"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

[chrispalasz]

Why do some people deny that they are a sinner?

I guess... sin is so abundant and visible in my personal life, I just can't understand why somebody would deny being a sinner. Is it really that people believe they are not sinners? Or is it more about the 'controversy' over what "sin" is... or that people don't feel like there is a God to "sin" against?

What, exactly, is your hang-up (if you have one)?

What types of things do you know of that other people get hung-up by?

Thanks! Cheers! 8)

~GL

[melikio]

It is not defined by any external arguments, for or against it. It simply exceeds the necessity for further examination. It is rather like love in that respect. When you love someone, explaining it is not only impossible, it is uncalled for. Faith of a spiritual nature, is by its nature, not subject to any physical examination or investigation. For those who are unwilling to go within, the only access point of things spiritual, it has no reality. But for those who open themselves, it becomes the only unquestionalbe reality.

Yeah, I won't argue with this; don't see much need to.

I will just add, that "LOVE" is the universal "glue", that pulls people to a place where many "right" things can be shared and mutually benefitted from; it's not merely a "feeling".

-Mel-

[trencacloscas]

it is part of the HUMAN BEING that I am and I know that is true of others.

Well, it is totally subjective, then. I don't think faith is part of the human being, universally speaking; fear and hope, the ones that really lurk behind the curtain, yes, they are!. Love seems to me a device word that has no real meaning until it is used in some interested context. People lives by the will to live and reach some happiness, love and affection are not "energies" but impulses of the self, and to say love is some kind of "universal glue, that pulls people to a place where many right things can be shared and mutually benefitted from" is like saying nothing at all, putting mystery where it should be a quest, appealing to the magical to avoid meditation...

[melikio]

Well, it is totally subjective, then. I don't think faith is part of the human being, universally speaking; fear and hope, the ones that really lurk behind the curtain, yes, they are!. Love seems to me a device word that has no real meaning until it is used in some interested context. People lives by the will to live and reach some happiness, love and affection are not "energies" but impulses of the self, and to say love is some kind of "universal glue, that pulls people to a place where many right things can be shared and mutually benefitted from" is like saying nothing at all, putting mystery where it should be a quest, appealing to the magical to avoid meditation...

I can see your perspective somewhat, but I really don't think it can be proven to be 100% "subjective". Many people have tried to prove faith as such, but it is not so easy or simple as it seems, to discount it completely.

Belief and disbelief are both significant in the human mind, and often BOTH are based upon good reasoning and the subjectivity which tend to be a part of our existence. While arguing certain aspects of our exitence may clear up certain things incrementally, there is always the HUMAN limitation of not knowing ALL there is to know.

And that's the key, IMHO; that human beings only know part of anything. But my last few posts agree with you somewhat, in that I pointed out that a FULL understanding of belief and/or disbelief within myself, was NOT something I could completely transfer via written/spoken language.

Just as everyone else, though I may describe myself as a person of faith, I admit that I'm "limited" in my knowledge and understanding of reality as a whole (whether we are speaking of what is physical or spiritual). For how many have "believed" they actually knew something (even with great amounts and levels of thought invested), yet eventually found they only knew little of the truth or none at all? I don't know about your experiences, but I've seen people navigate such uncharted-territory countless times.

So to me, it is natural for people to believe or NOT believe; I say that is "human", because I've not been aware of anyone who can either prove or disprove their entire perspective of "realty" absolutely. The simple way to say this, is that belief and disbelief cannot be argued too much; it's often pointless. As for the value of love, I believe it lies in its affective influence, especically where it opens hearts and minds that people may have the urge or will to communicate. And to me, that is why I see it as a superior attribute. That is, human beings ARE indeed free-will agents; they can literally think what they please and in large part possess a limited-autonomy to ACT according their own thoughts. I don't know of anything that can actually shut THAT part of being "human" down (whether it be impirical or spiritual); people tend to accept or believe what they can or desire to.

"Subectivity" is a part of what we happen to be. I think some embrace their humanness to a greater degree that others, and certainly what we view as being innate varies...even amongst the most educated of us. I know people who are absolutely brilliant (scientifically-minded), who believe in what cannot be proven by the tools of their professions; and then, there are those who relatively less-educated, who are the greatest skeptics and unbelievers I've ever met. Human beings have and exercise faith or some forms of it regularly; and that is easier to recognize, if we realize consciously, that not all faith is directed at "forms" of religion as we necessarily understand or define them.

