₦airaland Forum

Your question probably comes from a topic I responded to or created. Because, I do not want it to derail this story: https://www.nairaland.com/8573615/hot-soles,

So, I created this here
@Umbrateeth04


People often say that sin is innate in us, but I do not believe that anyone is born sinful. In fact, I question whether “sin” even exists as a universal concept, it is a construct that originates from Abrahamic religions, which, historically speaking, are relatively recent, when compared with other religions.

Long before these religions emerged, human cultures already had their own understandings of what is good, just, and fair. There was no condemnation from birth.

If someone were to tell me I was a sinner, my first question would be: What do you mean by that? You would need to convince me, because I cannot recognize as “sin” something I do not already understand.


If a Yahoo boy defrauded someone and it led to that person taking their own life, I would agree that this act is wrong. Yet, scenarios often involve shades of grey, and context matters.

To make sense of such issues, we must examine them carefully, case by case.


But, I'll submit my takes to your question and try to restrict them to what's asked.

Umbrateeth04:
you talked about sin been innate in us

My first question
What is your take on a yahoo boy who steals from a white man by deception through Internet fraud then by so doing making the white victim commit suicide?

My second question
What is your take on a man who couldn't control his sexual urge which led him into raping a minor and killing her afterwards?

Pls am waiting for your feedback to my questions

This is what Apostle Paul a born again follower of Christ Jesus said about sin:

[b]"For I do not understand what I am doing. For I do not practice what I wish, but I do what I hate. However, if I do what I do not wish, I agree that the Law is fine.  But now I am no longer the one doing it, but it is the sin that resides in me. For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, there dwells nothing good; for I have the desire to do what is fine but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good that I wish, but the bad that I do not wish is what I practice.  If, then, I do what I do not wish, I am no longer the one carrying it out, but it is the sin dwelling in me. I find, then, this law in my case: When I wish to do what is right, what is bad is present with me. I really delight in the law of God according to the man I am within, but I see in my body another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin’s law that is in my body. Miserable man that I am! Who will rescue me from the body undergoing this death?  Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So, then, with my mind I myself am a slave to God’s law, but with my flesh to sin’s law" Romans 7:15-25[/b]

What is Apostle Paul saying here?🤔

To the first question.


Using another person for your own personal gain, whether financial, emotional, or otherwise, is inhumane. A Yahoo boy who defrauds someone online and causes the victim to take their own life is committing an act that is morally wrong and abnormal. From a human standpoint, such actions are deeply unethical, regardless of the victim’s background.

However, this brings up a larger question about morality versus religious or historical precedent. From the beginning, humanity has always revered what is moral and humane, but history and religious texts show instances where this principle was not upheld. For example, the Bible recounts cases where God commanded the people of Israel to enter lands, kill the inhabitants, and claim the land for themselves.

If you were in the place of those being killed, you would see this as unfair and cruel. This illustrates a tension between what human conscience dictates as right and what some religious interpretations permit.

As humans, we instinctively recognise that harming others for personal gain is wrong... But, would we still share the same sentiments if it was commanded by God? Does our religious affiliation chip away at our humanity or improves it?

@Umbrateeth04
Your second question

Regarding a man who cannot control his sexual urges, leading him to rape a minor and ultimately kill her, my take is that this is inhumane and deeply abnormal.

Using another person for personal gratification, especially in such a violent and destructive way, violates the most basic principles of humanity. While some may reference religious texts to justify extreme acts, the human conscience, our innate sense of empathy and fairness, recognises that harming another person for selfish reasons is unacceptable.

Yet we have certain religious narratives that describe such actions that today such as taking girls as spoils of war, these should not be seen as a guide for moral behaviour. From a human perspective, causing suffering or death for personal gain is ethically indefensible. Our moral compass should always prioritise humanity, justice, and respect for the autonomy of others.

