Debate Are people born sinful or pure?

Well, this may stir up some debate. Now, there are really long words for people who bleieve in one or the other, but I don't know them.

I'd like to think people or born pure, but somewhere in my mind I see we are born sinful, because of our tendency to act selfishly and evil---Darwin's theory kind of puts it into words of 'survival of the fittest'.--- In order to surrvive, you have to more or less prove yourself to be more apt at screwing over others while becoming better at the same time. Now, I know that you don't NEED to ruin others to be successful, but if you want to be the best it's sometime's necessarry. Then again, if you were to surpass someone in a trade or skill you essentially will hurt them because others will acknowledge your skills more, and in the working world you will take away some of their opprotunities(dunno how to spell). Jeez, I'm confused. I hope to see others' opinions to clear my mind...... :dizzy2:

 

Christians will tell you everyone is born with "Original Sin", I believe it is. The sin that Adam and Eve supposedly committed by eating the fruit from the tree of Knowledge. I'm pretty sure that's the way of it, but I haven't bothered to read the bible in a while, and I don't really take it being worth a grain of salt so I may not have remembered it properly. I don't believe in Original Sin. Mostly because I think the bible is a bunch of propaganda. But anyway.

Survival of the fittest is not sin. And I don't see as proving yourself to be the better in a "competition" to be something you ought to feel bad about. Competition for food, a significant other or a job position. Why should you feel bad if you're the best in that? Sure, the person didn't get it, but do you think that other person will feel bad for putting you out of whatever you were trying to accomplish? Of course not. It's the way of the world, it's always been that way, it'll always be that way. It isn't like you're killing them.

And just so we're clear? No, I don't believe anyone's born sinful. In fact, I don't see a lot of things that are done to be sinful in the first place. Selfishness to extremes is a bad thing. Stealing, killing or manipulating other people are bad. But, lust? Coveting? Hey, man, coveting keeps the economy going and lust is something called 'instinct'. It wants you to make more little you's to make sure your craptastic race doesn't die out. I don't see instinct to be a bad thing. Nor do I see wanting something someone else has got to be a bad thing.

 

ah- quaintly put. Thanx. Now that you say that, I think I should rephrase the question (because your spot on, to me it seems): "Is humanity born ugly or pure" in the sense of morality

... Oh crap. Did I just screw it up more...

 

I tink dat they are born pure....and then taint them selfs as life goes on...

~*~Misao

 

Hmm... an interesting question.

I'm not quite sure I one-hundred percent believe we are born Pure, however... or even that we are born "tainted", as you put it (I think). Ehh... now that I think about it, I don't really know WHAT to believe. Surely, I doubt it's a case of Original Sin... but mayhaps we're born on a more... neutral spiritual ground and we work our way towards one side or the other as we progress through our lives.

I find that to be a bit more comforting than saying we're born pure, and kinda **** ourselves over as we go.

 

I don't believe in either. The simple fact is that purity or impurity is a question of (usually) concious personal choices - and when we're born, we can't make moral-based decisions, since we have yet to be taught the concept of morality. A baby doesn't understand moral right versus wrong any more than a cat or dog does - oh, sure, they undertand when they've been naughty because they get in trouble, but children have to learn the more abstract sense of "right" and "wrong." They have to learn about fair play, and about why they shouldn't take someone else's things, and that it's not alright to kill.

I think that, if anything, human beings are predisposed towards immoral behavior - simply because we'd do them without thinking about it if we were never made to understand why we shouldn't. However, you can't exactly call something a sin if the person doesn't understand why it's wrong - sins are only sins when they're committed with full knowledge of what's being done. Likewise, I don't believe that a person can truly be called pure unless they've made a conscious decision to avoid sinful/immoral behaviors.

 

Hmmm, this reminds me of another debate that cropped up here awhile ago, but I can't seem to recall which one....

Anyhow, explain what you mean in terms of "purity". If by "purity" you mean "innocence", then I'd say it's a definite cause of the enviornment (when I was seven I used to enjoy donning "princess dresses" and having tea parties and the like. Now seven year olds are wearing crop tops and "grinding" to Toxic. I'm starting to worry about the direction society is going, but that's a whole new can of worms).

Wait, I just reread your last post, so I assume you're defining purity as "having a good moral compass", in which case I can't really say I believe there's a set black or white answer. I think humans are born with the tendancies they need to survive (now I'm *sure* I've heard this somewhere before, damn my lousy memory), and the method/enviornment they're brought up in may either eliminate or create several of these tendancies - whether they be "pure" or "sinful". For instance, if a child was somehow raised by a pack of wolves (I realize this stuff, for the most part, only occures in movies, but bear with me here) and brought up to believe they must hunt for their own livelihood and care only for himself, he'd probably be on the opposite end of the spectrum from the girl born into a model family which attends charities and volunteers weekly at shelters. Though I think some of it may depend on the individual, since a bit of our personalities are inherited from our parents (in some instances) as it is, and of course psychological disorders and the like can alter this as well.

