Are We Still Sinners?

[weary traveler]

If the bible is not taken as ultimate truth regarding original sin, then how else would you explain man's inherent nature? Why do we have a tendancy to want to do things that harm one another often times, for example (and other similar things)? What about death? What accounts for our eventual physical demise if we don't have original sin?

 

Just wondering what others have come up with in pondering this one.

[Lycorth]

If the bible is not taken as ultimate truth regarding original sin, then how else would you explain man's inherent nature?

 

Your negative outlook on it only indicates (to me, anyway) that you've still got some residual Xianity left in you. I suggest studying alternate viewpoints that don't look so negatively on human nature.

 

Why do we have a tendancy to want to do things that harm one another often times, for example (and other similar things)?

 

Because we don't always think things through. Or don't care. It's all a matter of either making bad choices deliberately or accidentally. It has nothing to do with two fictional characters and a talking snake in a magical garden no one can find the remains of.

 

What about death? What accounts for our eventual physical demise if we don't have original sin?

 

Biology, perhaps? Physics may also have some answers.

 

Systems that advocate studying quantifiable data give more sure answers than religions which assume we are cursed because of two fictional characters and a talking snake's misdeeds in a magical garden.

 

Don't let the Xian mind virus suck you back in. It's easy to give in to fear. You'll experience waves of this from time to time, but you'll get out of it. Xians will say that it's Da Lawd calling his wayward child back, or that you are having a hard time ignoring the truth of the Wholly Babble, but don't listen to the brainwashers and fearmongers. You know the Xian god can't possibly exist, given all the objective evidence against it.

 

So don't let Xian myths play with your mind anymore.

[Dave]

If the bible is not taken as ultimate truth regarding original sin, then how else would you explain man's inherent nature?

Do you mean the inherent human nature to be kind to others? Or are you just looking at the less common, but more remembered, bad side?

Why do we have a tendancy to want to do things that harm one another often times, for example (and other similar things)?

Most people do not want to harm others, they want what everyone else wants, a few meals a day, a place to sleep at night, and a way to care for their families. The majority try to get all that without hurting someone else in the process.

What about death?

What about it? All things die. Big deal.

What accounts for our eventual physical demise if we don't have original sin?

Original sin is a religious concept. Take it away and nothing changes.

[currentchristian]

If the bible is not taken as ultimate truth regarding original sin, then how else would you explain man's inherent nature? Why do we have a tendancy to want to do things that harm one another often times, for example (and other similar things)? What about death? What accounts for our eventual physical demise if we don't have original sin?

 

Just wondering what others have come up with in pondering this one.

 

Of course the Bible never uses the words "original sin" and the word "fall" is never used in the Genesis accounts of Adam and Eve. (While I'm at it, the Bible never uses the word "trinity" and the word "Christian" appears only three times -- and never from the lips of Jesus or the pen of Paul!)

 

How do I explain the darker angels of our nature? This way: We are made in the image of the animals and the image of God. It is our animal nature that seeks to steal, kill and destroy. Our God-nature seeks art, music, love, peace, nature, harmony...whether or not one believes in a God ... i.e., atheists can be just as peaceful and loving and moral and good as theists.

 

Seems to me that we all have an animal ("the flesh," St. Paul called it) within. But we also have what St. Paul called "the spirit." So we must choose which we'll follow. The "animal" will die; the "spirit" will not.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[AKR]

If the bible is not taken as ultimate truth regarding original sin, then how else would you explain man's inherent nature? Why do we have a tendancy to want to do things that harm one another often times, for example (and other similar things)? What about death? What accounts for our eventual physical demise if we don't have original sin?

 

Just wondering what others have come up with in pondering this one.

 

lot's of religions speak of man being inherantly evil, so even if they were, it doesn't necessarily point to the bible.

 

but back to reality. do you think animals are evil? we don't really do anything animals don't do. and if you agree with evolution, we're animals ourselves. all we are is just another species trying to pass on our genes. nothing evil about that. do animals and plants die because they're evil too? have you studied biology at all? i mean, come on. why do we DIE?!? you don't sound like an exchristian at all.

[Lycorth]

but back to reality. do you think animals are evil? we don't really do anything animals don't do. and if you agree with evolution, we're animals ourselves. all we are is just another species trying to pass on our genes. nothing evil about that. do animals and plants die because they're evil too? have you studied biology at all? i mean, come on. why do we DIE?!? you don't sound like an exchristian at all.

