Talk:Sin (Fundamentalism)

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


A lot of this seems to be about the general Christian notion of sin and other sections are more focused on the evangelical notion of sin. But I don't see anything about this that is fundamentalist per se. JoshuaZ 23:44, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I agree with Josh. Nothing about this article suggests that it is a definition only used by Fundamentalists. Why are we not calling the article "Sin"? --<<-David R->> 23:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)

If you'll follow the link to the article Sin, you will see a general discussion of the concept as a philosophical one, not as a Christian doctrine. For example, I pointed out--and here is something that Wikipedia missed--that an atheist can still have a concept of sin, though he might not call it by that name. Sin is a moral failing, a missing-of-the-mark in a value system. Hey, even an Objectivist understands sin, though he might not use that word to describe it. Sin, to an Objectivist, is anything that detracts from an uber-rational mode of living, or that violates the rights of another. (And to an environmentalist, it is anything that threatens harm to the earth or makes it less, for lack of a better term, "wild.") In sum, you don't have to be a Christian, or a follower of any other religion, to have a definition of sin.
In order to declare that sin has no meaning, you have to be more than an atheist. You have to be an amoralist. You have to have no values. I'm not even sure that's possible--so I also started a debate on whether amoralism is even possible. I maintain that a man lives with some values, even if the values are as thoroughly ignoble as "I will kill anyone who stands in my way."
I chose to separate the general discussion of the concept "sin" from the Christian doctrine on "sin." As to calling this article "Sin (Fundamentalism)," I chose that because of my own history. Until I joined a fundamental Baptist church, I never really got such a full lowdown on sin from any pastor I had. I always had to read about it on the outside. Now maybe I just found a pastor who was more learned and scholarly than most (he taught at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary before he decided that he would rather be a full-time pastor in his own church), who happens to be a fundamentalist, and one who runs things according to R. A. Torrey's Fundamentals. I don't know. But if everyone here is sure that you don't have to be a fundamentalist to understand sin as I have laid it out on this article--well, if I have to move it again, I'll move it. Let's agree, then, on where to move it to.
I like this kind of discussion, BTW. How often can people have this kind of discussion on Wikipedia?--TerryH 10:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)