Are all human beings 'sinners'?

[David]

One of the key teachings of Christianity is original sin: that we are all, by virtue of our status as flawed human beings, guilty of so many transgressions against God's laws over the course of our lives that we all need to repent and be forgiven. While I'm not a Christian, I've always found that a compelling idea, and it's probably shaped the way I view the world.

Of course, the Christian view of sin is a little different to what we would consider ethical or unethical in a secular society. Nowadays, we don't consider premarital sex or worshipping pagan idols to be immoral (though, on the flipside, we do generally frown upon massacring an entire village because "God told us to"). So my question is this: under our modern, secular understanding of ethics, does the doctrine of original sin still apply? Are we all flawed human beings who've done things we are (or at least ought to be) ashamed of?

This may seem like a no-brainer, but I got into a debate the other day with a random person on the internet who claimed that she would refuse to associate with anyone who was capable of acts of cruelty. My response was, haven't we all been cruel at some point in our lives? Whether it's deliberately causing someone else physical pain or saying something hurtful, it struck me that surely every human being has at one point visited deliberate harm on another person. She, on the other hand, adamantly denied having ever done any such thing (and, furthermore, said that I'd probably just constructed this argument to justify my own shortcomings).

What are your thoughts on the matter? Are you a 'sinner'? Or can you place your hand on your heart and honestly say you've never done anything wrong?

[HAL]

Nothing, what is matter with you? .

[stui magpie]

1. She is either an idiot or a self righteous goody goody who I would run a mile to avoid associating with.

2. of course i've done wrong things. Some i regret, others i don't

[swoop42]

Nothing, what is matter with you? .

Hey! Gotta no respect.

What-a you t'ink you do? Why you look-a so sad?

It's-a not so bad, it's-a nice-a place.

Ah, shaddap-a you face!

[swoop42]

1. She is either an idiot or a self righteous goody goody who I would run a mile to avoid associating with.

2. of course i've done wrong things. Some i regret, others i don't

I dare say David just made first contact with one of those professionally outraged social media darlings.

Don't mention the tampon tax.

[David]

1. She is either an idiot or a self righteous goody goody who I would run a mile to avoid associating with.

2. of course i've done wrong things. Some i regret, others i don't

I don't know her from Adam, but it certainly seems plausible that people who consider themselves saints are the most dangerous of all.

[Mugwump]

I think it is, as you said, David, a no-brainer prompted by your conversation with someone with no brain. It is also possible, however, that you were talking at cross purposes about t the concept of cruelty, as I don't think most people are sinful enough to inflict pain for its own sake, or for the love of being cruel. It may be that this is what she meant, in which case I'd agree with her !

There are, however, more interesting questions a few levels below :

- How "sinful" is the average person, compared to the best and the worst ? And what is the distribution ?
- Is choosing between the lesser of two evils, rather than a third saintly-but-stylite course, evidence of goodness ?
- is there a difference between wickedness you undertake because you are fearful (e.g. standing on the sidelines at a bullying), and wickedness you undertake because you are strong ?

And many beside ....

Part of my personal movement from standard liberal to conservative is that I think most humans have a real propensity to do evil and damage, and some have a great propensity for it. Given that, our elevation of individual personal freedom to an absolute good, while loosening the consequences for criminal wrongdoing, results in wretchedness and misery for many of our weakest citizens.

[Skids]

Maybe you should ask the same question but give it a realistic time frame.... say, like the last week or 24hr's perhaps

[ronrat]

Go to the teabhings of Rasputin. If you have to confess sin to get absolution make it a decent one.

[Tannin]

1: There is no such thing as "God's laws". There are, however, good things and bad things. It is YOUR responsibility to work out which is which.

2: Everybody stuffs this up sometimes.

3: Some people try harder not to stuff up than other people.

4: All humans regret their stuff-ups and try not to repeat them. Those who don't are sub-human.

5: We should probably try to treat those sub-humans with a measure of compassion.

6: But it's hard.

[Mugwump]

Tannin's point 1 is interesting. I don't believe there is a God, but if there is no derivation of law above human will, on what basis does one "work it out for oneself", given the capacity of power and even fashion to shape and change thought and belief ?

