This "We are all sinners" thing....

Given Dubya’s news conference comments yesterday, this seemed like a good time to bring this up. I hope someone can answer this, since it’s actually something that’s bugged me for quite some time…

Why do people persist in believing this concept of everyone automatically being a sinner who needs to be saved? I don’t question for a minute that everyone who’s ever lived (or, I suspect ever will) has the potential for sin, but that at least seems to be a whole different ballgame.

Where is the logic in a belief like this? Why would a perfect, loving God create a race (in His own image, no less) that is, by nature, so wretched that all of its members have to spend their lives begging for forgiveness? As far as I can tell, the only purpose of this concept is to perpetuate the institution of the church itself, since they’re the ones, shall we say, administering the salvation. However, this doesn’t explain why so many people buy into it.

*Originally posted by PhDMetalhead *

Because those people, most notably the one you’re referring to, is usually a fundamentalist whack job. Nonconformity to their beliefs and moral values means you are probably committing some sort of sin.

I have a feeling you’re never going to find it.

Everyone sins (OK, everyone who isn’t a little child). That’s just how people are–we’re learning, and we make mistakes, and sometimes we do wrong things on purpose. If we didn’t fumble around on our own, making mistakes, we wouldn’t learn much. If God told you exactly what to do every minute of the day, you wouldn’t have much freedom. You’re supposed to grow up and use your free will, not be a robot.

Sins don’t have to be horrible things like murder and rape. Lying, unkindness, selfishness, laziness, those are sins too. Repentance is when we figure out that we’re doing something wrong, say so, and try to improve.

IANAFundamentalist, so I can’t explain things from their POV, and my version is a little long. I may post some later, I’ll see.

Dubya is using the word “sinner” in the same way I’d use the word “imperfect”… except that “sinner” implies that we must be redeemed by some external entity.

The logic for this rests in his religious beliefs (i.e. assumptions/faith of Biblical accuracy)… and the very nature of faith is such that it does not explicitly require a completely logical consistency. There’s always a way out… “God works in mysterious ways.” It’s completely rational to accept that one can’t know everything about the universe, and thus it’s a fairly short step to accept that if someone knowingly created it, they know a heck of a lot more about it than I do. Of course the problem is figuring out if there even was such a someone and if so, what the nature of that someone is… Different people require different amounts of evidence on this point. Tell one man that Hoover Dam has X tons of concrete and he’ll believe you. Tell another and he’ll want to do the calculations himself. These two people obviously have different ways of looking at the world.

Didn’t somebody (Shermer, I think) write a book about why people believe strange things?

Yes. I think it was called The Bus That Couldn’t Slow Down.

Actually, the title is WHY DO PEOPLE BELIEVE IN WEIRD THINGS? or something very similar.

Actually actually, it’s Why People Believe Weird Things but I couldn’t resist another Simpsons reference, bringing my lifetime total to an even 400,000.

God created us with free will. If we use that free will to do the wrong thing that is sin. All of us have done something wrong at least once in our lives, therefore we all are sinners.
God did not create us to be sinners, he created us to be in relationship with him. He wants us to be able to choose to be in relationship with him. If we can not choose to do the wrong thing we can not choose to do the right thing.
This is a complicated question and deserves a better answer than there is space for here. There have been many fine books written about this topic

What exactly were GWB’s comments yesterday?

No, you’re mistaken. Belief in original sin is not confined to fundamentalists.

It is basic Christian doctrine, and held by Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, and almost every other Christian denomination I can think of.

“Fundamentalist” is a term for a specific subset of Christianity, and should not be used as a general synonym for “Christian”.

Regards,
Shodan

Nevermind, I found it.

Shodan has it in one.

For purposes of this post, grant the presumption of a Creator God who lays down laws for humanity – and that those are enumerated in the Bible. (This is an “assume this for the sake of this argument” request – debates on whether He exists and what He expects have been and continue to be fodder for other threads.)

The gist of the “we are all sinners” idea is that God expects nothing short of perfection of us. According to the old conceptions, He made Adam and Eve sinless, but with the free will to sin or not, and gave them opportunity to if they so chose – and they did. Whether or not anyone gives credence to this story, the fact remans that there are examples of man’s inhumanity to man rife in the world, and that no person completely and perfectly carries out the stringent teachings which He laid down as proper behavior.

