And forgive us our sins...

[The Void]

Is there such thing as sin? If so, then what is sin? What role does it play in modern ethics?

 

[Dominick AKA Dom]

Sin is a bad deed.
Bad&Good depends on each person perspective, like...

Some might consider masturbation bad, some might consider it good. It depends on each person religion, religious views, philosophic views and etc.

There is a guy in my class who consider girls as sex tools. HOW. WHY. WHAT. Thus, bad&good is messed up with him.



It depends on each fellow.

 

[Dakotah]

Sin is a concept used by religion to enforce a certain moral code on its members. It is meaningless outside that particular faith, however, no matter how often each religion attempts to force others to conform.

 

[BadPokemon]

There is such thing as sin. Sin is death and all the bad things we do. It is what keeps us from having a relationship with God. It decieves us and makes us empty promises that never come true.Does our secular world care about sin? No.

 

[Tek]

There is more to "sin" than shame-based coercion. That is but a single interpretation, and a narrow one at that. But the word is so strongly associated with this sort of thing that it will be nigh impossible to get anything constructive, positive, or healthy from a discussion about sin.

Were we to look closely at what we mean by "sin", we would find that religious and non-religious factions actually agree in some ways on what is "sinful". Yet I have a sneaking suspicion that we're gearing up for another religion-bashing orgy. *Yawn* Been there already... Doesn't do much for me anymore.

On the off chance that there is interest on a what a modern understanding of sin looks like, see here: https://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=8205018&postcount=11

 

[Dakotah]

There is such thing as sin. Sin is death and all the bad things we do. It is what keeps us from having a relationship with God. It decieves us and makes us empty promises that never come true.Does our secular world care about sin? No.

The word secular does not mean faithless, contrary to popular belief. Rather it means: not subject to or bound by religious rule; not belonging to or living in a monastic or other order.

I am not religious. I have no belief in a god. The very idea is ridiculous to me. However, there are others who do. A truly secular society means that neither position dominates over the other. All positions have equal weight.

That being said, your assertion that sin exists can only be based on belief. It's not fact. There are many so-called sins, each and every single one of them created by mankind in order to control, dominate or govern. The problem with sin is that it relies specifically on a single point of view. What may be considered sinful to one person, is not to another. Who is to say which view is correct? And who makes the decision determining that one set of values and morals is the one everyone should live by?

 

[Tek]

There's a massive contradiction when you first say

your assertion that sin exists can only be based on belief. It's not fact.

and then you go on to say that no one has a better position than any other. You've just asserted that factual analysis is better than belief-based analysis! So which is it: is no one more right than anyone else, or are some views better?

A truly secular society means that neither position dominates over the other. All positions have equal weight.

...


What may be considered sinful to one person, is not to another. Who is to say which view is correct? And who makes the decision determining that one set of values and morals is the one everyone should live by?

In other words, all positions have equal weight... except the position that everything is equal. That position, evidently, is a bit heavier.


Isn't it entirely contradictory to say that no view can be considered correct? Your view that everything is relative is being presented as the correct view!


Doesn't it make more sense to look at the specific benefits and shortcomings of these various points of view, rather than to make blanket assertions like "everything is equal", or that "facts are better than beliefs"?

 

[BadPokemon]

The word secular does not mean faithless, contrary to popular belief. Rather it means: not subject to or bound by religious rule; not belonging to or living in a monastic or other order.

I am not religious. I have no belief in a god. The very idea is ridiculous to me. However, there are others who do. A truly secular society means that neither position dominates over the other. All positions have equal weight.

That being said, your assertion that sin exists can only be based on belief. It's not fact. There are many so-called sins, each and every single one of them created by mankind in order to control, dominate or govern. The problem with sin is that it relies specifically on a single point of view. What may be considered sinful to one person, is not to another. Who is to say which view is correct? And who makes the decision determining that one set of values and morals is the one everyone should live by?

I know. What I meant for secular was non religious. I must have worded my sentences improperly. The Biblical view establishes what sin is and what is a sin. God determines the correct morals and values. We try to make our own, and frankly, it doesn't work out for us.

 

[Dakotah]

There's a massive contradiction when you first say

your assertion that sin exists can only be based on belief. It's not fact.

and then you go on to say that no one has a better position than any other. You've just asserted that factual analysis is better than belief-based analysis! So which is it: is no one more right than anyone else, or are some views better?