Yeye atheist post

Roycemadeit:
Your question probably comes from a topic I responded to or created. Because, I do not want it to derail this story: https://www.nairaland.com/8573615/hot-soles,

So, I created this here
@Umbrateeth04


People often say that sin is innate in us, but I do not believe that anyone is born sinful. In fact, I question whether “sin” even exists as a universal concept, it is a construct that originates from Abrahamic religions, which, historically speaking, are relatively recent, when compared with other religions.

Long before these religions emerged, human cultures already had their own understandings of what is good, just, and fair. There was no condemnation from birth.

If someone were to tell me I was a sinner, my first question would be: What do you mean by that? You would need to convince me, because I cannot recognize as “sin” something I do not already understand.


If a Yahoo boy defrauded someone and it led to that person taking their own life, I would agree that this act is wrong. Yet, scenarios often involve shades of grey, and context matters.

To make sense of such issues, we must examine them carefully, case by case.


But, I'll submit my takes to your question and try to restrict them to what's asked.

1.what is your definition of sin let's start from there since you said that there is no such thing as sin?

2.where do you draw your benchmark to extreme cruelty, wickedness and wrongness ?

Roycemadeit:
@Umbrateeth04
Your second question

Regarding a man who cannot control his sexual urges, leading him to rape a minor and ultimately kill her, my take is that this is inhumane and deeply abnormal.

Using another person for personal gratification, especially in such a violent and destructive way, violates the most basic principles of humanity. While some may reference religious texts to justify extreme acts, the human conscience, our innate sense of empathy and fairness, recognises that harming another person for selfish reasons is unacceptable.

Yet we have certain religious narratives that describe such actions that today such as taking girls as spoils of war, these should not be seen as a guide for moral behaviour. From a human perspective, causing suffering or death for personal gain is ethically indefensible. Our moral compass should always prioritise humanity, justice, and respect for the autonomy of others.

I asked you this question because I can remember vividly in your submission that you said that sex outside marriage is normal and that's what makes us human....

Then my question now is when do one exercise the freewill to have sex that is considered fair, normal and just?

Roycemadeit:
To the first question.


Using another person for your own personal gain, whether financial, emotional, or otherwise, is inhumane. A Yahoo boy who defrauds someone online and causes the victim to take their own life is committing an act that is morally wrong and abnormal. From a human standpoint, such actions are deeply unethical, regardless of the victim’s background.

However, this brings up a larger question about morality versus religious or historical precedent. From the beginning, humanity has always revered what is moral and humane, but history and religious texts show instances where this principle was not upheld. For example, the Bible recounts cases where God commanded the people of Israel to enter lands, kill the inhabitants, and claim the land for themselves.

If you were in the place of those being killed, you would see this as unfair and cruel. This illustrates a tension between what human conscience dictates as right and what some religious interpretations permit.

As humans, we instinctively recognise that harming others for personal gain is wrong... But, would we still share the same sentiments if it was commanded by God? Does our religious affiliation chip away at our humanity or improves it?

but you mentioned freewill...and freewill according to lay mans understanding means unlimited volition.

You said what makes us human is the ability to explore and utilize our freewill..but some deterrent will misunderstood you and thereby the rapist will say he has the freewill to do whatever he likes without caring of the victim’s he wishes to massacre and rape afterwards...the rapist could say that he has the power without the constraint or necessity of fate at his own discretion to rape and kill the minor and that's what makes him human

Now how do you in your own accord try to make the rapist see reasons that what he did is wrong?

Lastly the yahoo boy could narrate his own lamentations that he was poor nobody to cater for him and his family that was what led him to venture into the crime of fraud..that he needed to fraud to treat mama and pay bills...while neglecting the scammed victim who just committed suicide because of him...now how do you step in into this case as he might have thought according to your assertion which you said that humans have the freewill to do as he please...which you in quote said that God encompasses both good and evil..the Yahoo boy could simply say according to your teaching that he is exercising a godly attribute of evil to get what he wanted....
Now my question is as the judge how do you step in on this case?

Umbrateeth04:
but you mentioned freewill...and freewill according to lay mans understanding means unlimited volition.


Now my question is as the judge how do you step in on this case?