I've met countless people who are intensele serious about belief and unbelief period; the only in-between I've seen is "COMMUNICATION". I've seen love often act as the MOST EXCELLENT catalyst for such communication; still I know it is not the only thing which promotes the exchange of information between people.

-Mel-

[trencacloscas]

I don't think so. At all. Communication goes around without the need of any "plasma" in between. Just happens. It depends on interests and affinities. "Love" is, as I mention before, nothing concrete, just more
Christian empty rhetoric. Very dangerous, by the way, as it represents a "catalyst" for delusion.

[melikio]

I don't think so. At all. Communication goes around without the need of any "plasma" in between. Just happens. It depends on interests and affinities. "Love" is, as I mention before, nothing concrete, just more
Christian empty rhetoric. Very dangerous, by the way, as it represents a "catalyst" for delusion.

I haven't figured my whole existence out. I do the best I can as a human being with what I know and believe. My mind changes, and I check myself for delusion along the way. I can't speak for everyone, but if you meet me, you will see exactly what I have described here...even if you don't recognize it's a part of me.

Our views differ, I almost always expect that to happen in this world, unless we are talking about one single, laser-focused issue at a time. If we throw "faith" or "sin" on the table... I cannot see how there would not be a myriad of perspectives submitted for examination.

So I agree with you, that there is something VERY "subjective" in all of this; that's inescapable. I don't accept that what cannot be explained "Just happens."; nor do I believe I possess the knowledge, experience and wisdom to prove any such thing.

People are going to disagree, and sometimes the guy who is right, WILL be disagreed with; it's a part of being "human" and living in a reality that does not necessarily reveal (clearly to everyone) ALL that is (truth).

-Mel-

[Cephus]

Sure thing. This can be your correction, thanks for the invitation. In the way that the Bible explains what sin is, apart from it saying that everyone has sinned (and hence is a sinner), this simply cannot be true.

You might want to believe that but a lot of people think it's just laughable. The Bible was written by MEN, not some fanciful deity, hence what the Bible says is no more important than what the latest Jackie Collins novel says. It's utterly irrelevant, regardless of your personal BELIEF on the subject. We care about facts, not faith.

Try again.

[melikio]

We care about facts, not faith.

At some point though, faith and what is considered to be pure "reason", must be harmonized to at least some degree or level.

The only person who would have perfectly-flawless reasoning/logic... would be someone who knows every aspect of everything.

We have to be a little honest and humble about all of this. I've seen a LOT of amazingly-smart, Spock-like thinkers fail (at one thing or the other) countless times. Either their knowledge was faulty, and/or their use of the same might have been.

I respect people with scientific minds and free-thoughts... but reality has proven to me (intuitively and logically), that there are limits to mankind's self-perfection period. That does NOT mean that we should try to figure things out, or that science/faith have the answers exclusively; it's just a matter of accepting (somehow), that none of us have absolutely perfect answers for anything we examine.

One may indeed not "care" about "faith"; that WOULD NOT shock me or take me off balance one iota. What I do find difficult to understand, is when people truly EXPECT others to think in the same ways, find truth in the same ways and arrive at the same conclusions. Unless human beings are turned into computers, such perfectly unified thinking is most likely improbable.

After arguing with skeptics, atheists and Christians for the last 5 years on various fora, I realize assumed knowledge, and expressions of faith exist in ranges and degrees. What people know/believe, and how they got there, is just as significant as the faith or knowledge they possess. And if you don't think that is the case, just talk to some people one-on-one about why/how they believe/know what they do.

If we take PEOPLE out of the equation, then it would probably be easy to line up all the facts, and come to a perhps "true" (by definition) explanation of everything. But as long as people are creative and have free will (or something like it), I doubt seriously that throwing out mere "facts", or promoting "faith" will be enough. The most balanced and reasonable people I know, understand and admit that "faith" is a part of being "human", that cold hard facts (alone) are limited in quality and clear meaning (perceived worth).

