Do you feel most fellow humans are more inclined to sin than not?

[The Straight Story]

Let me define this please - it came up from a post on another thread I have (a fine post by someone btw) relating to smoking, custody, and kids. The thought was, that even though a parent said they would smoke outside the court/judge may be inclined to believe that the person would not honor that and smoke inside.

Breaking the elements down to me: sin is breaking a law/rule, the court says you do X and because we feel you are a 'sinner' you will probably do Y since you do X. Even if no evidence exists that you have done so, we think you will due to nature inherent in you.

This actually touches many other things - at the core is faith in general of people to 'do the right thing', based mainly on a few core tidbits one knows about a person.

This runs as well into conversations about fundies and rw'ers - if you are X then being Y is pretty much a given, and if not a given a higher possibility then if you were a Z.

This leads one down many roads - from racism to bigotry in general, stereotypes, and even into statistical truth (ie, if you are X, Y is likely - fleshing out, if you are black chances are you will be pulled over are greater than if you are white).

I think it all comes down to how we frame things and how we judge them. Going back to smoking example, someone who smokes may understand someone else who does on a different level, whereas someone who hates smoking may allow their prejudices to color their view of said smoker (and those terms apply to both groups - ie prejudices/coloring views).

So anyway........ do you feel people are more inclined to be a 'sinner' than a 'saint' when it comes to an array of things from politics to smoking, etc and so on? Obviously we ALL have definitions wrapped around such terms as 'sin/saint' but given yours do you tend to feel people gravitate towards the sinner or the saint, and why do you think that is?

Sorry for rambling, not sure I expressed myself as well as I had hoped :(

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. I think that as human beings we are all fundamentally flawed.

Each one of us, as a collection of our genes, our upbringing, our environment - peers - friends, develop very complex individuality in terms of our boundaries. It is very interesting - I am 50, my wife and I did grow up "hippy-ish" - yet we stop at red lights, even at lonely intersections at night. We give people breaks to get into traffic when driving, and at busy intersections. We both try to do our best - with our jobs, with our hobbies. Why? We don't go to church regularly at all (we've come to think of organized religion as part of the problem these days), but are spiritual, and find peace in nature, and in each other, in the arts.

Smoking is a hot button for me - yet it is my particular point of view, probably colored by the fact that my dad smoked and caused lots of fighting between my mom and dad. I am a pretty militant nonsmoker, and my reasons are that it is a dirty habit, that it is intrusive (it stinks, can impact my health, etc) - and I simply don't understand the intellectual basis for sucking hot dangerous smoke into my lungs when it is clear that it is harmful.

But I also admit that it is my view - I certainly wouldn't want someone telling me not to plant tomato plants in my driveway, or what sort of mailbox to have, etc.....

Let's bring this to politics - I think maybe we on the left can admit better to our flaws and that we are not perfect, and that we are always searching...but also that, unlike many on the authoritarian right, we don't wish to be told what to do, don't feel like being a blind follower is a good thing. We may be sinners, but we won't make the number of excuses that the right makes...especially in not taking responsibility for our choices. We don't think that we are the religiously chosen - so that we don't have to care about how we live, or how we treat people.

Probably didn't answer your question fully, but it was good to ponder these points and make this very flawed, likely confusing response!

[PassingFair]

2. I think that I alone am without sin.

The rest of you are damned to hell.

:hi:

[CAG]

17. How did you get in here, GW????

[Lilith Velkor]

3. Sainthood and sin are meaningless concepts to me

I'd say most people, including myself sometimes, are more inclined to foolishness than not.

[htuttle]

4. "Sin" is a terribly hard concept to pin down

In your example, you suggest the measure of sin is defined in terms of how well people follow the rules. Rules, as such, suggest imposition, which in turn suggest consequences if you don't follow them. One's actions at that point, might be more determined by fear of those consequences than by any altruistic motive toward following the rules.

Ergo, I think one must go back to a more Utilitarian judgement of, "how many act according to what they believe would create the most 'good' for the greatest number of people," far apart from whatever the 'rules' would seem to be at the time.

Unfortunately, I'd suggest that a fairly small percentage of society acts on such motives. Fortunately, I'd say that far more people act on those motives than did 200 years ago, and again 200 years before that.

:shrug:

[Straight Shooter]

5. I don't believe in sin. I believe there are standards of ethical behavior

I think people are inclined to act ethically according to their nature. Some people are always ethical to the best of their ability according to the knowledge they have of a situation, some people are ethical sometimes and other times really are disappointing, some people merely put on the appearance of being ethical as a means to an end. Some people aren't ethical at all, ever, maybe because they perceive it as weakness.

Now, as to what constitutes being ethical, that's a real merry-go-round of a question. :)

[sandnsea]

6. Does condemning others' sins

and ignoring all your own, count as a sinner?

That's the most common sinner I know.

[dweller]

10. judge not, lest you be judged ...

humans always trip up on matters of self importance.

dp

[texpatriot2004]

7. A person's conscience is not always enough to keep a person

making the right choices. I think that human nature, left to it's own, without a "spiritual awakening" without a God "of their understanding" tends toward the sinner side. I am kind of like Mark Twain pessimistic about human nature in general. I think you have to look up to find the Good.

[Lilith Velkor]

8. Osama Bin Laden had a "spiritual awakening"

The God "of his understanding" was(is?) very much a part of his life. And yet...

[texpatriot2004]

19. I doubt that. He is religious. Your statement is a rather simplistic

way to look at a very complex matter. I think that religion is different than spirituality. Also, in the Christian Bible there is a verse that says, "...by their fruits ye shall know them..." If destruction, violence, lies, etc. (all of which are evil) then the fruits of a person are not of any God. IMHO.

[sandnsea]

18. I think it's more "left to its own"

than absence of any specific "God". I think all people seek improvement, it's when thy rely completly on their own understanding that they get off on the way wrong path. We all have pieces of truth, that's what I believe.

[tocqueville]

9. sin is not an universal concept

many religions among them budhism have no concept of sin

[TheBaldyMan]

11. speaking only for myself - yes, definitely

I am one of the most irreligious and imperfect beings ever.

We all have our cross to bear ;)

[BlooInBloo]

12. They're inclined to do what's immediately practical first...

... and what's moral second - or later.

Short term needs/wants commonly take precedence though.

[The Straight Story]

13. Perhaps the best answer yet

short and to the point. People do what is best for them now, and extrapolating that can get interesting :)

[QuestionAll...]

14. Jesus said, you without sin, cast the first stone..

then Whack!... he gets one between the eyes. and says:

Mother, sometimes you really piss me off.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. People are unlikely to comply with arbitrary rules if they don't feel that

... there is a significant risk of being caught.

It isn't a matter of sinning. People are masters of rationalizing their preferred activity.

A promise to a judge, or worse yet, a unsubstantiated claim to "rarely" or "never" do something that would reflect poorly on them in a situation in which the stakes are high, carries little weight.

For instance, if asked by a judge, I "rarely" post on political discussion boards when I *could* be reading to my kids. :blush:

[and-justice-for-all]

16. 'Sin' is a matter of perspective.....

...I dont live life by 'biblical laws' so I do not Sin, I enjoy life as I see fit without psychotropic restraint from a mass control tool know as Religion.

[Binka]

20. I Think We Are Crazy Motherfuckers Trying To Figure Out Love/Humanity

Some go down horribly repressive dark paths...some follow the light as best as they can....and EVERYBODY stumbles along the journey.