NationStates Jolt Archive

So, in another thread, ("Are atheists compensating for something?" by Kreen, if you want the whole context)

Theorb says this:

But how could even a baby say it is innocent, when we are all born self-centered, wanting our own needs above faith in God, a violation of the 1st commandment? And that's how what Adam did ruined everything, all his descendents just kept having offspring that, by nature, have to all be self-centered the moment they are born.

I just need to know, if you're religious person, do you buy what he's saying?

Is a baby really not innocent (meaning guilty) for wanting its "own needs above faith in God, a violation of the 1st commandment"?

I mean, if he means "self-centered" as in "wants food, warmth, and safety", then yes, I guess the babies are as "self-centered" as any organism, in which case the term is meaningless.

What does he expect them to do? Shut up, stopy crying and start preaching Jesus and earning tithe money?

I just need to know: Does Theorb's view here reflect that of most religious people?

Well, keep those condoms on tight, brethren. Otherwise, you might wind up with some self-centered little poop-geiser on your hands...

I just need to know: Does Theorb's view here reflect that of most religious people?
No.

Children have god-parents to develop a faith in God. We aren't born with it, and God knows that. Faith is something deep and it needs to be tended to. It isn't an automatic response, like breathing for example.

I don't believe that a desire to fulfil one's own needs makes one guilty; certainly not in a religious sense. But I do think that kids tend to do more things that might be considered "wrong" due to their inability to empathise. Children are inherently selfish, promoting their desires foremost in their minds and acting to bring those desires to fruition at the expense of all others; a trait that I consider to be unethical in adulthood.

So they're selfish little runts. That doesn't make them evil. They're just acting on animal instinct, which would have worked fine if man was still a part of nature. In that respect, they're probably closer to what God is than any living Christian. Essentially, if we're taking the Genesis approach, kids are gradually fed the fruit of the Tree to draw them closer to human civilisation.

I personally see this as a good thing, since I see the value in the fruit behind the story. However, it is also this fruit that is responsible for culpability in people. Children are innocent out of ignorance. When someone actually does "Know any better" and strives for raw self-fulfilment at the expense of others, he is guilty of Wrongdoing.

When someone actually does "Know any better" and strives for raw self-fulfilment at the expense of others, he is guilty of Wrongdoing.

That's a lot more reasonable than saying a baby is guilty at birth...

it is certainly a minority opinion. i dont know of any denomination that considers newborns to be less than innocent.

we do, in the opinion of many christian sects, carry "original sin" inherited from adam and eve and their sin of disobedience (interesting in that even those that dont believe in a literal garden of eden sometimes still believe in original sin) but i think that is a seperate issue from the innocence of infants.

we do, in the opinion of many christian sects, carry "original sin" inherited from adam and eve and their sin of disobedience (interesting in that even those that dont believe in a literal garden of eden sometimes still believe in original sin) but i think that is a seperate issue from the innocence of infants.
It's not really. Essentially, man is either inherently sinful or not. Whether you define Sin as rebellion done in the knowledge of Good and Evil or whether you define it as any sort of deviation from divine intent defines the nature of original sin - a definition that applies as much to newborns as it does to adults.

It's my belief that man is inherently Selfish, but not inherently Sinful. To make an accidental mistake is not the same as to do wrong, and you can't hold people accountable for their ignorance (ie, people who never hear about a religion or never engage in society or whatever). However, the chances are that everyone has placed their own interests above others in full knowledge of their actions' consequences at some point. It's that kind of action that requires forgiveness; both (more importantly) by the individuals you've wronged and by the natural order through which we live and have rebelled against (which turns out to be personified in God, more often than not).

It's not really. Essentially, man is either inherently sinful or not. Whether you define Sin as rebellion done in the knowledge of Good and Evil or whether you define it as any sort of deviation from divine intent defines the nature of original sin - a definition that applies as much to newborns as it does to adults.

