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

[Alceste]

i'm responding to your topic , "if iam not a sinner" we ALL are sinners. whether many wants to NOT believe they are. this is why God wants us to always ask for forgiveness of our sins. who do many believe God's word was refering to,the non-believers? why would he direct that to them,when he knows they don't believe in him. so it had to have been for us.which means we ARE sinners.

besides that...we were born from sin. it took Jesus death to make a way for us to gain everlasting life,even if we are still sinners. (Rom.5:19- For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Adam's sin caused human's to become sinners, Jesus obeying God caused us to become Rigtheous, if we choose). Jesus death didn't make human sin-free.

many say...i'm NOT a sinner anymore,because i was "baptized" an?!...you're still a sinner. why?,because there are times when we sin intentionally, as well as intenionally for instance... someone jokingly say ,"i know i was a queen in another life" it was just someone having fun,but it was a LIE,a lie is a sin. THIS!...is why NO ONE can say..."i'm NOT a sinner. so yes,you,me,we ALL needed a savior, and we got one. even if many don't believe in him...or the one who SENT HIM,(his Father Jehovah). peace

So, in your opinion, cracking a joke that contains fiction is a large enough wrong to warrant joining a cult and spending the rest of your life repenting for it? Even if it's funny?

 

[andys]

Imagine a person who has never done any of the things you think are "sins" and tell me if they need saving. Yes or no, and why.

The entire question makes no sense to me. What is a sin? And who is saving you from what?

As a "born again" atheist who was brought up a Roman Catholic by a deluded mother, I had to suffer, among numerous afflictions associated with religion, daily cataclysm classes. I can still recall the definition of "sin" that was drummed into my poor impressionable young mind; it coincides with this definition:
"Fundamentally, sin is rebellion against, or resistance to, the direction of supreme authority [God]".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin

So sin is essentially disobedience to a god.

Note: Many definitions of sin include morality as a feature of sin. But this is untrue.
A quick glance at the Ten Commandments reveals that nearly 60% of God's Laws have nothing to do with right and wrong actions against a fellow human being:

1. I am the Lord your God ...thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
2. Thou shalt not make for thee any graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, ...thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy...
5. Honor thy father and thy mother...
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, nor his field ... nor anything that is thy neighbor's.

The first four are about stroking God's ego. There's no a shred of morality to be found. The 5th is about respecting your parents, which is nice if you are fortunate to have respectable parents, but all too many are unfit and should never have given birth. Either way, it is not morally wrong to not honour your parents, even if they were Ozzie and Harriet. The 10th commandment is silly. Every time I drive down Wellington Crescent I covet thy neighbors' luxurious waterfront mansions (and I'd covet their wives too, if they happened to resemble Angelina Jolie). Lock me up, I'm a sinner!

So much for sin being equated to moral acts of right and wrong.

As for the knight in shining armour who will swoop down and save you from your sins, I have this to say to him. "Go pester some other damsel in distress".

If it the Christian god who is the savior (the one who is "all forgiving"), I have to wonder why he condemns sinners to burn to a crisp for all eternity. That's a "hell" of a salvation, if you ask me.

Ah, then there's "original sin". I love this comical notion.

Let me get this straight; God creates two human prototypes in His own image, then plunks them in a garden without any power to discern between right and wrong, but forbids them to "eat" of [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil", which would teach them to discern "good" from "evil", thus bringing them even closer to being in God's image. Just to add to the craziness, God also plunks a talking lizard into the garden to tempt Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of knowledge, which they do, (wouldn't you?) which angers God. He banishes them for their evil act, even though neither of them was given the power to know good from evil, without having this knowledge of good and evil because they were prohibited from knowing it the first place. (To think all this craziness is perfectly reasonable, to Bible believers. Whew.)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The final absurdity (yes, there is more) is now that Adam and Eve have eaten of the fruit from the Tree of [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and have finally gained knowledge of good and evil, all their offspring - all future generations - must bear the mark of "original sin" on their innocent souls. But the only "sin" Adam and Eve ever committed was to desire and gain "Knowledge of Good and Evil". In other words, the Biblical God wanted [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]our earliest ancestors [/FONT][/FONT]to behave in accordance with what is good - not evil - while, at the same time, He forbade them any access to this knowledge of good and evil. So how could they be expected to discern between good and evil without eating of the fruit that would provide this forbidden knowledge?