But I didn't actually state which view was better, now did I? That is just how you interpreted it. What I actually said is that no one position is dominant. So there is no contradiction. My view is equal to his and both positions are given equal weight for consideration. It's not my place to determine which view is better for anyone but myself. Only another person can determine what is right for them.

But this goes directly to the point I was making about sin. It is a human construct designed to coerce a favorable response in certain situations. But no one can really determine what is a sin for another person because in the end that person may have an entirely different sense of what is right and wrong.

Isn't it entirely contradictory to say that no view can be considered correct? Your view that everything is relative is being presented as the correct view!

No, again you misinterpret. At no time do I state which view is the correct one. I simply present a different view and let others decide for themselves what they believe to be correct. I could entirely be wrong according to someone else, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I can't make someone believe my position is the correct one because they will likely be approaching the subject from a different perspective, one I might not have considered. It would then be up to me, after listening to an alternate position, to determine if my stance was the correct one for me or not. I am human, after all, and am prone to change my mind on things from time to time. And each time I do, it is the correct position ... for me.

I know. What I meant for secular was non religious. I must have worded my sentences improperly. The Biblical view establishes what sin is and what is a sin. God determines the correct morals and values. We try to make our own, and frankly, it doesn't work out for us.

But who determines what morals and values God has determined are correct? Your personal interpretation of what the bible says is and isn't acceptable to God may not be the same as someone from a different denomination? So who gets to decide what interpretation is the correct one? My thinking is that they are all correct. All of the interpretations ... for the one who holds them. That means the Catholic is right, the Baptist is right, the Orthodox Jew is right, the Muslim is right. They are all correct, but for themselves only. Which is why I believe we have come together as a society to determine what is best for us in the here and now. We take all the views that are out there, weigh them against each other and then come to a determination on what will best be beneficial to society.

I know from speaking to you that you are not all that favourable to the LGBT community. You're not hostile towards us (for which I'm really grateful), you just believe that acting on our feelings is wrong because it goes against what you believe the bible teaches you. Fair enough.

My biological parents, my brothers and sisters of that family are all Christians. And not one of them has voiced even a moderate displeasure with my sexuality. They were curious, of course, confused, understandably, but at no time did I ever feel I was being judged, or my love for my boyfriend was frowned upon.

My adopted parents (yes I'm also adopted) have no religion. They are as much atheistic as I am. They only ever celebrated Christmas because of their adopted children, me and my brother. Once we were no longer there, Christmas time for them was just an opportunity to gather together with good friends and enjoy a good meal. The religious part of it, they didn't believe or even acknowledge. It was, to them, a waste of time. I like Christmas because it means another day off from work with pay! I like getting paid to sit on my butt on my couch so that I can spend all my time with my boyfriend and enjoy some very romantic and relaxing times together. After more than 5 years together, I love him more and more every day.

So I return to the question, who then is correct? My answer, I think, is that we all are. We can only determine what is right for ourselves. We can't do that for another person. And I think it is extremely unhelpful for anyone to try to convince (convert) someone to follow a different belief, or way of life. Only that person can do it for themselves, and they have to want to do it in the first place.

 

[The Void]

The word secular does not mean faithless, contrary to popular belief. Rather it means: not subject to or bound by religious rule; not belonging to or living in a monastic or other order.

Your definition is wrong, as it only applies to the terminology of the Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, and Anglican Churches. The word 'secular' you defined is only used in the context of the two types of clergy -- ordinary and secular. Ordinary clergy are those, usually monks, who take the vow of poverty, etc., and belong to a certain monastic order (Dominicans, Benedictines, Jesuits, etc.). Secular clergy are those who can own property, take care of their own parishes, and are directly subject to their diocesan bishop.

A better definition of secular would be: "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis". But you'd be right in saying that it doesn't necessarily mean faithless.

A truly secular society means that neither position dominates over the other. All positions have equal weight.

What does secularism have to do with equality? There are many religious communities wherein each member deems another as important as himself. I don't think there's a country where "neither position dominates over the other" and where "all positions have equal weight". Unless you're referring to anarchy, well...

Who is to say which view is correct? And who makes the decision determining that one set of values and morals is the one everyone should live by?

