u/WilliamBallout

The Bibles explanation for “humanities inclination towards sin” is damaging to humanity.

The Bible says that humanity is inherently inclined towards evil and sin. I think this is a great understanding of how human animals are inherently inclined towards violent, instinctual, animalistic and immoral behavior. Now while the Bible does a good job at describing humanities condition, there is a very real psychological danger in believing that the Bible is the final word on this subject. Firstly, the Bible makes this humanities fault. It is important that we understand that humans having an inclination towards “evil” is much more complicated than this. And only by understanding where this inclination actually comes from, can we begin to find forgiveness, respect and clarity for ourselves and others.

We are animals, once driven by primal instincts. Our bodies and minds have evolved and are still evolving. Our ethics and morals evolve as well. When we stop at “the inclination towards sin is our fault” it orients our minds to think that there is something genuinely wrong with us, and that it’s our fault. The truth is, nothing is wrong with us, and it’s not our fault. For hundreds of millions of years animals have been killing and consuming other animals, and still are to this day. It’s not that it’s inherently wrong, it’s just how reality exists.

This is the same with humanity, we are as we were “designed”. The problem with the Bible’s explanation about our “inclination towards sin and evil” is that it doesn’t give the us the invaluable information about human biological and social evolution. And instead blames it on humanity. Again it’s not our fault, the world is and has been an extremely violent place for a very long time.

I agree that humanity has a lot of growing to do but blaming ourselves for the universe operating as it was “intended” is beyond damaging to humanity. In my opinion, we need to understand reality better to genuinely become better.

The Bible’s explanation for “humanities inclination towards sin” is damaging to humanity.

The Bible says that humanity is inherently inclined towards evil and sin. I think this is a great understanding of how human animals are inherently inclined towards violent, instinctual, animalistic and immoral behavior. Now while the Bible does a good job at describing humanities condition, there is a very real psychological danger in believing that the Bible is the final word on this subject. Firstly, the Bible makes this humanities fault. It is important that we understand that humans having an inclination towards “evil” is much more complicated than this. And only by understanding where this inclination actually comes from, can we begin to find forgiveness, respect and clarity for ourselves and others.

We are animals, once driven by primal instincts. Our bodies and minds have evolved and are still evolving. Our ethics and morals evolve as well. When we stop at “the inclination towards sin is our fault” it orients our minds to think that there is something genuinely wrong with us, and that it’s our fault. The truth is, nothing is wrong with us, and it’s not our fault. For hundreds of millions of years animals have been killing and consuming other animals, and still are to this day. It’s not that it’s inherently wrong, it’s just how reality exists.

This is the same with humanity, we are as we were “designed”. The problem with the Bible’s explanation about our “inclination towards sin and evil” is that it doesn’t give the us the invaluable information about human biological and social evolution. And instead blames it on humanity. Again it’s not our fault, the world is and has been an extremely violent place for a very long time.

I agree that humanity has a lot of growing to do but blaming ourselves for the universe operating as it was “intended” is beyond damaging to humanity. In my opinion, we need to understand reality better to genuinely become better.

It is impossible to reconcile an “all good” “all loving God” knowing that animals have experienced excessive suffering for hundreds of millions of years.

To clarify I am speaking of the Christian God.

I open the floor to respectful debate and discussion. ❤️

It is impossible to reconcile an “all good” “all loving God” knowing that animals have experienced excessive suffering for hundreds of millions of years.

To clarify I am speaking of the Christian God.

I open the floor to respectful debate and discussion. ❤️

Your life begins in the woods, where you meet many others. Some cut trees to build paths through the forest. Others preach about the one true path to heaven. Many follow them, but you remain skeptical. You watch the people on these paths grow angry and wage war over whose path is right. One day the thought comes: Maybe these paths were man-made. You look around and see the cat lying in the sun, trees swaying in the wind. So you become still, and let the world move around you. You lie down next to the cat and feel the sun kiss your cheeks through the trees. Your thoughts drift away with the clouds in the sky. You realize you are the path, and it was always you.