In the world I envision, there will be a complete overhaul of the systems and values we currently hold dear. The level playing field, flawed as it is, will be reimagined. In this world, actions will not be excused with "I had no choice." People often take from others what they already have in abundance, and society justifies it in ways that obscure the root of the matter. We rarely look at the foundations; instead, we walk on the surface, offering partial justice while ignoring the deeper truths that shape human behavior.

People give reasons for the evil they commit, whether it stems from mental struggles or the absence of consequences. While we might understand the causes behind their actions, fairness demands consistency in judgment. We cannot judge one person harshly while letting another go unpunished. True justice requires impartiality, and partiality undermines the idea of fairness itself.

If I were to judge someone who defrauded another, I would not stop at the individual. Society itself must be judged first, for no person exists in isolation. Condemning one wrongdoer does little to prevent the act from recurring; it may even refine their methods. To address wrongdoing, one must examine and critique the foundations of our culture, the beliefs and systems, including the Bible and God, that shape behavior and perpetuate injustice.

The major problem with the world is identity.

It divides people, believers against unbelievers, men against women, the rich against the poor, the white against the black, and gives reason to harm one another.

Justice could only exist when identity no longer dictates comparison or ownership, when the sense of superiority is removed, and the field is level for all.

Society, its systems, and prevailing beliefs shape behaviour far more than individuals alone, and punishing one person without addressing these foundations solves nothing.

Humans have the power to reinvent themselves, yet too often we accept suffering or limitation as inevitable. By breaking free from bias and striving for impartiality, society could pursue justice consistently, understand wrongdoing in full context, and allow human potential to flourish without division or excuse.

Umbrateeth04:
but you mentioned freewill...and freewill according to lay mans understanding means unlimited volition.

You said what makes us human is the ability to explore and utilize our freewill..but some deterrent will misunderstood you and thereby the rapist will say he has the freewill to do whatever he likes without caring of the victim’s he wishes to massacre and rape afterwards...the rapist could say that he has the power without the constraint or necessity of fate at his own discretion to rape and kill the minor and that's what makes him human

What if a rapist acted under divine permission, as troubling examples appear in scripture, like when virgins were taken as spoils of war, or when David took another man’s wife and yet was called a man after God’s own heart?

What if a fraudster, like Jacob, swindled his father and took his brother’s blessings, and it was celebrated in holy texts?

These verses, and many others like them, could be interpreted to justify malevolent behavior. Just as Christians once used scripture to rationalize the enslavement of millions, selective interpretation can be wielded to excuse wrongdoing, raising difficult questions about morality, divine sanction, and the human tendency to bend justice to belief.

Roycemadeit:
What if a rapist acted under divine permission, as troubling examples appear in scripture, like when virgins were taken as spoils of war, or when David took another man’s wife and yet was called a man after God’s own heart?

What if a fraudster, like Jacob, swindled his father and took his brother’s blessings, and it was celebrated in holy texts?

These verses, and many others like them, could be interpreted to justify malevolent behavior. Just as Christians once used scripture to rationalize the enslavement of millions, selective interpretation can be wielded to excuse wrongdoing, raising difficult questions about morality, divine sanction, and the human tendency to bend justice to belief.

then are you trying to say that it is alright since the system and government failed them that it is agreeable for them to continue defrauding white men and women?

2.as for someone like you who don't believe in the Christian God I find it quite odd for you to bring scriptures into this...this scriptures are what you condemn so why bring it up?

3.what will be your final verdict on the rapist who misused his freewill and humanity to kill and murder a minor?

4.since you said you will tackle the very foundation which made fraudsters defraud people especially the white..what is your final verdict for this particular fraudster which led to his victim committing suicide?

Am anxiously waiting for your reply

Roycemadeit:
What if a rapist acted under divine permission, as troubling examples appear in scripture, like when virgins were taken as spoils of war, or when David took another man’s wife and yet was called a man after God’s own heart?

Acting under orders is not a defence to an offence. The rapist still remains guilty like the Muslim who was still found guilty and of raping his wife, even Islam permits him

Also, David was held guilty and severely punished for his sins and he was called a man after God's heart only in his early days when he did no sins.

