One: Some people think that sin is everywhere, including within themselves. And they scrupulously spend most of their time beating themselves up over it.

Two: Other people, the very people in society that should concern themselves with morality, don't want to think about the issue, and point to whether their heinous actions are legal or not. And of course, they also have the power to see that their actions, however heinous from a moral stand point, are totally legal. So we saw the legalization of imprisoning and killing people of Jewish descent in Nazi Germany, and currently here in the USA, of totally ripping off the wealth owned by Middle Incomed and Lower Incomed, while placing it all in service of themselves and their friends.

If the world had more people that fell right in between these two categories, we would all be better off.

need revenue. You set the lights to stay yellow for so short a time that nobody gets through before they turn red. Then you arrest and fine the motorists, mostly the out-of-towners. You tell the indignant motorists that it is for their own safety, and pocket the money.

That's what sin is about.

Although I was raised in the church and by a minister, sin was never a concept that was considered or discussed. I may have heard it during readings from the bible during services, but I do not recollect hearing about it in church or at home otherwise.

I had some catholic friends who seemed very focused on it. They had confession, rosaries, talked of purgatory and hell, but all of this was foreign to me.

Neither of your two categories speaks to me. The basic message I got was that one should treat others well, particularly those that were less fortunate than oneself. That's sounds simplistic, but was expanded on using stories from the bible and examples in real time.

So, I guess I shouldn't even be participating in this discussion, because the questions you pose don't make sense to me.

Sin
(1.) Is “any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God” (1Jo_3:4; Rom_4:15), in the inward state and habit of the soul, as well as in the outward conduct of the life, whether by omission or commission (Rom_6:12-17; 7:5-24). It is “not a mere violation of the law of our constitution, nor of the system of things, but an offense against a personal lawgiver and moral governor who vindicates his law with penalties. The soul that sins is always conscious that his sin is (1.) intrinsically vile and polluting, and (2.) that it justly deserves punishment, and calls down the righteous wrath of God. Hence sin carries with it two inalienable characters, (1.) ill-desert, guilt (reatus); and (2.) pollution (macula).”, Hodge's Outlines.
The moral character of a man's actions is determined by the moral state of his heart. The disposition to sin, or the habit of the soul that leads to the sinful act, is itself also sin (Rom_6:12-17; Gal_5:17; Jam_1:14, Jam_1:15).
The origin of sin is a mystery, and must for ever remain such to us. It is plain that for some reason God has permitted sin to enter this world, and that is all we know. His permitting it, however, in no way makes God the author of sin.
Adam's sin (Gen_3:1-6) consisted in his yielding to the assaults of temptation and eating the forbidden fruit. It involved in it, (1.) the sin of unbelief, virtually making God a liar; and (2.) the guilt of disobedience to a positive command. By this sin he became an apostate from God, a rebel in arms against his Creator. He lost the favour of God and communion with him; his whole nature became depraved, and he incurred the penalty involved in the covenant of works.
Original sin. “Our first parents being the root of all mankind, the guilt of their sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature were conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation.” Adam was constituted by God the federal head and representative of all his posterity, as he was also their natural head, and therefore when he fell they fell with him (Rom_5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22-45). His probation was their probation, and his fall their fall. Because of Adam's first sin all his posterity came into the world in a state of sin and condemnation, i.e., (1.) a state of moral corruption, and (2.) of guilt, as having judicially imputed to them the guilt of Adam's first sin.
“Original sin” is frequently and properly used to denote only the moral corruption of their whole nature inherited by all men from Adam. This inherited moral corruption consists in, (1.) the loss of original righteousness; and (2.) the presence of a constant proneness to evil, which is the root and origin of all actual sin. It is called “sin” (Rom_6:12, Rom_6:14, Rom_6:17; Rom_7:5-17), the “flesh” (Gal_5:17, Gal_5:24), “lust” (Jam_1:14, Jam_1:15), the “body of sin” (Rom_6:6), “ignorance,” “blindness of heart,” “alienation from the life of God” (Eph_4:18, Eph_4:19). It influences and depraves the whole man, and its tendency is still downward to deeper and deeper corruption, there remaining no recuperative element in the soul. It is a total depravity, and it is also universally inherited by all the natural descendants of Adam (Rom_3:10-23; Rom_5:12-21; Rom_8 ). Pelagians deny original sin, and regard man as by nature morally and spiritually well; semi-Pelagians regard him as morally sick; Augustinians, or, as they are also called, Calvinists, regard man as described above, spiritually dead (Eph_2:1; 1Jo_3:14).
The doctrine of original sin is proved, (1.) From the fact of the universal sinfulness of men. “There is no man that sinneth not” (1Ki_8:46; Isa_53:6; Psa_130:3; Rom_3:19, Rom_3:22, Rom_3:23; Gal_3:22). (2.) From the total depravity of man. All men are declared to be destitute of any principle of spiritual life; man's apostasy from God is total and complete (Job_15:14-16; Gen_6:5, Gen_6:6). (3.) From its early manifestation (Psa_58:3; Pro_22:15). (4.) It is proved also from the necessity, absolutely and universally, of regeneration (Joh_3:3; 2Co_5:17). (5.) From the universality of death (Rom_5:12-20).
Various kinds of sin are mentioned, (1.) “Presumptuous sins,” or as literally rendered, “sins with an uplifted hand”, i.e., defiant acts of sin, in contrast with “errors” or “inadvertencies” (Psa_19:13). (2.) “Secret”, i.e., hidden sins (Psa_19:12); sins which escape the notice of the soul. (3.) “Sin against the Holy Ghost” (q.v.), or a “sin unto death” (Mat_12:31, Mat_12:32; 1Jo_5:16), which amounts to a willful rejection of grace.
(2.) A city in Egypt, called by the Greeks Pelusium, which means, as does also the Hebrew name, “clayey” or “muddy,” so called from the abundance of clay found there. It is called by Ezekiel (Eze_30:15) “the strength of Egypt, “thus denoting its importance as a fortified city. It has been identified with the modern Tineh, “a miry place,” where its ruins are to be found. Of its boasted magnificence only four red granite columns remain, and some few fragments of others.