Your life begins in the woods, where you meet many others. Some are cutting down trees to build paths through the forest. Others preach about the one true path to heaven. Many follow them, but you remain skeptical. Eventually you see that those who built the paths aren't happy. You watch them wage war over whose path is right. One day the thought comes: Maybe these paths were man-made. You look around and see the cat lying in the sun, trees swaying in the wind. You realize they built a path over the answer. So you become still, and let the world move around you. You begin to appreciate exactly where you are and what you have. You realize you are the path.

The idea of a “fair final judgement” is destroyed by the reality of psychological influences.

I’ll start with a figurative story (explicit) -

Say I started a cult, and I was a master at psychological manipulation. I was a veteran at brainwashing people and did this to someone (we’ll call this person Jerry, an impressionable 18 year old). I got Jerry to believe in my cults doctrine. My cult then commits mass s**cide, including Jerry and we all go to hell, as per majority Christian doctrine dictates.

This story shows how I could be personally responsible for damning Jerry to hell. And Jerry would have never stood a chance.

Often, our beliefs are shaped by the world around us, our families belief system, our friends belief system, our favorite actors beliefs etc.. if I wanted to believe in ZUES the thunder God, I likely could never genuinely bring myself to believe it, because it is now known worldwide as myth and I’ve heard it classified as myth my entire life, I was influenced by the world around me into unbelief (of Zeus).

There are so many psychological influences in the world today, social media, religions, friends, family, genetics, neurochemistry etc… understanding how influenced we are by the world around us and by our own bodies, to think that we could be “ultimately judged” on our beliefs or actions is intellectually dishonest and doesn’t make any logical sense.

The idea of a “fair final judgement” is destroyed by the reality of psychological influences.

I’ll start with a figurative story (explicit) -

Say I started a cult, and I was a master at psychological manipulation. I was a veteran at brainwashing people and did this to someone (we’ll call this person Jerry, an impressionable 18 year old). I got Jerry to believe in my cults doctrine. My cult then commits mass s**cide, including Jerry and we all go to hell, as per majority Christian doctrine dictates.

This story shows how I could be personally responsible for damning Jerry to hell. And Jerry would have never stood a chance.

Often, our beliefs are shaped by the world around us, our families belief system, our friends belief system, our favorite actors beliefs etc.. if I wanted to believe in ZUES the thunder God, I likely could never genuinely bring myself to believe it, because it is now known worldwide as myth and I’ve heard it classified as myth my entire life, I was influenced by the world around me into unbelief (of Zeus).

There are so many psychological influences in the world today, social media, religions, friends, family, genetics, neurochemistry etc… understanding how influenced we are by the world around us and by our own bodies, to think that we could be “ultimately judged” on our beliefs or actions is intellectually dishonest and makes no logical sense.

The idea of a “fair final judgement” is destroyed by the reality of psychological influences.

I’ll start with a figurative story (explicit) -

Say I started a cult, and I was a master at psychological manipulation. I was a veteran at brainwashing people and did this to someone (we’ll call this person Jerry, an impressionable 18 year old). I got Jerry to believe in my cults doctrine. My cult then commits mass s**cide, including Jerry and we all go to hell, as per majority Christian doctrine dictates.

This story shows how I could be personally responsible for damning Jerry to hell. And Jerry would have never stood a chance.

Often, our beliefs are shaped by the world around us, our families belief system, our friends belief system, our favorite actors beliefs etc.. if I wanted to believe in ZUES the thunder God, I likely could never genuinely bring myself to believe it, because it is now known worldwide as myth and I’ve heard it classified as myth my entire life, I was influenced by the world around me into unbelief (of Zeus).

There are so many psychological influences in the world today, social media, religions, friends, family, genetics, neurochemistry etc… understanding how influenced we are by the world around us and by our own bodies, to think that we could be “ultimately judged” on our beliefs or actions is intellectually dishonest and makes no logical sense.

