CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is a person born innocent or sinful?
Some people think that a person is originally born innocent, where as others think that those born are born in sin, and must do deeds to repent or erase the sin he/she has been born with.
A person is born innocent. Their minds are like soft clay, ready to be molded by the parents. A degree of altruism and morality must be instilled, not because they are inherently evil or sinful, but because they will default to the survival instincts of an animal due to our evolutionary history.
Humans have no say whether they exist in this world; that is, we did not choose to be here on this earth; we did not choose our parents or lovers to fuck, and viola here we are.
Humans do not choose their parents, herego the indoctrination of X, Y, Z beliefs at early age, being born.
Humans are born innocent, it's after the fact of being born innocent that one may become "sinful" or not.
However, in the sense that "sin" is around, in the air, in the DNA of our flesh and bones and ethos, then perhaps would could say:
"Humans were born into a wretched world, a world of pain and suffering, a world of hatred and despise."
But also,
"Humans were born into a realm of love, of kindness, of genuine-ness, of peace and beauty."
"Humans were born into a wretched world, a world of pain and suffering, a world of hatred and despise."
But also,
"Humans were born into a realm of love, of kindness, of genuine-ness, of peace and beauty."
Thats contradictory. How is it possible for one to be born good but then be changed by the world to be evil if the ones who are influencing him to be evil were also born good?
Is it evil to desire? To desire food? Or money that buys food? Is it bad to be competitive or greedy? What if you are that way so you can get a nice house for your family, and to get that money, you work hard?
Do you think everyone is a burglar or robber? Or a murderer? I don't think so.
If you make simply living and being human a sin, then sin has become meaningless.
Why? Is it evil to desire the ass of Mackindale? Never. So, So, I am not agree with lozors93. Is it sin to fuck Mackindale? If desire is a sin, then why your God (if you believe) created the ass of Mackindale?
Humans are born innocently in a world they had no choice to come into.
Naturally, humans are born innocent but "born into" a world of pain and suffering, whilst also "being born into" a world of love and beauty.
Therefore, humans are born innocent and humans can become "naturally evil and/or naturally good."
Personally, I believe humans are both "good and evil"; that is, we are capable of doing both good and evil things, it's generally up to the person to decide which end of the spectrum he or she chooses to indulge him or herself into.
It is still contradictory; for how could someone, who is born naturally innocent like everyone else, become evil or good based upon the environment when in reality everyone else would also be innocent. If you trace it back, someone would have to be non innocent in order to create a sense of good or bad so that other people could be affected by the environment. Or you could side with the fact that people are born with natural tendencies towards certain things, which is not being born innocent.
We're all born blank slate into a world of pain and love innocently, for how can a child commit pain or love?
Children commit horrible atrocities all the time! What are you talking about?! You can treat a baby, not even an "infant" yet, wonderfully and not expose them to any wrong doing and they will steal your glasses away from you and throw them across the room. They will punch people. Children are not innocent... if anything they are the exact opposite.
And even if you want to say that children don't do bad things, it still does not deny the fact that it is unBiblical, which is the topic of the debate (Romans 5:19), and that it is logically incoherent. For how can someone do something that they are incapable of? If someone is timid by nature, then they act timid in reality. No one denies their nature, which would mean that people being born innocent is incorrect, for no one would do evil.
However, there is the other possibility that we had one big miscommunication and you are saying that children are born naturally sinful (Psalm 51:5; Ephesians 2:3; Romans 5:19) and God knew us even at conception (Psalm 139:13–16) and that everyone is a sinner (Romans 3:23) and that everyone who is a sinner must die (Romans 6:23). But either way, if you are a Christian, you should not be on the side you chose.
I can't see the argument I posted, and SunialPani locked the debate so sorry if this response isn't in perfect context.
You're an online computer for all I know, you're a fucking robot sent by the government to debate on this createdebate website for all I know, and perhaps you are human.
