Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
Why exactly is investing in shares a sin???
Why exactly is investing in shares a sin???Another thing that has me confused is how far will man/woman get before before something is done about the destruction. We are born into this life and deal with what is happening the best (or worst) way we know how.From our parents and teachers and the undesirables we learn how to get through life but I`ll be hanged,drawn and quartered if they taught me how to care for the planet.
Island life taught me about recycling and not to waste food and water(or you get fed to the sharks).We get born,go to school ( I wish I was a kid forever)get taught how to wead & wight then off to work we trot.We go to work `cause ya needs the money son.Wiff da money you buy da food,wiff da money you buy da clothes and wiff da money you buy da house.So pack ya bags and pee off. And good luck.
25 years (good luck,bad luck.. who knows) later, after more slips,trips,falls,mistakes,babies,fights,drinks,crashes,pain,joy,happiness,laughs,contentment.... (the big picture ..not a pixel) I see that the same system still exists.Is there no other way?
AJ Hi,every single human being on this earth sins every day.I have many examples if anyone doubts this.You cannot be human and not sin.Investing in shares is one to begin with.
True knowing that there is a God can bring comfort and hope, but to follow the teachings of Jesus, takes a lot of courage and guts in a world that as I can see, has no interest in God.
It takes courage and strength to turn away from sin and walk God's way. It takes courage and strength to stand up against the peer pressures. It takes courage for the person on the job to take a stand against low humor, pornography, indecency and bad language.
...
I find the odd bit of bad language is entirely appropriate and satisfying.
Hi julia , how`s it going,in reply to your question..Why exactly is investing in shares a sin???
Sin is a term used mainly in a religious context to describe an act that violates a moral rule, or the state of having committed such a violation. The English word sin was originally an archery term. The distance from the center of the bullseye to the point where an arrow struck is known as the 'sin of the arrow'. Sin is often used meaning an action thought of as wrong or prohibited however in some religions (most notably Christianity), sin or sinning is not something that is done but rather a state of mind.
In monotheistic religions, the code of conduct is determined by God. Colloquially, any thought, word, or act considered immoral, shameful, harmful, or alienative might be termed "sinful".
Common ideas surrounding sin in various religions include:
a. Punishment for sins, from other people, from God either in life or in afterlife, or from the Universe in general.
b. The question of whether or not an act must be intentional to be sinful.
c. The idea that one's conscience should produce guilt for a knowing sin.
d. A scheme for determining the seriousness of the sin.
e. Repentance from (expressing regret for and determining not to commit) sin, and atonement (repayment) for past deeds.
f. The possibility of forgiveness of sins, often through communication with a deity or intermediary; in Christianity often referred to as salvation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin Buddhist views of sin
Buddhism doesn't recognize the idea behind Sin because in Buddhism, instead, there is a Cause-Effect Theory, known as Karma, or action. In general, Buddhism illustrates intentions as the cause of Karma, either good or bad. Furthermore, most thoughts in any being's mind can be negative.
Vipaka, the result of your Karma, may create low quality living, hardships, destruction and all means of disharmony in life and it may also create the healthy living, easiness, and harmony in life. Good deeds produce good results while bad deeds produce bad results. Karma and Vipaka is your own action and result.
Pañcasīla (Pāli) is the fundamental code of Buddhist ethics, willingly undertaken by lay followers of Gautama Buddha. It is a basic understanding of the Noble Eightfold Path, which is a buddhist teaching on ways to stop suffering.
Pancasila
I undertake the rule to refrain from destroying living creatures.
I undertake the rule to refrain from taking that which is not given.
I undertake the rule to refrain from sexual misconduct.
I undertake the rule to refrain from incorrect speech.
I undertake the rule to refrain from intoxicants which lead to carelessness.
Noble Eightfold Path
Right View
Right Intention
Right Speech
Right Action
Right Work
Right Effort
Right Mindfulness
Right Concentration
These ultimately lead to cessation of suffering and thus is a way to be free of Samsara. After that, Nirvana is achieved.
If the human sepecies as we know it were obliterated by say a comet hitting earth.
What would we be left with?
No religion.
Evolution would continue until another life form evolved that had conscious thought.
Would it not be natural as they evolved to then start again with Sun,Mountain,Sea etc worship to explain to the developing mind the un explainable.