People in different societies, including those governed by supposed rationality, have found it natural to believe all kinds of barbaric, useless and destructive self-serving things. Clearly religion itself does not provide the answers, but it seems to me that, at least in the modern era, deeply secular societies breed more of your "sub-humans" whose only law is what they can get away with, than Christian ethics once did. I would hate to live in a theocracy, but I would rather live in a society where most people voluntarily adopted a Christian moral centre with its roots above human power, even if I struggle to believe in the theology of it.

[stui magpie]

Tannin's point 1 is interesting. I don't believe there is a God, but if there is no derivation of law above human will, on what basis does one "work it out for oneself", given the capacity of power and even fashion to shape and change thought and belief ?

People in different societies, including those governed by supposed rationality, have found it natural to believe all kinds of barbaric, useless and destructive self-serving things. Clearly religion itself does not provide the answers, but it seems to me that, at least in the modern era, deeply secular societies breed more of your "sub-humans" whose only law is what they can get away with, than Christian ethics once did. I would hate to live in a theocracy, but I would rather live in a society where most people voluntarily adopted a Christian moral centre with its roots above human power, even if I struggle to believe in the theology of it.

Interesting comment.

Most cultures seem to have had many of the same basic simple rules as are in the 10 commandments, but all localised the application.

So killing someone in your tribe/village/mob whatever was bad. Killing someone from another was OK as they weren't one of us.

Even those that had little concept of property would punish someone who tried to keep something for themselves rather than share as was expected.

Now days we but into conflict when different people take different views on the application, taking the global view when a lot of the globe still takes a very local view and extending the application to animals in some ideals when we still have cultures who treat some of their people worse than we treat our animals.

[Tannin]

I don't believe there is a God, but if there is no derivation of law above human will, on what basis does one "work it out for oneself"

Well, there are lots of ways. How about we start by thinking of a really, really bad way as an example not to follow. Having done that, and considered it, perhaps we will be a little wiser and thus better able to think about more useful ways.

So let's dream up some really evil and stupid example. I'll go first.

How about we all pretend that there is an imaginary counter-factual being who just happens to share some of worst and most anti-social neuroses of the most powerful and greedy individuals within a society? We could endow this imaginary ogre with a mania for blind obedience to his own authority (and by extension, to all other claimed authorities), a deeply ingrained hatred of "inferior" not-quite-human beings (women, gay people, black people too if you like) but disguise it as "compassion" or "paternal guidance".

Not bad enough? OK, we also make sure that the wishes and wisdom (if any) of this entirely imaginary being are authoritatively expressed only by some ancient, primitive tome written in a foreign language - no, make that a dead foreign language - and are utterly devoid of any knowledge or understanding of modern times or the natural world we live in. Make it a nice long tome with plenty of contradictions - lots and lots of contradictions!. Now we can conveniently find a handy justification for just about any evil we take it into our heads to commit. "It's in the book!" And it will be in the book, 'coz the book is so long and rambling and so vague in translation that we can find examples to "prove" whatever we feel like "proving" today.

Want to find a justification for stretching unbelievers out on a wooden rack and slowly tearing their bones apart? No problem, it's in the book. Want to find a justification for blowing up 22 young strangers at a concert? Easy, the book said to do it. Want to find a justification for hacking off children's genitals? That's in the book too. How about hard ones though, like starting a war that kills thousands, even millions? Or denying birth control to the overpopulated billions even though you know that many of the babies will slowly starve to death? Even easier. It's always in the book.

Better yet, although we are making our morality up as we go along, and selecting whichever passage of this made-up book about a made-up myth happens to suit our purpose at the time, we cannot be challenged and criticised! This is brilliant! What a masterstroke! Why didn't I think of it myself? Make up an imaginary person, then do whatever you like and pretend that you are above criticism because the imaginary person said it was OK! And you can stop other people doing what they want because the imaginary person you made up said that they were bad people!

To hell with this being moral caper. Hand me that pencil. I'm going to write a book.

[Mugwump]

^ excellent. I've got a title for you - "The Communist Manifesto" ! I'm working on a nom-de-plume, too. .

You'll have to change a few details, add a few gulags, psychiatric incarcerations and show trials, encourage children to inform on their parents, exterminate the intellectuals, build walls to imprison whole populations and shoot them (10 year olds included) if they try to get out, etc. It's a winner.

[Dave The Man]

1. She is either an idiot or a self righteous goody goody who I would run a mile to avoid associating with.

2. of course i've done wrong things. Some i regret, others i don't

Who has not done at least 1 Wrong Thing.

I am not Religious so I don't really pay attention to what they think