Can I ask the same of atheism and morality? Who's to say murder is wrong? Morality is subjective, and because my morality says it's okay to kill, I suppose I better kill those innocent people, right?

 

[Dakotah]

Your definition is wrong, as it only applies to the terminology of the Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, and Anglican Churches. The word 'secular' you defined is only used in the context of the two types of clergy -- ordinary and secular. Ordinary clergy are those, usually monks, who take the vow of poverty, etc., and belong to a certain monastic order (Dominicans, Benedictines, Jesuits, etc.). Secular clergy are those who can own property, take care of their own parishes, and are directly subject to their diocesan bishop.

If you don't like the definition I provided, then if I were you I'd go complain to the people who write the dictionary because that's where it came from.

What does secularism have to do with equality? There are many religious communities wherein each member deems another as important as himself. I don't think there's a country where "neither position dominates over the other" and where "all positions have equal weight". Unless you're referring to anarchy, well...

Secularism listens to all points of views, weighs them against the other, and then we make a decision based on what we believe to be best for society at the time. And this decision may, in fact, change, as more views are added and a new perspective is revealed.

Can I ask the same of atheism and morality? Who's to say murder is wrong? Morality is subjective, and because my morality says it's okay to kill, I suppose I better kill those innocent people, right?

I think society has already determined if and when murder is justified. Murder is the intentional taking of another person's life. As an example, the U.S. has determined that for certain crimes it is justified for the state to kill the person convicted of the crime. Some laws have determined that a person is justified in taking the life of another person if they are required to do so in order to protect themselves or others.

You see, the thing is, when it comes to what society finds acceptable, the individual's position is, of course, listened to and considered. But a society is made up of more than just one person. There are many voices to consider. And so what the society tries to do, or should try to do, is listen to all the voices that wish to be heard, consider the merits of each position, and then come up with a decision that they believe will best benefit society.

 

[The Void]

If you don't like the definition I provided, then if I were you I'd go complain to the people who write the dictionary because that's where it came from.

That's why your dictionary has different definitions of the word. The definition you chose to use was referring to the context of clergy.

Secularism listens to all points of views, weighs them against the other, and then we make a decision based on what we believe to be best for society at the time. And this decision may, in fact, change, as more views are added and a new perspective is revealed.

Oh. Okay.

I think society has already determined if and when murder is justified. Murder is the intentional taking of another person's life. As an example, the U.S. has determined that for certain crimes it is justified for the state to kill the person convicted of the crime. Some laws have determined that a person is justified in taking the life of another person if they are required to do so in order to protect themselves or others.

You see, the thing is, when it comes to what society finds acceptable, the individual's position is, of course, listened to and considered. But a society is made up of more than just one person. There are many voices to consider. And so what the society tries to do, or should try to do, is listen to all the voices that wish to be heard, consider the merits of each position, and then come up with a decision that they believe will best benefit society.

So it is society that determines morality? Ad populum? Democratic morality? Also, saying that society decides right from wrong doesn't make morality subjective.

In a society where Nazis take over Germany, and 90% of the population were brainwashed to heil Hitler and kill any Jews they saw, killing Jews is okay? Because the standards of Nazi society has determined that Judaism is filthy?

Keep in mind that this has happened and is already happening in places like North Korea. People there literally worship Kim Jong-un. You can say that's a society.

 

[BadPokemon]

But I didn't actually state which view was better, now did I? That is just how you interpreted it. What I actually said is that no one position is dominant. So there is no contradiction. My view is equal to his and both positions are given equal weight for consideration. It's not my place to determine which view is better for anyone but myself. Only another person can determine what is right for them.

But this goes directly to the point I was making about sin. It is a human construct designed to coerce a favorable response in certain situations. But no one can really determine what is a sin for another person because in the end that person may have an entirely different sense of what is right and wrong.



No, again you misinterpret. At no time do I state which view is the correct one. I simply present a different view and let others decide for themselves what they believe to be correct. I could entirely be wrong according to someone else, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I can't make someone believe my position is the correct one because they will likely be approaching the subject from a different perspective, one I might not have considered. It would then be up to me, after listening to an alternate position, to determine if my stance was the correct one for me or not. I am human, after all, and am prone to change my mind on things from time to time. And each time I do, it is the correct position ... for me.



