On this Saturday between Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday it seems only to appropriate to raised the issue of sin and redemption as evidence of God. Do all men sin? What is sin? Can believers and those who don't believe agree on the what constitutes sin? We could start with 7 of the 10 commandments
1. Don't kill. This is taken to mean don't intentionally kill another human except in some well defined exceptions: Self defense, war, state sanctioned executions of criminals, etc. Jesus later added that the OT definition was to narrow and broadened it to include character assassination.
2. Don't steal. Taking something that doesn't belong to you assumes property rights. Once again this concept requires intention. It is likely that this sin is almost universal in that it would include time, office supplies, and sick days from one's employer. These seem so petty to us today, but should they?
3. Don't bear false witness. Widely misinterpreted to mean don't lie, this commandment has to do with lies that intentionally harm another. Clearly this would not include lying to your wife about whether or not she "looks fat in this outfit." Once again, there are very few of us who can claim to have never gossiped or participated in gossip with the intent to build our self up or tear another down.
4. No adultery. If you are married, you shouldn't have sexual intercourse with another person. Whether married or not you should not have sexual intercourse with a person who is married. The broadest definition would include that no one should have sexual intercourse with someone who is not their spouse.
5. Don't covet. Potentially the most widely forgotten and ignored of the ten commandments, this has to do with envy and materialistic desires. The OT may have intended this to only cover coveting specific things that were owned by your neighbor, but NT broadened the concept. I would suspect that almost every human has even coveted in the OT sense.
6. Don't worship idols. God laid down this commandment in terms of worshipping things (the sun, moon, little wooden statues) ahead of him. The NT has broadened this to deal with the worship of money, people (American idol?), things (1967 red Corvette). Worship might mean such things as bowing down to, singing praises to, making sacrifices to, being enslaved to.
7. Honor father and mother. This one is called the commandment with promise, because it includes a phrase suggesting that if you obey it, your life will be better and longer. I propose that this may have been stated here specifically because of how hard it was and is to obey if the parents seem unworthy of honor. I state this because throughout the first five books of the Bible, God makes clear that all of his commands and rules are designed to increase life's benefits.
I have left out the Sabbath day of rest, since very few have an literal or even figurative tribute to this commandment anymore. It seems like a very, very good idea.
I have left out use of the Lord's name as a curse word. Certainly if one worships something, the use of the worshipped one's name in the form of a curse would seem like sin. For those who didn't worship god "A" using god A's name as a vulgarity might shorten one's life or happiness considerably.
Finally, I have not included the first commandment dealing with worshipping God. However, if God is who He says He is, and we fail to worship Him, this would seem to be a pretty significant sin.
The Bible goes on to say that EVERYONE has sinned. If we were to agree that everyone sins by these or almost any imaginable definition, would this then be evidence that the creator knew of this sin nature, wanted to tell man about how to deal with it, and then offer a redemptive strategy for sin?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Nontheists don't believe in what you call "sin", so the question doesn't really make sense to begin with... we'd have to find a word that we agree on, and the closest I can come to is "crime".
Kit
"What is sin?"
My understanding of the definition of the word "sin" is that it means "an offense to a person's god."
Since I don't have a god, the word "sin" doesn't apply to me, or other nontheists.
Lastly, I think the following are bad things:
1. killing
2. lying
3. stealing
4. dishonoring one's parents (in most, non-abusive, situations)
5. committing adultery (as defined by our current laws)
Coveting is something that I view as natural, and I'm completely ok with it as long as it doesn't consume someone. It's just not something I find myself doing all that much.
Regarding worshipping idols, it's certainly not something that I do, and I consider the activity to be goofy, but as long as the worshipper isn't hurting someone, they can worship whatever they like.
"If we were to agree that everyone sins by these or almost any imaginable definition"
Since I don't believe in "sin", I obviously can't agree on this. If you're asking if we agree that people do these things, then I do agree. I don't see how that is evidence of *anything* beyond "people do these things".
You ask if it would be evidence that the creator knew of this sin nature... well, that's a strange question, especially being given by and to people who know the first few chapters of Genesis. Considering that the creator supplied them with this nature (by plopping down a tree of knowledge in their midst with a talking snake to go with it), and his redemptive strategy is one of "I'll appear in human form, get myself killed, and re-appear a few days later", it seems like a very strange strategy.
Kit
You are right. It is a strange strategy, but nevertheless, it is the strategy. Our human inclination to do the 7 or 10 or 100 things that are daaaging to ourselves and others was pointed out in the Bible 5000 or so years ago. This is another one of those kinds of evidence I mentioned earlier. Maybe other cultures had something similar. Who knows. The evidence is that it was pointed out, still is true today, and has been the backbone of Biblical worship of God for 5000+ years. Tiny bit of evidence to you. Pretty serious evidence to others. But evidence.