 

Precisely. Animals live and are not considered evil by Abrahamic mythology. They steal from each other, kill each other, eat each other, mate with any animal they consider suitable, and so on. Yet in humans this is considered wrong by XIan standards.

 

More indications that Xianity was made for humans - by humans.

[riverbank]

If the bible is not taken as ultimate truth regarding original sin, then how else would you explain man's inherent nature? Why do we have a tendancy to want to do things that harm one another often times, for example (and other similar things)? What about death? What accounts for our eventual physical demise if we don't have original sin?

 

Just wondering what others have come up with in pondering this one.

 

It's a valid question. Even though I have a lot more faith in human nature now, and believe that a lot of people are decent human beings, there are still some weirdos out there, and a lot of stuff happens which shouldn't. I think at the root of it is that mankind is generally fairly self-centred in a lot of ways, and if we get offended, our natural reaction is revenge.

When you look at things which most human beings would recoil at, such as murder or sexual abuse, paedophilia, I'm hesitant to condemn some of the people who do these things, because I'm sure some of it is the result of severe mental illness. But I expect some of the people who do these things are just complete scum. But I don't know what goes on inside their hands, and don't really feel qualified to make much of a comment.

But at the same time, there is surely some desire in most of us to do good. Sorry not a great answer I know, but anyway..

[Lycorth]

It's not a bad answer, I think

 

There is good and bad within the human race as there is within all species, I'd wager. All religions have sought to understand the question of "good" and "evil" and the Babble isn't the first nor the last to attempt this. It just so happens that the Babble, like all Abrahamic paths, takes a sternly negative view of humanity overall.

 

It's all about perspective.

[Legion]

It is our animal nature that seeks to steal, kill and destroy.

I think that this is a rather derogatory way to view animals in general. We are animals. If we have a greater sense of morality then it probably stems from the fact that we are more socially developed than other terrestrial organisms. That is, we rely on each other for survival more than perhaps any other organism on earth. Morality in my estimation is a result of our particular niche as a tight nit cooperative species.

 

Again in other words, we are not moral despite our animal natures, but rather because of it.

[rad]

60,000,000 or more people were murdered, starved or worked to death at the hands of godless leaders in 70 years time in the last century. Only a few Christians complained and tried to stop them.

 

But the world will be better as soon as we get rid of Christianity and it's "sternly negative view of humanity."

 

Right.

 

Which explains why history repeats itself, again, and again and again...

[Lycorth]

60,000,000 or more people were murdered, starved or worked to death at the hands of godless leaders in 70 years time in the last century. Only a few Christians complained and tried to stop them.

 

And how many millions were slaughtered by Xians during the conversion of Europe, and how many more died over the past 2000 years as a result of defying some Xian law or custom or another (such as the wicked laws against "blashpemy", etc) or for simply refusing to convert?

 

Yes, the world would be better without Xianity.

 

You get the Carlos Mencia award for that post:

 

[currentchristian]

It just so happens that the Babble, like all Abrahamic paths, takes a sternly negative view of humanity overall.

 

It's all about perspective.

 

The Bible has some great things to say about humankind, too: God made humankind "a little lower than the angels and crowned him with glory and honor." That sounds positive to me. Didn't God look at the creation of humankind and call it/them "very good"? While the view evolved that we have something "amiss" in our nature (the animal part of us that most of us would not deny), overall the Bible is not negative about human nature, just somewhat skeptical. The writers of the Bible did warn us to be aware not to succumb to our weaknesses.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[Vigile]

The op is question begging.

 

60,000,000 or more people were murdered, starved or worked to death at the hands of godless leaders in 70 years time in the last century. Only a few Christians complained and tried to stop them.

 

But the world will be better as soon as we get rid of Christianity and it's "sternly negative view of humanity."

 

Right.

 

Which explains why history repeats itself, again, and again and again...

 

Yes humanity is capable of doing bad things. No Christianity, or religion for that matter, is not the cause of all bad things. No one claims that man is not capable of doing bad things. Christianity, however, does state that men change and exhibit fruits of the spirit. Therefore, when bad things are done in the name of Christianity, it does damage to the Christian claim. When bad things are just done, they are just bad things that happen. The lesson here is that men are men are men and that Christianity does not have a significant impact on making humanity or the world better. And yes, history will probably continue to repeat itself.