You want to know how to be saved? I'll tell you. Stay away from Bibles and use your brain.
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Alceste]

Ok, I will, andys. So, with sin being defined as disobedience to the Cathololic god, I can not be a sinner if that god doesn't command anything of me, correct? AFAIK, all reports of that god's wishes come from humans, not from god.

 

[andys]

Ok, I will, andys. So, with sin being defined as disobedience to the Cathololic [Catholic] god, I can not be a sinner if that god doesn't command anything of me, correct? AFAIK, all reports of that god's wishes come from humans, not from god.

Technically, it's not the god of Catholics but the god of the Bible, that introduces the idea of sin, and the Bible (Old Testament) is the religious foundation for all Christians, all Jews, and all Muslims. But, of course, if their god did exist, he probably wouldn't let you and me off the hook for not being associated with a major religion. (Gulp.)

But to my point, the concept of a sinner (i.e., one who displeases the Biblical god) has nothing to do with morality, as is amply reported in the Bible itself (e.g., God's murdering every man, woman and child on Earth by drowning them - except for Noah, and the few lucky enough to catch a ride with him (who themselves, coincidentally, must have been exceptionally wonderful, like Noah - a masturbating drunk, according to the Bible).

I can't resist using my favourite example of how you can be moral and a sinner at the same time, while performing the same act: Remember when God commanded Abraham to kill his only son Isaac? Well just think: it would be morally right to disobey God AND it would be a sin to disobey Him. There you have it. Doing what is right can be a sin.

Now I put it to the reader: would you rather do what is morally right and possibly sin, OR not sin and possibly do what is morally wrong?

All I know, is that there IS a moral right and wrong, and there IS a good reason for what makes an act morally right or wrong. As for there being a god, that is highly improbable, and there is no reason to believe he exists. But - here's the point to wrap your head around - it wouldn't matter if a god did exist.

As the Abraham-Isaac example clearly illustrates, morality trumps sin. Doing what is right for the sake of doing what is right is more "divine" than blindly appeasing all the nilly-willy whims of a vain god. Therefore...even if a god exited, the same morality of right and wrong would apply to his royal highness. Conclusion: God is irrelevant in matters of morality. And sin becomes irrelevant along with him.

Good riddance.

 

[andys]

AFAIK, all reports of that god's wishes come from humans, not from god.

I feel stupid asking this, but, what does "AFAIK" mean?

 

[Alceste]

I feel stupid asking this, but, what does "AFAIK" mean?

As far as I know.

I agree it is better to be morally right than to attempt to please a god whose commandments are morally wrong, even in the unlikely event that doing the right thing when God "commands" us to do evil results in damnation.

For example, we mustn't work on the Sabbath, according to some long-dead translator's account of some longer-dead shepherd's account of Moses' account of what God commanded us to do. However, what about the doctors, nurses and emergency relief crews in Japan? Tomorrow is Sunday (and today is Saturday) - should they sit around all day praying and let thousands die?

Obviously not - they should (and probably will) work tirelessly until it is completely hopeless to continue, because it is morally right. If that makes them "sinners" in the eyes of the Abrahamic god, to hell with him. Who cares what he thinks?

 

[andys]

Well said!

 

[notthedalaidrama]

The earthquake in Japan was not caused by man - I think the world would be brutal enough with or without us, but definitely more aesthetically pleasing without.

I tend to define the god concept I find most practical in a similar way, but I use the word qi for it. OTOH, qi is not a deity.

Man can now manipulate the weather! Been going on for years! Its not beyond Man to cause earthquakes and the likes! Plus maybe its Mother Nature's way of kicking our collective backsides! We treat this planet with no respect whatsoever, so when things like this happen its kind of rough justice! Man is still the number one cause of death and destruction, which religion also contributes to.