But who determines what morals and values God has determined are correct? Your personal interpretation of what the bible says is and isn't acceptable to God may not be the same as someone from a different denomination? So who gets to decide what interpretation is the correct one? My thinking is that they are all correct. All of the interpretations ... for the one who holds them. That means the Catholic is right, the Baptist is right, the Orthodox Jew is right, the Muslim is right. They are all correct, but for themselves only. Which is why I believe we have come together as a society to determine what is best for us in the here and now. We take all the views that are out there, weigh them against each other and then come to a determination on what will best be beneficial to society.

I know from speaking to you that you are not all that favourable to the LGBT community. You're not hostile towards us (for which I'm really grateful), you just believe that acting on our feelings is wrong because it goes against what you believe the bible teaches you. Fair enough.

My biological parents, my brothers and sisters of that family are all Christians. And not one of them has voiced even a moderate displeasure with my sexuality. They were curious, of course, confused, understandably, but at no time did I ever feel I was being judged, or my love for my boyfriend was frowned upon.

My adopted parents (yes I'm also adopted) have no religion. They are as much atheistic as I am. They only ever celebrated Christmas because of their adopted children, me and my brother. Once we were no longer there, Christmas time for them was just an opportunity to gather together with good friends and enjoy a good meal. The religious part of it, they didn't believe or even acknowledge. It was, to them, a waste of time. I like Christmas because it means another day off from work with pay! I like getting paid to sit on my butt on my couch so that I can spend all my time with my boyfriend and enjoy some very romantic and relaxing times together. After more than 5 years together, I love him more and more every day.

So I return to the question, who then is correct? My answer, I think, is that we all are. We can only determine what is right for ourselves. We can't do that for another person. And I think it is extremely unhelpful for anyone to try to convince (convert) someone to follow a different belief, or way of life. Only that person can do it for themselves, and they have to want to do it in the first place.

The differences between the Christian denominations are mainly baptism, getting accepted into Heaven, etc. Some believe you get into Heaven by baptizing. This is wrong because the Bible clearly states you get into Heaven through Jesus and by believing and placing your faith into Him. Otherwise, our core beliefs are what matter. It's not relevant whether we baptize by dunking or sprinkling. It doesn't matter if it's done as a baby or newly reborn Christian (I prefer the reborn one).

While I don't support the LGBT community in any way, shape or form. However, that doesn't mean I hate them or you. In fact, we are to make friends with you and stuff. There is no reason for us to segregate or whatever against you guys. That doesn't mean we support the rights and stuff. You just sin differently.

I don't mean to offend you in at all. I'm sorry if I did. :)

Who is correct? I am obviously going to say Christians. I don't want to offend anybody and their beliefs so I will restrain from continuing this answer unless someone wants to here it.

 

[Dakotah]

The differences between the Christian denominations are mainly baptism, getting accepted into Heaven, etc. Some believe you get into Heaven by baptizing. This is wrong because the Bible clearly states you get into Heaven through Jesus and by believing and placing your faith into Him. Otherwise, our core beliefs are what matter. It's not relevant whether we baptize by dunking or sprinkling. It doesn't matter if it's done as a baby or newly reborn Christian (I prefer the reborn one).

But some denominations have no problem with divorce and re-marriage. Some have problems with interracial relationships. Some have no problems with homosexuality, going as far as performing matrimony rites for gay couples. So I think it's much more than just about baptism. And every time I hear about these differences, almost always I hear one person pipe up with the predictable comment: "but those aren't real Christians!"

While I don't support the LGBT community in any way, shape or form. However, that doesn't mean I hate them or you. In fact, we are to make friends with you and stuff. There is no reason for us to segregate or whatever against you guys. That doesn't mean we support the rights and stuff. You just sin differently.

I don't mean to offend you in at all. I'm sorry if I did. :)

I'm not offended in any way. You're honest, and I do appreciate that. Obviously I don't understand how supporting equal rights for all people, including those who are gay, or bisexual or transgender could in any way be contrary to religious beliefs, but obviously for you it is. But see, this is where the differences in religion confuses the issue of sin. How can one form of Christianity see homosexuality as sin, while another doesn't. And even within the ranks of each denomination, there is dissent from official church teaching. Most Catholics use contraception, support gay marriage and really don't have much problem with someone who is divorced getting re-married. The only explanation for this, that I can see, is that these people are thinking for themselves and deciding for themselves what is right for them. They're not sheep following the herd as it were.