[Mike D]

Are We Still Sinners?

"Sinner" is just a religious term for "lawbreaker". And no, we are not all lawbreakers, in fact since laws are relative and vary from culture to culture you might be a lawbreaker in one place and a law abiding citizen in another place. If you are a Christian and consider yourself a sinner/lawbreaker, that's your own business, and it doesn't apply to me. A good analogy to this is that in the US speeding laws vary from state to state. If I can drive 70 on the highway in the state of Nevada and I do, it seems pretty silly for me to be guilty as a sinner/lawbreaker in the state of Idaho, where the maximum highway speed might only be 65. It's your choice however, if you drive 70 in the state of Nevada and choose to assume guilt for speeding under the laws of the state of Idaho. Similarly, if you choose to assume guilt for breaking Christian laws, be my guest. However, that applies to you only as a Christian and does not apply to the rest of us.

 

At the end of the day, the majority of humans abide by most of the unversally accepted laws against murder, rape and other forms of violence. IMO, man's inherent nature is to survive, not break laws or "sin".

[rad]

 

And how many millions were slaughtered by Xians during the conversion of Europe,

 

Far less than 60,000,000. And by the way how do you blame people who never even read the NT? That's both unfair and irrational.

 

and how many more died over the past 2000 years as a result of defying some Xian law or custom or another (such as the wicked laws against "blashpemy", etc) or for simply refusing to convert?

 

By people who actually read the NT? How about I be generous and say less than 1/100 of the total killed by non-Christians? I guess you weren't aware that Luther had never read the Bible before he got his doctor of theology degree. It's miraculous how the crusades stop when people start reading the NT, don't you think?

 

Yes, the world would be better without Xianity.

 

Apparently not.

 

You get the Carlos Mencia award for that post:

 

It's your argument which depends on a false premise, not to mention ignorance of actual numbers and timespans.

 

Rad

[rad]

Yes humanity is capable of doing bad things. No Christianity, or religion for that matter, is not the cause of all bad things. No one claims that man is not capable of doing bad things. Christianity, however, does state that men change and exhibit fruits of the spirit. Therefore, when bad things are done in the name of Christianity, it does damage to the Christian claim. When bad things are just done, they are just bad things that happen. The lesson here is that men are men are men and that Christianity does not have a significant impact on making humanity or the world better. And yes, history will probably continue to repeat itself.

 

Well then please explain how the slaughter stops where the NT is actually widely read, (after 1611) and then starts up again where it is removed or it's reading is not allowed any more. (Russia and China, 20th century)

 

And by the way, the infilling of the Holy Spirit, with attendent revivals and "signs" (whether you agree with them or not) is simply not happening anywhere from 300 AD to 1650 AD, when we once again see them. So I don't think it's fair to talk about the Holy Spirit and it's fruits as if it were some universal experience through the centuries. The medieval Catholics would have no clue what you are talking about. In fact they had no clue what their own mystics were talking about as we do now.

 

The skeptic Franklin was present in Philadelphia during the "Great Awakening" and declared it "wonderful to see" because folks of all denominations were singing hymns on the street corners and the crime rate fell precipitously. In Wales in the early 19th century, the judges had nothing to do and people stopped going to soccer games in order to attend church. Old debts were caught up voluntarily. So please don't make these statements without having a full knowledge of what happened where the NT was being disseminated among the masses.

 

Your argument is highly simplistic because it does not even distinguish between nascent and medieval Christianity. This distinction was made by most of the founders, for example, when they refused to allow any but Protestant ministers to pray in Congress. They were clearly of the opinion that tradition had corrupted and misrepresented Jesus' teachings. In fact they vilified the Catholic church, but never what Jefferson called, "Christianity, stripped of the rags of the clergy."

 

Do you understand why they made this distinction, and why they universally believed the uncorrupted teachings of Jesus were beneficial?

 

Rad

[rad]

Other little known facts:

 

The Quakers and Methodists, avid NT students by any definition, came out against slavery 70 or more years before two famous"deists" even freed their slaves.

 

The evangelical "fundies" of the antebellum period were the first to graduate women from college. (Oberlin college, of which Charles Finney was president) Oberlin graduated black women before Harvard even graduated a white woman.