If the Adam and Eve story is simply a metaphor for humanity gradually developing moral awareness through evolution, then the core of Christian atonement breaks down.

Once humans have a conscience, choosing to do wrong is still wrong — but those moral failures would be the natural result of a process God himself designed. Punishing humanity for flaws built into the system no longer makes logical sense. Furthermore, the entire sacrificial system (In Leviticus) is morally incoherent. Killing an innocent animal to atone for a human’s mistakes means you’re committing a new act of violence to fix an old one. That’s not justice. Jesus’ death is presented in the New Testament as the ultimate fulfillment of that same sacrificial system. Without accepting the logic of that system, you cannot claim his death supernaturally saves us from sin. You can admire Jesus as a great moral teacher who lived and died courageously, but you can’t keep the supernatural salvation while throwing out the foundation it rests on.

If the Adam and Eve story is simply a metaphor for humanity gradually developing moral awareness through evolution, then the core of Christian atonement breaks down.

Once humans have a conscience, choosing to do wrong is still wrong — but those moral failures would be the natural result of a process God himself designed. Punishing humanity for flaws built into the system no longer makes logical sense. Furthermore, the entire sacrificial system (In Leviticus) is morally incoherent. Killing an innocent animal to atone for a human’s mistakes means you’re committing a new act of violence to fix an old one. That’s not justice. Jesus’ death is presented in the New Testament as the ultimate fulfillment of that same sacrificial system. Without accepting the logic of that system, you cannot claim his death supernaturally saves us from sin. You can admire Jesus as a great moral teacher who lived and died courageously, but you can’t keep the supernatural salvation while throwing out the foundation it rests on.

I open the floor to respectful debate and discussion.

If the Adam and Eve story is simply a metaphor for humanity gradually developing moral awareness through evolution, then the core of Christian atonement breaks down.

Once humans have a conscience, choosing to do wrong is still wrong — but those moral failures would be the natural result of a process God himself designed. Punishing humanity for flaws built into the system no longer makes logical sense. Furthermore, the entire sacrificial system (In Leviticus) is morally incoherent. Killing an innocent animal to atone for a human’s mistakes means you’re committing a new act of violence to fix an old one. That’s not justice. Jesus’ death is presented in the New Testament as the ultimate fulfillment of that same sacrificial system. Without accepting the logic of that system, you cannot claim his death supernaturally saves us from sin. You can admire Jesus as a great moral teacher who lived and died courageously, but you can’t keep the supernatural salvation while throwing out the foundation it rests on.

I open the floor to respectful debate and discussion.

Original Sin, introduced through Adam and Eve, must be taken literally for Christian theology to be true.

To claim that sin (acting against God’s will) is something that actually happens we must also claim to know God’s will. Where we find information on God’s will (the Bible), is where we also receive direction on how to regulate the slavery of humans and also direction on how to slaughter animals (In the Old Testament), for atonement of sins, to satisfy divine justice. In the present day, most understand slavery as a sin (for obvious reasons), and I would argue that animal suffering is a sin.

I bring up slavery and animal killing to show how I believe the definition of sin objectively evolves and is likely manmade, dependent on human understanding, empathy, experience and social progression - and NOT defined by a perfect beings unchanging standards. Which (the latter) is what would have to be true to support the majority of Christian theological claims.

So the cornerstone of Christianity is Jesus’ sacrifice to atone for all of mankind’s sins. This is understood by most Christians to be a LITERAL EVENT. To my knowledge, Jesus spoke of Adam as a historical figure. In the gospel of Luke, Jesus’ genealogy is LITERALLY traced back to Adam. Many writers in the Bible assume the historicity and literal existence of a man named Adam. In my opinion, there is no understanding of sin without the story of Adam and Eve.

It’s beyond complex, but what I’m getting at is that this theology was built over a VERY long time, and was built on the concept of sin. The concept of sin being defined by mortal men. Once we understand that we can’t objectively define sin (because we’re not a perfect God), and understand that our ethics and morals likely change and evolve over time, only then can we start to see that the Christian theology (Majority theology) starts to fall apart.