Dawkins talks about one bird that cleans the head of another. Its evidence. Not terribly compelling to me. Very compelling to someone else. Still evidence.
"Maybe other cultures had something similar. Who knows."
Who knows???
Randy, you would know if you ever tried to research this.
In short, yes, there were civilizations before the bible was written that had concepts, rules, and philosophies about what to do and what not to do, including treating people as you wish to be treated.
No, the bible wasn't original or ground-breaking in the way of giving lifestyle rules, nor was it the last one. Certainly the muslims think that their Qu'ran gives far better lifestyle rules than the ones of the christians, and many jewish people take their rules seriously, and those are just the major religions.
Therefore, that's not evidence. Regardless, I don't see how "humans made a system of rules and ways to keep themselves safe" is evidence for a god. Please explain.
"Dawkins talks about one bird that cleans the head of another. Its evidence."
How is that evidence for a god? Please explain, unless your explanation is along the lines of, "I can't imagine it happening any other way, therefore goddidit."
Argumentum ad ignorantum
Randy, if you don't explain why these things are evidence of god, I can just as easily say: "See how those noodles are cylindrical? That's evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Tiny bit of evidence to you. Pretty serious evidence to others. But evidence."
Again, I ask: would you be persuaded if I said that?
Kit
Kit,
Sorry, my way of explaining things was confusing. I was trying to say that Dawkins uses this one bird example as "evidence" of his premise. I may not think it is very good evidence, but he thinks and you would probably think it is evidence. I would agree, but not give it as much weight.
If you only showed me a noodle and said that was evidence of a flying spaghetti monster, I would suspect that all living human beings would think you had lost your mind. But billions of folks think that the continuity of the Bible, for instance, is evidence of it being God breathed. To the extent that you don't think it is evidence AT ALL, 0, Nade, can't even qualify under the definition, then I would either call that bias or blindness.
Kit,
You want me to explain how the concept of original sin is evidence of God. That was what I did with the original post. Maybe you can direct your comment to the part of that post that is not persuasive that this is NOT evidence at all under any definition.
"I was trying to say that Dawkins uses this one bird example as "evidence" of his premise."
I don't remember exactly what he said about it, but I would be willing to bet that he at least explained why he considered that to be evidence, and how it is evidence.
"I may not think it is very good evidence, but he thinks and you would probably think it is evidence."
I would have to read it again to see if I agree. I critically examine Dawkins' writing in the same way I examine anyone else's writing.
"But billions of folks think that the continuity of the Bible, for instance, is evidence of it being God breathed. To the extent that you don't think it is evidence AT ALL, 0, Nade, can't even qualify under the definition, then I would either call that bias or blindness."
And more of those people believed in catholicism than your denomination, so get with the program already! Uh, unless you're already a catholic, but you've never mentioned The Saints so my guess is no.
Seriously though, Randy. The argument is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad numerum, so why would you expect me to take it seriously? Billions of people throughout history thought slavery was right. Trillions of people throughout history believed the sun to be a supernatural god. How spot on were they? Is the number of believers in those claims evidence for the reality of those claims?
No. That's why it's a logical fallacy, and should be avoided at all costs, in my opinion.
All that "a lot of people believed *something*" is evidence of is that a lot of people believed in that *something*.
Please provide evidence that is without logical fallacy and that you think I would find persuasive.
Kit
"You want me to explain how the concept of original sin is evidence of God."
Correct. To be clear, I'm talking about how the concept of original sin is evidence of God.
Remember, I'm not a christian, so obviously I don't believe in "original sin".
"That was what I did with the original post. Maybe you can direct your comment to the part of that post that is not persuasive that this is NOT evidence at all under any definition."
I don't even see where you show how the concept of original sin is evidence of God.
The entire post was not persuasive because at no point was there a "therefore, God" conclusion. It seems that the existence of God is an axiom for the argument, and therefore I find it not persuasive, because I don't have that axiom.
I'm not messing with you Randy; I honestly don't see where you connect the dots.
Kit
Kit,
I will deal with issues of evidence elsewhere and try to purify this thread. Sorry for the rabbit trail.
Let's say that science found a gene or a brain area that showed as conclusively as science can show, that man is born a sinner. This is not too far out since The Skeptic Society just heralded the release of a book that says the opposite.
Wouldn't we then look at the 6000 year old text that has an basic story line of original sin, redemption, grace, mercy, forgiveness as being pretty prohpetic?
"Let's say that science found a gene or a brain area that showed as conclusively as science can show, that man is born a sinner."