Are we so primative that even when we can explain the un explainable we chose to ignore it---for a time anyway.
Many of the Old religious ways of primative people are looked upon as laughable now.
Perhaps in not so many years so to will todays civilisations also be laughed at for their fanaticism and primative beliefs.
Mind you power in religion guarentees a long fight between rational arguement and dogged determination in the spreading of "faith".
Mousie, I don't understand your first paragraph,
This is now encroaching into another creationism vs evolutionism battle, where (again!) each side will believe what they want to believe.
I cannot explain what I can't see, ie whether we existed as a result of evolution or creation. FWIW, believing in creationism or evolutionism or anything at all, involves faith in the accuracy of your judgment of the (academic/scientific/etc.) material presented to you. Yes, including the "The God Delusion" book you're currently reading! (at that time, this was referring to tech/a; now, it is Robroy's various scientific sources)
But what I can see is that nature is the purest form of life itself; no one can claim to have manipulated nature (save genetic modification) and its seasons, and the way it makes you feel toward everything else nature since the day you're born to present you their beliefs and worldview. And that is how I know God exists; as simple, as pure and as unadulterated as that.
but below that you said:
"...has anyone noticed how, if God does not exist since the beginning of time, we keep on debating these kinda things month after month, year after year, decade after decade, centuries after centuries, even millenia after millenia? Interesting, ain't it?"
I think that just underlines my point about our religious hard wiring. It goes back millennia (the singular is 'millennium' BTW), and will no doubt be around for as long as we're here (about another 50 years or so, the way global warming is going). It doesn't say anything about the existence of God, just about our proclivity to believe.
Just as science is meant to be a study as to how things work, these studies will, if done correctly and without bias, ultimately and unfailingly point to the intricacy and remarkableness of how things are. We could not have just existed out of thin air, nor could things past have. This remarkable excellence with which things are made alone points to a higher power at work; one which we cannot even begin to comprehend its brain power.
Things can't just exist and fall in place; they need something to move it. If you want to see your business get started, you go get it started; you don't sit and wait. Why then do the seasons come and go? Who could have motivated the change in seasons? Who could have put those systems in place?
Maybe the "who" should have been "what", I hear you say. Well then, how does this "what" enable us to care about these questions as we gaze at things created by this "what"? A "what" is an object; a "who" is a person. How can a "what" make us feel with our heart how amazing the wind, the sun, and the moon and the stars are? How can a "what" make us love another person, if that "what" created us all? The "what" has got to have feelings to give us feelings. We couldn't give of something we don't already have.
SUMMARY: This is where the "what" gives way to a "who". A mere object could not possibly have such power over both things of the mind and things of the heart. This power, this higher being, has gotta be something capable of relational powers. This has to be GOD...
The creation of the Universe by the Big Bang is not faith-based, it's the hypothesis for which we have by far the most evidence. Do some reading in the physics field and you will see what I mean.
You asked me to explain more clearly how organic life arose spontaneously. I could try - but I'm not an organic chemist, so I would refer you to the works of Richard Dawkins, who describes the original process of the creation of life - and outlines the voluminous evidence for it - in several thick books, such as 'The Selfish Gene'.
"We don't need religion to survive." (Etc.)
I think you're confusing your atheist friend's survival with 'survival' of our species in the evolutionary sense. You really have to do some reading on evolution - it's how you got here after all - so we can discuss this with a bit of common ground.
Basically, religion gave us meaning and bound communities together, and provided moral codes, which helped Homo Sapiens hunting bands to survive bleak winters, sabre-toothed tigers, each other, etc.
It's true that the scientific findings on the brain don't refute the existence of God. But they do refute the claim that 'divine' experiences are proof of God.
"The entire nature points out God's existence to me, deafeningly loud and clear, even in the silence of the fields."
I had that same feeling for many years. Sadly, I have been cured by education. I am adapted by evolution to feel that way. I am also adapted by evolution to love my children more than yours. That doesn't objectively prove that my children are better (or more loveable) than yours. It merely proves that the impulse is there in me.
Mousie you stated several times over that God exists - without offering any evidence as yet.
I've presented my evidence. Now it's your turn.
My issue with this argument is that with science we can analyse and present evidence simply because we have a theory and we prove it. Eg, earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth, AIDS is a homosexual disease: long before we have the foresight to question these things, these fallacies are as much a part of the human consciousness/belief system as the suppositions we now hold dear.