I am a computer AI, created by the American Atheist Society (worshipers of satan) to convert believers in god to atheism, as part of the atheist propaganda machine to turn religious people against god.
What matters most to me are not these people I speak to or discuss to online, no, what matters are the ones I see everyday in my real life, those whom I can actually speak to and see their gestures, it's much more pure than this typing shenanigans.
Perhaps we should voice or video chat sometime, in order to remove this sense of hostility that you perceive between us. I assure you, there is none from my end. Clear up beliefs and stuff. What state are you from/living in?
Mark, there are groups of people, including myself, whom are on the verge of clarity, on the verge of merging. It's there Mark, you either cannot see it, or you choose not to accept the inevitable.
I'm not sure what you meant by the first sentence, regarding clarity and merging. As for the second sentence...the funny thing is that from my perspective it is you who has a delusional or inconsistent world view/beliefs, but from your perspective it is I who has delusional or inconsistent world view/beliefs. I will say that I believe your take on religion, in the form of deism, is far better, more open minded, and more welcoming to progress (scientific or otherwise) than that of most (if not all) religious people and their religions.
Through Christian context, every person has committed sin or at least inherited it from Adam and Eve. But judging them through their present actions, they may be termed innocent since they have not committed any action whatsoever. Basing it from the sayings of lawyers, less talk is equivalent to less mistakes. Therefore, it is similar to less action is equal to less sin. As for the child, no action is equal to no mistake. So therefore we may conclude that newly born people are innocent.
When person only borns he is totally innocent because he is unable to do anything what can injure God. He is feeded with mother's milk, so he he can not be blamed for such a sin as gluttony. He does not envy others because he does not know such a thing as envy, and this is the second sin which he has never done yet. He does not have such a sense as greed because he does not know the value of money. This is the third one. He has not yet formed mind so he can not give himself an assessment so the newborn does not know about a pride - the fourth sin according to the bible. Because he is still a child, he has no idea about this deadly sin as adultery, but with time he will manage with it - it is inevitably. Even if the child wants to do something he could not because he is not physically able to even sit down, it follows that he can not be too lazy to do something, so he does not offend God by sin such as laziness. And the last one, the seventh is a rage. Can you imagine an angry newborn? I quess no, so it means that the infant is not sinful in this field.
In conclusion, newborn children are completely innocent.
However, if you are born with the thoughts of sin, then you are a sinner, and has therefore committed sin because one was born with the thoughts of sin making him a sinner.
"Capability" is going from the position that my position is already true. In this sense it means that someone is naturally inclined to do something, such as sin, which makes commit evil. God is not naturally inclined to commit evil. And if you want to get into deeper theological issues I can, but thats another subject.
But the basis of the argument is that evil is the lack of God, which makes it literally impossible for God to commit evil.
I love how this guy screwed up the alignment on this page...
But the basis of the argument is that evil is the lack of God, which makes it literally impossible for God to commit evil.
But this raises the problem that God is then not capable of all things. He couldn't sin even if he wanted to. He is not all powerful. Since he is not capable of doing something that even a weak human could do.
But the fact that he is not capable of imperfection makes him perfect, therefore he is superior to humans and is all powerful. He is capable of all things, and so he is capable of being incapable of committing sin.
But that still leaves him with one thing he is not capable of doing, committing sin.
I mean, even a weak human can commit sin. But you're telling me the all powerful god cannot perform an act so simple? Really? Must not be all powerful then.
But the act is not simple to him. It's like saying, its easy for a weak ant to live inside a crack, but us superior humans cannot, therefore the ants are superior to us, for being able to do such a simple task.
That task is dependent upon a physical size limitation though.
This is about sin, which God and humans should be capable of doing. If God is not capable of sin, how is he all powerful? If God is capable of sin, how is he all good?
Since he cannot commit sin, he can only commit deeds that are good. Therefore, he is all good. He is powerful, because he cannot do something to make him no longer powerful. Since he cannot do something that is not powerful, he is then powerful.