When I became a christian it was a poor judgement call, I was young and foolish! I have never been a sinner, nope, thats for all you who belong to that way of thinking! I respect people but thankfully I can think for myself and not on books written by men for the purpose of suffocating the individual's right to think!

Namaste,

Lenny

walking on sunshine

 

[Peace]

I asked this on another thread and it seems to have stumped the "theologian". I wondered if any other Christian would like to have a go.

So, do I? I don't want to hear any tedious, irrelevant Kirk Cameronisms here ("have you ever been a speeder, have you ever littered, have you ever burned ants with a magnifying glass, have you ever masturbated", etc). If you think it is impossible for me to be free from sin, just treat the question as a hypothetical. Imagine a person who has never done any of the things you think are "sins" and tell me if they need saving. Yes or no, and why.

Your own deeds are your savior.

 

[Alceste]

Man can now manipulate the weather! Been going on for years! Its not beyond Man to cause earthquakes and the likes! Plus maybe its Mother Nature's way of kicking our collective backsides! We treat this planet with no respect whatsoever, so when things like this happen its kind of rough justice! Man is still the number one cause of death and destruction, which religion also contributes to.

When I became a christian it was a poor judgement call, I was young and foolish! I have never been a sinner, nope, thats for all you who belong to that way of thinking! I respect people but thankfully I can think for myself and not on books written by men for the purpose of suffocating the individual's right to think!

Namaste,

Lenny

walking on sunshine

Interesting idea, but in fact cataclysmic geological events have been a fact of life on earth since there was such a thing as the earth, long before we were around to get "punished" by mother nature for our misdeeds.

 

[notthedalaidrama]

Interesting idea, but in fact cataclysmic geological events have been a fact of life on earth since there was such a thing as the earth, long before we were around to get "punished" by mother nature for our misdeeds.

we are guests on this planet, and we are the ones who have to fit in! But a lot of natural disasters are as a result as to what Man is doing to the planet, drilling for oil may result in causing a disaster, after all Man now operates from the Ego and will take risks; and some natural disasters are in fact Man made disasters. When the Atom Bomb was dropped on Hiroshoma, Man certainly created a Man made disaster! Man is a danger to the existence of this planet and is well on the way to making life on Earth uninhabitable. I really feel for the coming generations because we will make their lives a living hell.

Namaste,

Lenny

happy monday's

 

[Alceste]

we are guests on this planet, and we are the ones who have to fit in! But a lot of natural disasters are as a result as to what Man is doing to the planet, drilling for oil may result in causing a disaster, after all Man now operates from the Ego and will take risks; and some natural disasters are in fact Man made disasters. When the Atom Bomb was dropped on Hiroshoma, Man certainly created a Man made disaster! Man is a danger to the existence of this planet and is well on the way to making life on Earth uninhabitable. I really feel for the coming generations because we will make their lives a living hell.

Namaste,

Lenny

happy monday's

Oh, I agree, we do a lot of damage. The damage we do is damning enough on its own without taking supernatural credit for natural disasters.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

I asked this on another thread and it seems to have stumped the "theologian". I wondered if any other Christian would like to have a go.

So, do I? I don't want to hear any tedious, irrelevant Kirk Cameronisms here ("have you ever been a speeder, have you ever littered, have you ever burned ants with a magnifying glass, have you ever masturbated", etc). If you think it is impossible for me to be free from sin, just treat the question as a hypothetical. Imagine a person who has never done any of the things you think are "sins" and tell me if they need saving. Yes or no, and why.

even if you are a sninner , you save your self, you don't need a savior.

after i have been interduced to many relegions , I findout that a "mediator" is a must, something like a prism which deviate your behavior.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

The bible teaches that the consequences of sin, or better yet, the evidence that someone is a sinner is the fact that they die. So a good litmus test would be, if you're not a sinner you won't die. If you are a sinner you probably will. Since death is the consequence of sin according to scripture.

Romans 6: 23 For the reward of sin is death; but what God freely gives is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.
(BBE)

That is an excellent litmus test. Which means that had Aedam and his wife not eaten from the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil; then they would be alive to this day.