Jacob too was punished. That is why it took 14years of intense and hard labour for him to prosper and still on top of this, he too got defrauded as The Law says, what you do another shall be done to you. An eye for an eye.

This was completely unnecessary as your question was clear. You are just to derail the debate cos you already know that you are wrong and talking rubbish

Umbrateeth04:
then are you trying to say that it is alright since the system and government failed them that it is agreeable for them to continue defrauding white men and women?

2.as for someone like you who don't believe in the Christian God I find it quite odd for you to bring scriptures into this...this scriptures are what you condemn so why bring it up?

3.what will be your final verdict on the rapist who misused his freewill and humanity to kill and murder a minor?

4.since you said you will tackle the very foundation which made fraudsters defraud people especially the white..what is your final verdict for this particular fraudster which led to his victim committing suicide?

Am anxiously waiting for your reply

1. On whether fraud is acceptable because the system failed


No.

A failed system does not make fraud acceptable. Explaining why people commit fraud is not the same as justifying it. Defrauding anyone is wrong.

However, judging only the individual while ignoring the system that produces such behaviour ensures the problem never ends.



2. On using scripture despite rejecting the Christian God


I use scripture because it is part of the foundation I am criticising. You cannot question a system without examining what shaped it. The Bible has influenced morality, power, and justice in society, and pointing out its inconsistencies is critique, not belief.



3. Final verdict on the rapist who murdered a minor


The act is indefensible.

Rape and murder violate humanity at its core. Whatever the background, the individual must be permanently removed from society to protect others and affirm that such actions have irreversible consequences.



4. Final verdict on the fraudster whose actions led to suicide


The fraudster is responsible for the harm caused. Deception that destroys another person’s life is wrong. But responsibility does not stop there...

A society that rewards wealth without ethics and applies justice selectively also shares in the blame.

Dtruthspeaker:
This was completely unnecessary as your question was clear. You are just to derail the debate cos you already know that you are wrong and talking rubbish

It is interesting how you speak with such confidence, as if you know what I believe or what I am thinking. That assumption is the problem. You do not know, yet you claim certainty.

This is why humans should seek knowledge rather than rely on assumption or belief. To know requires understanding, not projection.

Roycemadeit:
Your question probably comes from a topic I responded to or created. Because, I do not want it to derail this story: https://www.nairaland.com/8573615/hot-soles,

So, I created this here
@Umbrateeth04


People often say that sin is innate in us, but I do not believe that anyone is born sinful. In fact, I question whether “sin” even exists as a universal concept, it is a construct that originates from Abrahamic religions, which, historically speaking, are relatively recent, when compared with other religions.

Long before these religions emerged, human cultures already had their own understandings of what is good, just, and fair. There was no condemnation from birth.

If someone were to tell me I was a sinner, my first question would be: What do you mean by that? You would need to convince me, because I cannot recognize as “sin” something I do not already understand.


If a Yahoo boy defrauded someone and it led to that person taking their own life, I would agree that this act is wrong. Yet, scenarios often involve shades of grey, and context matters.

To make sense of such issues, we must examine them carefully, case by case.


But, I'll submit my takes to your question and try to restrict them to what's asked.

go and ask new mothers how righteous and without faults their new born are. You are typing all this because you don't have children nor raised them.

Do you even know what the word sin means. Sin means going off course, doing what's wrong whether out of ignorance or willingly

That's asides iniquity and transgressions. So being a sinner is simple being human, an error prone being by default

Acting under orders or religious permission is not a defence. The rapist remains guilty, which proves my point that morality cannot depend on scripture or divine approval. Justice must stand independently and be applied consistently.

With David and Jacob, the issue is not whether punishment happened, but how flexible and uneven it appears. David’s consequences fell largely on others, and Jacob’s punishment is read later through interpretation. When justice depends on narrative, status, or belief, it is no longer impartial.

