Atheist how can you say there is no "Sin Nature"?

Question

Contrary to what some think, I respect each and every one of you I'm just trying to get you to grasp a concept that keeps behaviorist chasing their tail.
Just because every one is born with the "Sin Nature" it does not necessarily mean you are going to commit a capital crime. However none of you or I can say we never do anything that fall into the catagory of evil.

The Sin Nature states that everyone is born with the "tendency" to do bad things but sometimes it finds its way into a grand idea like Hitlers
!. Yes as you say it takes good parenting,empathy, positive mentors and yes even the law to quell this monster. Also God has given us a concience to prevent a massive amount of folk from succoming to a reprobate mind otherwise this world would be inundated with violence. Howbeit none of these things can keep the SN from influencing bad behaviour such as cheating on ones spouse.
Christ in me gives me an extra gear to combat the evil within me and still I am not perfect.

The altimate sin(rebellion) is to deny your creator Jesus. All other sin(rebellion)depending on the severity, undermines our own wellbeing our families our communties and altimately our nation.

Your creator put it this way "Sin is reproach to ANY people" God was talking about people who don't know Him and surprise, even people that do know Him.

Answer 1

"Sin" is really an outdated concept. Just because you can make a list of rules that are impossible to follow does not prove that people have a "sin nature".

We don't have a "sin nature", we have a human nature. That human nature evolved as we evolved and helped us survive as long as we have. These days, society evolves a lot faster than our biology. So, our human nature isn't always in line with societal norms. Therefore, we have to sometimes curb our instincts.

Yet, if you look at all the people of the world, of all religions or none, you'll find that people are all fairly decent. We all mostly just try to live our lives and we all tend to have compassion and respect for those around us.

It is much healthier to acknowledge your human nature and realize that it is not an evil thing, but just the way we are. If we do that, we are also more likely to see the good in others and not judge too severly based on what we perceive to be a few imperfections. When we accept who we are, both good and bad, we are more likely to have a positive outlook on life and are more able to identify with other people and be compassionate.

It is unhealthy to think that all humans are evil deep down and you must combat this evil in yourself and others continually. That just leads to psychosis, repression and unnecessary stress. It also gives you an unwarranted negative view of life, which is a dismal way to live.

Answer 2

Fantastic, I've never heard a better excuse for doing bad things: "I'm too weak to fight my sin nature!"
I don't believe in a violence-gene.
My parents taught me respect of the others telling:
Do never something to someone, you won't have done to you.
Can you say it simpler. That's how a society should work.
I don't need a religion to respect that statement, but you will find it in several religions.
If you are aware that you can't exist in the world without the others you will respect them.
You remove the first of the ten commandments and you have still an ideal society.
With violence you can get easier all what you want except happiness, but since the world is made of money, inner peace is not on the schedule. There is 'no time' for that because time is money.
You can easily see that the tendency to more freedom in the behavior of men over the last 50 or even 10 years led to less inhibitions and so to more violence.
It's a social problem not a genetic.

To answer the 'additional':
Jesus is NOT the creator if any.

Answer 3

Human behavior has a genetic origin, and our genes evolved as required to adapt to the environment. Or they did until humans acquired the ability to change the local environment to suit themselves, which is a relatively recent development (the controlled use of fire is only a hundred thousand years old).

Sins, like crimes, are defined into existence. Priests make religious rules, and legislators make civil rules (laws). As with any human activity, rule-making can be done either well or poorly. A poor rule is a rule that must often be broken in order for someone to live. The "sin nature" you see is really an incompatibility between poor rule-making and the behavior required to survive in the world.

Corrupt authorities sometimes make poor rules on purpose. When people inevitably break them, the authority (civil or religious) can apply a penalty against the "offender" in the form of a monetary fine or unpaid labor. Think of all the state police running around giving speeding tickets to travellers when there are drug dealers, murderers, and perverts on the loose in society. Think of the shame and guilt that priests heap on ordinary people to make them more inclined to donate money to the Church or to become humble missionaries in uncivilized lands, while the priests themselves stay in much nicer places.

The concept of "sin nature" is artificial. The size of the sin nature is not measured by any objective standard that everyone can agree to. "What is a sin?" is not the same kind of question as "What is the temperature at the surface of the sun?" because to the latter question all who make the appropriate examination of the sun will arrive at the same answer, but those who consider what should be classed as "sin" will come up with different answers.

Society changes faster than biology does, and that means that some kinds of social norms are more in tune with human nature than other kinds of social norms. And, since social norms can be adjusted much more easily than our biology can, it is more sensible to reject unnatural social norms, replacing them with more compatible ones, than it is to expect all humans, all the time, to "curb their instincts."

