The Apostle Paul wrote, “For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.” (Romans 7:15 ESV) Whether you consider yourself religious or not, I think we can speak meaningfully about the concept of sin as the gap between our moral understanding and our actions. I offer the following following article from the San Francisco Chronicle as evidence for the depth of our sinfulness: Behold our dark, magnificent horror
Now, it seems appropriate to ask if we have any hope of overcoming sin. Christians believe that history has shown through Jesus that sin was, is, and will be overcome. But I wonder how others with different perspectives think about this.
If infact evolution provides a basis for morality, how is it that we can even hope to live up to our moral sense?
sin is just more bullshit that was invented along with religion as a way to keep kids out of trouble. nothing can be defined as sin: extravagence, gluttony, avarice, dispair, wrath, envy, and pride are all just stuff that keep the rich and the poor poor. feel free to get angry at me and disagree(politely)
i dont believe in standards. most people can tell the difference between right and wrong, so i do what is right. people who kill somebody as revenge or something may not think that it was wrong at all. so its not immoral to them, but it is to us, the outsider.
Whatever your own definition of sin, we all have the capacity to do what we know to be wrong. This is offered as a basic definition of what sin is. Though there is also sin applied to others. This is where someone else tells you it’s a sin. What? Can’t eat pork on Tuesdays? A sin of someone else’s choosing.
But we are all driven by choices. We can choose to not sin, choose to sin, or choose to not choose. The third is a common one, which usually leads to at least a little of what you would consider sin.
While we can strive to live up to our moral sense, any basic understanding of psychology, or even human nature, shows that we have a great tendency to do things we know we shouldn’t, for whatever reason. We all do it. I am sitting on my butt in front of the computer (right now and way too much) when I could be out getting some exercise. Maybe not a sin, but known choices toward lesser health and greater weight…
I feel like you guys are getting tangled up in my use of the word “sin,” and that you haven’t even answered the question I asked.
I’m not using “sin” to mean a specific action, and I’m leaving open the question of moral standards. I’m using “sin” to name the gap between one’s own moral understanding and one’s actions. We don’t choose the gap or not. It’s just there.
I think John’s statement works as well to define sin as I’m using it.
So, to restate my original questions, since we have a great tendency to act in spite of our moral understanding, how is it that we can hope to overcome the gap? (As moral individuals we do want to overcome it, right?) I’ve offered my answer, and I’d like to hear other answers. It seems like a vitally important question to ask in a time when we’re witnessing such massive destruction that is clearly our own doing.
Logically this is impossible. For there to be a “right” or a “wrong” there must be a standard. There is a standard for how mathematics work, which is why 2 + 2 = 3 is wrong. If there is truly no standard, then there is no right or wrong and adding 2 to itself can equal whatever I want it to equal at the moment. Thus, with no standard, there cannot be any morality. If this is the case, whatever is most convenient for you is what you should do, always.
It is far more convenient for me to ignore cries of help from a stranger than to risk my safety helping them but if I hear a call for help, I will do what I can to aid. It is far more convenient for me to say “screw social norms” and lie, cheat, steal, etc. but I work to earn the means to get the things I want.
Obviously there is a standard; the question is where did it come from? Evolution? Ok, I’ll buy that. But how did we evolve to see that sometimes what is inconvenient is “right”? We have survival instinct that says to us “don’t do stuff that will get you killed!” and we have herd instinct that says to us “protect those around you so that they can also protect you” but there are times when either one can be the “right” response. What is it that tells us which response (survival or herd) is right? It cannot be itself an instinct because it is telling us which instincts to follow; thus it must be something above our instincts, some standard outside of ourselves.
For example, in typing this response, and at each point different letters will be the right buttons to press on my laptop. The buttons on my laptop cannot be what tell me which buttons to press when; it must be something outside of the laptop, above and beyond the laptop. The structure and function of the English language show which letters need to be placed where
For years I have been preaching virtue … in computer programming (virtual programming?).
Alas I indulge in sinful programming more often than expected! Will I burn in hell?