 

It was said of William Lloyd Garrison, given more credit by Lincoln than Fredrick Douglas for ending slavery, that he "never read any book but the Bible."

 

Then there is Bacon, Locke and Newton, all Protestants, heading the "enlightenment."

 

I take it some here disagree with Jefferson that "Christianity, stripped of the rags of the clergy, is friendliest to liberty, science and the freest expanasion of the human mind." It's ironic that I should agree and skeptics here apparently disagree vehemently. Why is that do you think, since he is supposedly among the first of the "enlightened" skeptics? Was he wrong or right? Why?

 

Rad

[Brother Jeff]

and the image of God

 

How can we be made in the image of a myth?

 

60,000,000 or more people were murdered, starved or worked to death at the hands of godless leaders in 70 years time in the last century.

 

See this link:

 

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/hitlerstalin.html

 

a little lower than the angels

 

Angels are mythological creatures, so how can we - IN REALITY - be made a little lower than them?

 

What about death? What accounts for our eventual physical demise if we don't have original sin?

 

Sin is a mythological concept taken from an ancient Book of Myths. All living things age and die. It has to do with biology, not mythology.

[Lycorth]

Didn't God look at the creation of humankind and call it/them "very good"?

 

Yes - then he got pissy and drowned millions in a worldwide flood, considering it a "mistake." How does a perfect god make a mistake, I wonder...

 

Far less than 60,000,000. And by the way how do you blame people who never even read the NT? That's both unfair and irrational.

 

Where do you get your figures?

 

Who are the Atheists who killed in the name of Atheism, then? At best, we can cite Stalin, but he killed in the name of Soviet Communism, of which Atheism is only a part. So Stalin really doesn't count.

 

Charlemagne, for example, killed expressly in the name of Xianity, and probably would've killed far more had he the power that Stalin had.

 

I'm willing to bet that those Atheists who've killed in the name of Atheism (or otherwise used Atheism as an excuse) are few in number, and their victims almost as few. But history indicts Xianity far worse.

 

And the majority of the US prison population identifies as being Xian, whilst barely one half of one percent identifies as being Atheist. Guess Jebus can't guide his own sheep, huh?

 

By people who actually read the NT? How about I be generous and say less than 1/100 of the total killed by non-Christians? I guess you weren't aware that Luther had never read the Bible before he got his doctor of theology degree. It's miraculous how the crusades stop when people start reading the NT, don't you think?

 

No, the Crusades stopped because the Xians were driven out of the Middle East (due to poor leadership on the Xian side and superior morale and a few good strokes of luck on the Moose-lim side, thanks to the efforts of Saladin), not because of the rise of Protestantism. I studied the Crusades for some years, so don't even try that shit with me.

 

And people were reading the NT in the Middle Ages. Big Momma Church may have hid the Babble from the people, but they were still reading excerpts of the NT - in the vernacular - for centuries. The people heard the NT and had all the chances to up and revolt, but they didn't - because they agreed with the NT and its evil nature.

 

Apparently not.

 

Apparently so. You're making an ass of yourself because of Xianity. Were it not for that, maybe you'd have your head screwed on straight.

 

It's your argument which depends on a false premise, not to mention ignorance of actual numbers and timespans.

 

Actually, it's your argument which depends not only on a false premise, but total ignorance of history and Xian tradition.

[currentchristian]

Charlemagne, for example, killed expressly in the name of Xianity, and probably would've killed far more had he the power that Stalin had.

 

Methinks Charles the Great killed in the name of the Roman Catholic Church, which at that time in was hardly a voice informed by the New Testament Jesus. (Not to condemn Catholics then and surely not now as much has changed in the RCC.)

 

--currentchristian in massachusetts

 

And the majority of the US prison population identifies as being Xian, whilst barely one half of one percent identifies as being Atheist. Guess Jebus can't guide his own sheep, huh?

 

I worked in a prison for 5.5 years, behind the walls, and even now work with inmates on a part-time basis, "beyond the walls." I'm not surprised that many inmates polled claim to be Christians, as many of the more egregiously "ungodly" on the street suddenly "find Jesus" behind bars. I was surprised, however, by the number of atheists I worked with, because I also thought everyone suddenly fell in love with Jesus once locked behind bars. The group rarely representated in the prison in which I worked: Jews. Christians, yes. Muslims, yes. Atheists, yes. Jews, I never met one in jail.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[Lycorth]

Methinks Charles the Great killed in the name of the Roman Catholic Church, which at that time in was hardly a voice informed by the New Testament Jesus. (Not to condemn Catholics then and surely not now as much has changed in the RCC.)