Who is correct? I am obviously going to say Christians. I don't want to offend anybody and their beliefs so I will restrain from continuing this answer unless someone wants to here it.

And I think you are too. Every position you take is the right one. But for you only. No one else. Because none of us can decide for another what is right and wrong. We each grow up in different circumstances and are taught differently by those around us. Of course I believe differently than you. I love my boyfriend. I do not consider my love for him to be a sin. But then, I don't consider sin to be real either.

 

[The Void]

Most Catholics use contraception, support gay marriage and really don't have much problem with someone who is divorced getting re-married.

Most Catholics? Do you mind citing sources for this one? If that were true, then that's really sad to hear.

 

[Dakotah]

Most Catholics? Do you mind citing sources for this one? If that were true, then that's really sad to hear.

These are but a few examples:

Contraception:

https://www.gallup.com/poll/154799/americans-including-catholics-say-birth-control-morally.aspx
https://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/13/us-contraceptives-religion-idUSTRE73C7W020110413

Gay Marriage:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/catholics-gay-marriage-support_n_2835847.html
https://www.newsmax.com/US/Quinnipiac-Catholics-gay-marriage/2012/12/05/id/466540/

Divorce and re-Marriage:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...0ecef4-8f89-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html

 

[Oryx]

Most Catholics? Do you mind citing sources for this one? If that were true, then that's really sad to hear.

Among all Catholic women between the ages of 15 and 44 who have had sex, 98% of them have used birth control other than natural family planning. Among American Catholics, 82% of them believe birth control is morally okay.

In that same survey you can see that almost 70% of them think divorce is okay and over half believe that gay or lesbian relations are okay.

 

[Tek]

But see, this is where the differences in religion confuses the issue of sin. How can one form of Christianity see homosexuality as sin, while another doesn't. And even within the ranks of each denomination, there is dissent from official church teaching.

This is where an understanding of stages of development becomes essential to making sense of the world. The type of person who is going to make a division between who is a "real" Christian and who is not is a person speaking from an ethnocentric level. Only "my people" get into heaven.


The next step forward is to worldcentrism, and it is from this level that we see universal human rights emerge, because at the worldcentric level one's circle of care is expanded to include all people. There are no in-groups or out-groups, only the human group. So it should be abundantly clear that the Christians who move from tolerating divorcees and homosexuals to embracing divorcees and homosexuals are those who have moved from the amber-level mythic worldview to the orange-level rational worldview.


Keeping that in mind, we now have an explanation for this:

Most Catholics use contraception, support gay marriage and really don't have much problem with someone who is divorced getting re-married. The only explanation for this, that I can see, is that these people are thinking for themselves and deciding for themselves what is right for them. They're not sheep following the herd as it were.

You've hit the nail on the head with the slightly demeaning phrase "sheep following the herd". The mythic level is conformist. You simply don't question authority. The rational level is autonomous, individualistic. At orange rational, not only is it okay to question authority, it's irresponsible not to!


And among the Western world, where Catholics generally live, about half of the population is at worldcentric or higher stages of development. EDIT: source needed for that. Ken Wilber gives that number, but I haven't found the study that it comes from yet. It's not that Farfetch'd, but still.

And I think you are too. Every position you take is the right one. But for you only. No one else. Because none of us can decide for another what is right and wrong. We each grow up in different circumstances and are taught differently by those around us. Of course I believe differently than you. I love my boyfriend. I do not consider my love for him to be a sin. But then, I don't consider sin to be real either.

You and BadPokemon don't actually agree here. He clearly sees that what is true for him is also true for you. You see that what is true for him is true for him only.


It would be more accurate to say that in your reality (circumstance, as you called it), his view that the Bible determines everyone's truth is wrong. The Bible only determines his own truth in the reality that you live in.


And the other side of that is that in his reality, the Bible does actually determine what is right and wrong for every person. In that sense alone would you consider him to be right.




Now I do understand where you come from, and I harbor no ill-will against the postmodern worldview. On the principle of "greatest good for the greatest number", green-level thinking is damn near as good as it gets. It is from this level that we get multiculturalism, awareness of marginalized groups of people, and the general type of inter-systemic thought that generates genuine environmental stewardship.