It's my belief that man is inherently Selfish, but not inherently Sinful. To make an accidental mistake is not the same as to do wrong, and you can't hold people accountable for their ignorance (ie, people who never hear about a religion or never engage in society or whatever). However, the chances are that everyone has placed their own interests above others in full knowledge of their actions' consequences at some point. It's that kind of action that requires forgiveness; both (more importantly) by the individuals you've wronged and by the natural order through which we live and have rebelled against (which turns out to be personified in God, more often than not).
hmmmmm

doesnt sin require intent? doesnt it at least require, if not the knowlege of the will of god, at least the knowlege that other people exist?

babies are inherently selfish but it takes months before they even have the concept that other people exist seperately from themselves and years before they have the understanding that other people have wants and needs that conflict with their own.

i dont see how there can be any sin under those conditions.

hmmmmm

doesnt sin require intent? doesnt it at least require, if not the knowlege of the will of god, at least the knowlege that other people exist?

babies are inherently selfish but it takes months before they even have the concept that other people exist seperately from themselves and years before they have the understanding that other people have wants and needs that conflict with their own.

i dont see how there can be any sin under those conditions.
Neither do I (it was my point, however badly worded), which is why the doctrine of Original Sin fails. What I was trying to say was that Original Sin must imply that children are inherently Sinful in their selfishness, and such a stance is unjustifiable in the light of what the Knowledge of Good and Evil (the apparent "source" of this sinfulness) is.

oh ok. i didnt understand that that was your point, im glad we're on the same page.

what im wondering now that its been mentioned is

if the garden of eden is only an allegory (which it must be for any believer who also believes in evolution) what is the irredeemable sin that humanity suffered under for the first million years of its existance that god couldnt deal with until he sent his son to die for it? and why wait so long? are we to believe that god damned a million years worth of humans on principle alone?

babies are inherently selfish but it takes months before they even have the concept that other people exist seperately from themselves and years before they have the understanding that other people have wants and needs that conflict with their own.

i dont see how there can be any sin under those conditions.

This is a really good point. How can you not be selfish when you're own needs are the only thing evident to you?

So, in another thread, ("Are atheists compensating for something?" by Kreen, if you want the whole context)

Theorb says this:



I just need to know, if you're religious person, do you buy what he's saying?

Is a baby really not innocent (meaning guilty) for wanting its "own needs above faith in God, a violation of the 1st commandment"?

I mean, if he means "self-centered" as in "wants food, warmth, and safety", then yes, I guess the babies are as "self-centered" as any organism, in which case the term is meaningless.

What does he expect them to do? Shut up, stopy crying and start preaching Jesus and earning tithe money?

I just need to know: Does Theorb's view here reflect that of most religious people?

Well, keep those condoms on tight, brethren. Otherwise, you might wind up with some self-centered little poop-geiser on your hands...

Babies aren't the only self-centered things in this universe that are evil by nature, we're all self-centered and ultimately evil when compared to an infinitly just standard when it comes down to it, babies don't have some special monoply on this that makes them more evil and more worthy of condemnation than anyone else else. Also, a baby doesn't even have the capability to go out and preach, the Bible never says tears are evil, And tithing is part of OT law which was overturned by the new covenant, and technically speaking, the literal definition of tithing of the Bible has nothing to do with the weekly collection or whatever people do these days anyway, it's a bit lengthy to explain, but the point is, there's no reason a baby should go earn tithe money, come on now.

so when one of these evil little creatures die, do they automatically go to hell?

they are evil, and they are also obviously unable to accept the sacrifice of jesus or to mold themselves to the will of god. doesnt that mean they are damned?

I think that's why unbapthized babies were sent to purgatory (at least until the church decided to put some condos there instead) and why there's all that first communion and confirmation and all that. At least in the Catholic Church, but with similar things in other Christian denominations.

Babies are self centered not in the sense that most of us are self-centered, but in a really really bad way. They think of themselves as the center of the universe and everything else (including mother, father, and all other people) just here to provide satisfaction. They would be the perfect despot if they weren't so tiny, or incapable of remaining awake for more than 30 minutes at a time.

Well, I guess that also applies to me.

Anyway, since babies are really evil bastards but don't know any better, they get a bit of a leeway on most religions.