 

There was only one Xian sect at that time, so Charlemagne was killing in the name of Jebus. And it was 100% in-line with the Jebus of the NT. Behold:

 

Luke 19:27

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

 

Seems ol' Charley was just doing as da Boss wanted.

[currentchristian]

Apparently so. You're making an ass of yourself because of Xianity. Were it not for that, maybe you'd have your head screwed on straight.

 

It would be unkind to say that someone is making as ass of themselves because of atheism. Is it not similarly unkind to say such about someone claiming Christianity? Can't we all be more "live and let live," and discuss these things without throwing around personally denigrating attacks? (Surely we're not politicians two weeks before an election!)

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

 

There was only one Xian sect at that time, so Charlemagne was killing in the name of Jebus. And it was 100% in-line with the Jebus of the NT. Behold:

 

Luke 19:27

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

 

Seems ol' Charley was just doing as da Boss wanted.

 

This quote from Luke is part of a very long parable (made up story representing a real truth) told by Jesus and has nothing to do with Jesus instructing the Charlemagnes of the world in warfare. Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. He himself said that. He himself instructed his followers to love their enemies, pray for those who use you, bless those who curse you, etc.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[Lycorth]

It would be unkind to say that someone is making as ass of themselves because of atheism. Is it not similarly unkind to say such about someone claiming Christianity? Can't we all be more "live and let live," and discuss these things without throwing around personally denigrating attacks? (Surely we're not politicians two weeks before an election!)

 

If the shoe fits, CC. His take on his religion (which would be impossible without the religion to begin with) influences him to come on here and try to tell me that I should believe in Jebus or else I'll burn in Hell and so forth, and citing a bunch of bullshit in place of actual historical evidence to try and back it up. That's acting like an ass, in my book.

 

This quote from Luke is part of a very long parable (made up story representing a real truth) told by Jesus and has nothing to do with Jesus instructing the Charlemagnes of the world in warfare. Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. He himself said that. He himself instructed his followers to love their enemies, pray for those who use you, bless those who curse you, etc.

 

Yes, and here's the parable:

 

The Parable of the Ten Minas

11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'

 

14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'

 

15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

 

16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'

 

17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

 

18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'

 

19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'

 

20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'

 

22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

 

24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

 

25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

 

26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

 

Well, here we have Jebus being an asshole again. In his parable, the master tells his servants to mind his money. He furthermore has a nasty attitude, causing one of his servants to simply hide his share until the master comes back. Jebus says that this servant was the worst of the three, because he didn't invest the money. It's not as if he spent it or stole it, just didn't invest it.

 

Jebus then goes on to say that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. Those who have will get more, and those who have little will have that taken away. Why? Because unless you impress Jebus, he'll make you suffer.

 

Real nice guy you worship.

 

And the quote I cited before is at the end of the parable, indicating that (according to the analogy of the parable) Jebus will get mad with us in his own way for not impressing him with our loyalty - by having those who do not worship him put to death.

 

Evidently, Charlemagne was aware of "wonderful teachings" like this.

 

Seriously, you're a nice guy and all, but you follow one sick-ass religion.

[rad]

If the shoe fits, CC. His take on his religion (which would be impossible without the religion to begin with) influences him to come on here and try to tell me that I should believe in Jebus or else I'll burn in Hell and so forth,

 

I never said any such thing nor do I believe it. I do not judge such things.

 

and citing a bunch of bullshit in place of actual historical evidence to try and back it up. That's acting like an ass, in my book.

 

I repeat. The number of people killed by Christians owning and reading NT's is miniscule compared to those killed by people who did not have them. That's because the found out Jesus wanted them to love their enemies. Same is true of the early Christians, who were privy to the NT, by far the most peaceful harmless group to exist at the time. Their good works were manifest. They purchased slaves and even stood in their place, visited prisoners and took in orphans others had turned out on the streets. But that's what the NT is about of course.

[-Demona-]

What about all those Christian slave owners who beat and whipped their slaves because God supposedly gave them the right to?

 

Fact of the matter is, you're pulling your data out of your ass -- or that of the preacher who drones on in your church every Sunday.