Answer 4

Wait, so you're saying that even though I've never done something truly evil, I'm still sinful by nature? I was born evil, but it's just being a good person is not enough to combat my evil nature, neither are morals and a conscience? So actions are not important?

Actually, I don't do things that fall into the evil category. Evil is purposefully harming others. I don't hurt anyone purposefully; I never go out and do domething specifically because it will be damaging to someone.

People had consciences long before Christianity was omnipresent. They had their own religions, and they had morals and ethics. Christianity did not introduce those, therefore they are seperate from religion.

So without Christ, you would cheat on your spouse? You'd steal from Walmart and kill others? Then please, keep on believing. But don't think the rest of us need your God to keep us from that.

Answer 5

I don't think the conscience is Divinely given, it's a learned trait. Humans are animals without society to mold our behaviors that's how we would act. A person who had no human contact wouldn't have any problem doing what was necessary for survival. Where would sociopaths (and others with no conscience) fall in with that? Not to mention evil is a different thing as compared to sin, usually they are the same, but not always. I wouldn't consider it evil for an orphan to steal food to live, but according to the bible it's a sin. Some people don't need God to keep them from doing bad things, and where would the people who do kill and other things in God's name fit in with all that?

Answer 6

Well, I think you're not giving enough credit to people. Most people are generally good, and would treat their fellow men/women respectfully with or without religious beliefs. Monsters like Hitler and Stalin are exceptions to the rule. As far as sins go, I have never felt an urge to kill or be violent another person, even after I stopped going to church. Of all the Christian sins, I am more drawn to drinking margaritas and playing slot machines, which doesn't hurt anyone. I don't consider these activities bad, despite what others say.

Answer 7

To me atleast, sin is all in the mind.

I'm a humanist, so what you think of as sin, may not be considered wrong to me.

Sin is subjective. Different people have different views on sin/what's wrong to do.

Its not sin nature, but human nature. Humans have the ability to do good as well as bad.

An example, religion says that sex before marriage is a sin. Why? There is nothing overly special about our sex organs that we should refrain from using them until we marry.

In some cultures/pagen religions, having sex is actually a way to become closer to god.

And for your information, this world is already inundated with violence. And Christ has nothing to do with whether or not I do things that are considered a sin in christian minds.

Answer 8

Very easily. A sin is an act that offends god, or is an act that defies one of its rules (presumably offending, the afore-mentioned fantasy creature).

If you do not believe in a deity, you cannot, ispo facto, believe in sin, and therefore sin nature. There is only human nature, and it does not take into account the existence of any imaginary super-being unless that human decides to, erroneously, recodify the darker sides of that human nature into a thing called "sin nature". It is pathetic nomenclature at best, and utterly delusional what ever way you look at it from the standpoint of logic and reason.

Why do you think you need to believe in some mythical creation to inspire you to do good? Surely it is more moral to do good because it is the right thing to do, not because some work of fiction tells you you have to or you'll be punished for being naughty?

Answer 9

Sin is just what some priests tell us not to do. Some things they call sin are harmless. Priests are all too often totalitarian, i.e. trying to control one's every action and thought. It is evil in my opinion to have someone tell me what I can or cannot eat or wear. Jesus went much too far in saying that thinking about adultery is as bad as actually committing it. Any normal person has frequent thoughts about sex, and it is awful to try to say such natural things are sins. I can easily say there is no such thing as sin nature, for there is no sin. It is an invention to make humans feel guilty and pay priests to relieve that guilt.

Answer 10

We have many natural urges and desires. Some of them are good; some are bad. It is important to consider the subjective reality in this case. For many things there is no universal right and wrong. Some people must steal in order to survive. For them, stealing may not be a sin because the urge to survive supercedes social rules against stealing. That of course does not mean it should be allowed or permitted. It is simply a necessary evil for some people.

In addition, many things the bible refers to as sins are not necessarily sins to many people. All of the seven deadly sins lead to personal happiness and gratification. The problem is not the supposed sins but the compulsion involved. If a person is responsible, he or she should be able to indulge in the pleasures of life harming no one and increasing his or her personal enjoyment: hedonism, so to speak.

So Christians will say that the impulse to do certain things is a sin nature. I may call it a nature of goodness as it feeds and promotes personal happiness. Sin, in this case is nonexistent; it is a mislabeling of things which are only bad if taken to excess (but are not all things bad if taken too far?). To the Christians I say that if there is any sin in this world it is stupidity, willful ignorance, pretentiousness. Christians will deny taking part in these sins, however their actions and beliefs show differently. Why else would a grown adult believe in fairy tales if it was not for stupidity or willful ignorance?