The Narrow Path Ministries

Ive never thought of man as being sinful.

If you took an infant and locked him in a zoo exhibit, away from all human contact, while placing out food for him while he slept, he would grow up doing what comes naturally, eg. surviving. Concepts like greed and hate and murder would never be thought of by him. He wouldnt be evil or sinful at all. He would just be an organism doing what organisms do. He would never sin. Would he still burn in hell? I dont know. Some say that man is naturally sinful and evil and deserves to be damned to hell for all eternity. I dont agree with that too much because if man was so evil, God would have just "rebooted" the Earth and start afresh. I think God loved the Earth too much. He put Seven days of his own time on it. Why would an all Powerful, all knowing god waste time on something that would ultimately fail? Because he saw it as beautiful while devising a plan to redeem the entire planet.

Perhaps man is capable of being both good and bad by nature; or even more boldly, that man cant be described in terms of being good or evil by nature, rather that his own actions and free will determine if he is good or evil.

If sin is not something that is encoded in our genetic make up, it is either learned from somewhere (Adam and Eve's sin has influenced all humans to sin by having their children observe the action of their disobeyment, and so on...), or is a normal result of interhuman-contact (with God's rules describing "sin" being the things designed to separate us from being mindless animals.) This "Normal interhuman-contact" features defense and aggression mechanisms left ver from our Neanderthal days, so what is described as sin is really just following those outdated devices, an act that God isnt too fond of- regressing into chaos and refusing to accept the Mantle God gave us as caretakers and gardeners of the Earth.

I dont think man is sinful. I think that sin was described by God to keep man from following his corruptible impulses and urges. Perhaps God's objection to Sin was based on his hope to keep man from clinging to the ways of this corrupted creation.

Its just speculation of course, but IMO it makes a tad of sense.

Alexander wrote:If you took an infant and locked him in a zoo exhibit, away from all human contact, while placing out food for him while he slept, he would grow up doing what comes naturally, eg. surviving. Concepts like greed and hate and murder would never be thought of by him. He wouldnt be evil or sinful at all. He would just be an organism doing what organisms do. He would never sin.

How do you know all this?

It seems to me that a sinner is a self-serving person ---- a person who puts himself and his wishes or needs above that of others. Which class of people do that to the greatest degree? Is it not the infant class? Are infants greedy? Absolutely! If you keep feeding them, they'll overindulge and get fat. Have you never seen a fat, rolly-poly baby?

I agree with you that sin per se is not encoded in our genetic makeup. But I believe that the proclivity to sin definitely is --- that the sinful nature is inherited from Adam and Eve. That is why we need to be regenerated, to obtain a new nature.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

Alexander wrote: This "Normal interhuman-contact" features defense and aggression mechanisms left ver from our Neanderthal days, so what is described as sin is really just following those outdated devices, an act that God isnt too fond of- regressing into chaos and refusing to accept the Mantle God gave us as caretakers and gardeners of the Earth.

Where does the bible state that man came from neanderthals? I thought God made man in his image, not in the image of a lower life form.

Alexander wrote: I dont think man is sinful. I think that sin was described by God to keep man from following his corruptible impulses and urges. Perhaps God's objection to Sin was based on his hope to keep man from clinging to the ways of this corrupted creation.

Its just speculation of course, but IMO it makes a tad of sense.

Paul seems to think that sin is still wrong behavior even for those who are ignorant, darkened and without sensitivity:

Eph 4:17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more. 20You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. 21Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. 25Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. 26"In your anger do not sin"...

Paul seems to speak of Gentiles as people not unlike those locked up in a "zoo", except in this case the zoo is the earth.

alexander wrote:

If you took an infant and locked him in a zoo exhibit, away from all human contact, while placing out food for him while he slept, he would grow up doing what comes naturally, eg. surviving. Concepts like greed and hate and murder would never be thought of by him.

adam and eve had every possible benefit- the perfect environment, no sin nature (proclivity to sin, as per Paidion), walking with God personally and daily in the garden, and they still sinned.

a person does not have to "think" about sinning. they do so quite naturally. whether they KNOW that they are sinning is irrelevant, because we have conscience. Cain new he did wrong when he murdered Abel, even though there had never been a murder before.

