NonHomogenized

All right, there's something I don't think I'm getting, that just occurred to me in reading this thread.

All right, so, we're all hell-worthy because we all sin, right?
And the reason we sin is because we have free will?
And the reason we have free will is, alternatively, either a) because god loves us, and wants us to make decisions, or b) because it's better to make good decisions out of free will, rather than because we're "programmed" to?

Can a human, having free will and not being divine, not sin?

If we can't not sin, then free will is out the window. First of all, we're not free to not sin, and secondly, it means that, by giving us free will, god knew that he'd be sentencing us to hell, unless he created a way to arbitrarily forgive us, even if he only knows everything about the past and present. In that case, we really are stuck in a protection racket, in the purest form.

If we can not sin, then obviously, someone who had never sinned would not need to accept Jesus, right? Or would that be a sin? If so, then God simply created another way to weed out someone who should go to heaven.

And, while we're at it, what the hell is with the idea of "original sin" that some people blather on about endlessly? If Adam and Eve sinned, how can anyone alive now be guilty for it? If I kill someone, wouldn't it be unjust for the police to arrest my (hypothetical, future) great-great-grandchild for the crime?

Sorry for the rant, just some questions that occurred to me, that I'd like answered.

xorbie

Just to play Devil's Advocate (how ironic ):

If I can't fly, does this mean I have no free will?

Joel

christ-on-a-stick

Oooh, my favorite topic!!!! I started a thread on the exact same topic a couple weeks ago... lemme try to find it for the link in case you are interested in reading some of the replies at that time.

Philosoft

Is that relevant? NH's point is, given the Bible's requirement that passage to Heaven is contingent on faith in Jesus, we are told in no uncertain terms that we cannot avoid sinning. That's the whole point of Jesus' life/death/resurrection - it is inevitable that we sin, thus we need a spiritual repository for our sins so we don't have to sacrifice lambs and such.

NonHomogenized

Actually, I really should have been more clear when writing it, but I was getting ready to go to work, at the time. Now that I'm here, I can clarify a bit (I hope).

My point was that, supposedly, god gave us free will so that we could freely choose to do good rather than evil... but, if free will inherently means we'll sin (and, therefore, deserve to go to hell), that's a rather pathetic excuse, at best, isn't it? God gave us free will so that we could do good, knowing that we'd inevitably have no choice but to use it to do things which would get us sent to hell, unless he intervened with himself on our behalf. It's like tying someone to the railroad tracks just so they'll be grateful when you rescue them.

"Well, I made it so you can do more good than you otherwise could. Of course, the side effect is that it means you deserve to be sent to hell, but, hey, nobody's perfect, right? Except me, of course. *ahem*"

Nom

Well, that depends a bit on your theology. For instance, I was raised Roman Catholic, and according to the RC church, we're all already sinners when we're born. Thus, simply by being conceived, you commit your first sin!

Stupid, isn't it? Of course, if you toss this rot you also toss the rationale behind Christ, so...stupidity it is!

Setting aside Christian doctrine, is it logically possible that God could have created humans who did not sin? Proponents of the Argument from Evil would say so; there's a debate on that subject on the debate board (which, now that the debate is over has spilled over into the debate's peanut gallery thread). You might give that a read.

My own view is that it isn't possible for God (for references purposes, the basic Christian omni-max version) to create any being with free will who doesn't sin. Heck, He couldn't do it with the angels; Lucifer and his crowd told him to take His throne and sit on it, right? And he couldn't do it with us, either. Which, of course, would sort of suggest (at least) that He isn't as omni as He's cracked up to be.

Nom

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

dantonac

Original sin is a doctrine that teaches we are "infected" with a sinful nature inhereted from our fallen parents, Adam and Eve. It is our sinful nature that condemns us.

[quoteCan a human, having free will and not being divine, not sin?[/quote]

Well, according to Genesis and the teachings derived from it yes. The idea was that man was created without sin, but able to sin or not sin. He was put to the test and failed. Of course given that the Christian diety is said to be omniscient or all knowing rational people view this as a set up.

Read up on Calvinism, you will like it. Basically it teaches that God picks some for salvation and the rest he creates for the purpose of tormenting them for eternity.

Those with the inhereted sin nature (everyone) sin with every breath they take. Even the good deeds done by non christians are said to be comparable to "filthy rags" in the bible. In the Greek the word translated as "filthy" actually refers to a rag women used during a time when pads and tampons weren't available. The reason sinful man's good deeds are sinful and worthy of damnation is because we don't do our good deeds for the glory of god.

Well, the best explanation I have ever heard of why the doctrine of original sin is fair is that Adam and Eve were our (humankind's) representatives. What they did was the same thing we all would have done under the same circumstances, therefore we are all guilty. This, of course, begs the question of isn't God then guilty of creating a defective product intentionally. Again, see Calvinism. The answer is 'yes'.

Another explanation is that Adam and Eve's nature|soul|spirit was corrupted by their "original" sin and this corrupt nature was genetically transferred to all their offspring (you and me). In this sense the sinful nature can be compared to any disease that a woman transmits to her child while it is in the womb or being born.

Well in the unlikely event there is a god you can ask him|her|it when you meet him|her|it.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by dantonac
The idea was that man was created without sin, but able to sin or not sin. He was put to the test and failed.

And what a rigged test it was. First God creates man and puts him in the garden... oh dear, no sinning. 'I know," says God. "I'll make sin really tempting by giving man a tree - no, two trees - he's not supposed to eat from." So he does that and waits... dear me, still no sinning. "Got it!" says God, snapping his fingers. "I'll allow my greatest enemy to tempt man! Then we'll see if there's sinning!"

If man had resisted the serpent, god would probably have dressed up like the witch in Snow White and come to sell him the fruit (or cram it down his throat if necessary).

NonHomogenized

Since people have brought up "Original Sin", I'll return to a point I made in my OP:
I'm sorry, but the "infected" schtick doesn't wash. If I didn't even do the sinning, myself, how am I guilty of it? To make use of another metaphor, it's like the evil overlord who, upon the failure of a general, says, "and this is the price of failure", and then turns and kills some random underling.
How is it that it's supposedly my fault that adam and eve (supposedly) sinned. Fuck it, you know what? Anyone of European descent that I hear talk about "original sin" is now going to be called a mysogynistic, racist, asshole. If they protest that they are nothing of the sort, I'll reply "well, at least one of your ancestors was, so by your logic, you must be guilty of it."

Again, apologies for this continued rant. But hey, answers, comments, additional questions, and such are all welcome!