The Meaninglessness of Sin
Sin, and the forgiveness from it, is one of the main tenets of the Christian faith–but what exactly does “sin” mean to a Christian? Sin is said to be a transgression of God’s law, but if that is the case, then it cannot be said that Jesus saved believers from the “law.” If Jesus saved believers from the laws, then there can no longer be “sin,” as there are no laws to break. Sin then becomes a paradox, and cannot be easily defined. Furthermore, if Jesus paid for all the “sins” of mankind, then believers would no longer have to “pay” for their sins, as Jesus already did that on the cross, absolving believers from having to take responsibility for their actions. As long as a believer has “faith” in Jesus and repents, they believe they will still gain entrance into paradise, without having to pay for their own mistakes. In other words, “sin” is meaningless, as there are no consequences for believers even if they do commit any so-called “sins.”
However, even if we consider that sin is defined as an act of lawlessness as it states in 1John 3:4–whose laws do Christians follow? Is it considered a sin to break man’s law, or God’s laws? If it is considered a sin to break God’s laws, then the laws were not eliminated and they still stand, as Jesus himself stated in the fulfillment passages of Matt 5:17-20. Paul would be wrong to have claimed that believers were no longer under the law–but that is exactly what he did. Paul forgoes the law in favor of “grace” and preached that once a believer offered themselves to Jesus they were “set free” from sin, and they become slaves to righteousness. i.e., they would be “slaves” to doing what is right—while at the same time being taught that they are “born sinners” and cannot help but to not do what is not right, as it is not possible for them to be perfect.–a double bind. In fact, it’s a double, double bind, as the Bible does claim that it is possible to be perfect! (In our previous post, we explained what “double binds” are, and how they lead to confused thinking, and/or psychosis, and also what “perfect” really means.)
In Romans, Paul wrote:
For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. Romans 6:14-18
If it is considered a sin to break man’s laws, then God’s laws are redundant, and there is no such thing as “sin,” as a sin is defined as immoral act which is considered to be a transgression against divine (God’s) law.
“Where there is no law, there is no transgression.” Romans 4:14.
Paul implied that once one believes in Jesus Christ, they are under “grace” and not the law, while at the same time promoting the idea that all of humanity is burdened with the “original sin” of Adam and Eve. According to Paul, salvation from sin came through through the blood of Christ, as he states in both Romans and 1Corinthians:
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” Romans 5:2
“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive”. 1Cor 5:22
Through Paul, Christians have been taught that they are “tainted” by Adam and Eve’s “original sin” and they sin due to their innate “human nature.” If this was the case however, God would still be responsible for their actions as he created them with this “innate human nature” as, “…every decision is from the Lord.”( Prov:16:33). Logically, if “every decision is from the Lord” as the Bible states, then Yahweh decides everything, including which babies suffer and die from hunger, and which women get raped and murdered, and he also decides who the murderers are–humans have no free will. Even if Christians claim that Satan brings evil thoughts to their minds–this too negates their free will and makes Satan more powerful than God.
However, let us look at one of the main Christian responses against my argument, if not the only one. Some Christians claim that the fall of man was included in God’s plan for the very purpose of demonstrating and manifesting his “love” via the “ultimate sacrifice” of Jesus. They claim that in order to demonstrate the very greatest part of his nature of love, God/Jesus would have to die for us, and this could not be done if there was no one for him to die for, and no reason for Jesus. Christians claim this is why there is sin, as there could be no reason for God/Jesus to die if there were no need for an atonement. However, if causing such suffering in the world in order for his love to be recognized, and to show his “love” is the best God can do, then he is not all-powerful, or, he is not all knowing because if he was all powerful, then he could have found a better way to show his “love” as opposed to having “sin” in the world, and he would know how to do it. According to this claim, then he would not be all powerful, or he would not be all knowing. But perhaps he is all powerful and all knowing, which would lead us to another alternative–that is, the Christian god is selfish, and is a masochist and a sadist.
Nevertheless, let us assume that the Christian claim above is true, and the argument is valid and sound, and that the conclusion is true. That is, it is necessary to have sin in the world in order for the love of God to be recognized as without sin, there would be no suffering, and we could not “see” the goodness of god. How absurd that is!! In fact, a good father who loves his children would rather go unrecognized rather than have his children suffer so that he could be recognized by them for loving them. It would be selfish on the father’s part to make his children suffer merely so that he could be recognized. This argument is also similar to a wife being beaten by her husband so that he can then show his “love” to her afterwards. It is ridiculous and absurd. If the Christian god were truly a loving god, then he would rather go unrecognized rather than cause suffering to his children. Instead, the Christian god would rather be “known” by causing his children pain and suffering–making him sadistic.
It is disturbing that Christians believe there really isn’t much any of them can do about their so-called “sinful nature” because they believe they don’t have the ability in themselves to overcome this so-called powerful law of what they believe to be their human nature–which is why they rely so heavily on the blood of Jesus Christ to save them from their sins. This means then, that they continue to “sin” believing they cannot help themselves. (Again, this means they believe they have no “free will” to stop themselves.) If Christians believe that their “human nature” is responsible for their evil deeds (and not their own free will) then instead of worshiping Yahweh, Christians should be blaming him, as according to the Bible, it was Yahweh who gave them their “human nature” in the first place–which, as they say, is prone to sin and most importantly, according to the Bible, “…EVERY decision is from the Lord.” (Proverbs 16:33) The logic indicating Yahweh is responsible for the problem of evil is in the form of Modus Ponens, and is as follows:
P1. If God created us as Christians claim, then God gave us “human nature.”
P2. If human nature allows us to sin, then God is to blame for the problem of evil.
C. Therefore, God is to blame for the problem of evil.
So, we see by their own admission that the christian god, if he existed, is to blame for the problem of evil. He is also to blame for humans being disobedient due to their “human nature” that he himself created. Furthermore, after setting humans up to fail by giving them human nature, he then chooses at his whim whom he gives grace to. How cliquey and sadistic of him to “pick and choose” who suffers for eternity, and who is “saved.”:
“The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” Proverbs 16:33
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—” Ephesians 2:8
Our “human nature” aside, without the belief of the fall of Adam and Eve, there would be no such thing as original sin, and no need for redemption at all. In other words, there would be no need for the religion known as Christianity if the story of Adam and Eve was not taken literally, as there would be nothing to be redeemed from. Therefore, if what Christians say is true, their god creates the suffering and the “sin” so that he can be “recognized”–making him a sadistic god, or, there was no “fall of man” or “original sin” and we as humans can decide for ourselves to do what is right. It is after all, just a matter of choice. We can choose to do right, or we can choose to do wrong, but it makes it so much easier for Christians to do what is wrong when they have a “fall guy” named Jesus to take the punishment for their bad choices upon his shoulders, thereby absolving believers of any responsibility for their actions. How convenient–and how treacherous. Ultimately, we must all take responsibility for our own actions, or see the demise of civilization, and/or humanity itself.