Why, it’s part of the Good News of the Gospels!
You know:
“Hey, everybody! You’re all sinners, and your souls are all gonna fry in hell for all eternity! Isn’t that Good News?”
(Of course, the real “Good News” is supposed to be that believing in Jesus will prevent this eternity of torture, but in order for this to be Good News in the first place you have to have already bought into the Bad News given above.)
OK. Have you ever, in your whole life, been selfish? Ever said anything unkind to anyone? Ever been jealous of something someone else had? Yeah, me too.
Even the best and wisest of us commit sin. That’s just being human. It doesn’t make us terrible people, it’s just how things are. Until we can be perfect, we aren’t perfect, and we sin.
I wouldn’t really try to prove that anyone’s a sinner, but I do ascribe to the doctrine as a matter of personal honesty.
As far as doctrines go, it doesn’t apply to non-Christians any more than Islam’s doctrines apply to me. Understanding sin as a process of the faith as a whole is a long term study, and not likely somthing you’d pick up lightly.
There are plenty of things I think are whacked out about Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism, but I don’t ascribe the world’s problems to them, even given the fact that the world is slanted in many non-Christian directions.
IOW, understanding the concept of everyone being a sinner relies on the understanding and faith in a particular God and tenets of a set faith. Obviously, if your faith, present and accounted for, or absent, will largely determine your understanding of the issue. Children of a Looser God will not necessarily believe they are sinners, after all.
As far as everyone being a sinner, it’s largely a matter of two concepts, one being like snowflakes (In the sense that everyone we’ve checked so far is a sinner, but we’re not able to check everyone ever.) and the other being a matter of doctrine. Jesus was without sin, and ideally would be the only such person. So it’s not so much a matter of keeping the coffers full, as it is a matter of individualizing an already deified person.
It’s nice to be back 
What, you forgot about Original Sin?
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being selfish on occasion. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being jealous on occasion. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being unkind on occasion.
Plus, what you may call “unkind” or “selfish” may not be within my definition.
You can say “humans are imperfect” and I’ll agree. But if God created humans, he can’t bitch about their imperfections. If I make a three legged stool and one of the legs is five inches shorter than the others, can I blame the stool?
And if we’ve got all this great “free will” stuff, then surely someone can choose, of their own free will, never to sin. Which means that you can’t really assume we’re all sinners. Is there even the slightest chance someone could choose never to sin? If not, aren’t you claiming God built some natural flaws into the mechanism?
Julie
The Catholic Encyclopedia: Original Sin
Are you asking why Christianity sees these actions as sin, or why it doesn’t conform to your views?
No, because, in a cosmic, power of God sense, we presume you made the stool perfectly to your specifications. Those specifications presumably included a degree of imperfection. In a thinking and breathing sense, however, it doesn’t hold up as solidly as you’d think. Being made in the image of God does not make us an exact replica of Him. We each become like little Gods with our own finite amount of power, and an abundant free will. In that sense, the message is not one of imperfections, but of orderly behavior. Those who behave in the manner of their creator’s will continue, those who choose to become the Gods of their own universe are voted off the island.
In theory, yes someone could choose never to sin, but, as I said before, we have yet to record this on more than one singular occasion. Like snowflakes.
You use to know Jesus? And have you ever lied?
The reason most say people are with sin is because all have sinned, and fallen short of God’s glory. The concept of Original Sin is debatable, but we have all committed some sin in our life. A large sin or a small sin are still sins, and sin will keep us out of God’s presence. Can we choose not to sin? Sure, we can. Does that mean we will? Probably not. Now even if we did, have we always? For instance, ask anyone if they has kept the First of the Ten Commandments. Have they always loved God above all else—with all of his heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30)? If he says that they has, gently say, “The Bible says that ‘there is none that seeks after God’ (Romans 3:11). Nobody (except Jesus Christ) has kept the First of the Ten Commandments. One of you is lying—either you or God—and the Bible says that it is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2).
That kinda sounds like the God made me this way argument. If this won’t work in a civil court, it certainly won’t work on Judgment Day. Even with an expert defense lawyer, it would take a pretty inept judge to fall for the old “God made me do it” defense. We are responsible moral agents. The “buck” stopped at Adam. He tried to blame both God and Eve for his sin; Eve blamed the serpent. It is human nature to try, but it doesn’t work with God.
I’ve heard this before, but it doesn’t even remotely make sense. Civil authorities exist for very specific reasons, and they work because of some very specific constraints and limitations on the power of some people over others. People have no power over the basic underlying construction of human nature: we need to regulate what is for very pragmatic reasons, not because we have any real philosophical explanation for the roots of human aciton.
God, being a creator, couldn’t help BUT make people either some particular way, or leave it up to chance. Certianly people are responsible for what they choose, but their creator is ALSO responsible for them choosing as they do.
Does God have free will? If so, then always being morally perfect is not inconsistent with free will, and so why weren’t we made that way as well?
Ah, but we were. Here’s where the traditional unfairness comes into play, while God is perfect and without sin, God also defines sin. Sin in the eyes of God, as it were.
We, created in His image, have the same ability to define sin, but our moral relativism does not negate God’s ideas of right and wrong. So, we are expected to conform to God’s views rather than our own person views.
