why sin makes no sense – stealing
When it comes to over-simplifying choices we make in life and generalising on the usefulness of certain types of behaviour, the commonly used label ‘sin’ has a lot to answer for.
Let’s take a really straightforward ‘sin’ – stealing. Christians believe that without the god God magically transmitting what is right and wrong to our feeble minds, we would all be selfishly stealing whatever we wanted from each other. So, let’s look at a common ethical dilemma with a hungry child (to pull our heart strings) and think about what we can label as sin.
- child is hungry, child steals bread, child sins
- child is hungry, child doesn’t steal bread to avoid sinning, child dies of starvation, this is suicide, child sins
- child is hungry, child steals bread, child sins, child lives and goes on to discover a cure for cancer thus saving millions from suffering
- child is hungry, adult with no money steals bread for child, adult sins, child sins for taking stolen item
- child is hungry, adult doesn’t steal bread but begs tradesman to give bread, tradesman gets fired for not obeying manager’s instructions, unemployed tradesman’s family dies of hunger, tradesman sins, adult sins for encouraging sin
- child is hungry, tradesman feels sorry for child and gives bread, child eats bread and with renewed energy the donated bread gives kills her father, child sins
- child isn’t hungry but child steals anyway, child sins, tradesman gets fired for losing stock but child feels so guilty starts to take life seriously and goes on to discover a cure for cancer thus saving millions of lives
This hopefully illustrates that every action we commit or choose not to commit has an endless and unquantifiable series of outcomes that can hinge directly on that one action. We can talk about stealing in general to be a harmful behaviour, because if we all stole on a whim, society would be a complete mess. The impulse in general not to steal, could never be viewed as a ‘clever’ rule from an invisible benevolent god, it’s simply common sense for anyone who wants to live in a stable society.
The Golden Rule is the most useful principle to live our lives by. We can treat others as we would want to be treated, and love those around us like we love ourselves, and not do nasty things that we wouldn’t want done to us – and in the end we’re generally contributing to a world where less harm is done and there is less suffering.
Most people would steal a bit of bread for a starving child because that’s our natural empathetic response. It’s not wrong, it’s not a ‘sin’, and in the end it might just contribute to finding a global cure for cancer.
If you think an invisible deity is sitting with a mark sheet chalking up all your actions based on your intention, the action itself irrespective of outcomes, or the action based on the endless sequence of outcomes that hinge on it, you’re an narcissistic nutcase. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.
The Bible and the infallible god of it, are full of hypocrisies and consistently fail to provide reasonable justification for our actions. For example, in one part it says that I should turn the other cheek if my neighbor wrongs me, but then in another part says that I should put them to death (there are various ways suggested for doing this depending on how that neighbor wronged me). Well, what the heck? Is revenge right or wrong, Bible?!
That is why the “Golden Rule” is so good. It does not leave room for excuses as to why you should or shouldn’t do something and does not use fear to intimidate or false rewards to encourage. Instead, you do or don’t do something because you either would or would not want that exact thing done to you. It’s so simple! AND the best part is you don’t have to wake up early on a Sunday to listen to a stranger remind you how to act and why you should act that way. Also, you don’t have to pay 10% of your income to that stranger, either.
Seems like a win-win to me.
LikeLike
Well, exactly! Christians need to just take that Golden Rule part because the rest of it is contradictory nonsense with any interpretation available that you’d care to make.
LikeLike
I thought that the ”stain of sin” was only removed once we died, providing we had accepted Jesus as our Saviour?
Sheesh, I feel bloody stupid just typing that.
LikeLike
Aw, I’m glad you’re looking forward to your stains coming out. 🙂
LikeLike
I love the wasp( ?)
Blown up, the detail revealed on the wings is exquisite.
LikeLike
It’s a hoverfly. Thanks! It means a lot to me, you being my favourite blogger and all. 🙂
LikeLike
Why isn’t anyone giving this child food in your scenario? Matthew 25:35 “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,”.
LikeLike
One more thought: I don’t think you’re necessarily talking about sin here. I think you’re describing cause and effect relationships that involve sin. Sin doesn’t always equal negatives, in fact sometimes it can bring tremendous positives. It would be a mistake, however, to say the ends justify the means. If you don’t believe in God, I can see why this would be very difficult, if not impossible to conceptualize. You bring up some interesting scenarios though!
