Isn’t concept of sinner itself faulty?

by venus 11 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • venus
    venus

    A person may sometimes get swelling on his leg and may have limped a few times—but he is never called lame. Similarly, sometimes a person may slip into selfishness and use his free-will to his own harm or to the harm of others—but this does not make him a sinner because the ability to do the contrary (ability choose to commit virtuous act to any extent) too exists in him. If one’s occasional sinning does not make him a sinner, sin of another person (such as first human couple) can never make others sinners. That means there cannot be something called original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need for God to send one of His children to die for the sins of other children. Interestingly, Jesus himself testifies that God sent him from heaven not to die for any body’s sin. (Mathew 21:33-36) Even if he is murdered (which is a sin), how can that be a means for atonement of sins of others—sin atoning sin? Besides, murder doesn’t really count if he gets to come back to life three days later.

    When I asked these questions to my Elders, they said these are apostate questions, hence don’t ask such questions. If you’re not allowed to ask questions, how do you know you have the right religion?

  • truth_b_known
    truth_b_known

    To sin is to make a transgression against God's law or to rebel against God.

    The doctrine of sin is that we are also imperfect and inherited the inclination to transgress against God's law from Adam.

    My dad asked me in my teens "How could Adam and Eve have sinned if they were perfect, free from sin?" I could never come up with a good answer.

    My question is, if we only grow old, get sick, and die because Adam and Eve passed sin onto us, why do plants and animals grow old, get sick, and die? They were created perfect by God. They never sinned against God.

  • xjwsrock
    xjwsrock

    Isn't it a sin to punish someone for something someone else did?

    Billions sentenced to death for something Adam did has to be the biggest sIn of all time.

  • venus
    venus

    truth_b_known & xjwsrock,

    Your questions are right questions for which believers will have no answers.

    Now I will add something interesting:

    The above situation helps me in my personal life. When someone disappoints me with his/her irrational behavior, I remember how irrational the world is in accepting blind beliefs such as above, about sinner. When most people are irrational, why should I be bothered about one or two individuals who displays irrational behavior towards me? It’s like asking “Why this particular drop from the ocean is salty when the whole ocean is salty?”

  • Drearyweather
    Drearyweather
    A person may sometimes get swelling on his leg and may have limped a few times—but he is never called lame.

    You are right.

    Similarly, sometimes a person may slip into selfishness and use his free-will to his own harm or to the harm of others—but this does not make him a sinner because the ability to do the contrary (ability choose to commit virtuous act to any extent) too exists in him.

    This ability of doing something contrary to God’s acceptable standard is called Sin (missing the mark). We are called captives to sin, not just because we are sinning, but because we have the tendency to sin. And anything, how matter small, that we do which falls short of the glory of God is called Sin and the person, a sinner.

    If one’s occasional sinning does not make him a sinner, sin of another person (such as first human couple) can never make others sinners.

    To put it this way, another person’s crime does not make me a criminal. But this is not the case with Sin. Crime is a legal concept applicable only to the perpetrator. However, Sin is not a legal term or a concept; it is an inclination or a condition. According to the law of heredity, a parent organism passes on its physical and personality traits to its progeny. Similarly, Sin got passed on to the offspring of Adam. It was not a simultaneous effect, but a progressive effect.

    That means there cannot be something called original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need for God to send one of His children to die for the sins of other children. Interestingly, Jesus himself testifies that God sent him from heaven not to die for any body’s sin. (Mathew 21:33-36)

    Adam and Eve did sin and pass on its effect on their progeny- who did not sin or transgress (Romans 5:14). We are not participants of Adams sin, instead, we are the inheritors of Adams sin. We are not Sinners in the way that we deliberately sin. But we are all captives of Sin. Hence the need for ransom.

    Even if he is murdered (which is a sin), how can that be a means for atonement of sins of others—sin atoning sin?

    I use the term sacrifice, rather than murder. A soldier who dies due to a bullet shot from an enemy can be in a literal sense called as executed or murdered. However, contextually we call it as a sacrifice or martyrdom. Parents who allow their children to join the army very well know that their children face the risk of death in the battlefield. However, we do not call a slain soldiers parent as murderers, neither do we call the soldiers death a murder. We call it a sacrifice or martyrdom. Similarly, I don’t consider Jesus death as a murder. It was a sin for the one who killed Jesus, however in the grand scheme of things Jesus death was a sacrifice. The way a soldiers sacrifice impacts us, similarly is Jesus death (that’s the topic of Ransom). So it is Sacrifice atoning Sin, not Sin atoning Sin.

    Besides, murder doesn’t really count if he gets to come back to life three days later.

    That’s where the concept of Ransom (and not murder) comes in. It was not - a man killed and then brought back to life. It was - A spirit life from heaven takes a perfect human form, sacrifices it and returns back to its spirit form in heaven

  • venus
    venus

    Drearyweather,

    You did not read carefully what I wrote: Similarly, sometimes a person may slip into selfishness and use his free-will to his own harm or to the harm of others—but this does not make him a sinner because the ability to do the contrary (ability choose to commit virtuous act to any extent) too exists in him.

    By saying: The ability to do the contrarywhat I meant is ability to choose to commit virtuous act which is also given in bracket.

    If sin is an inherited tendency as you believe, how can people at times choose to commit virtuous act? Evidence is that anybody can choose to sin or choose to do virtuous act, or choose to mix them in any proportion he likes. This is why we find people acting/reacting in various ways in same situation.

    Sin is not hereditarily passed, but the path of sin is as follows:

    From beliefs, attitudes are formed

    From attitudes, thoughts are formed

    From thoughts, action is produced

    From repeated action, tendency, habit, destiny etc are produced.

    That means, it is easier to change your course in the earlier parts of the process.

  • Drearyweather
    Drearyweather
    If sin is an inherited tendency as you believe, how can people at times choose to commit virtuous act?

    That's because we have a conscience and the ability to fight sinful tendencies. It's like asking How can a double amputee run and win an Olympics? By his ability to fight all odds and becoming victorious. Remember, Sin did not remove all other good qualities that we already have. It was an addition. Any person with determination can fight wrong thoughts and do good. Our heart is treacherous, but God's love is greater than our hearts.

    Sin is not hereditarily passed

    Since you are talking about a Biblical concept, allow Romans 5:12 to answer this: Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

  • venus
    venus

    Concept that sin is hereditary is the invention of Paul who openly admits that he was not inspired--2 Cor. 11:17

  • ttdtt
    ttdtt

    Of course, it is BS.

    Sin is a construct made by Religion.
    Right and Wrong is a Construct made by the society you live in.

    It is just a social agreement.

  • venus
    venus

    ttdtt,

    You put it rightly "social agreement." That means it would vary from community to community.

    You can see proof among JWs. Many things what the world considers to be holy are unholy to them, and vice versa. Child-abuse performed by the worldly people are treated one way, and those performed by elders are treated differently.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit