Craig asked me...
DO WE SIN BECAUSE WE ARE SINNERS, OR ARE WE SINNERS BECAUSE WE SIN?
I'm relatively sure I've answered this question multiple times but I'm glad to do so again, directly and clearly. It's an easy question to answer:
Maybe I'm a simple man, but I think
a killer is one who kills,
a cheater is one who cheats and
a sinner is one who sins.
Period. As simple as that. We are sinners WHEN we sin. Before we sin, we are literally, by definition, NOT sinners. Which is why infants are not sinners.
Biblically speaking, "sinners" are ones who miss the mark, who fall short of the target. Here again, what "target" is it that infants can possibly fall short of? Trying to apply the term "sinner" to a newborn is just not rational (or biblical) on the face of it, biblically or just speaking from standard English (and I'm relatively this is true for all languages).
Do you see how this is at the very least a rational understanding - That those who DO NOT engage in sin ARE NOT sinners?
Craig also asked...
I fail to see how it's possible to take "conceived in sin" (or other similar scriptural language) and somehow conclude that what scripture REALLY means is "Born 100% free from any sin or any nature to sin".
1. Is it not possible that it could be figurative, to make a point or for some other reason? Why not?
2. That passage - "conceived in sin" - is from ONE place in the Bible... Psalm 51, which also says:
"Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin."
Do you think that the ONLY way to understand this line is literally.. that God literally uses soap and water and washes away sin?
3. That passage also includes this from David (who is the one speaking, confessing his actual great sin of killing a husband to bed down his wife):
"Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight;"
Does this mean literally that David did NOT sin against Bathsheeba's husband, who he had killed? That he didn't sin against his nation for abusing his power? MUST that line also be ONLY taken literally?
4. AFTER uttering those two lines, then David said, of himself:
"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
David is speaking of himself and only of himself, literally, in that passage. Does that mean we should only take it literally about David, OR should you make it figurative and say that David was speaking of all humanity, although he literally isn't? If so, why?
5. Conversely, another place that says something similar is Psalms 58 (which is addressed SPECIFICALLY and literally to oppressive, unjust rulers):
"The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies."
Do we take this literally... that the ONLY way to understand this line is that newborns are literally speaking lies? That's observably false, we can agree on that reality, correct? Why should we take the line about "estranged from the womb" literally but not the clearly figurative "infants speaking lies..."?
DO WE SIN BECAUSE WE ARE SINNERS, OR ARE WE SINNERS BECAUSE WE SIN?
I'm relatively sure I've answered this question multiple times but I'm glad to do so again, directly and clearly. It's an easy question to answer:
Maybe I'm a simple man, but I think
a killer is one who kills,
a cheater is one who cheats and
a sinner is one who sins.
Period. As simple as that. We are sinners WHEN we sin. Before we sin, we are literally, by definition, NOT sinners. Which is why infants are not sinners.
Biblically speaking, "sinners" are ones who miss the mark, who fall short of the target. Here again, what "target" is it that infants can possibly fall short of? Trying to apply the term "sinner" to a newborn is just not rational (or biblical) on the face of it, biblically or just speaking from standard English (and I'm relatively this is true for all languages).
Do you see how this is at the very least a rational understanding - That those who DO NOT engage in sin ARE NOT sinners?
Craig also asked...
I fail to see how it's possible to take "conceived in sin" (or other similar scriptural language) and somehow conclude that what scripture REALLY means is "Born 100% free from any sin or any nature to sin".
1. Is it not possible that it could be figurative, to make a point or for some other reason? Why not?
2. That passage - "conceived in sin" - is from ONE place in the Bible... Psalm 51, which also says:
"Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin."
Do you think that the ONLY way to understand this line is literally.. that God literally uses soap and water and washes away sin?
3. That passage also includes this from David (who is the one speaking, confessing his actual great sin of killing a husband to bed down his wife):
"Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight;"
Does this mean literally that David did NOT sin against Bathsheeba's husband, who he had killed? That he didn't sin against his nation for abusing his power? MUST that line also be ONLY taken literally?
4. AFTER uttering those two lines, then David said, of himself:
"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
David is speaking of himself and only of himself, literally, in that passage. Does that mean we should only take it literally about David, OR should you make it figurative and say that David was speaking of all humanity, although he literally isn't? If so, why?
5. Conversely, another place that says something similar is Psalms 58 (which is addressed SPECIFICALLY and literally to oppressive, unjust rulers):
"The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies."
Do we take this literally... that the ONLY way to understand this line is that newborns are literally speaking lies? That's observably false, we can agree on that reality, correct? Why should we take the line about "estranged from the womb" literally but not the clearly figurative "infants speaking lies..."?
Also, literally, it isn't speaking of all humanity but only "the wicked," in a passage written specifically to oppressive leaders (which again, is why it's important to understand the prominence of specifically oppression of the poor and marginalized in biblical teachings).
=====
Craig...