I open the floor to respectful discussion and debate.

Let’s talk about Original Sin. I believe that sin must have been literally introduced through Adam for MOST Christian theology to be true.

To claim that sin (acting against God’s will) is something that actually happens we must also claim to know God’s will. Where we find information on God’s will (the Bible), is where we also receive direction on how to regulate the slavery of humans and also direction on how to slaughter animals (In the Old Testament), for atonement of sins, to satisfy divine justice. In the present day, most understand slavery as a sin (for obvious reasons), and I would argue that animal suffering is a sin.

I bring up slavery and animal killing to show how I believe the definition of sin objectively evolves and is likely manmade, dependent on human understanding, empathy, experience and social progression - and NOT defined by a perfect beings unchanging standards. Which (the latter) is what would have to be true to support the majority of Christian theological claims.

So the cornerstone of Christianity is Jesus’ sacrifice to atone for all of mankind’s sins. This is understood by most Christians to be a LITERAL EVENT. To my knowledge, Jesus spoke of Adam as a historical figure. In the gospel of Luke, Jesus’ genealogy is LITERALLY traced back to Adam. Many writers in the Bible assume the historicity and literal existence of a man named Adam. In my opinion, there is no understanding of sin without the story of Adam and Eve.

It’s beyond complex, but what I’m getting at is that this theology was built over a VERY long time, and was built on the concept of sin. The concept of sin being defined by mortal men. Once we understand that we can’t objectively define sin (because we’re not a perfect God), and understand that our ethics and morals objectively change over time, only then can we start to see that the Christian theology (Majority theology) starts to fall apart.

I open the floor to respectful discussion and debate.

Let’s talk about Original Sin. I believe that sin must have been literally introduced through Adam for MOST Christian theology to be true.

To claim that sin (acting against God’s will) is something that actually happens we must also claim to know God’s will. Where we find information on God’s will (the Bible), is where we also receive direction on how to regulate the slavery of humans and also direction on how to slaughter animals (In the Old Testament), for atonement of sins, to satisfy divine justice. In the present day, most understand slavery as a sin (for obvious reasons), and I would argue that animal suffering is a sin.

I bring up slavery and animal killing to show how I believe the definition of sin objectively evolves and is likely manmade, dependent on human understanding, empathy, experience and social progression - and NOT defined by a perfect beings unchanging standards. Which (the latter) is what would have to be true to support the majority of Christian theological claims.

So the cornerstone of Christianity is Jesus’ sacrifice to atone for all of mankind’s sins. This is understood by most Christians to be a LITERAL EVENT. To my knowledge, Jesus spoke of Adam as a historical figure. In the gospel of Luke, Jesus’ genealogy is LITERALLY traced back to Adam. Many writers in the Bible assume the historicity and literal existence of a man named Adam. In my opinion, there is no understanding of sin without the story of Adam and Eve.

It’s beyond complex, but what I’m getting at is that this theology was built over a VERY long time, and was built on the concept of sin. The concept of sin being defined by mortal men. Once we understand that we can’t objectively define sin (because we’re not a perfect God), and understand that our ethics and morals objectively change over time, only then can we start to see that the Christian theology (Majority theology) starts to fall apart.

I open the floor to respectful discussion and debate.

Let’s talk about Original Sin. I believe that sin must have been literally introduced through Adam for MOST Christian theology to be true.

To claim that sin (acting against God’s will) is something that actually happens we must also claim to know God’s will. Where we find information on God’s will (the Bible), is where we also receive direction on how to regulate the slavery of humans and also direction on how to slaughter animals (In the Old Testament), for atonement of sins, to satisfy divine justice. In the present day, most understand slavery as a sin (for obvious reasons), and I would argue that animal suffering is a sin.