It makes sense by comparison, as we live in a society that makes laws regulating behaviors and actions with punishments, with no regard to the person views of the individuals involved. Being in a majority of viewpoints gives us the power to punish those we deem to have violated our laws. So, while no one would complain about a rapist being convicted regardless of his feelings on rape being right or wrong, many find the idea somehow unfair when God’s views on right and wrong are put before our own.
In one case, our government, via our republic system, regulates your behavior, in the other case God does. Would you be more comfortable with the Christian ideals if everyone who ever lived voted on right and wrong?
Don’t worry jsgoddess, if that stool really loves you it’ll hold.
Attrayant asked so:The context was Bush admin hunting for legal ways to federally say marriage=man+woman. Bush comment came when discussing the sin of homosexuality i.e. he can’t really call them on it because “we are all sinners”.
Paraphrasing a bible verse Bush went on to say “I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor’s eye when they’ve got a log of their own”. If I may paraphrase that: “Who am I to condemn sodomy when I misused gov’t intelligence to start up an illegal war”. (I think that’s what he meant).
Interesting replies; I think this one is my favorite, and best sums it up for me:
I wholeheartedly accept that I (and everyone else) has committed sins of some level or another; the point is that I refuse to be defined by this one aspect of my life. Similarly, I reject any God who would look at even the best of people, and say “That’s nice, but you’re still a sinner”. Especially if:
What perplexes me is that so many good people would allow themselves to be defined in this way. Wouldn’t it make so much more sense to focus on the fact that everyone at least has the potential for significant good? (By the way, this statement would shock most people who know me, since I’m not the biggest optimist when it comes to human nature)
Forgot about it? It’s an excellent example of what I was talking about. Heck, even if you never ever do anything remotely sinful in your entire life, guess what? You’re still a sinner! Mwahaha!
Gee, God, I’m so glad we have that whole “free will” thingie so that I can be judged a sinner for what someone else did. Thanks!
Julie
Right. So, just to recap:
Did God make me, or not?
And am I a sinner, or not?
And did he make everyone else, and are they all sinners, too?
See, if a ladder company kept producing ladders that no one could stay on, they’d go out of business. If you don’t think that would stand up in court, you’re not paying attention.
If we had a trial, I think that God would absolutely be held liable for his deliberate actions in creating flawed merchandise that caused pain and suffering.
Think of the punitive damages!
Julie
I’m sorry Copaesthetic, but I don’t really understand what you are saying. Unless sin is a wholy arbitrary and relative category, God cannot define sin. I don’t even know what an “ability to define sin” is that humans have (can you cite anything to demonstrate this claim?).
I also don’t think your response, from what I can make out of it, even tries to directly address the question of why we are such that we freely choose not to sin, like God. If you are saying that God is free to do whatever he wants, and never sins because whatever he does is good, then that’s tantamount to simply giving up on the entire discussion. That’s ultimately an argument of nihilism, not any sort of intelligible concept of morality.
The approach of the Republic is to define the law, not morality. In God’s case, we are talking about morality.
And actually, God is an even worse contrast, because I can’t see God as regulating anything, while republics do. The republic doesn’t just concern itself with punishing murder for fun years and years later at its convienience. It concerns itself with actually trying to protect its citizens. If a police officer prevents a mugger from mugging someone, you don’t often hear many complaints about THAT violating the mugger’s free will (though it certainly impinges on the mugger). In fact, as far as I can tell, it enhances it in the long run: people in a safer society have more freedom to innovate and live their lives how they want without being beat down by fear and oppression.
It’s a “mystery”, jsgoddess! It’s not supposed to make sense. Just accept God’s merciful sentence of eternal damnation.
Have you ever lied, and if so, what does that make you? That doesn’t define you…or does it? Are you saying because (and I’ll assume you have lied) you are a liar, we should then focus on the fact that most of the time you tell the truth?
And we are not judged for original sin, nor do I believe we are born sinful. To look at King David’s statement in context may suggest a different meaning that what is traditionally ascribed to by the original sin advocates.
I dislike flagging specific acts such as lying or lust – isn’t it enough that we fail, consistently, to render unto the person we dislike the most the same love that we feel that we ourselves deserve? If sin be disobedience, isn’t our consistent breaking of the law that Jesus called second most important sinful enough?
On the “King David” thing, I confess to being at a loss as to what you mean. Are you working from Psalm 51, by any chance? Would you “unpack” your thinking – spell it out in more detail, please? This is a topic where I think I can learn something from you and would like to.
It makes me a perfectly normal human being. Everyone is flawed, certainly; the problem that I have is that such universally human frailties as envy, lust, pride, etc. are, based on your earlier statement (A large sin or a small sin are still sins, and sin will keep us out of God’s presence), given equal weight with murder, rape, and such. In my mind, the twisted message that this sends to people is that you’re screwed no matter what you do, so what does it matter if you pile on some of the “large sins” too? This might seem ridiculous, but no more so than a quote I saw last week (wish I could remember the exact source) that the current sex-abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is almost to be expected, since “priests are human and all humans are sinners”.
In that vein, let me ask you this - does a priest who f****d up countless kids’ lives but “repents” get into Heaven while I burn in Hell for refusing to do so for bending the truth every once in a while?