Purgatory didn't exist in the church until Dante published his Inferno. The funny thing is though that our perception of hell is the exact opposite... He saw hell as a fridgid wasteland devoid of all warmth and light. Atleast the seventh level that is.

*snip*They would be the perfect despot if they weren't so tiny, or incapable of remaining awake for more than 30 minutes at a time.
*snip*
STEWIE!

I remember this from a class I took in theology (it was during a temporary lapse in judgement). Augustine argued the same point, that babies are wholly selfish and self-centered beings. They only care for themselves and disregard all else but their own good. It was related to the general arguement that people are naturally sinful until they hear the word of God, the baby being an example of human that has not yet known God in any way, shape, or form. augustine, as I recall, didn't regard ignorance of the Holy Law as an excuse to sin.

Personally, I thought it was a bullshit arguement then, and I still do now. Babies are selfish out of need and ignorance. They have no idea that there is a world beyond themselves, much less that there are any other things like themselves in it. Besides, a baby can barely move on its own, much less feed and provide for itself. Its existence up until a certain point is concerned only with survival and I don't believe it is a sin to try to stay alive.

Babies aren't the only self-centered things in this universe that are evil by nature, we're all self-centered and ultimately evil when compared to an infinitly just standard when it comes down to it, babies don't have some special monoply on this that makes them more evil and more worthy of condemnation than anyone else else.

If you aren't a parent, make sure you tell any potential partner that this is how you think.

If you are a parent, I hope your partner isn't someone who thinks babies are "evil by nature"...

Well, the next time I see a "Pro-life" person protesting an abortion clinic, I'll make sure to let them know that in "Theorb's version of Christianity", babies are "evil by nature"...

Seriously, when you can understand that its not "infinitely just" for your god to kill all the firstborn of Egypt to get at the Pharoah, then you can try to talk about "infinite justice"...

Seriously, when you can understand that its not "infinitely just" for your god to kill all the firstborn of Egypt to get at the Pharoah, then you can try to talk about "infinite justice"...
Quick point; The God in Christianity (by which I mean Jesus's God) is not necessarily the same as that of the Old Testament.

Quick point; The God in Christianity (by which I mean Jesus's God) is not necessarily the same as that of the Old Testament.
officially, they are the same

theologically, totally different.

officially, they are the same

theologically, totally different.
Are we talking Christianity the Faith or Christianity the Religion here? "Officially" only matters if there's a central body that governs what you think, which I get the feeling most people would deny.

Are we talking Christianity the Faith or Christianity the Religion here? "Officially" only matters if there's a central body that governs what you think, which I get the feeling most people would deny.
official means the doctrine of every christian sect on earth.

plus i dont think that any christian would claim that they worship a different god than the one in the old testament. jesus was a jew, he worshipped the god of the old testament. christianity is a continuation of that tradition.

official means the doctrine of every christian sect on earth.

plus i dont think that any christian would claim that they worship a different god than the one in the old testament. jesus was a jew, he worshipped the god of the old testament. christianity is a continuation of that tradition.
Jesus was a Jew in the sense of being raised in a Jewish family, undergoing a Jewish education and learning Jewish scripture. Does knowledge and culture a believer make?

Think about this; God became incarnate as human, died, then resurrected himself by his own power. Doesn't that fly right in the face of the monotheistic structure set up in the Old Testament?

Jesus's very existence was a challenge to the temples of Israel at the time, never mind his understanding of God. The assumption that his own divinity is intrinsically that of his antagonists is one that needs to be re-evaluated, I reckon.

Jesus was a Jew in the sense of being raised in a Jewish family, undergoing a Jewish education and learning Jewish scripture. Does knowledge and culture a believer make?

Think about this; God became incarnate as human, died, then resurrected himself by his own power. Doesn't that fly right in the face of the monotheistic structure set up in the Old Testament?

Jesus's very existence was a challenge to the temples of Israel at the time, never mind his understanding of God. The assumption that his own divinity is intrinsically that of his antagonists is one that needs to be re-evaluated, I reckon.
he was still a jew.

the old testament is part of the christian bible.

sure theologically they are quite different. christianity is only monotheistic by bizarre technicality.

but thats not what you asked. i dont think you will find ANY christians who would claim to have a different god from the one in the old testament.

