I realise that I have already discussed this in the forum are of the site, but I wanted to post something in a blog form giving my full thoughts on the issue

So the topic I want to address in this blog is the Christian concept of “We are all born sinners” (otherwise known as Original Sin). As a non-Christian I personally do not believe we are all born sinners . But as the title suggests I believe we are all born innocent until proven guilty. 

But what is sin? From a Christian perspective you may get some various different answers whenever you ask this simple question to a Christian “What is a sin?”. Most Christians will tell you that it is a violation of “God’s Law”. And what is God’s law, Gods law in terms of the bible is what is deemed to be morally acceptable. 

So with that understanding when one says that “We are all born sinners”, they are actually saying that we are all born immoral. Lets think about that for a moment and what such a claim is entailing. These people believe that from the moment you are born you are automatically an immoral person. Despite having not perfumed not even one immoral act. This sort of belief is potentially very psychologically damaging. In has cause many Christians to go through life literally feeling guilty for simply being born. Because quite simply put the very simple act that they were born at all, is a sin. It is a sin to be born. The Christian religion and its scripture is actually preaching and teaching; that all human beings are born defective. 

But outside of the structure of belief there is no concept of sin as such. When someone performs a bad act its either deemed as illegal, or unethical etc. And understanding that religion requires indoctrination before one accepts or believes in it; it is therefore impossible to be born a sinner. Sinning is performing a bad deed against the Christian God’s law. Infants don’t automatically believe in this God from birth and therefore cannot be held responsible for breaking the laws of a religion they have not sworn any allegiance to. It would be like accusing all the Christians of haram for breaching Islamic beliefs. 

The only argument I have seen against this charge that Original Sin is a vast oxymoron is quite simply “It just means we are not born perfect”. Unfortunately such an argument is a contradiction of what many Christians accept to be sin and notably inconsistent wight he concept and belief of sin. Most Christians agree that sin, does not simply mean “imperfect”, it means to break God’s law, disobey God, perform an immoral act in the eyes of God. In short, a sin is performing a bad deed. It has nothing to do with perfection and I’m certainly not implying that anyone is born perfect either. This argument from perfection is a very weak argument indeed and holds no relevance to what sin really means by any understanding of the word. 

I fully reject any notion that we are all born defective or wilfully bad. I believe that we are all born innocent until proven guilty. We are born naive, innocent, unaware of the world we are entering; and have committed no crime. It is unjustified to deem the simple matter of being born as a crime. As the good old saying goes:

“it is the innocence of a child”

Views: 735

Comment by Erock68la on July 14, 2014 at 12:22am
@Joshua Are you saying your god purposely causes the horrible, agonizing, pitiful starvation deaths of millions of innocent children every year as CONTRAST, so the rest of us will have something to compare our blessed lives to? And you worship a being that would behave that way?
Comment by Erock68la on July 14, 2014 at 12:25am
@Joshua There is no end that could justify those means.
Comment by _Robert_ on July 14, 2014 at 12:57am

There just seems to be a shortage of Christians here defending what the bible actually teaches...

The bible teaches you not to rely on your own intellect...

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight.…

Proverbs 28:26
Those who trust in themselves are fools....

Congrats, you have accomplished that instruction if you believe the bible would be the extent of revelation by the creator of the universe as we now know it. You have a god that has about the same extent of knowledge as a bronze-age nomad. What a remarkable coincidence.




Comment by Davis Goodman on July 14, 2014 at 11:51am

@ Joshua. The first part of your comment is preaching. No one here wants to read preaching. It's an atheist forum. The second part is simply victimisation trolling. No one cares if our statements about religion offend the religious. This is an atheist forum.

Comment by Joshua D. on July 14, 2014 at 10:52pm
@davis I was trying to explain my views a little better to Gallup. I wasn't preaching. Is it preaching when an atheist expresses their views?

I don't know if you read the second part. I wasn't saying I was a victim I was saying your views are naturally offensive to me as mine are to most atheists. I don't believe we should avoid offensive conversation that is productive. I think you lack critical reading skills or you just didn't read it.

"This is an atheist forum"

What? I though I was on Ray comforts forum. Maybe I should have taken a left at Albuquerque...
Comment by Joshua D. on July 14, 2014 at 10:53pm
On that...

Proof of god?


(Booom mind blown)
Comment by Physeter on July 14, 2014 at 11:13pm

@Joshua D: Your communist and capitalist metaphor almost makes sense. I can understand why you'd cause offense when you word it like that. You're right that it is natural and even acceptable for us to cause each other offense in that sense.