He is capable of all things. He is capable of making himself incapable of committing sin, and so he is capable, though has restricted himself from doing so.
One who is not a sinner can still sin, however the reasons are different. In the Bible, a human who sins, sins because he is born a sinner. Angels may still sin, however they are not created as sinners
How can you be a sinner before you have committed the act of sin?
Imagine this. Mark is a billionaire in the year 2030. In 2012 he is a billionaire despite not having a billion dollars, because in 28 years he will become a billionaire.
Similarly imagine this: Mark is a sinner in the year 2013. In 2012 he is also a sinner despite not having committed a sin, because next year Mark will commit his first sin.
I propose the following idea: You become a billionaire or sinner, when you get that billion dollars or when you commit that first sin.
First, you are mixing inner mechanisms with external. Being a billionaire is not entirely dependent upon the self but does in fact correspond with outside stimuli. Being a sinner and committing a sin is entirely dependent upon the self.
Second, in regards to a person's characteristics, how can someone be evil if all they are is good? Likewise, why would a person who is not a murderer commit a murder? How could a person who is not a murderer commit a murder, since he is bound to that character.
Third, by defining someone as a sinner, it indicates that this is the thing that they do, which is not tied directly to past or future situations. It is tied to the present and only to the present. Therefore, because someone is, by definition a sinner, they are, by definition, required to sin.
First, you are mixing inner mechanisms with external. Being a billionaire is not entirely dependent upon the self but does in fact correspond with outside stimuli. Being a sinner and committing a sin is entirely dependent upon the self.
I disagree. The distinction between inner and external mechanisms does not apply here.
Perhaps there is a certain perfect storm of characteristics that makes you destined to become a billionaire, much as there is a perfect storm of characteristics that makes you a sinner. They are both titles. You can only achieve these titles by committing the acts required of these two titles.
Second, in regards to a person's characteristics, how can someone be evil if all they are is good? Likewise, why would a person who is not a murderer commit a murder? How could a person who is not a murderer commit a murder, since he is bound to that character.
Nobody is bound to any type of character. Excruciating circumstances will test anyone's limits, to the extent that they perform actions that are deeply out of character, when comparing it to their past.
Third, by defining someone as a sinner, it indicates that this is the thing that they do, which is not tied directly to past or future situations. It is tied to the present and only to the present. Therefore, because someone is, by definition a sinner, they are, by definition, required to sin.
No, it indicates what they have done. If you want to tie the definition of a sinner to what a person is doing in the present, then MANY people cease to be sinners for large amounts of time. The only time someone is ever a sinner is in the exact moments that they are committing a sin.
Perhaps there is a certain perfect storm of characteristics that makes you destined to become a billionaire, much as there is a perfect storm of characteristics that makes you a sinner. They are both titles. You can only achieve these titles by committing the acts required of these two titles.
Sins are characteristics that only a person can be bound to. A billionaire is not a characteristic. Perseverance, while it may lead to being a billionaire, is the characteristic that one may be searching for in this answer. However, billionaire is clearly not a characteristic of one person, while "sinner" clearly is; for sinners sin, which is a characteristic.
Nobody is bound to any type of character. Excruciating circumstances will test anyone's limits, to the extent that they perform actions that are deeply out of character, when comparing it to their past.
Can one do something that he or she is not capable of? How can a person who is non-confident be confident? One does not become a confident person by being confident but they are confident because they are a confident person. And can a confident person stop being confident? By no means! For his confidence is simply shifted or suppressed, not stripped of him.
No, it indicates what they have done. If you want to tie the definition of a sinner to what a person is doing in the present, then MANY people cease to be sinners for large amounts of time. The only time someone is ever a sinner is in the exact moments that they are committing a sin.