I fail to see how it's possible to take "conceived in sin" (or other similar scriptural language) and somehow conclude that what scripture REALLY means is "Born 100% free from any sin or any nature to sin".
So, given that there are only TWO places that say something pretty close to "born in sin," or "born as a liar" and given that LITERALLY the main passage you're quoting is literally speaking of David, why is it not possible that David is being figurative or, somehow, speaking ONLY of himself? Why is it not exceedingly rational that David was feeling overwhelmingly guilty for murdering a man to bed his wife and so he moaned and berated himself exceedingly? This is a common human reaction to being caught in great wrong-doing. On what basis MUST we assume that David was trying to say this was a reality for ALL newborn babies (or even for himself)? Because it's what you're used to thinking?
The more I read it, the less rational, less biblical it seems. At the very least, can you see how others would find this opinion of yours to NOT be a very biblically deep or rational way of viewing this passage?
Is it possible that because you've grown up in religious traditions that REALLY emphasize this point, that it's hard for you to view it any other way, even though it's not an exceptionally biblical point of view to take?
Or consider this: Ezekiel says...
You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created,
till unrighteousness was found in you.
That passage, for what it's worth, was literally written to one king, who turned out to be a bad man engaging in oppression. But that bad man, according to Ezekiel's pronouncement, was BLAMELESS until he did wrong. (And as an aside, some conservative types say that the passage is a figurative reference to "the devil/Satan..." which would be saying that even SATAN was blameless until he did wrong!)
Or consider this, from Jesus:
“Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them,
for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”
If you take the ONE line in the Bible "We are born in sin..." literally because, well, it's there (albeit, literally referring specifically to David who had committed a great crime)... WHY not take this ONE line literally, when it's coming from Jesus, speaking apparently of literal children?
All of that to say that, while you personally don't understand why we shouldn't take this passage from David sort of literally (well, not the part about him speaking specifically of himself - THAT part we should make figuratively applicable to ALL of humanity, but the single line, ripped from context, "born in sin," THAT we should take literally - sort of - to mean that babies are sinners), that you personally don't understand why we should interpret it the way you interpret it, that this is not a compelling reason to agree with your interpretation?
Craig...
I'm compelled to align myself with what scripture says, not with what you say.
Literally, what you INTERPRET/READ INTO scripture what YOU THINK makes sense TO YOU. Since nowhere - not one single line on one single page in the Bible - does it say that newborns are sinners. NOT ONE LINE, NOT ONE TIME.
Can we agree on that basic literal reality?
I fail to see how it's possible to take "conceived in sin" (or other similar scriptural language) and somehow conclude that what scripture REALLY means is "Born 100% free from any sin or any nature to sin".
So, given that there are only TWO places that say something pretty close to "born in sin," or "born as a liar" and given that LITERALLY the main passage you're quoting is literally speaking of David, why is it not possible that David is being figurative or, somehow, speaking ONLY of himself? Why is it not exceedingly rational that David was feeling overwhelmingly guilty for murdering a man to bed his wife and so he moaned and berated himself exceedingly? This is a common human reaction to being caught in great wrong-doing. On what basis MUST we assume that David was trying to say this was a reality for ALL newborn babies (or even for himself)? Because it's what you're used to thinking?
The more I read it, the less rational, less biblical it seems. At the very least, can you see how others would find this opinion of yours to NOT be a very biblically deep or rational way of viewing this passage?
Is it possible that because you've grown up in religious traditions that REALLY emphasize this point, that it's hard for you to view it any other way, even though it's not an exceptionally biblical point of view to take?
Or consider this: Ezekiel says...
You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created,
till unrighteousness was found in you.
That passage, for what it's worth, was literally written to one king, who turned out to be a bad man engaging in oppression. But that bad man, according to Ezekiel's pronouncement, was BLAMELESS until he did wrong. (And as an aside, some conservative types say that the passage is a figurative reference to "the devil/Satan..." which would be saying that even SATAN was blameless until he did wrong!)
Or consider this, from Jesus:
“Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them,
for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”
If you take the ONE line in the Bible "We are born in sin..." literally because, well, it's there (albeit, literally referring specifically to David who had committed a great crime)... WHY not take this ONE line literally, when it's coming from Jesus, speaking apparently of literal children?
All of that to say that, while you personally don't understand why we shouldn't take this passage from David sort of literally (well, not the part about him speaking specifically of himself - THAT part we should make figuratively applicable to ALL of humanity, but the single line, ripped from context, "born in sin," THAT we should take literally - sort of - to mean that babies are sinners), that you personally don't understand why we should interpret it the way you interpret it, that this is not a compelling reason to agree with your interpretation?
Craig...
I'm compelled to align myself with what scripture says, not with what you say.
Literally, what you INTERPRET/READ INTO scripture what YOU THINK makes sense TO YOU. Since nowhere - not one single line on one single page in the Bible - does it say that newborns are sinners. NOT ONE LINE, NOT ONE TIME.
Can we agree on that basic literal reality?