(note for the Daemon: for me Hell is a sand beach with coconuts tree: I hate that!)
Do what you think is right, if you don’t, you’re weak (pathetic even). You can try to improve yourself and bring your actions more inline with your values, or you can be a hypocrite and lie to yourself.
It’s the individuals choice/responsibility (no Messiah required).
(i don’t know how that smiley face got in the post title thingy)
I believe that theologically as well as in actual fact (two distinct frameworks, in my opinion), the end of sin, as you call it, is the end of history. Since human history ends with the annihilation of humanity, no, there is no overcoming of sin.
I’m sorry, I was speaking collectively. Of course there are individual instances of what you call redemption. And, of course, statistically speaking I would happily admit that the probability that what you call sin will be overcome collectively is something greater than zero; though not, I think, by much.
So, on average there are more people who act without failing according to a collective sense of morality than not?
That seems like a pretty optimistic view of humanity given the ugliness we’ve seen. To me it seems sin is so deeply rooted that I find it hard to believe that as a collective we can stay above zero on our own. How many massive oil spills do we need before we change how we interact with such a potentially hazardous substance? Are you ready to stop using oil?
This is not how one enters into a discussion. This is how one starts an argument. Are you here to pick a fight, or is your mind open to change?
Isn’t this some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy? That if you believe “man is born a sinner” then we have no choice but to sin?
If we set the bar too high for ourselves than we’re setting ourselves up for failure. I agree that capitalism brings out the worst in some people, but I don’t agree with the article in that it lumps me in with the worst of the capitalists.
The article really paints capitalism with a broad, dark brush. There are some who are doing good in the world of capitalism, but the article speaks naught of them.
I agree with Raph in that the end of sin, by Xtians definition, requires the end of man. After all, Jesus had to die to absolve man’s sin…
The only other way to overcome sin is to change its definition. But we all know that evolution and religion don’t mix. We’ll just keep shoe-horning modern society into ancient ideology…
I do not believe that collectively what you call sin will be overcome although there are rare instances of what you call redemption.
I do not know how many oil spills are necessary to change how we interact with this hazardous substance. But I can be fairly certain that until it is impossible for upper 1% of the world’s wealthiest to avoid the direct impact of oil spills, nothing will change.
What are scientists supposed to believe when empirical evidence fails to reject a hypothesis? I’m not saying people don’t do good. But when seriously effed up things happen because of our collective behavior, doesn’t that point to a reality that our good doesn’t stand a chance against our stupidity?
But I don’t believe the definition I’m using is specifically religious. Is there not a gap between moral understanding and behavior?
Speaking of ancient ideology, have you read any Epicurean thought lately?
So then, you’re saying that overcoming sin and redemption are two distinct concepts, right?
I think there will be a misunderstanding between you and people who will interpret sin as consisting only of informed, intentional malevolence.
Is it accurate to describe your position as: we wouldn’t sin if we knew what was good for us? Sin=Error? If so I’d say the answer is research and education, perhaps culminating in AI. However, that may change who “we” are to the extent that JJuggle’s prophecy could be checked off.
I applaud the abstractness of your thinking but I do not think this statement is accurate.
You seem to presume that instincts are unique and indivisible entities, such that one instinctual gambit cannot overlap another thus achieving a form of control over it.
Also your statement shows an implicit belief that the observed consequences can be traced back to a single instinctual pattern, hence justifying that an apparent choice was in fact a choice made between two conflicting instincts and not simply another instinct entirely, which happened to have the same result.
Accepting both of these premises perhaps you are right that there must be an “outside” of the instincts. However, that outside need not be anything in and of itself; it could just be space. That is to say that instincts can be placed into relationships and that these relationships don’t have to be interpreted as standards of interaction though. They may just be seen as circumstances.
In this arrangement one instinct may be chosen over another purely because it happened first. There may be so called “laws of interaction” which give probable or exact predictions of instinctual interactions but these laws, like physical laws, may be descriptive rather than prescriptive standards.
My point could be summed as reducing choice to either determinism or probabilistic randomness. The concept of choice being applied only as a modeling of already occurred events.