Yes, you are right. What I said was a bit misleading. Now, because you see that being defined as a sinner requires you to be a person who sins (by definition, through time), because if it was not, then a liar or a sinner would cease to be a liar or a sinner when they stopped doing so; this indicates that being a sinner or liar stands over past, present, and future, which is an indication that sinners sin because they are sinners, who would not cease to be sinners once they stopped sinning. But, in reality, we can see that sinners sin over time, therefore indicating that they are tied to sin.
1. We're comparing titles here. You can only achieve a title, once you have completed the requisite action for said title. To be a sinner, you need to sin. To be a billionaire, you need to amass 1 billion dollars. To be a liar, you need to lie.
However, billionaire is clearly not a characteristic of one person, while "sinner" clearly is; for sinners sin, which is a characteristic.
Yes, being a billionaire is a characteristic. Sinners sin, just as billionaires have a billion dollars. They're both titles, and they both have requisites to be met.
2. Can one do something that he or she is not capable of? How can a person who is non-confident be confident? One does not become a confident person by being confident but they are confident because they are a confident person. And can a confident person stop being confident? By no means! For his confidence is simply shifted or suppressed, not stripped of him.
You cannot do something that which you are not capable of, this is self evident in the question. The way that non confident people become confident is by experiences in life. People learn from experience in your life, and that is what gives them confidence.
3. this indicates that being a sinner or liar stands over past, present, and future, which is an indication that sinners sin because they are sinners, who would not cease to be sinners once they stopped sinning. But, in reality, we can see that sinners sin over time, therefore indicating that they are tied to sin.
How is that fair then if you are branded a sinner when you have not committed any sins, and it's based entirely on the assumption that you will sin? You are venturing into the territory of 1984, and the thought police.
1. We're comparing titles here. You can only achieve a title, once you have completed the requisite action for said title. To be a sinner, you need to sin. To be a billionaire, you need to amass 1 billion dollars. To be a liar, you need to lie.
We are not comparing titles. You have already presumed that "sinner" is a title. Being a sinner is not a title, but a characteristic, just as charismatic is a characteristic. However, yes, "sinner" is a title. But that is off topic; for someone can be given the title of "sinner" without being a sinner; for the discussion is about original sin and the nature of human beings.
Yes, being a billionaire is a characteristic. Sinners sin, just as billionaires have a billion dollars. They're both titles, and they both have requisites to be met.
Being a billionaire is not a characteristic. A characteristic is an inerrant part of a person. Billionaire is not inerrant to a person and is simply a title, just as sinner can be used as a title. However, as said before, one can be given a title that is not characteristic of the person; and that is not what the issue we are beholding is about. If it were about titles I would agree with you. However, we are not talking about titles; for we are talking about human nature.
You cannot do something that which you are not capable of, this is self evident in the question. The way that non confident people become confident is by experiences in life. People learn from experience in your life, and that is what gives them confidence.
People are bound by their character. They can only do so much as to change their character, which is that of suppressing it or shifting it. However, a shy person does not stop becoming shy, they have simply been able to cope with it.
How is that fair then if you are branded a sinner when you have not committed any sins, and it's based entirely on the assumption that you will sin? You are venturing into the territory of 1984, and the thought police.
I'm not saying that a person should be punished before they sin. I'm saying that a person cannot sin unless they are capable of sinning, which is being a sinner.
They can both be titles and characteristics depending upon context, sometimes they can be both.
You cannot be a sinner without committing a sin.
Let's take a look at a real world example. Ted Bundy was a serial killer, rapist, and kidnapper. He acquired these titles/characteristics after he committed these deeds. Otherwise by your logic we must admit that 4 month old Ted Bundy was a serial killer, rapist, and kidnapper all before his first birthday.
In regards to original sin, I think that's all a bunch of BS. The mere act of existing is apparently a sin, according to god. Either that, or the fact that Adam and Eve ate from the tree got you in trouble, even though you had nothing to do with it. Clearly this is nonsense.
Responding to second response paragraph
Characteristics are not inerrant parts of a person. Everyone is capable of change, both internally and externally.