 

[andys]

The bible teaches that the consequences of sin, or better yet, the evidence that someone is a sinner is the fact that they die. So a good litmus test would be, if you're not a sinner you won't die. If you are a sinner you probably will. Since death is the consequence of sin according to scripture.

Now I have heard everything. Do you honestly believe this incredible nonsense? So what about a baby who goes into a coma for the rest of his life? Why does he eventually die?
Or for that matter, why does any baby die?

 

[doppelganger]

I asked this on another thread and it seems to have stumped the "theologian".

I've yet to see a coherent answer as to what "sin" is . . . from anyone . . . except for "separation from God," which would only be enhanced by a "Savior."

Good luck.

 

[That Dude]

I asked this on another thread and it seems to have stumped the "theologian". I wondered if any other Christian would like to have a go.

I guess I'll start off by making a statement you expected to hear.
(Bible says), "if you are free of sin you can go to Heaven".
Which sounds like the bottom line for you.

What do you really want to debate?

 

[Alceste]

I guess I'll start off by making a statement you expected to hear.
(Bible says), "if you are free of sin you can go to Heaven".
Which sounds like the bottom line for you.

What do you really want to debate?

Just as I said - I want to discuss whether those of us who aren't "sinners" need to be "saved", and from what.

If I cared what it says in the Bible, I'd be reading the bible. I want to know what Christians think, and why, in their own words.

 

[That Dude]

Just as I said - I want to discuss whether those of us who aren't "sinners" need to be "saved", and from what.

If I cared what it says in the Bible, I'd be reading the bible. I want to know what Christians think, and why, in their own words.

If they're 'Christians' by definition they should be in agreement with the bible.
If the bible is in fact the source of our knowledge then the answers contained within should be the only way we can respond to what you've asked.

And the bible says, "everyone falls short of his Grace and we need Jesus Christ to come into Gods presence"

But the bible does describe how I personally feel even if it wasn't the only source of information on the 'religious' Christianity.

17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you
John 14:17 (NIV)

The 'Spirit of Truth' is more commonly known as the 'Holy Spirit' and it is used to show you the reality of God.
I didn't have a true understanding of Christianity until I felt it.
It's a handshake from God in a sense. What is often mistaken as a euphoric state is actually an emotional state, bestowed upon anyone who accepts God.

You literally have no idea how insignificant mankind is until you've felt it.
And quite often don't want to admit how small and meaningless mankind is compared to the splendid nature of the universe, which God created.

 

[Alceste]

If they're 'Christians' by definition they should be in agreement with the bible.

That is only the definition of some Christians. Others have actually read the Bible and realize it can not even agree with itself, let alone move us to agree with it.

If the bible is in fact the source of our knowledge then the answers contained within should be the only way we can respond to what you've asked.

And the bible says, "everyone falls short of his Grace and we need Jesus Christ to come into Gods presence"

But the bible does describe how I personally feel even if it wasn't the only source of information on the 'religious' Christianity.

17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you
John 14:17 (NIV)

The 'Spirit of Truth' is more commonly known as the 'Holy Spirit' and it is used to show you the reality of God.
I didn't have a true understanding of Christianity until I felt it.
It's a handshake from God in a sense. What is often mistaken as a euphoric state is actually an emotional state, bestowed upon anyone who accepts God.

You literally have no idea how insignificant mankind is until you've felt it.
And quite often don't want to admit how small and meaningless mankind is compared to the splendid nature of the universe, which God created.

Like I said, I am not interested in listening to people quote the Bible. I have a Bible. I can read it any time I like. I do appreciate the personal contribution, though, and I will try to respond to that.

If this emotional state you felt comes "from God", how do you explain the fact that a state of spiritual bliss and unity with the splendid universe is available to anyone, regardless of whether or not they believe in the Christian god - or any god at all?

I know how I explain it - the feeling of rapture / enlightenment / spiritual bliss is an inherent capability of the human psyche and can be explained through psychological research without recourse to supernatural causation.