All posts by garrett

Original Sin is not Fair

I was never personally troubled by this question because God has made the means of being saved from sin so simple it just never concerned me.  But something else that did concern me is when I’d hear Christians say, “Even though you didn’t have to, God thank you for saving me.”  Now I’d think, “Of course a loving God would have to save you.”  But it wasn’t until just a few years ago I understood I was wrong and ‘they’ were right.  I finally understood the concept of Federal Headship.


Federal headship refers to the representation of a group united under a federation or covenant. For example, a country’s president may be seen as the federal head of his nation, representing and speaking on its behalf before the rest of the world.

This is really a foreign concept to most western people today but that does not make the idea false. 

Romans 5:18

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

Federal Headship swings both ways.  If you think it is wrong to for Adam’s sin to count against all people, do you think it is wrong for Christ’s sacrifice to count for everyone for everyone who will repent and receive it?  “But Christ wouldn’t need to die for sins if we didn’t inherit original sin.”  But if Adam and Eve sinned so easily, do you really think you’d do any better?  Let’s say you did.  You go 100 years without sinning and then one day you hit your thumb with a hammer and used God’s name in vain.  Now you are in the same boat anyway even without original sin. 

 Apart for a divine nature, such as Jesus has, it is practically impossible to never sin.  Thank God He sent Jesus to take our punishment for those who will receive His free gift.

1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

Romans 6:8

Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him

So science says something comes from nothing, really?

For some reason Christians keep telling me this, but the irony is, that is the exact opposite of what science says.

Science explains in intricate detail how any given thing was created by natural processes from something else.

Take the elements for example, where did they come from? Did they pop into existence from nothing, like it says in the Bible? No, they came from the countless billions of furnaces twinkling in the sky.

To begin with, a star only contains hydrogen, but the gravity of all that hydrogen in one place causes it to fuse together into helium. But then of cause you have a load of helium all in one place and the process repeats, creating carbon. This continues creating more and more complex elements.

So what happens if you go back even further than stars and elements?

One of the fundamental cornerstones of modern physics is the relationship between matter and energy.

Energy is behind everything, it comes in all shapes and sizes and physicists are discovering new forms all the time. But science also tells us something very important about energy. It is the one thing that cannot be created or destroyed.

Yes, the big bang created the universe as we know it, but the energy that created it was already there. It has always been there, always changing, one universe collapses, then explodes, creating another.


But science also tells us something very important about energy. It is the one thing that cannot be created or destroyed.
Scientist can observe that energy is remaining constant: it only changes form. But it’s a leep in logic and evidence to claim it was never created.
I’ve only put a little search in it, but so far I’ve come up with Herman von Helmholtz (1821-1894) being the author of the wording of the first law of thermodynamics.   He is said to have pursued naturalistic explanations of human sensation and action.  If he (or whoever wrote the law) was a naturalist, he may have held to an infinite universe.  In an infinite universe, the current phrasing of the first law makes sense.  But now that science has determined the universe had a beginning, it seems contradictory with current cosmology.

Aren’t all religions wrong?

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc., say their doctrines are correct and others are at least somewhat wrong if not completely wrong.  So isn’t this proof that all religions are wrong?


So if all Native Americans are found guilty by a certain judge, that judge can then assume all future Native American defendants are guilty?  Each person deserves a fair hearing and it is discriminatory to determine guilt by association.  Each religion deserves a faith hearing as well and it is just as discriminatory to conclude error without carefully evaluating the evidence. 

In addition, associations can be faulty.  Perhaps one defendant who was innocent was declared guilty.  This could happen when a judge assumes the truth instead of carefully determining the truth.  Perhaps Christianity has been assumed to be false from the outset and therefore all evidence then conforms to the guilty verdict.