Adam's sin (Gen_3:1-6) consisted in his yielding to the assaults of temptation and eating the forbidden fruit. It involved in it, (1.) the sin of unbelief, virtually making God a liar; and (2.) the guilt of disobedience to a positive command. By this sin he became an apostate from God, a rebel in arms against his Creator. He lost the favour of God and communion with him; his whole nature became depraved, and he incurred the penalty involved in the covenant of works.

Harvey Cox wrote an essay, "On Not Leaving It To The Snake". In it, he interprets the sin of Adam as a sin of sloth. Sloth is generally seen as laziness, but the word for it in Latin is acedia, which means "uncaring". Eve let the snake make the decision to eat the fruit for her, and Adam let Eve make the same decision for him. They both left the moral decision up to someone else -- ie, they did not care to make their own decision.

I am reminded of Adolf Eichmann's defense of "I was just following orders." This defense was rejected because Eichmann was trying to claim that he allowed his superiors to make moral decisions for him. He knew what he was doing, he was, after all, the secretary at the Wannsee Conference.

No, we must make our own moral decisions. Thomas Aquinas taught that we must follow our consciences, even if our moral advisors tell us that we are wrong. Above all, we must not leave moral decisions to others.

Last edited Sun Aug 12, 2012, 03:37 PM - Edit history (1)

that, assuming it happened as described, this could hardly be considered a sin in the first place (at least not by any intelligent and serious person), since before eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam had no way to tell right from wrong, sin from not-sin. Simply saying that he should have known not to do it because god told him not to (for anyone who might think that argument wasn't silly) is just as silly, because he obviously had no way even to know that not doing what god commanded was wrong/sin/evil/sent to bed without supper stuff. It may make a good mythological story, but a certain suspension of disbelief is required, as with most fiction.

The question now is whether any of the advocates of Serious Theology on the board will have a response that isn't babbling drivel. Or running and hiding.

The argument that God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit, but he still did not know it was a sin makes no sense. I know you think the whole thing is silly but you brought it up. At the most simplistic level if God said not to do something and you do it you have sinned. Even if Adam had no concept of disobedience or transgression or however you would like to describe Adam's ignorance it was still sin to disobey God becasue we are made in Gods image and we know as part of our nature what is sin.

it's more important to OBEY than to understand what is right or wrong and do it for those reasons.

I said nothing of the sort.

if the story were true, Adam and Eve either knew right from wrong and sin from not-sin, or they didn't. If they knew inherently, as part of their being, then the idea of the tree is pointless. Saying that they were only cognizant of one type of sin is just silly special pleading.

Of course, the fact that whoever recorded the story can't really resolve that paradox is just one of many indications why the whole episode can only be taken as another myth.

dmallind raises an interesting concern, but one that has not been anywhere near the center of theological thought for a long time. Theology has moved a long way from the ancient or even the modern juridical concern about sin. While it is true that some churches, basically the Roman Catholic and Protestant fundamentalists, still seem to center on obedience, and the accompanying guilt, progressive religion has moved in another direction. This direction was instigated by Jesus who held that all the commandments could be summed up in loving God and loving each other. So right living moved beyond obedience to law, to an ethical imperative. Far before that, the prophet Micah held, in the face of the commandment keepers, that religion could be reduced to doing justice, loving kindness and walking humbly with God.

This notion of right living has come not only from and through religion, but in all sorts of non-religious secular perspectives, because this ethical system is deeply rooted in the heart of reality. Religion has only offered a way to access what is universally true. It not only has to do with how we related to one another, but how we care for the earth, the preservation of peace and harmony between nations and even ideologically diverse perspectives. It has basic implications for how we deal with the outsiders, the "non-persons", the disabled, the poor, the left out. Those are the people Jesus included. This personal action simply followed his articulated ethical stance.

Perhaps sin is to live outside this ethical imperative. If you want the full treatment of this notion read Emmanuel Kant and his categorical imperative. Put simply, it is acting as if were your action to become universally accepted, it would eventuate in a better world. In every world religion the corollary comes in words like, "do to others as you would want others to do to you." These corollaries are exactly what Jesus meant when he summed up the list of commandments.

Most contemporary religions discourse deals with this ethical imperative, not sin.

that no one would want to live in a world with ethics not based on religion, so your lip service to "non-religious secular perspectives" rings phony and hollow. But you have yet to answer the often-asked question: What ethical or moral principles are ONLY discoverable through religion, and in NO other way?

My money is on your dodging that question yet again.

How do you know what is universally true when it comes to religion?