LikeLike
Hi Derek, to reply to your questions on the other post, I don’t want to splat links there, but I find the notion of sin ridiculous because it’s misleading in terms of actions and ultimately harmful. I think it gives an unnecessary and unhelpful attraction and attention to ‘forbidden’ behaviours that leads to thought repression and worse. I’ve posted about it here:
Christians worry about sin, like behaviour can be compartmentalised into the black and white of good and bad. I was trying to illustrate that behaviour and consequences are much, much more nuanced. The expectation that any all-powerful creator judges people by following these rules seems childish in the extreme – a simplistic extension of the child/parent relationship from the child’s point of view. Surely you can’t believe if such a being exists it could be so shallow?
LikeLike
Consequences of behavior are certainly nuanced! Sin doesn’t equal a bad consequence always. Sin is simply not doing what God wants you to do. Looking at Biblical examples, we can see how sin has worked into God’s plan. To provide an obvious one: Jesus was crucified. surely sin, but it worked out ultimately to amazingly good effect(for those who believe).
Shallow is a subjective assessment right? Unless you have equal moral footing with God, who would you be to judge His morals? We can say they’re unfair, but if God is real and he is more powerful than us, would we have the wherewithal to correct him? I would suggest no. Of course if God is not real (your position) these are just things people made up and they’re as meaningless as everything else in a Godless universe.
You reference Dawkin’s (I think) sky daddy here. This seems pejorative even when you phrase it somewhat politely, as you have. It’s kind of begging the question isn’t it? Objectively, what’s wrong with a God that loves us and wants what’s best for us?
One more thing you said that I thought was interesting: as a Christian, I don’t worry about sin in the way I imagine you think I do. My sin is covered, and there was nothing I could do about it anyways. What I do because I am saved is live a life that God wants. Which means I put God first, and try to be loving, kind, generous, and humble towards others. It’s not like I get up in the morning and try not to lie or murder anyone between my apartment and work. You have a knack for wording things that is rare among other blogs I’ve read. I hope I’ve come close to responding clearly to at least some of your ideas. Keep the thoughts coming!
LikeLike
I’ve heard people use and object to the use of ‘sky daddy’ before, but I haven’t read any Dawkin’s or other atheist authors apart from here in Blogland, so I don’t really know the context (other than the obvious). My response was sincerely based on the childish (or perhaps ‘primitive’ would be a better word) and basic outlook your religion seems to reflect. Good/bad punishment/reward. It’s my understanding of the world when I was 7.
“Unless you have equal moral footing with God, who would you be to judge His morals?” This is interesting. Most Christians tell us that morality is beamed down for your god. Is he telling us what’s right and wrong, or is he beyond us? You can’t have it both ways.
You should read Brother Ben’s understanding of sin in the next comment. That seems to make more practical sense (apart from his last paragraph).
LikeLike
I would say that not all Christians define sin in purely behavioral terms. Jesus himself, in the “Sermon on the Mount,” attempted to redefine sin in terms of the heart (roughly: intent).
You have a good point that the Ten Commandments are somewhat wooden. They speak mostly of actions, devoid of the surrounding context or the context of the heart. In part, this is because they are indeed general societal rules, as you have pointed out noting the “Golden Rule.”
But “sin” is a matter of the heart or, more directly, a matter of the relationship between the individual and God. Breaking one of the ten commandments is often, though not neccesarily, accompanied by sin.
A boy who taddled on his brother about the bad thing he did, was telling the truth, yet he did so with the heart to harm his brother. A husband who lied to his wife about the surprise birthday party he had planned, was telling falsehoods, but was doing so with the desire to give great joy to his wife.
Curious that it is hard for us to condemn the hungry for being motivated by their hunger, yet easy for us to judge the rapist for being motivated by theirs. “Sin” is often synonymous with “selfishness.” And, while caloric intake is more necessary than sex for earthly life, nothing we can take or earn (and this is Jesus’s message) will deliver to us everlasting life.
LikeLike
Thanks for commenting. I was with you on your view of sin up to the last paragraph. I think your understanding of the ten commandments and sin is a lot more useful than the traditional black and white blinkered view.
“Curious that it is hard for us to condemn the hungry for being motivated by their hunger, yet easy for us to judge the rapist for being motivated by theirs.”
