okay.

 

[sojourner]

so my perspective doesn't count

I don't see how it can in this argument. Otherwise, you end up with a non-argument.

it's dangerous because it lifts the issue of double standards up to the surface...

We weren't dealing with double standards here. We were dealing with sin as a real issue. The danger is in imposing a double standard where one does not exist. If you're going to measure apples, you have to measure apples by apples' standards --not oranges' standards. You're doing nothing but setting apples up for failure by some arbitrary standard, and then denying the apples their value as apples.

 

[waitasec]

I don't see how it can in this argument. Otherwise, you end up with a non-argument.
We weren't dealing with double standards here. We were dealing with sin as a real issue. The danger is in imposing a double standard where one does not exist. If you're going to measure apples, you have to measure apples by apples' standards --not oranges' standards. You're doing nothing but setting apples up for failure by some arbitrary standard, and then denying the apples their value as apples.

it is a double standard when believers infringe on the inalienable rights of others...who say's same sex marriages are not ethical...for example
the believer is applying their standards to those who do not adhere to this inclination as a sin..do you follow?

 

[sojourner]

it is a double standard when believers infringe on the inalienable rights of others...who say's same sex marriages are not ethical...for example
the believer is applying their standards to those who do not adhere to this inclination as a sin..do you follow?

We
re not talking about imposing one's religious beliefs onto civil law, though. We're talking about pretending to argue from a certain POV, when that POV has nothing to do with the argument at hand. I agree that the whole homosexual argument begs much further engagement. But that's not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is: If I'm not a sinner, do I need a savior?

 

[waitasec]

Were not talking about imposing one's religious beliefs onto civil law, though. We're talking about pretending to argue from a certain POV, when that POV has nothing to do with the argument at hand. I agree that the whole homosexual argument begs much further engagement. But that's not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is: If I'm not a sinner, do I need a savior?

pretend all you want, but in reality that is what happens, no? :yes:

if i believe i have a right to marry someone of my same sex,
am i sinning if i do? do i need a saviour?

 

[sojourner]

pretend all you want, but in reality that is what happens, no? :yes:

if i believe i have a right to marry someone of my same sex,
am i sinning if i do? do i need a saviour?

Pretense has nothing to do with it. In your given scenario (given that you're an atheist), if you marry someone of the same sex, then no, in your paradigm, you're not sinning, because sin cannot exist in your paradigm. But you'd be breaking the law in most states.
No one can force a belief paradigm on you, so your argument is moot.

 

[joea]

No one can save you but yourself....

 

[McBell]

this debate is dangerous, in that it seeks to measure apples by the orange's yardstick.

To some extent I agree.
However, this debate also shows the blatant hypocrisy some people have when it comes to sin.

Atheists need not concern themselves with sin, since sin is defined as "that which separates us from God," and atheists do no include God in their paradigm.

I have not yet met an atheist who does concern themselves with sin.
Neat coincidence, don't you think?

Therefore, the only way sin can be discussed is from a POV in which God exists and is present in the life of humanity, and if you assume that, then you also must assume that you are, in fact, "in God."

Sorry, but your personal thoughts, opinions, theories, etc on sin are not the end all be all of the topic of sin.

Nice try though.

 

[sojourner]

Sorry, but your personal thoughts, opinions, theories, etc on sin are not the end all be all of the topic of sin.

I didn't say that they were. However, I don't see how one can posit sin when one doesn't believe in God, since sin is, by definition, a form of relationship to ... God. If God doesn't exist, sin can't exist. Therefore, it does no good to formulate such an argument as was put forth here. Anyone who deals with sin deals with a world view in which everyone sins.

 

[waitasec]

Yeah, they die, but they will live again. If it were not for Christ, death would be final.

From the LDS perspective, and probably from the perspective of some other Christians as well, there are two things which are referred to as "death": Physical death and spiritual death.

(1) Physical death is the separation of the physical body and the spirit which gives it life. It is not a result of sin. It's a result of being mortal. Jesus' Atonement guarantees that all who have ever lived with live again.