[QUOTE=Sane Outcasts]I remember this from a class I took in theology (it was during a temporary lapse in judgement). Augustine argued the same point, that babies are wholly selfish and self-centered beings. They only care for themselves and disregard all else but their own good. It was related to the general arguement that people are naturally sinful until they hear the word of God, the baby being an example of human that has not yet known God in any way, shape, or form. augustine, as I recall, didn't regard ignorance of the Holy Law as an excuse to sin.

Actually, Augustine has a point. people are born into sin because it exerts a pull right away. its not until they can communicate or understand that they are saved. so babtising babies IS somewhat useless because they cannot understand. Actually, only Jesus truly forgave everyones sins regardless of piety, so that everyone could have a fresh start. this was because the Jews were technically following Gods laws, and also so pagans and otherwise could be evangalized. Babtizing, after all, is simply a ceremony, and if you are an atheist and get babtized, you are not automatically christian. All babies think when they are being babtized, if i could be verbalized, would be: WTF!? that crazy wacko is trying to drown me!
When the Amish came to this conclusion,(before the anti-technology sentiment of the American Amish)the R. Catholic Church branded them Heretics and killed all the Amish in Europe. the catholic church has tried to make ITSELF the intermediary to god, when its is Your own choice in reality.

PS: im not amish, obviously, i was trying to make a point

"sure theologically they are quite different. christianity is only monotheistic by bizarre technicality.

but thats not what you asked. i dont think you will find ANY christians who would claim to have a different god from the one in the old testament."

Jesus's ministry was the turning point, imo. after Christianity began to spread, Individual Choice became important. therefore, God takes a more subtle approach. so that life becomes one giant test

thats my opinion

he was still a jew.

the old testament is part of the christian bible.

sure theologically they are quite different. christianity is only monotheistic by bizarre technicality.

but thats not what you asked. i dont think you will find ANY christians who would claim to have a different god from the one in the old testament.
Theologically is all that matters in this sense. The two Gods are the same if, and only if, everything that is attributed to the OT God is also attributed to the Christian God. It is Paul of Tarsus that makes the necessary attributations, not Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus's God is his Father and his identity, neither of which are dependant on what his forebearers have said about them.

I appreciate, though, that you have your own idea about what makes a Christian. We may have to agree to disagree on this front.

Theologically is all that matters in this sense. The two Gods are the same if, and only if, everything that is attributed to the OT God is also attributed to the Christian God. It is Paul of Tarsus that makes the necessary attributations, not Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus's God is his Father and his identity, neither of which are dependant on what his forebearers have said about them.

I appreciate, though, that you have your own idea about what makes a Christian. We may have to agree to disagree on this front.
oh i'd agree with you that theologically they cant possibly be the same. the god of the old testament was never a trinity. the christian god IS. how can they be the same god?

but i dont think that any christian thinks that they have a different god from the old testament. why would they even bother with the old testament if they didnt think it was the same god?

are you a christian?

oh i'd agree with you that theologically they cant possibly be the same. the god of the old testament was never a trinity. the christian god IS. how can they be the same god?

but i dont think that any christian thinks that they have a different god from the old testament. why would they even bother with the old testament if they didnt think it was the same god?

are you a christian?
Depends on your definition. If you mean "Someone who thinks God exists and was embodied in Jesus's life" then I don't see why not. I don't consider myself a member of "Christianity" though; firstly, because labels are unnecessary things, and secondly, because to call one's self a Christian commonly implies that one believes certain things about the purpose of Jesus and the nature of God that I disagree with.

Quick point; The God in Christianity (by which I mean Jesus's God) is not necessarily the same as that of the Old Testament.

You're certainly entitled to your view, but your premise includes two different "gods" (unless you're just talking about one God who somehow changed, which is largely just a way to excuse inconsistencies) , raising the separate issue of succession, why one left/changed, why the other arrived/manifested, etc.