One of the many tenets of Christianity that I strongly object to is the notion of Original Sin. Adam and Eve transgressed against the wishes of God, thus we (their descendants) are in need of saving, hence our reliance on Jesus and his crucifixion. It depends on the premise that responsibility and blame for evil acts are passed down from parent to child. For this post I will not focus on why such an idea is psychologically harmful (especially to children), although that would be a valid avenue of criticism. Instead, I think it would be more effective to just show why it is wrong.
Imagine that a man rapes and impregnates a woman. The rapist then escapes the authorities while the woman is left with child. Over the nine month gestation, the police hunt the rapist to no avail. As the mother gives birth to a son, the police get a lead on the infant’s biological father. Three weeks later the police raid the rapist’s hideout only to find that he had committed suicide via drug overdose mere hours before they arrived. At the scene they find a note where the rapist describes his life of murder, crime, and hedonism. Further, he wrote that after having committed all these atrocities, there were no more thrills left for him. And so he decided he best end his life pleasantly, lest someone else do it for him in a much less favorable manner.
What we have here is someone who has done many evil things, done nothing to make up for his misdeeds, and has escaped all punishment. He leaves behind two victims who are denied all forms of restitution, justice, and closure. This is, of course, one of the worst kinds of situations and I don’t pretend to know a good way to deal with it. But one way I know to be wrong would be to apply the principle of original sin.
If responsibility and blame are indeed passed from parent to child, then we need only go to the infant son to extract justice. If the sins of the father are the sins of the son, then the three week old baby is accountable for his mother’s rape. If original sin held true, the righteous thing to do would be to punish the newborn just as we would punish the rapist had he been caught.
If you agree with me that the previous paragraph’s conclusions are not only absurd, but monstrously unjust and immoral, then the same must be said of the Christian notion of original sin. No fair and just adjudicator would ever hold someone responsible for something that they did not do, let alone for something that happened before they came into existence. But that is what Christianity says that their god does. (a great reason to start indoctrinating your children early – ed. )
Here is another quick thought experiment. Think of the worst thing you have ever done in your life. Then categorize that misdeed with a word or short phrase like ‘neglect’ or ‘assault’, or ‘theft’, or ‘betrayal’. Now, would a just punishment for your category of transgression involve crucifixion? Do you think it would require someone to have their hands and feet nailed to planks of wood and then slowly, agonizingly asphyxiate to make up for any of the offences I just mentioned? Absolutely not. The fact is that no one human has ever done anything that deserved anything close to that kind of torture. Even if you believe that the absolute worst of history’s monsters deserve brutal punishment, those rare instances compose a negligible percentage of the population. The point being that humans, as a whole, are not evil beings and we certainly don’t deserve crucifixion or any other torturous punishment by default. But Christianity says that we are and that we do.
Of course, it has to. If we were not responsible for evil deeds done before our existence and we did not deserve a cruel fate, then we would have no need of a savior, no need for a messiah, and no need of Jesus or Christianity. If we are on the whole morally higher than rapists and child molestors (empirical evidence says we are), and if we are answerable only to our own deeds (reason and justice say we are) then the idea of original sin is aboration of truth, a mockery of rationality, and an assault on morality.




7 comments
December 3, 2009 at 10:53 am
askingquestions
Well thougt out, but I disagree. It is true that the bible says that sin has been passed down, but it’s not the acts themselves. It’s just simply sinful nature. And while I agree that no one should be crucified, that is not the point. The crucifixion is symbolism of Old Testament sacrifices. In the old testament, the Lord commands the priests to kill animals and the animal sacrifices will “cleanse” them of their sins. Jesus’ crucifixion was symbolism that he was the sacrifice for all sins–and I agree, not even the worst sinner should under-go such brutal torture, but the bible never says we all deserve to be crucified. It says we all deserve to die, as everyone has sinful NATURE (not specific acts passed down that generations should be held responsible for).