I also (am learning to) appreciate the mythic worldview. There are a lot of people who are at egocentric stages, tribal or warrior. There always will be, because everyone starts at square one, and develops through the stages one at a time. Mythic religion, in fact conformist thinking in general, is exactly what these people need if they are to grow in care, compassion, and understanding.


And as people move through the mythic stage to the later stages, the mythic stage provides an enduring contribution of stability to human endeavors. We first must learn what black and white are if we are to discover the infinite shades of grey. We must first learn what the rules are if we are going to learn how to critically evaluate them.




So back to the point of the thread, when you say that you don't think sin exists, and our friend BadPokemon says that sin is clearly defined by the Bible, you are both "right", but you are not both "right" in the same way, nor do you agree with each other. It is only from the green lens that the multiplicity of meaning-making even exists.


And of course, I'm presenting an integral approach, so I don't actually "agree" with either of you. I say that you both have a partially correct view, while you both seem to think you're presenting the whole story. Even the pluralistic view has limitations and flaws, the biggest one being the general rejection of all hierarchies.


There are "dominator" hierarchies and there are also natural hierarchies. The latter are the ones that evolution grows, like the nested hierarchy of atoms to molecules to cells to cellular organisms, or more broadly, the cosmophere to the biosphere to the noosphere. Yet the general trend among postmodernists is to simply squash all the hierarchies down to simple equality and absolute relativism (which sounds contradictory because it is). The only universal truth here is that there are no universal truths!

 

[The Void]

These are but a few examples:

Contraception:

https://www.gallup.com/poll/154799/americans-including-catholics-say-birth-control-morally.aspx
https://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/13/us-contraceptives-religion-idUSTRE73C7W020110413

Gay Marriage:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/catholics-gay-marriage-support_n_2835847.html
https://www.newsmax.com/US/Quinnipiac-Catholics-gay-marriage/2012/12/05/id/466540/

Divorce and re-Marriage:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...0ecef4-8f89-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html

Among all Catholic women between the ages of 15 and 44 who have had sex, 98% of them have used birth control other than natural family planning. Among American Catholics, 82% of them believe birth control is morally okay.

In that same survey you can see that almost 70% of them think divorce is okay and over half believe that gay or lesbian relations are okay.

I don't think these surveys earn you the right to speak for most of all Catholics.

None of the surveys you showed were on a global scale, as all of them (except for the 12 countries thing) were done on US residents alone. There are about 1.2 billion Catholics spread all over the corners of the world. The percentage of Catholics in the US definitely isn't the biggest (25%).

 

[BadPokemon]

But some denominations have no problem with divorce and re-marriage. Some have problems with interracial relationships. Some have no problems with homosexuality, going as far as performing matrimony rites for gay couples. So I think it's much more than just about baptism. And every time I hear about these differences, almost always I hear one person pipe up with the predictable comment: "but those aren't real Christians!"



I'm not offended in any way. You're honest, and I do appreciate that. Obviously I don't understand how supporting equal rights for all people, including those who are gay, or bisexual or transgender could in any way be contrary to religious beliefs, but obviously for you it is. But see, this is where the differences in religion confuses the issue of sin. How can one form of Christianity see homosexuality as sin, while another doesn't. And even within the ranks of each denomination, there is dissent from official church teaching. Most Catholics use contraception, support gay marriage and really don't have much problem with someone who is divorced getting re-married. The only explanation for this, that I can see, is that these people are thinking for themselves and deciding for themselves what is right for them. They're not sheep following the herd as it were.



And I think you are too. Every position you take is the right one. But for you only. No one else. Because none of us can decide for another what is right and wrong. We each grow up in different circumstances and are taught differently by those around us. Of course I believe differently than you. I love my boyfriend. I do not consider my love for him to be a sin. But then, I don't consider sin to be real either.

A lot of churches are becoming liberalized as you can see in some Jewish churches. I agree with you how denominations do differ on those specific beliefs. However, those aren't relevant. What is is that Jesus saved us from our sins. If you don't have your faith in that, then you aren't a Christian. You have to ask them those questions. Do you REALLY love God, etc. That is what matters.

I see where you are going. We are right in our own context. If you truly believe in it, are you really lying? But, that conflicts with everyone else. There is only ONE answer to how everything happened. Therefore, only one belief can be correct.