TK

If you are asking "is man guilty?" the answer would generally be "no" since only those under the Law were able to be found guilty. (Rom 5:13, Rom 4:15).

If you ask "does man exist and live according to the flesh?," the answer would be yes. The man whose existence merely is in flesh only is sinful, but the one who has become a Christian then can also act in accord with spirit. "Sin" has its main meaning as being directed by one's own instincts or nature -- the flesh. Then we are in sin when we are following the desires of the flesh rather than following the correct thinking in Christ.

Hello all. Happy Easter.

Recap:

Alexander wrote (July 09, 2008):
If you took an infant and locked him in a zoo exhibit, away from all human contact, while placing out food for him while he slept, he would grow up doing what comes naturally, eg. surviving. Concepts like greed and hate and murder would never be thought of by him. He wouldnt be evil or sinful at all.

Paidion wrote in response:
How do you know all this?

It seems to me that a sinner is a self-serving person ---- a person who puts himself and his wishes or needs above that of others. Which class of people do that to the greatest degree? Is it not the infant class? Are infants greedy? Absolutely! If you keep feeding them, they'll overindulge and get fat. Have you never seen a fat, rolly-poly baby?

Sean wrote in response to Alexander:
Paul seems to think that sin is still wrong behavior even for those who are ignorant, darkened and without sensitivity: Eph 4:17[-26] ...]

TK wrote in response to Alexander:
whether they KNOW that they are sinning is irrelevant, because we have conscience.

mikew wrote:
If you are asking "is man guilty?" the answer would generally be "no" since only those under the Law were able to be found guilty. (Rom 5:13, Rom 4:15).

If you ask "does man exist and live according to the flesh?," the answer would be yes. The man whose existence merely is in flesh only is sinful, but the one who has become a Christian then can also act in accord with spirit. "Sin" has its main meaning as being directed by one's own instincts or nature -- the flesh. Then we are in sin when we are following the desires of the flesh rather than following the correct thinking in Christ.

I find myself agreeing with the OP, Alexander (though not entirely). A person raised in that kind of deprived, zoo-like condition would essentially be an adult infant, knowing nothing but the basic, "fleshly" impulses. Why would we say he is a sinner? I don't have any reason to think that infants are sinners.

Ephesians 4 tells us about people who are ignorant "due to the hardening of their hearts". This implies some willful resistance to truth on their part, I think. It takes a certain level of abstract introspection and awareness to evaluate one's own behavior against a moral standard. I don't know when this "conscience" develops, but I don't think that babies have it, and I don't know that every person would necessarily develop it if left entirely alone.

All humans certainly have and develop the desire to meet physical needs. But there's more to sinning than simply "following the desires of the flesh". I generally eat when I'm hungry, sleep when I'm tired, etc. So did Jesus. So did Adam and Eve. Nothing necessarily wrong with that.

Of course all people sin at some point, and it's true, I suppose, that these sins arise from our human/flesh nature, which is our desire to be comfortable and secure, but I'm not sure that you and I were born with a proclivity or attribute that Adam and Eve ever lacked (except of course that A&E weren't born at all and were adults who had no knowledge or experience of sin). Genesis 3 doesn't necessarily tell us about a change in human nature. The closest I know of is in Eph 2:3. The early Christian creeds don't seem to say anything about all this.

So maybe ya'll can help me out. Where do the phrases "fall of man" and "fallen nature" and "sinful nature" come from? Were these ideas common in the 1st century or ealier? Is this "fallen nature" an "essential" of Christianity, as some seem to say? If so, why?

(I don't deny these things. Just asking.)

Thank you!

Singalphile wrote:Hello all. Happy Easter.

Recap:

Alexander wrote (July 09, 2008):
If you took an infant and locked him in a zoo exhibit, away from all human contact, while placing out food for him while he slept, he would grow up doing what comes naturally, eg. surviving. Concepts like greed and hate and murder would never be thought of by him. He wouldnt be evil or sinful at all.