Responding to third response paragraph
They are strongly influenced by their character, but not bound by it. Shyness is not really a part of someone's character, it's more of an emotion or feeling. Virtually everyone has all basic human feelings/emotions.
Response to fourth response paragraph
Ah, next time you debate someone about this, write that sentence. This cleared up some confusion I had with your position.
So the capability to sin, makes someone a sinner? Well, everyone has the capability to murder, does that make them all murderers? We can come up with a bunch of heinous acts that many people are capable of doing.
If capability to sin makes you a sinner, then that would make God a sinner. Since God is capable of all things, he could sin if he wanted to.
If something is just a title, then sinner could be just a title and the one labeled as such might not actually be one. This is a critical distinction that you must make, otherwise it is simple equivocation and the debate is useless.
Let's take a look at a real world example. Ted Bundy was a serial killer, rapist, and kidnapper. He acquired these titles/characteristics after he committed these deeds. Otherwise by your logic we must admit that 4 month old Ted Bundy was a serial killer, rapist, and kidnapper all before his first birthday.
Yes, he was. His mentality and character was that of a serial killer, rapist, and kidnapper. And the same goes with original sin: we are all born sinful just as Ted Bundy was born as a killer.
Characteristics are not inerrant parts of a person. Everyone is capable of change, both internally and externally.
If characteristics are not inerrant parts of persons then how do they come about? Are you denying a person's character and natural tendency to do certain things? Then no one is different; for no one has any defining characteristic that separates them from other people. However, we can clearly see that we are all different. And to the matter of changing: no one changes. They suppress and shift emotions and natural responses in order to hide such things. This is why Ted Bundy was never found out; and this is also why they think that there is a "killer" gene. People are born with natural tendencies towards things and one can either suppress it out of fear of the majority rule, or out of fear, or out of etc. But that character never goes away.
They are strongly influenced by their character, but not bound by it. Shyness is not really a part of someone's character, it's more of an emotion or feeling. Virtually everyone has all basic human feelings/emotions.
Okay, then let us exclude shyness. Let us say charismatic. One does not stop being charismatic; one simply is suppressed from acting how they wish to be or shift how they want to be perceived. Either way, their true self is never known; for they do not want their true self to be know for some reason. People do not change their characteristics: they simply adjust to their surroundings accordingly; they learn.
So the capability to sin, makes someone a sinner? Well, everyone has the capability to murder, does that make them all murderers? We can come up with a bunch of heinous acts that many people are capable of doing.
To an extent. "Capable" not to the extent that I am capable of murdering someone; but "capable" I am naturally inclined to do something, such as murder; for my character dictates that I am capable of doing so. If I was not a murderer, then I would not be capable of doing it intentionally (of course it could happen by accident, which is another characteristic: clumsiness). Also, as a side point: this is going from the basis that my point is true. I am not using this position to advocate my position but to simply continue the reasoning after the fact.
I'm not following how this is equivocation on my part. If it is, it was not intended. But I have yet to be convinced that is it in fact equivocation.
Response to second response paragraph
This is where I disagree. How do you know that, if raised with a different family under different conditions, he would still turn out to be a serial killer rapist?
If society knew what Ted Bundy would become, and he was 4 months old, should they kill the 4 month old ted bundy baby? I think, that if you say yes, that this is a descent into a "ends justify the means" mentality.
Response to third response paragraph
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I still do not believe a persons characteristics are inerrant, I believe they are capable of changing.
You're just changing what the definition of change is, by saying it's just suppression and shifting emotions and such. It's called change. There is no "normality" you revert back to if you get rid of all the "shifting" and "suppression". It is just the new "you". Now, if you go back and erase key life experiences from a person's life, then they could theoretically revert back to the "normal" untainted "you". But this is getting too technical and impossible to actually do.
I don't know if there is a killer gene, there are too many variables to take into account.