My sister has an advanced degree in a scientific field; she works with highly-technical things like anatomy and drugs. But she is also a person of deep faith. She understands the disconnect of the purely analytical approach, when it comes to understanding "faith". Even so, she is honest about the reality for her, that knowing a lot of stuff... is not as meaningful as also having a sense of wholeness bolstered by "faith".

So, things like my sister and other people, plus my own experiences and education, tell me that reason and faith are NOT necessarily in opposition to one another. Sure, cognitive dissonances may occur in this reality, but there is evidence of conflict in almost ANY aspect of reality which one might examine. And I think that the best PEOPLE can do about it, is try to communicate one to another as effectively as possible (don't expect perfection).

-Mel-

[trencacloscas]

But faith is something totally human. I don't think "faith" falls into that category. Faith is only delusion to some of us, a trick, virtual cheating...

Not agreeing is OK, it is part of the process. Of course, as García Márquez said, people don't fight about things that actually exist and can be perceived. The other ones are the dangerous.

[melikio]

Not agreeing is OK, it is part of the process. Of course, as García Márquez said, people don't fight about things that actually exist and can be perceived. The other ones are the dangerous.

I think this is the wrong topic for a discussion on faith, but I will present the following for consideration:

How can I determine the objective reality or absolute truth of anything by relying on a subjective process? My mind processes information within limited frames of reference. My interpretation or perception of anything will not be the same as yours because your awareness may be based on a number of different factors. We may agree that it is soup, but you may have touched it, or maybe even smelled it and tasted it differently. Someone else may have examined it more closely than you or I. Whatever the reasons, each person will perceive reality in different ways, but no one will be able to say with absolute certainty what the objective reality is. http://www.dtl.org/apologetics/article/perception.htm

What may be clear "reality" to some, is still argued by many. True communication requires more than merely stating truth to others. Even then, there is no guarnatee that all will see things as they truly are.

Virtually any aspect of reality can be misused or made "dangerous" by human beings; we likely all know of such example. I can take the most benevolent idea/concept, and make it absolutely "toxic" to many. To the contrary, the effect of religion within and about many people, is not danaging or dangerous at all. Perhaps the very prolific nature of "faith" and "religion" has allowed more people to be abused by it (over time) than other things; I'm not perfectly sure of that, but it makes some sense. I also believe we'll see abuses in/of science, which may lead to more scrutiny from intellectuals and philosophers overall. Religion is has been placed into a social crucible, which science has yet to endure. Many I've known DO speak of science in a religious way; they are not absolutely sure of what they speak, they do not provide proof of what they say from science, they merely exhibit faith in what they have been told is true.

Even so, I think that the quote above somewhat expresses why it is likely MORE helpful to to accept the various perceptions of reality which exist, yet promote "communication" of those varying perceptions as possible. And while we may all be reading some of the same "book", it is practically rare-enough, that we are on the same word of any given "page". As clear as truth may certainly be to one, it may not be to another.

Let people decide as freely and openly as they should be allowed to; after all, WHO knows all things so absolutely, that they should never be questioned about anything they claim to be true?

(Sorry all, I know this is the wrong thread overall for these thoughts. It may fit somewhat, due to the broadness of the topic.)

-Mel-

[Cephus]

At some point though, faith and what is considered to be pure "reason", must be harmonized to at least some degree or level.

Unfortunately, they really can't be to an appreciable degree. Facts are what is true. Faith is what you wish was true. When you start demanding that faith and facts are equivalent, that's when you start to have problems.

I respect people with scientific minds and free-thoughts... but reality has proven to me (intuitively and logically), that there are limits to mankind's self-perfection period. That does NOT mean that we should try to figure things out, or that science/faith have the answers exclusively; it's just a matter of accepting (somehow), that none of us have absolutely perfect answers for anything we examine.

That may be true, but just because man isn't perfect, nor do I know of anyone who claims otherwise, that doesn't mean that we should invent fanciful gods to take the place of our lack of perfection. There is only one reality, composed of those things that are real. Praying to God or hoping Santa Claus brings us presents are both silly things that should be outgrown by the time we start thinking logically and critically.

Too bad so many people never reach that point.