(2) Spiritual death is the separation of man from God, an estrangement. It comes about only as a result of sin. Jesus' Atonement makes it possible for us to be reconciled to God without having to bear the consequences for our sins.

I disagree. It has everything to do with God in my opinion. But that requires some explaining. To me, sin is the intentional transgression of a religious law or moral principle. If a Mormon has a drink of wine, this is a sin because Mormons are of the understanding that God has commanded us not to drink alcoholic beverages. You, on the other hand, could have a drink of wine and it would not be a sin because you would not be acting in disobedience to something you believed was wrong. On the other hand, if you were to sin against me, it would have to be by acting in some way which you recognized as wrong. If you stole from me, for instance, you would probably recognize that you had violated a principle your conscience told you was wrong. Whether you believe in God or not, when you sinned against me, you would have also sinned against God, since He is offended by the way you treated me. That may or not make sense to you, but I can assure you that once you have kids, and somebody bullies one of them, you will be offended by their bullying and you will not be able to tell youself that because the bully beat your kid up and not you, it's okay.

how do i sin against god if you are left with the ball in your court?
you're the one who decides how to respond to my i sin against you...
maybe my sin could be in retaliation of something you did to me, without intention... unbeknownst to me...therefore my conscience would consider it as retribution rather than me having wronged you
the variables are endless...
that is why it doesn't add up...

 

[Katzpur]

how do i sin against god if you are left with the ball in your court?
you're the one who decides how to respond to my i sin against you...
maybe my sin could be in retaliation of something you did to me, without intention... unbeknownst to me...therefore my conscience would consider it as retribution rather than me having wronged you
the variables are endless...
that is why it doesn't add up...

It's never going to add up in your mind, waitasec. All we're doing at this point is playing word games. There is literally no answer I could give you that would not prompt more questions, but they aren't questions that would ever lead to a conclusion. So, I'm going to leave you to debate this with someone else.

 

[waitasec]

I didn't say that they were. However, I don't see how one can posit sin when one doesn't believe in God, since sin is, by definition, a form of relationship to ... God. If God doesn't exist, sin can't exist. Therefore, it does no good to formulate such an argument as was put forth here. Anyone who deals with sin deals with a world view in which everyone sins.

if the redeemed had never interfered with the inalienable rights of others...you're absolutely right..

how one can posit sin when one doesn't believe in God

but since they do bud in other peoples business...it is ultimately thoughts, opinions and theories which should be applied on a personal level...

 

[waitasec]

it's never going to add up in your mind, waitasec. All we're doing at this point is playing word games. There is literally no answer i could give you that would not prompt more questions, but they aren't questions that would ever lead to a conclusion. So, i'm going to leave you to debate this with someone else.

:149: ...

 

[McBell]

Anyone who deals with sin deals with a world view in which everyone sins.

This is just plain not true.
I know many people who feel that homosexuality is a sin for them but not her bother, who does not share her religious views.

Now what you claim may well be true for all those egotistical deities who make the claim that they are the one and only end all be all deity, but the fact is there are several religions whose deities do not have such fragile egos.

 

[Katzpur]

:149: ...

:slap:...

 

[sojourner]

if the redeemed had never interfered with the inalienable rights of others...you're absolutely right..


but since they do bud in other peoples business...it is ultimately thoughts, opinions and theories which should be applied on a personal level...

I'm sensing that the OP wasn't entirely truthful. What was meant was: "I'm homosexual and that's not a sin." OK. That we can debate honestly. And I'd quickly take the side of the OP in that case. But we're not talking about real-world stuff here, by the strict interpretation of the OP. When one deals with sin, one deals with God. And when one deals with God, one deals with the notion that humanity, as a whole, is sinful. So it's really a moot question, as put. It doesn't solve anything, nor address anything.

 

[sojourner]

This is just plain not true.
I know many people who feel that homosexuality is a sin for them but not her bother, who does not share her religious views.

Now what you claim may well be true for all those egotistical deities who make the claim that they are the one and only end all be all deity, but the fact is there are several religions whose deities do not have such fragile egos.

I thought we were talking about the blanket concept of "sin," not what may or may not constitute a specific example of sin...