That is why the problem is not only the individual, but the belief systems that allow guilt to be reframed, delayed, or softened based on identity.

gohf:
go and ask new mothers how righteous and without faults their new born are. You are typing all this because you don't have children nor raised them.

Do you even know what the word sin means. Sin means going off course, doing what's wrong whether out of ignorance or willingly

That's asides iniquity and transgressions. So being a sinner is simple being human, an error prone being by default

Having a child means taking responsibility for shaping who that child becomes. When a child does wrong, it is not because they were born sinful. It means they need guidance.

That is the job of a parent.

To blame a child’s behaviour on sin is to excuse your own responsibility.

Before Christianity, many cultures did not believe children were born morally flawed.

They understood that children learn through correction, example, and care.

Adults took responsibility for teaching right from wrong instead of placing guilt on the child.

Even the idea of sin as inherited guilt is not universal or natural. It is a later religious idea, not a biological truth.

Psychology shows that morality is learned, not inherited. When adults label children as sinful instead of guiding them, the failure is not in the child but in the ________?

Roycemadeit:
1. On whether fraud is acceptable because the system failed


No.

A failed system does not make fraud acceptable. Explaining why people commit fraud is not the same as justifying it. Defrauding anyone is wrong.

However, judging only the individual while ignoring the system that produces such behaviour ensures the problem never ends.



2. On using scripture despite rejecting the Christian God


I use scripture because it is part of the foundation I am criticising. You cannot question a system without examining what shaped it. The Bible has influenced morality, power, and justice in society, and pointing out its inconsistencies is critique, not belief.



3. Final verdict on the rapist who murdered a minor


The act is indefensible.

Rape and murder violate humanity at its core. Whatever the background, the individual must be permanently removed from society to protect others and affirm that such actions have irreversible consequences.



4. Final verdict on the fraudster whose actions led to suicide


The fraudster is responsible for the harm caused. Deception that destroys another person’s life is wrong. But responsibility does not stop there...

A society that rewards wealth without ethics and applies justice selectively also shares in the blame.

do you believe in heaven and hell?

Roycemadeit:
It is interesting how you speak with such confidence, as if you know what I believe or what I am thinking. That assumption is the problem. You do not know, yet you claim certainty.

This is why humans should seek knowledge rather than rely on assumption or belief. To know requires understanding, not projection.

If you were not doing something more than asking a question then why did you add your misunderstanding of those passages and made it hot?

Roycemadeit:
Paul framing sin as an internal, almost autonomous force, and the division between flesh and mind, reflects theological assumptions rather than observable mechanisms. In Romans 7, sin is portrayed as a separate entity dwelling within humans, compelling them to act against moral awareness. Modern psychology and neuroscience suggest otherwise.


Moral failure usually arises from the interaction of impulses, habits, cognitive biases, and environmental pressures, rather than an independent force acting within the body.


Cross-cultural evidence supports this. Confucianism emphasises moral cultivation through education and habit, not inherited sin. African and indigenous systems view wrongdoing as a result of lack of guidance or social disharmony. Neuroscience shows self-control and moral reasoning rely on integrated brain processes, not a battle between flesh and mind.
[/color][/b]

Moral failure is better explained by psychological, social, and environmental factors than by a metaphysical force.

I think what both of you fall to understand is that sin simply means wrong doing.

And what causes sin are
1) the normal sociological part of doing what pleases them regardless of if someone is hurt or wounded by their actions.

2) for Christians and those interested in spiritual studies, the cause of sin is deeper and pointing at spiritual entities which influence our conducts when we are not watchful. And an example of this, is where that statement comes in which people day, "the devil made me do it'. Which is what Paul

Umbrateeth04:
do you believe in heaven and hell?

I don't think heaven and hell exist.

They are Christian concepts which are borrowed from older belief systems. And interestingly, those older beliefs are labeled paganism just after Christianity milked the concepts that it likes.

Wrongdoing is best explained through observable human factors such as desire, impulse, social conditioning, environment, and personal responsibility. People often act in ways that please them even when they know others may be harmed. These causes are observed across cultures.