I bring up slavery and animal killing to show how I believe the definition of sin objectively evolves and is likely manmade, dependent on human understanding, empathy, experience and social progression - and NOT defined by a perfect beings unchanging standards. Which (the latter) is what would have to be true to support the majority of Christian theological claims.

So the cornerstone of Christianity is Jesus’ sacrifice to atone for all of mankind’s sins. This is understood by most Christians to be a LITERAL EVENT. To my knowledge, Jesus spoke of Adam as a historical figure. In the gospel of Luke, Jesus’ genealogy is LITERALLY traced back to Adam. Many writers in the Bible assume the historicity and literal existence of a man named Adam. In my opinion, there is no understanding of sin without the story of Adam and Eve.

It’s beyond complex, but what I’m getting at is that this theology was built over a VERY long time, and was built on the concept of sin. The concept of sin being defined by mortal men. Once we understand that we can’t objectively define sin (because we’re not a perfect God), and understand that our ethics and morals objectively change over time, only then can we start to see that the Christian theology (Majority theology) starts to fall apart.

I open the floor to respectful discussion and debate.

Let’s talk about Original Sin. I believe that sin must have been literally introduced through Adam for MOST Christian theology to be true.

To claim that sin (acting against God’s will) is something that actually happens we must also claim to know God’s will. Where we find information on God’s will (the Bible), is where we also receive direction on how to regulate the slavery of humans and also direction on how to slaughter animals (In the Old Testament), for atonement of sins, to satisfy divine justice. In the present day, most understand slavery as a sin (for obvious reasons), and I would argue that animal suffering is a sin.

I bring up slavery and animal killing to show how I believe the definition of sin objectively evolves and is likely manmade, dependent on human understanding, empathy, experience and social progression - and NOT defined by a perfect beings unchanging standards. Which (the latter) is what would have to be true to support the majority of Christian theological claims.

So the cornerstone of Christianity is Jesus’ sacrifice to atone for all of mankind’s sins. This is understood by most Christians to be a LITERAL EVENT. To my knowledge, Jesus spoke of Adam as a historical figure. In the gospel of Luke, Jesus’ genealogy is LITERALLY traced back to Adam. Many writers in the Bible assume the historicity and literal existence of a man named Adam. In my opinion, there is no understanding of sin without the story of Adam and Eve.

It’s beyond complex, but what I’m getting at is that this theology was built over a VERY long time (thousands of years), and was built on the concept of sin. The concept of sin being defined by mortal men. Once we understand that we can’t objectively define sin (because we’re not a perfect God), and understand that our ethics and morals objectively change over time, only then can we start to see that the Christian theology (Majority theology) starts to fall apart.

I open the floor to respectful discussion and debate.

I lean towards the belief in Spinoza’s God. To quickly explain, I believe that God and the universe are one and the same. Existence infinitely expressing itself. I believe that human beings are but one expression of the universe. I believe this way of thinking creates more unity than Christianity, because in this worldview we are all of the same essence. It also takes away the ego created by a Christian mindset, ego coming from the thought that “humans being the ultimate Opus Dei, greater than any other living thing.” I am speaking as a man who, to some extent, once believed in Christian doctrine. I would love to hear arguments against this belief. Let’s have a good discussion ☺️

Disclaimer - this is dark history so please move along if you are easily upset.

So let’s take an example. If you lived in ancient Israel, and you were a Canaanite child born into paganism, you would never know anything other than the pagan worldview you were born into. You spend your childhood watching your tribe sacrifice child after child, and live in constant fear of being sacrificed soon. Next thing you know, the Israelite army invades and kills you and your family. You are then banished to eternal hell. This is dark but it’s a realistic view on how many Christians understand things. How do you justify that? How is that mercy?

Please don’t respond with “a child wouldn’t go to hell”, because all the Canaanite adults were once children, and they themselves were at one point psychologically conditioned by their tribe elders to uphold their rituals and lifestyle. The child argument makes no sense when we understand how humans are psychologically integrated into a specific communities.

I’m posting this because it’s getting old hearing Christians defend the genocide of the Canaanites.