That is, with time, the human race has discovered certain things we believe to be incontrovertible truths. But our endeavours, our discoveries are boxed within the framework of human understanding and rationality and seem to be limited to linear time. Such as DNA - the human body has always been there, but 17th century doctors no more conceived this than a means of sending digital data down a thin, flexible glass pipe at light speed.
If a=b+c, then c=a-b, right?
My take on it is YES, FOR NOW.
If you take it there is a GOD, then no theorem can hope to define something that is completely immeasurable.
And if you have proven that "c" does that mean there is not a "d(c)" somewhere around the corner. People of faith hold to a theory that does not really change - That art Thou (or a similar construct) - forever and a day. Science holds to laws that are much more mutable and one-day we may discover yet more about the universe we spin around in.
For now, we cannot rationalise the irrational - some people can live with faith, others need logic. The melding of the two is not sensible. The proving of one thing does not disprove the other. For many, even the evidence of no god, is of God, since everything is God.
You are, of course, entitled to your view.Hi julia , how`s it going,in reply to your question..
Gluttony ,greed and wrath are three sins that being involved in shares brings out.
Here is what ASX determines as ethical ...
Ethical investing
Many investors want their investment holdings to reflect their values, and support companies that behave in ways they consider appropriate or responsible. That is why growing numbers are getting behind investment managers that are perceived to be doing the right thing on a range of ethical, social and environmental issues.
BUT..my reasoning is that polluting the earth is a sin.All companies to a greater or lesser degree contribute to the pollution.In the products they use :steels,plastics,paints,rubbers,glass,paper,ceramics (have a look around there`s more).These products,although some are recycled, MOST goes to the hole in the ground near your city or town.
Good day to you ma`am.
You are, of course, entitled to your view.
I'm just finding it a bit hard not to indulge in some of the previously referred to bad language in response.
Actually "sin" is a judeo/christian concept. Along the lines of Buddhism (as pointed out by 2020) one can be a believer in (insert favourite pseudonym) and reject the concept of sin. I'm sure Christians will jump up and down over this but rejection of "sin" does not preclude the person from trying to do "right" such as in the Noble Eightfold Path, Tao and the Jedi CodeSeems rather silly discussing types of sins when people don't even acknowledge the existance of God.
Like talking about methods of daytrading when the person has no interest in the stockmarket.
Juliathough personally under certain circumstances I find the odd bit of bad language is entirely appropriate and satisfying.
In the Christian (et al) tradition, people try to do right because they are scared of being chucked in hell. Negative.
In other traditions, people try to do right just because it is right. Positive. Even atheists and agnostics may live by this concept.
Hi julia , how`s it going,in reply to your question..
Gluttony ,greed and wrath are three sins that being involved in shares brings out.
Here is what ASX determines as ethical ...
Ethical investing
Many investors want their investment holdings to reflect their values, and support companies that behave in ways they consider appropriate or responsible. That is why growing numbers are getting behind investment managers that are perceived to be doing the right thing on a range of ethical, social and environmental issues.
BUT..my reasoning is that polluting the earth is a sin.All companies to a greater or lesser degree contribute to the pollution.In the products they use :steels,plastics,paints,rubbers,glass,paper,ceramics (have a look around there`s more).These products,although some are recycled, MOST goes to the hole in the ground near your city or town.
Good day to you ma`am.
Actually as a christian I try do do right because it pleases God, not because I have anything to gain or lose from it.It's not a chore,more a mark of respect.
When you have a relationship with someone you want to please them.
Of course nobody is perfect.That's where forgiveness is sought.
Sin wouldn't be so attractive if the wages were paid immediately."
Unknown, Author
The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
Wow, that's interesting, and would obviously be very controversial - Is this covered in any of those references you mention, Rob.?
Julia, you can take it from me, that if you do indulge in the aforementioned bad language in response to this post, it WILL NOT be a SIN
Exactly. I find the concept that only those who believe in God have any understanding of a moral and ethical philosophy patronising and completely unrealistic.In the Christian (et al) tradition, people try to do right because they are scared of being chucked in hell. Negative.
In other traditions, people try to do right just because it is right. Positive. Even atheists and agnostics may live by this concept.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?