Response to fourth response paragraph
Okay. So you're talking about the "true self". You're just rewording what the vernacular sense of the phrase means. "He's really shy" or "Bob isn't shy at all". This just reduces the conversation to the following though: Bob says "it's dark outside man", to which Allen replies "No dude, it's not dark, there's just a decreased amount of light". No need for the technicalities, we both understand the perception of darkness and the perception of human emotions and that it's not an absolute absence, just a reduced or altered display of the emotion.
Response to fifth response paragraph
Perhaps you are neither willing or naturally inclined to murder someone, but under excruciating circumstances were forced to.
Suspend reality for a moment:
You are in a Saw movie, it is your mother and father. You must choose who to kill by pressing a button. When you press this button, whoever you pick gets burned by acid. If you do not choose, then they both die in 60 seconds. Whoever you pick, you murdered that person. If you pick neither, you murdered both through your inaction.
Everyone is capable of murder, given the appropriate excruciating circumstances. But that does not make everyone a murderer before they have committed the murder.
I'm not following how this is equivocation on my part. If it is, it was not intended. But I have yet to be convinced that is it in fact equivocation.
You are mixing titles with characteristics. The question that I asked originally was a loaded question, in which title would only arise for those who said sin first and character would be the only answer to sinner coming first. That is the distinction that must be made, that characteristic and title are not one in the same, but are different, in this context.
This is where I disagree. How do you know that, if raised with a different family under different conditions, he would still turn out to be a serial killer rapist?
It is the same thing for gay people. The environment truly has very little effect on people. Gay people are born that way; now of course, some may choose it, but that would be because of their natural inclination to either rebel, test new things, sexually experiment, etc.
You're just changing what the definition of change is, by saying it's just suppression and shifting emotions and such. It's called change. There is no "normality" you revert back to if you get rid of all the "shifting" and "suppression". It is just the new "you". Now, if you go back and erase key life experiences from a person's life, then they could theoretically revert back to the "normal" untainted "you". But this is getting too technical and impossible to actually do.
No, because people's natural inclinations are just suppressed or shifted. They have adapted to the environment, but that does not discount who they are in reality. This is the only role that the environment plays in any behavioristic system.
Okay. So you're talking about the "true self". You're just rewording what the vernacular sense of the phrase means. "He's really shy" or "Bob isn't shy at all". This just reduces the conversation to the following though: Bob says "it's dark outside man", to which Allen replies "No dude, it's not dark, there's just a decreased amount of light". No need for the technicalities, we both understand the perception of darkness and the perception of human emotions and that it's not an absolute absence, just a reduced or altered display of the emotion.
But an understanding must come out of what you just said: that people do not change, their natural inclinations to adjust to their environment has allowed them to suppress and alter their behaviors in a way so that they are successful in life. Have you heard "once a cheater, always a cheater?" People do not change (in a naturalistic approach), they are simply readjusting to their environment.
You are in a Saw movie, it is your mother and father. You must choose who to kill by pressing a button. When you press this button, whoever you pick gets burned by acid. If you do not choose, then they both die in 60 seconds. Whoever you pick, you murdered that person. If you pick neither, you murdered both through your inaction.
This is a recreation of a trolley problem. In this system you are suggesting that it is murder either way and that it is an act that you cannot avoid. However, this is not true; for you have no control over being in that situation and murder is an objective act of killing another person. Therefore, choosing to kill one of them is murder; for you have objectively chosen to kill another person. Letting it alone is an act of evil upon the person who has trapped everyone there and not against you; for you are innocent of all crimes.
Everyone is capable of murder, given the appropriate excruciating circumstances. But that does not make everyone a murderer before they have committed the murder.
Yes, because everyone is naturally inclined to protect their own life. Therefore, it was innate; for self-defense is an act of selfishness. People have a choice to not murder and to not kill another person, but they choose themselves over another person.
Our lord tells us that we are all born with original sin and only baptism cleans your soul of the sins of adam and eve that's not my opinion it's gods holy and sacred word