But the other thing that you say, about how god is supposed to cause offense, is completely backward and makes no sense.

Biblically this idea is supposed to be offensive to non-believers. Enmity with God is the natural state of the unbeliever. As C.S. Lewis said the gates of hell are locked from the inside. It's not God keeping them out of heaven, it's them keeping God out of hell. Unbelievers are supposed to think He is evil.

Do you not see that nothing at all in the real world works like this? Learning about something which is truly good should make it seem good to you, not evil.

Haven't you ever changed your mind on anything in the past, Joshua? Did you change it because you received new evidence that seemed true, or did you change your mind just because someone told you you HAD to based on faith?

That's what the Jews of Berea did, after all. In Acts 17, the Bible says those Jews listened to Paul's new teachings, and then examined them based on what they already knew to be true, to see if the new teachings were also true.

Say you've never eaten sushi, and you want to try some. You don't have to decide whether or not you believe sushi is good before you eat them. That's what eating it is for; to determine if they're good or bad. So suppose you take a few bites, and you say, "Wow this is awful." But I come along and say, "No, sushi is good, but it's supposed to taste bad if you don't believe in sushi." You'd think I was spouting nonsense, wouldn't you?

There was a time when I thought the Israel/Palestine conflict was cut and dried. The Jews deserve the land, the Palestinians want to take the land because they're anti-Jewish, end of story. But then I took a class in college where we learned the history of that area, how modern situation came to be, and what each side actually wants. Suddenly I know that the problem is much more complicated.

Do you think the teacher of that class simply presented the evidence, so that we could see for ourselves what was right and what was wrong, or do you think he made us sign a contract BEFORE class started promising to accept that the Palestinians were oppressed? How successful do you think he would be with that second approach?

Do you not see you're doing the same thing? If you have a good god and a good religion, intelligent people who love the truth should be able to examine it and see if it is good or bad. But you contend that your religion is actually supposed to look morally reprehensible to those who do not believe. This is nonsense, Joshua. This is the kind of thinking that can only serve to keep people from seeking truth.

Comment by Joshua D. on July 14, 2014 at 11:33pm
It's not really an intelectual assent that brings us to faith biblically. I believe that God changes us and removes the blinders I guess you could say.

It's a little different but we see that same process I think in the road to emmeus story. Verse 31 I believe

Interesting verse that talks about the blindness on unbelievers

Another interesting bit where Jesus talks about the purpose of parables.

It seems that God hides himself in a sense. How the change occurs is what I call salvation. See the ezekial passage above. It says that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, we are saved by faith through grace, and that faith comes through hearing and hearing by the word of God.

Again I don't believe it's an intellectual assent as much as us hearing the gospel and then God changing our hearts and opening our eyes.

I hope I'm not coming off as proselytizing just trying to respond to you.

I think there is a measure of intellectualism in what we call the "wooing" phase of our coming to faith but intellectualism alone can not complete it I guess.

I've never looked at the bereans in the way you describe. That certainly is an interesting point.
Comment by Davis Goodman on July 15, 2014 at 12:06am

You are preaching when you use evocative language and meaningless phrases and needlessly lengthy and highly personal religious explanations when trying to "clarify" your beliefs when more concise, less obscure and less emotive phrasing would work. There are several theists here who challenge us without resorting to phrases like "it seems that God hides himself in a sense". "I believe that God changes us and removes the blinders I guess you can say"."Suffering is difficult". "The good was Joseph being...". This tells us nothing and reminds us of preachy babel. 

And yes you are victimising trolling when you go out of your way to mention "I am fully aware that my views will be ridiculed, shamed, and responded to" after already mentioning many times in several comments that you are offended by what we say (regardless of whether you think it is fair or not and if the offence is intended or not).

Comment by Joshua D. on July 15, 2014 at 12:23am
I think you think I'm trying to so something I'm not. I'm not trying to convince you of anything but tell you what I believe. I don't know how to explain what I was trying to explain in a more concise way. I'm not challenging as much as discussing.

I don't feel like a victim. If I came across that way I'm sorry. I am not persucuted here. I can disagree with something or find it offensive and not take it personally and feel victimized. I was merely trying to point out that we have opposing views that can and will be offensive to each other.

If I felt like a victim and that I was being persecuted I wouldn't say anything at all. I'm not "victimizing trolling" whatever that means. I wasn't going out of my way I was responding to being told that I should expect response (the ridicule and shaming part were pulled from what Gallup said I should expect) by saying yea I know and have known that my ideas will be controversial here.

What's the point of this dialogue by the way? What do you hope to accomplish?


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service