LLaurieG

(Laurie) Here's a discussion point with Christians I think is a powerful one, so thought I'd share. Maybe others can use it. Queen of Sword's thread "I was witnessed to!" made me think of it. It'll only work on Christians. The next time you get proselytized, try this "Think of the children!" argument on them:

*Shake head regretfully and with compassionate tone say* "I'm very sorry, but I wouldn't be interested. You see, I consider the Doctrine of Original Sin to be abusive. I think babies are born innocent. I think it is VERY wrong - even psychologically cruel - to tell a young child that he or she is born deficient, sinful, corrupt, evil. I would consider that to be verbal child abuse. I could never agree to do that to any child. By far the majority of religions in the world do NOT inflict this message on their children, that they are inherently evil. So why would I want a religion that does?"

It puts the ball squarely in their court. They look like child abusers. Hopefully this concept will first make them BLINK, and then make them THINK.

Rushianbeing

Thank you!! Very interesting. I will definitely keep that in my arsenal, should I need it.

Proxima Centauri

Philip Kuchar wrote

Quote:

We are "guilty" of original sin just by being born human. This involves a curious misuse of "guilty," because someone can be guilty only of choosing to commit a particular criminal act. No one chooses to be born a human, with an allegedly corrupt, incorrigible "nature." Therefore original sin cannot be something we’re "guilty" of and "deserve" punishment for. We deserve punishment only for the crimes we choose to commit.

Philip Kuchar also wrote

Quote:

One of the most obscene consequences of the doctrine of original sin is its explanation of the death of infants, as offered, for example, in regard to the story of the Amalekite slaughter (1 Sam.15). Because of "original sin" infants not only deserve to die, but indeed God would be justified in killing them violently like any criminal guilty of a capital offense. Commitment to much of the New Testament and especially Paul’s writings leads to the belief that fundamentally the human species is worthless, depraved, incompetent, infinitely guilty and deserving of ultimate condemnation. And more, that even an apparently innocent infant is likewise "guilty" and "selfish," deserving of punishment. But not just any punishment: violent execution, the death penalty for those who are too young to make any real choices at all let alone rational ones for which they could be held accountable. Imagine building a tiny electric chair and knitting a baby-sized black mask to go over the infant’s barely developed face as she cries and cries for her mother, absolutely ignorant of what is happening to her and why; she is carried to the chair, strapped in, and electrocuted. Capital punishment for an infant carried out at God’s discretion, because of "original sin," a word game that confuses having an innate tendency to sin and a sin itself.

This is child abuse indeed.
All this comes from a very long but good philosophical paper with the title,
The Incoherence of Original Sin and Substitutive Sacrifice

Muffinstuffer

Very interesting.

Taken from above:

This is why the vast majority of Christian theologians and leaders do NOT believe that infants and children will go straight to hell in a handbasket because they're born with 'original sin.' They somewhat equate it to a sort of 'instinct.' Obviously animals - as well as humans - are born with instincts, but animals are not born being able to act upon that instinct immediately...certain instincts take time to develop to the point where they can stand on their own feet, move around, etc. Same with infants and children....while Christians (and yes, I am one) do believe that 'original sin' applies to all people, we also believe that it is not applicable to people until they reach the point where they are able to read the Bible, listen to stories, fully understand the meaning and consequences of becoming a Christian and accepting Christ - or not doing so. Thus, infants and children would not be considered 'guilty' of 'original sin' in the sense that they had committed a crime, because they would have had no chance to make the choice, much less an understanding of that choice.

AspenMama

All right, I've debated where to move this-- it doesn't belong in SL&S in my opinion. But I'm not sure if theists are wanted in this discusion, so off to miscellaneous for now...

AspenMama, SL&S Moderator

Muffinstuffer

Interesting. A thread concerning a subject having to do with theology, and theists aren't wanted.

Anyways, if someone wants me to keep my mouth shut on the subject, that's fine. I just wasn't aware my comments weren't welcome. I did not mean to preach...just to put out one of the prevalent views on this subject.

Demigawd

Consider SL&S a safe cove from the storms of theism. I remember asking the preacher of the fundamentalist church I had to go to until early teens a question concerning age of culpability for original sin. He said seven years old.

And I had just turned seven. And was in the midst of being molested by a much older person. Under fear of pain. Given my youth and my over-active imagination, I could well imagine the biblical hell.

Words can't explain the self-loathing I felt for so many following years. I'm still angry over the church teaching me I was a piece of shit, good for only eternally burning and screaming.

Once I ditched fundamentalist christianity, I eventually got better.

Pyrrho

This is a perfect example of people ignoring the Bible whenever it suits them. There is NOTHING in the Bible that says that it does not apply to children, and there is NOTHING in the Bible that says it only applies to people who have heard about Christianity. In fact, if it only applied to those who heard about Christianity, then telling people about Christianity wouldn't save anyone, but only condemn some to hell. And, if children went to heaven when they died, it would mean that killing children would be the best thing you could possibly do for them, as letting them grow up would involve risking their immortal souls. Yet those who say that children will go to heaven PROVE BY THEIR ACTIONS that even they do not believe what they say. In this, as in so many other matters, actions do indeed speak louder than words.

Consider Mark 16:16

Mark 16:16 explicitly states that those who do not believe will be damned. There is no excuse or exclusion for anyone. And by all means, read as much of the rest of Mark that you wish.

For more on this, see my comments in:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=53645

Furthermore, if original sin did not properly apply to small children, then they would be entitled to be born into the Garden of Eden, not earth.

Either the Bible is the inspired WORD OF GOD, and we should believe it and follow it, or it is the work of men writing stories, in which case it should be totally disregarded. But most so-called "Christians" these days are inconsistent, and pretend that the Bible is true only when it suits them, and regard it as fairy tales whenever that suits them.

Muffinstuffer

I like the way you refer to me in the third person.

So you are saying that DESPITE the fact that Jesus obviously has great love for children ("Let the little children come to me"), and DESPITE the fact that a child can not accept a salvation that they can not yet understand, you believe that God sends children to Hell simply because they have not accepted a salvation that they can not yet understand. THAT is inconsistent with the love Jesus CLEARLY shows for children.

Bill Snedden

I agree, but it's just additional evidence for the overall incoherence of Christianity...

There are parts of the NT (I can think of Pauline passages) that seem to state very clearly that everyone is guilty and condemned and only Christ's sacrifice saves. There are other parts that seem to suggest that there are "outs" for those unable to perceive the gospel, etc.

Ask any two theologians and you're likely to get two different answers. Most liberal Christians are simply unable to stomach the idea of children in hell. That's one reason why the Catholic church "invented" limbo. Calvinists obviously feel much differently.

At any rate, Kuchar has his points, but I still think the best polemic against original sin is from John Galt's speech in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged:

Regards,

Bill Snedden