For those who deem wrong doing to be due to the influence of spiritual entities, statements like “the devil made me do it” come from their belief system. However, their claim is not based on direct observation but on religious teaching.

The concept of the devil and the concept of sin emerge from the same theological source. Without exposure to that framework, no one naturally attributes their actions to the devil.

In societies that were never Christianised, people explained wrongdoing in different terms.

This shows that spiritual explanations for sin are belief-based interpretations layered onto behaviour, not independent causes. Human actions can be understood without invoking unseen entities, and responsibility remains with the individual, not a supernatural force.

Roycemadeit:
I don't think heaven and hell exist.
They are Christian concepts which are borrowed from older belief systems. And interestingly, those older beliefs are labeled paganism just after Christianity milked the concepts that it likes.

You need enlightenment Sir.

It's the Antichrist that welcomed the idea of torment in hell and bliss in heaven not the real Christians so false religion masquerading as Christians is what you know not the real Christians!

MaxInDHouse:
You need enlightenment Sir.

It's the Antichrist that welcomed the idea of torment in hell and bliss in heaven not the real Christians so false religion masquerading as Christians is what you know not the real Christians!

I suppose that you are the Christian and doesn't hold the same beliefs of hell and heaven as others who are been led astray by the Antichrist.

You see, I am now interested in knowing what the Christian says, cuz I mightn't have got the right enlightenment.

Roycemadeit:
I suppose that you are the Christian and doesn't hold the same beliefs of hell and heaven as others who are been led astray by the Antichrist.
You see, I am now interested in knowing what the Christian says, cuz I mightn't have got the right enlightenment.

According to God's word Adam will die if he rebel against God's order {Genesis 2:17} Satan lied telling Eve they won't die for real {Genesis 3:4} so only believers in the Bible have the accurate knowledge about the condition of the death which is a complete return to non-existence {Ecclesiastes 9:5-10} not to continue existing somewhere else because that's the lie Satan (not God) told Eve. John 8:44

So true Christians believe that at death a sinner has been acquainted of his sins {Romans 6:7} the only hope for such a sinner if he lived by conscience is the resurrection which God promised both the righteous and the unrighteous! Act 24:15

The RIGHTEOUS are faithful servants of God who have lived by His rules so He declared them "righteous"
The UNRIGHTEOUS are people who lived by their God's given conscience though they don't know God's laws but they strive to do what their conscience permits {Romans 2:14-15} so God will remember them for living by the golden rule. Matthew 7:12

Those that have had it all are the WICKED this ones doesn't fear God or man and they have rendered their conscience dead so they will never be recalled back to life after their death! Psalms 9:17

Roycemadeit:
I don't think heaven and hell exist.

They are Christian concepts which are borrowed from older belief systems. And interestingly, those older beliefs are labeled paganism just after Christianity milked the concepts that it likes.

so if you don't believe in heaven and hell where do morals and immorals go to after death?

Umbrateeth04:
so if you don't believe in heaven and hell where do morals and immorals go to after death?

To address the question of what happens to the Moral and the Immoral after death, I will not imagine as different cultures have imagined different outcomes and force one on you, but I will give you a few examples from which you may pick one which is true...

In ancient Egypt, the deceased’s heart was weighed against a feather, with success leading to eternal life and failure to annihilation.

The Greeks believed most souls went to Hades, with virtuous souls reaching Elysium and the wicked punished in Tartarus.

Vikings imagined warriors entering Valhalla, while others went to Hel.

The Persians, believed souls cross a bridge, judged by the balance of their deeds, entering paradise or a state of suffering.

Islam speaks of Jannah and Jahannam.

Christians of heaven and hell.

I do not claim to know what actually happens. Unlike Christians, I do not hold a belief about the fate of the dead. All I can do is observe that cultures have imagined afterlife outcomes linked to morality, but none of this provides empirical knowledge.

Belief is not proof, and I remain neutral, recognising that what people claim as truth about the dead is shaped by culture, tradition, and faith rather than verified reality.