 

I think people are born neutral and for the time they live they shape into 'bad' or 'good'.

The original sin thing is (to me) a little bit too far. I mean that people who haven't been christened, or whatever it is when they dip your head in the water and give you a name, have original sin? Too far! I mean I know many people who's heads haven't been dipped in water and they aren't full of 'original sin'.

That's only my point of view, though.

 

Im catholic and my religion says that people are born sinful, but i disagree with that. I think that people are deffinitely born pure, they become sinful later in life

 

i think that people are just born neutural and as life goes on, they can become sinful.

 

I'm catholic too. I think you got the doctrine wrong.

The "original sin" is not an actual sin, but an spiritually-inherited tendency to sin. To put it in clearer terms, I like Dante's opinion: "tainted". But to make it even clearer, i'd say we are born "selfish".

You can see a kid say "no! mine! mine!" when his mom takes something from him (i.e. toy).This somehow reminds me of how foolish we are when we are given something so much that we begin to take it for granted.

Of course, time makes our acts of selfishness (i.e. "sins") everytime more and more grave, with greater consequences. A kid can sin by disobeying his parents, but a grown up can kill someone. Anyway...

That's why we catholics believe in infant baptism. The sooner, the better

 

Minor note: This is a horrible, HORRIBLE perspective on the theory of evolution. All evolution is is basically this: those who adapt, survive and pass on their genes. Those who do not, don't. This is nothing immoral; this is simply life. After all, 'God helps those who help themselves', no?

Now, as for my opinion on it all: No. We aren't born sinful. I didn't pop out of the womb plotting several dozen murders. We also aren't born pure because we haven't had a chance to prove our moral character (or even adopt morals). Are we innocent? Yes, but we couldn't say they were morally perfect beings since they lack the capacity to be immoral. It would be like someone saying that a Model-T Ford has a perfect sound system because it never skips. (For those who are daft, their is no such thing as a sound system in a Model-T unless I missed an utterly amazing retrofit)

Also, luvweaver, baptism does not make a child any more or less likely to sin. It's not like you can dunk a child in supposedly blessed water and they become more pure of heart. Before you jump on the 'Nephs targeting me!' bandwagon again, keep in mind you do imply that baptism can lessen ones likeliness to sin. I'm just saying there's certainly no evidence to back you up on the statement.

 

i think your born somewhere in the middle. and when u do something bad u take a step down.

 

It's kinda hard to say but i think i'm leaning to wards we're born pure. Although theres still a feeling that we are born neutral, and as we live our lives we move in either the one direction or the other. As we take in what happens around us and see how other people act i think we move n that direction. I've heard that some people, who's father was abusive when they were a child, will take after them and abuse their own children. So i believe that depending on what we see and do in life will affect how we move on.

 

just what i think

i don't believe anyone is born bad or pure i believe your that your brought up that way and it depends on the people around you.

 

This is one of those things where people may never know.

I'm sure people are born pure... it isn't till later when they are born and about do they become .... un-pure.

Though What I have been reading it states that the world is full of sins and works of the Devil, such as stealing and murder and commiting adultery.

it would only make sense. What could you have done to not be pure when you are born when you haven't done anything but begin a new life right then and there?

Something to ponder about :dizzy2:

 

Ah, but one could argue that goodness is earned via acts, not simply given by a lack of evil. After all, pure is a funny word. If you were evil through and through, that's a form of purity.

 

To believe that people are born sinful is a purely medieval ideal. We are pure from moment of birth, at least thats what I believe. [opinion] whoever believes that we are sinful from birth needs to get outta medieval times and into the renaissance [\opinion]
Sinfulness and purity does, however, come from acts only after the child is fully aware.

 

I think that persons are born to neither sin nor purity.
Persons are then born to their nature.

That is the natural way or natural behavior as instinctual.
They are born to whatever they already have within themselves and there is nothing they can do about that, but either to live or to give.

They are influenced by both their environments and their predestined qualities.

Proof!?:

Let a person be born in any given environment and let that person grow in that environment for a certain period of time.
How much the environment affects the person depends on what the person already has, his or her predestined qualities (all of such that is possible to describe the person from inner to outer characteristics).
So, there exist the gifted, the afflicted and everything in between.

 

Simply said, People are born with life. And as long as they have it they can become anything. The environment might bring some changes...people may bring changes and certain events may bring changes. That is all I could say..