Paidion wrote in response:
How do you know all this?

It seems to me that a sinner is a self-serving person ---- a person who puts himself and his wishes or needs above that of others. Which class of people do that to the greatest degree? Is it not the infant class? Are infants greedy? Absolutely! If you keep feeding them, they'll overindulge and get fat. Have you never seen a fat, rolly-poly baby?

Sean wrote in response to Alexander:
Paul seems to think that sin is still wrong behavior even for those who are ignorant, darkened and without sensitivity: Eph 4:17[-26] ...]

TK wrote in response to Alexander:
whether they KNOW that they are sinning is irrelevant, because we have conscience.

mikew wrote:
If you are asking "is man guilty?" the answer would generally be "no" since only those under the Law were able to be found guilty. (Rom 5:13, Rom 4:15).

If you ask "does man exist and live according to the flesh?," the answer would be yes. The man whose existence merely is in flesh only is sinful, but the one who has become a Christian then can also act in accord with spirit. "Sin" has its main meaning as being directed by one's own instincts or nature -- the flesh. Then we are in sin when we are following the desires of the flesh rather than following the correct thinking in Christ.

I find myself agreeing with the OP, Alexander (though not entirely). A person raised in that kind of deprived, zoo-like condition would essentially be an adult infant, knowing nothing but the basic, "fleshly" impulses. Why would we say he is a sinner? I don't have any reason to think that infants are sinners.

Ephesians 4 tells us about people who are ignorant "due to the hardening of their hearts". This implies some willful resistance to truth on their part, I think. It takes a certain level of abstract introspection and awareness to evaluate one's own behavior against a moral standard. I don't know when this "conscience" develops, but I don't think that babies have it, and I don't know that every person would necessarily develop it if left entirely alone.

All humans certainly have and develop the desire to meet physical needs. But there's more to sinning than simply "following the desires of the flesh". I generally eat when I'm hungry, sleep when I'm tired, etc. So did Jesus. So did Adam and Eve. Nothing necessarily wrong with that.

Of course all people sin at some point, and it's true, I suppose, that these sins arise from our human/flesh nature, which is our desire to be comfortable and secure, but I'm not sure that you and I were born with a proclivity or attribute that Adam and Eve ever lacked (except of course that A&E weren't born at all and were adults who had no knowledge or experience of sin). Genesis 3 doesn't necessarily tell us about a change in human nature. The closest I know of is in Eph 2:3. The early Christian creeds don't seem to say anything about all this.

So maybe ya'll can help me out. Where do the phrases "fall of man" and "fallen nature" and "sinful nature" come from? Were these ideas common in the 1st century or ealier? Is this "fallen nature" an "essential" of Christianity, as some seem to say? If so, why?

(I don't deny these things. Just asking.)

Thank you!

Sorry, Singalphile, I don't know that answers the questions at the end here. I, too, would like to know about what you've asked. I do have some insight into this part of your post:

I don't know when this "conscience" develops, but I don't think that babies have it, and I don't know that every person would necessarily develop it if left entirely alone.

Conscience develops pretty early. I think every person would develop a conscience, even if left entirely alone, assuming that they survived the failure to thrive and reactive attachment disorder they would also develop.

I don`t think Alexander was terribly interested in hearing anyone`s answer!

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:26 am
Last visited: Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:18 am

Michelle wrote:Conscience develops pretty early. I think every person would develop a conscience, even if left entirely alone, assuming that they survived the failure to thrive and reactive attachment disorder they would also develop.

I don't have experience with children, but I think you're probably right. (And, yeah, a person raised like that would be pretty messed up, I guess. Might not even live very long.)

The first response to Alexander was nearly 1.5 months after his post. Maybe he gave up checking (without logging in). It's kind of scary that someone might come along and read one of my posts 6 years from now. (Hello, people in April 2020! )

I'm reminded of our great niece. When she was about 21 months old she pulled several flowering plants out of a planter and threw them on the deck. When her mom confronted her about what she had done she said "Becky did it", (her cousin). Her mom remarked "not even two years old and she's into lying and vandalism!"

It doesn't take long.