ANTI-SOCIAL SLUR: ORIGINAL SIN SLANDERS OUR FIRST PARENTS (ASSUMING
WE HAD ONES!) AND OUR VULNERABLE INNOCENT BABIES AND THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE!!!
Original sin is the idea that we all come into existence as sinners and
estranged from God and that Adam the first human being was to blame for that.
Some say original sin is like a rage virus except it is a spiritual infection.
That is a good description for it is about war against real goodness and thus
God. A result of original sin is that we always tend to sin. Barack Obama said,
"No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his
background or his religion." If we have original sin then how true is that? What
if it programs some to hate on racist grounds? Ignoring how we don't care about
most other people, Nelson Mandela lies and says "love comes more naturally to
the human heart than its opposite." If original sin is inside each of us then
one of its features is certainly denial as exemplified by those two
do-gooders!!!
There are three understandings of what original sin is. That it is your own
first sin - that somehow a baby that knows nothing can personally sin. That you
are blamed with Adam for his sin so you are guilty too - the orthodox Christian
view. That you are not blamed for it but you are born like you have been.
Original sin is the sin that Adam and Eve committed at the beginning of the
human race according to the Bible and Christian theology. Adam represented the
human race and so when he sinned the entire human race was sinful at the first
moment of their existence in the womb for he sinned for the whole race. He made
the decision that we would all be born in original sin and so it happened. This
sin is original sin both because it is the first or original sin ever committed
by a man and also because we have it when we begin to exist. Roman Catholicism
teaches that baptism is necessary for forgiveness for original sin. If the sin
is not forgiven, God will not let the person into Heaven.
Adam and Eve need to be put on trial before being accused of all that! So much
for Christianity's belief in innocent until proven guilty.
Church teaching is that the sin is personal in Adam but natural in me. In other
words, Adam was being spiteful and selfish while as for me I am made in that
state which is why the sin is grave in him and in me it is grave but not as
grave. Adam was being personal and I am not. This is saying I come in being
sinful in nature. I am as bad as him except I didn't take the forbidden fruit.
He did.
Does this original sin mean we are born thieves, blasphemers, murderers, sexual
profligates and liars? It is said we are afflicted by sin, we have a problem
that makes us want to be independent of God and enjoy good on our terms not his.
So are supposed to have the problem of sin. Believers say that the type of sins
is a different issue so we are not born thieves or whatever. We are born sinners
but it is up to us what kind of sins we will commit. It is up to us to become
thieves etc. But don't be charmed by that. If pride and the wish to be free from
God are what comprise sin then whatever thieving or murdering we get up to or
not, the problem is our attitude not what we actually do with it. So the person
who would not kill is as bad as the person who does kill. Original sin insults
the entire human race and is another denial of innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Atheists sometimes wonder that when Christianity says that we come into
existence with defects that make us bad why they cannot say we get defects that
tend to make us religious and condone evil when done and permitted by a supposed
God! Religion likes to be good but good in a way that it becomes an enemy of the
best. Religion does exhibit detachment from reality and distorts respect for
others - you would almost think the most obvious symptom of original sin is
religion itself!
Christians use the behaviour of monsters like Stalin as evidence of original
sin. It is evil to use human suffering as evidence for a religious doctrine
especially a monstrous and absurd one such as original sin. The religious person
means more by original sin than the human inclination to evil. That is where the
problem is. And if Stalin is evidence for original sin, it means that all of us
are accused of having original sin and thus being as potentially dangerous as he
was.
The reason Christians remark that we are all so drawn to sin and sin so much is
that they have made up half of the sins. We are a lot better than they say so
there is no evidence that we prefer bad to good. Even if most people do bad
things now that does not prove that they are deliberately evil. They may just be
as unintelligent and not know how to become better people.
A religion teaching original sin is bad in principle regardless of how much good
in practice it does. If murdering a person every year somehow seemed to lower
the crime rate that would not make this good worth it. In fact it would only be
an apparent good not a real one!
The New Testament rejects the doctrine of Aristotle that if you are bad then
just practice being virtuous even if you are not and you will become virtuous
for that presupposes you have an inherent virtue in you. It is clear that in
Christianity we are sinners not just people who commit sins. We need the
miracle of God's forgiveness to stop us being worse than what we are.
Forgiveness really deals with the inherent badness as only a miracle can.
It fixes us and does for us what we cannot do for ourselves. Grace it is
called as well. For that reason Christian forgiveness from God means God
forgives who we are not just what we do. Or more correctly he forgives who we
are and the result is the sin is forgiven. With a doctrine like that, you
can be sure that those who say they love people and partition off their sins to
hate the sins are lying. If you cannot judge sins you know the person sins so
saying you do not judge is only virtue signalling. Judging specific sins
is not the point. You are still labelling the person as a sinner.
When people are only worried about being challenged on certain sins and not
about being challenged as a sinner in general they obviously love what they see
as their sins, those particular sins.
To sum up,
We are accused of not coming into this world innocent or neutral but hostile to
God. For a baby, the baby would hate and curse God if he or she could. No
innocent until proven guilty here and this is an extreme violation.
The cruel deeds of monsters such as Hitler are used as proof that it is true. It
is exploiting actions that hurt others as weapons to convince people a doctrine
is true. It is an abuse of the suffering.
There is no test to compare how original sin affects x who has it removed by
baptism and y who still has it. To all intents and purposes y will not b any
better than x or vice versa. People are accused simply to help the Church so it
can baptise babies to "cure" original sin and get recruits and influence.
Remember that original sin is seen as something very very serious. It is no big
deal accusing somebody falsely of murder if you can say they are corrupted by
original sin.