Before we continue on this, what do you use as the definition for the word "sin"? For me, the definition is "an offense against a god". Given my definition, I'm at a loss to see how science could show "that man is born a sinner" without first showing that a god exists to sin against.
"Wouldn't we then look at the 6000 year old text that has an basic story line of original sin, redemption, grace, mercy, forgiveness as being pretty prohpetic?"
First of all, I certainly don't believe that the bible is 6000 years old, or the 5000 year old figure that you provided before. The bible talks about things that supposedly happened 6000 years ago (although that's really only based on a monk's calculation of the ages of people), but I don't see how you could possibly support the claim that "the bible is 6000 years old"[1].
Whether or not I would then look at the bible is prophetic if it was shown that man is a sinner, I can't say. This depends a lot on exactly how it was shown that man is a sinner and what exactly that means. Many people already think that the bible (and muslims think the same about the Qu'ran) is prophetic, and I don't agree with them.
For an example of this, check out this google link. Please read a few of the links from that google search results page, and then come back here.
Having read those explanations, do you now believe that the Qu'ran is prophetic?
Now, if your definition of "sin" is somewhere equal to the word "crime", with no theistic implications, then I definitely wouldn't consider the bible more valid if a "sinning nature" was shown to exist in humans.
Then there's the question of, "what if it was shown that not only humans had a sinning nature, but that other animals also have this gene?" That would pretty much kill the book of Genesis as being reliable, since only humans were involved in The Fall.
Kit
[1] Actually, that makes me wonder... Randy, do you believe that the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old?
"I will deal with issues of evidence elsewhere"
Please point it out to me when you're able to do this.
Thanks,
Kit
I don't define sin as narrowly as "an offense against one's god, nor even as norrowly as crime. Free online dictionary is pretty good again:
1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2. Theology
a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
b. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.
intr.v. sinned, sin·ning, sins
1. To violate a religious or moral law.
2. To commit an offense or violation
When I see a speed limit of 45, I automatically go 55. Sin. Humans are very inclined to rebel against rules and restrictions. They are also so selfish that they are likely to sin by the above definition when they can see short term gain or even long term gain.
Would you make love to the most beautiful woman you have ever seen, who is willing and able, and you have an absolute guarantee that no one else will ever know? Not your wife or her husband. No one. This question is one I saw dealing with the human heart.
So since God knew that after the fall, man had this "heart," he provided a book of systems for dealing with these inclinations, he provided methods for relief from guilt, shame, bitterness, etc., that commonly follow the exercise of sin, and he created a method of redemption for those who did sin.
So how does this compare to other religions? How does the fact that a nomadic and isolate culture wrote of these things (3500 years ago - would that work for you?) before science, psychology, etc., not provide at least some evidence of Godly guidance if science now confirms that these are all biologically true.
Old Earth/New Earth. Agnostic. Inclined towards old earth. But if you want to discuss it, lets start a new post.
"Old Earth/New Earth. Agnostic. Inclined towards old earth. But if you want to discuss it, lets start a new post"
Nah, it was just something I was curious about.
Kit
"When I see a speed limit of 45, I automatically go 55. Sin."
I'm looking at your list of definitions for "sin", and I don't see how this applies to any of those definitions. The closest it would come to is "To commit an offense or violation", but you'll notice that almost all of the definitions have a religious or theological component, and that's what I mean when I use the word.
"Would you make love to the most beautiful woman you have ever seen, who is willing and able, and you have an absolute guarantee that no one else will ever know? Not your wife or her husband. No one."
In other words, would I commit adultery. Thing is, Randy, I would know, and I would have to live with myself, and I already have very strong opinions about adultery and why it's wrong and why I won't ever do it.
So, the answer to your question is no, I wouldn't.
"[...] not provide at least some evidence of Godly guidance if science now confirms that these are all biologically true."
If science now confirms that all these WHAT are biologically true?
There are two problems that I see with this argument. One is that you use "God exists" as an axiom, one that you know I don't share. The second is that you seem to equivocate on the definition of "sin". You initially use the "a bad thing" definition, and then you use the "a bad thing with regards to theology" definition. Please select a definition from your list, let me know which one it is, and we'll stick with that.
Kit
"So since God knew that after the fall, man had this "heart," he provided a book of systems for dealing with these inclinations, he provided methods for relief from guilt, shame, bitterness, etc."
This is an incredibly interesting view of the book of Genesis. It reeks of "spin control" to me, though.
Kit
Forgive me for skipping a couple of your comments to concentrate on the two that really intrigue me. Why not do adultry? I know you said that You would know. But so what?
The other is the spin control answer. If by spin you mean putting out my (not just my) version of what Genesis was intended to portend, ok. But what else who Genesis be about in light of the rest of the Bible? Where's the spin?
Post a Comment