It was just symbolism that shows that no longer do we have to be bound to sin, trying in vain to perfectly follow the Lord’s law (Ten Commandments), but that we are set free. I’m not sure which Christians you talk to, but I’ve never heard a Christian say that we all deserve to be crucified. I’ve heard, however, that if we try to live perfect lives, we do it in vain, and we will die, but if we follow Jesus, we don’t have to worry about that stuff.
Again, obviously a baby should not be held accountable for the father misdeeds, but I’ve NEVER heard anyone state that. It a nature that is passed down, plain and simple. It would be monstrously injust if we held the baby accountable like you said, and thus no one does it…
It’s not the original sin that is specific deeds, just original nature–just like wanting knowledge is human nature, it’s simply an innate thing.
Ha, I’m sorry I leave such long posts on your blogs–but again I’m not doing this for religious purposes as I’m not religious, I just think you are well-thought out and I like a good debate. :)
LikeLike
December 3, 2009 at 1:29 pm
The Intransigent One
Does it make more moral sense to punish someone for /their nature/ than it does to punish someone for their parents’ misdeeds? And anyway, is giving people a sinful nature (that they then deserve to be punished for) to pass down the generations, that different from holding a baby accountable for his father’s misdeeds? There’s only one punishment – hell – so the outcomes are the same. Case 1, baby goes to hell because his daddy is a rapist. Case 2, baby goes to hell because he has some heritable “sin nature” that’s the result of something a more distant ancestor did.
Oh, and one (ex)Christian Mystro has talked to is me. I was raised fundagelical and of course nobody ever said outright, every human being is such a horrible sinner that s/he personally deserves to be crucified. The part they say is:
Every human being is a horrible sinner and deserves to be punished.
When Jesus was crucified, he took the punishment for your sins. (and yes, they’d make it personal with a “your” rather than an “our”.)
If you accept the implied “appropriate” before “punishment”, it boils down to, “your sins are crucifiction-worthy.”
Sometimes they’ll say things like, “Jesus died in your place”. Which, if you think about it, means “your place” was the cross. Have a look at what you get when you google the phrase “Jesus died in your place”:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22jesus+died+in+your+place%22&meta=&aq=f&oq=
LikeLike
December 3, 2009 at 1:58 pm
askingquestions
I appreciate the response, but I think you are taking it far out of context. It is obviously up to all of us to choose, but I don’t think the effects of Christianity on society is an “aboration of truth, a mockery of rationality, and an assault on morality. ” Let people believe what they do, and there is no need to be outraged by beliefs.
And I respectfully, but strongly disagree–sinful nature is far different than specific deeds. A baby with have sinful nature but that does not mean he is\or should be held responsible for the acts of a rapist. It’s like saying Everyone who is related to Einstein needs to be equivalent in knowledge power–we all have a nature of wanting knowledge, it just that not everyone is equivalent.
Sure, I understand that, but if people want to believe that everyone deserves to die because of sin, there is no wrong done, unless they do the killing themselves ;)
And I’m not sure if ‘googling’ a phrase is a very valid resource if you haven’t noticed. I don’t really need to know what YouTube videos and paid-plus sites need to say.
I just think your response is a bit out of context :)
LikeLike
December 3, 2009 at 3:42 pm
The Intransigent One
I’m not sure how my response is out of context. You advanced some arguments; I contradicted you.
You said you hadn’t heard Christians say certain things; I said that I had, and then provided evidence. While googling a particular phrase is about as far from valid as you can get for assessing the truth-value of the phrase, we both know that wasn’t my intent. I was looking for (1) evidence that the phrase is in use and (2) the context in which it appears. Which a google search is eminently qualified to do.