[ul][li]“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind, and all thy strength.” Know anybody who does this, to the degree of completeness specified, at every moment and in fullness? Me neither.[/li][li]“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Same story. Those who are most ardent in proclaiming this find it the hardest thing to do – because somebody just plain irks the hell out of them, or is suitable fodder for exercising one’s sense of superiority.[/li][li]“Be ye perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” This sums up the whole problem in a few words.[/li][li]“Judge not, lest ye be judged.” Right. Except for them gays, or them Catholics, or them Mormons, or them hypocrites, or them Southerners, or them Ay-rabs. Or whatever. And those of us who proclaim this most ardently seem to have made our own except about judging the jdugmental![/li][li]The whole Ten Commandments. Most people manage to avoid committing the majority of them – but there are exceptions. Take this one:[/li][li]“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his servant, man or woman, nor his ox, nor his ass [donkey, that is], nor anything that is his.” And we have an industry which is assiduously encouraging covetousness in us. Ever see a Lexus commercial? “Just do it.” You too can look like him/her if you only will buy our product.[/li][/ul]

I could go on at length. But the point is that, on the assumption that the God of Judaism and Christianity does in fact exist and has laid down these laws, nobody keeps them in full, nor is able to.

Failure to keep God’s commandments is sin. Therefore, we’re all sinners, in need of His Grace, which, fortunately, is fully avalable to us.

Now, it is important to recognize that this is not a Divine Catch-22. He is merely illustrating, by the Law, our inability to live up to the ideals we ourselves aspire to, and our consequent need of His strengthening and healing Presence – which He lovingly provides on request.

For this reason, many of the more “liberal” churches downplay the whole sin issue, and instead focus on the new life of Grace available through knowing and loving Him.

But th point is there, nonetheless.

Then why does the God of the OT consistently destroy all those who choose otherwise? We have the Flood, in which everyone save Noah’s clan, was wiped out; the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; the whole Tower of Babylon incident, etc. Sounds to me like God isn’t so keen on folks exercising their free will after all.

Prove it.

I sound hostile, but I’m just kind of tired of reading this. Prove that I’m a sinner.

Don’t I have to choose to do something immoral in order to sin? So, what if I never choose to do something immoral?

Julie

But if God created us to only WANT to the right things, and the capability to carry out those wishes, then we would have pleny of freedom, because we would be acting in acordance with our own internal will.

If no man is capable of not sinning then I don’t see how it can be claimed that we have the freedom to choose not to sin. I don’t see how that makes us any more or less free than if we were capable of not sinning. That’s why this entire “free will” path falls apart, in my estimation.

I gotta admit: to me that sounds sort of rigging a guy’s houses to continually burn down just so that you can sell him fire insurance and a flame retardant suit.

It sounds like we are supposed to choose to be perfectly good. But no one can actually do that in practice (which sort of belies by inference the idea that we are free to do so). But we can choose to ask him to help us be good, at which point, well, we still can’t be perfectly good, but things are better. I’m not sure where free will or robots has any relevance.

Replace “free will” in this sentance with “goonfalloon” and I’m not sure it conveys any more or less meaning. How can “we use” this thing “free will” when FW is implied to be a core aspect of our choosing being, and hence part of what DECIDES how to “use” things? Can anyone explain exactly what role “free will” plays in the process of any hypothetical being choosing any given thing, so that we know what is or isn’t implied by the operation of free will?

Julie: You might as well ask a religious person to prove that God exists. It’s the same thing-- it’s taken as an article of faith in the Christian religion. And I agree with Shodan and Poly on this. As much as some would like to pin this on Bush being a “fundie whacko”, it’s actually part of mainstream Christian doctrine. I’m certain Clinton and Carter would agree with Bush on this.

So does everyone commit a sin at least once in their life, or does everyone constantly commit sins?

This is one of the main reasons I am not a Christian. The whole, “You are broken, you can’t fix yourself, we can’t fix you either, but we can forgive you for being broken.” message has got to be the root cause for 90% of man’s unhappiness in this world.

Oh, I know it’s the standard Christian position. After all, I used to be one!

(Er, a Christian, not a “Christian position.” :D)

The deck is stacked. Even if a person could truthfully claim never to have done any of the bad things Polycarp lists, someone else can just say, “Oh, you must not love God with all your heart, then, because everyone’s a sinner.” It seems that if there aren’t any obvious moral failings, we’ll just assume there’s something subtle awry.

Julie

I’m betting that the root cause for 90% of man’s unhappiness in this world is a nervous system designed to cause physical and emotional pain and continue causing that pain just as intensely long after the person has got the message and started to do something about it (yes, I KNOW my leg is broken, thanks! Not about to forget!) That or infomercials.

But yeah, the creepy thing about the above scenario is that it gives God a vested interest in the continuing suffering and immorality of mankind.

Someone who wants a relationship with me doesn’t need to go through such an elaborate scheme as giving me brain damage that makes me obsessed with shouting out obscentities unless this person offers to supply me with a pill to help cure the obsession if I only ask and devote myself to them, thus cemeting our relationship. Instead, they could have come up to me, said hi, and offer to come out hang out with me and maybe grab some sushi. Probably would have been a freer choice too.