And I also disagree with pretty much everything else in your response :-)
First of all, I thought it was fairly clear I didn’t mean that holding a baby responsible for his father’s actions was the same thing as a baby having a sinful nature. What I (and Mystro before me) argued was, the outcomes for the baby are the same. The penalty for actual sinful acts is hell. The penalty for having a sinful nature regardless of what you’ve done – also hell. There’s just one punishment, and it’s eternity in hell*. Neither case strikes me as morally justifiable, because in both cases punishment is being meted out on an individual who hasn’t done anything wrong himself. Punishing “having a sinful nature” regardless of what someone’s done makes no moral sense. Makes as much sense as hating someone for being a redhead. If anybody other than God were doing it, it would be condemned as a mockery of justice.
I also disagree that beliefs are harmless “unless they do the killing themselves.” On the individual level, raising a child in a milieu of “no matter how hard you try to be good, you will never be good enough without divine intervention”, “your nature is so corrupt and awful that you deserve to be tortured to death,” and “love me or die”, is far from harmless.**
On a societal level, original sin is also not a harmless belief. A society with the general belief that humanity is sinful/evil in nature will structure (among other things) their education, legal, and social services systems very differently from a society that believes that humanity is fundamentally neutral or good. And I know which I would rather live in.
Oh, and I just think your response was a bit evasive and condescending
:-D
*There are no degrees of hell unless you accept Dante’s Inferno as divinely-inspired truth.
**I won’t accept “but I don’t know any Christians who are like that” as a counter-argument. You are free to cherry-pick what a “real” Christian is, and deploy the No True Scotsman fallacy, but I’ve addressed it once and won’t bother again.
LikeLike
December 3, 2009 at 8:57 pm
askingquestions
I apologize if my argument was evasive and condescending. I’m not religious and I’m not doing this for a religious reason, I was just curious of Mystro’s response as he is the author.
LikeLike
December 3, 2009 at 9:10 pm
askingquestions
And also you said “Punishing ‘having a sinful nature’ regardless of what someone’s done makes no moral sense. Makes as much sense as hating someone for being a redhead.” The Bible, I’m fairly sure, says that God judges the heart of those who believe and don’t believe as well. I don’t think if there was a God he’d hate those people, in my opinion.
LikeLike
December 4, 2009 at 12:11 am
Mystro
This post is not about what you think god would do, in your opinion. It’s about the concept of original sin actually means. You said it actually meant that a sinful nature is passed down, not the sin itself. I don’t see how that challenges any of my claims on the perverseness of this maxim.
If we need to be ‘saved’, then that implies that something really bad is going to happen if we don’t. You suggested that the thing we are being saved from is death, but that makes no sense as Christians die at the same rate as anyone else.
What we are being ‘saved’ from is an undesirable eternal hereafter, whether that be hell, limbo (which would, after a few millennia, be just as mentally torturous as any conception of hell), or obliteration (which would mean god would have to kill our immortal soul, a much worse fate than any notion of murder we have on this finite plane).
Your idea that we deserve this because of our nature is as repugnant as the idea we deserve it because of the sins of our parents. No one deserves punishment for being born the way they are born. Saying that they do IS an aberration of truth, a mockery of rationality, and an assault on morality.
Actually, I’d say your view of original sin is worse. Instead of being born good, but being responsible for covering the sins of others (I already described why this is a ludicrous affront to justice), you say no, we are born bad, and we are not going to the block for someone else’s wrongdoing, (or wrong-being rather) but our own.
I’d consider it a great insult if anyone ever told me I was bad, simply by being born. Its demeaning and unjustified.
One last note, about the being set free by the crucifixion. Holding people to the impossible standard of perfection is unthinkable to anyone with the slightest notion of fairness.
And some sky faerie saying “well, I started with unfair impossible standards and you failed to live up to them. You all deserve to die. (No, we don’t)But wait, I’ll make it so my son will die a horrible and painful death (how does that fix anything?) Now just recognize me and my son’s great kindness (the unfair standards and the horrible death are kindnesses?) and I won’t give you the death you (don’t) deserve,” doesn’t convey to me any sense of benevolence.
He didn’t have to start with the impossible standards to start with and he didn’t need a crucifixion to change his mind, and we, as a people, would most certainly not be indebted to such a being for his ‘good deeds’.
LikeLike