This comment is truly disturbing and reveals a complete disconnect from how to evaluate the outcomes of our actions. We don’t condemn people for being motivated by hunger because typical actions such as stealing food rarely ruin or even lightly affect someone else’s life. It’s very easy for us to judge rape because it always ruins another person’s life. As I tried to convey in the post, evaluating the usefulness of any behaviour is about looking at the outcomes of the actions.
LikeLike
Thanks for responding. The last paragraph was more a critique of my own view. While both actions may be ‘sin’. I react much more strongly against rape. And this is good. As you point out, the consequences are vastly different.
However, I would not say rape is wrong because it ruins a life. Rape is wrong because you are taking what has not been given to you and you are selfishly coercing another to satisfy you desires while disregarding their own.
But, I think I get what you were trying to convey in the article. You are not looking for a better rubric for right/wrong, but you are looking to grade actions based on expected return, utility, usefulness. There are occasions when stealing bread is constructive. Rape is always destructive.
But the gray-area here is going to be quite wide. What one person sees as constructive another will see as destructive. I’m not sure what authority should be brought in to mediate the two. And, as has already been said, judging on a case-by-case basis can only truly be done after all the ripples have played themselves out.
I suppose the same could be said about my definition of sin. What actually were the motivations of the hungry child? That might have been a decision made with complex emotions. Did he vengefully target a particularly stingy vendor? It is not that black-and-white either. Thankfully the Arbiter here is wholly just and compassionate and the rules are not based upon probable results, or even wooden laws, but on the living desires.
LikeLike
Wow, Violet, you really beat the strawmen senseless on this one! I’ll bet there’s not a scarecrow left in 50 miles of you.
You seem to be defining “stealing” as “taking something you don’t have a legal right to”, and so you get these stupid results.
Stealing is taking something you don’t have a moral right to.
The controlling concept here is “justice”, loosely defined as giving people their due. You shouldn’t steal because stealing is unjust: you are taking something that is not owed to somebody else, not you. But the hungry child is owed, in justice, a piece of bread. If really he has no other option, he is not stealing the bread, he is taking what is owed to him. At least, that is what Christian moral theologians tell me.
You are right that the consequences of our actions are not always foreseeable, which is why no one thinks we are morally responsible for the unforseeable consequences of our actions. If you do a good turn, and someone does an unforseeable evil as a result, it is not your responsibility, but the other person’s.
LikeLike
Thanks for your intriguing comment!
“You seem to be defining “stealing” as “taking something you don’t have a legal right to”, and so you get these stupid results. Stealing is taking something you don’t have a moral right to.”
The Bible tells people to follow the laws of the land, however unjust. Therefore if Christians don’t have a legal right to something, I think it’s safe to assume they don’t have a ‘moral’ right to it.
But what is this moral right you speak of? Let’s consider someone who is naturally only attracted to people of the same sex and finds themselves in a position mutual attraction and love with someone else. Do they have a moral right to be in a committed long term relationship and get married? Their relationship causes no harm to other people and they are both fully informed consenting adults.
LikeLike
The Bible does not tell people to obey unjust laws. Jesus tells his followers to tolerate some evils of a capricious government, like high taxes or pressed service. Paul encourages his followers to respect unjust kings, but nowhere do they tell their followers to obey a law that is unjust.
For a while, Christianity itself was illegal and implied breaking laws.
It is one thing to put up with the Emperor extorting money from you, it is another to obey an evil command, or to not help someone because of a law that can’t cover every exception.
The gay marriage question involves law, culture, sex, and psychology so it is beyond the scope of the argument.
LikeLike
I’m not clear what your point is here. Are you suggesting that laws to protect property and possessions (from stealing) are unjust or evil? Jesus didn’t steal to feed the hungry, he conjured food from thin air. And if Christians believed they had true faith, they surely would be doing the same. If the god God wants someone to eat, he can provide the food. I’m quite sure he wouldn’t expect anyone to resort to breaking a commandment.
“The gay marriage question involves law, culture, sex, and psychology so it is beyond the scope of the argument.” You’re being ridiculous. Because you know your ‘moral right’ ramble makes no sense. 🙂
LikeLike
Let’s recap the discussion:
1) You claimed the Christian concept of sin (e.g. stealing) leads to absurdities.
2) I pointed out that you don’t understand the Christian concept of sin, at least regarding stealing. You seemed to think it is a matter of absolute adherence to civil law. It is not.
3) You countered that Christians must always follow the law, because it is somewhere in the Bible.
4) I pointed out that they don’t, and it isn’t. (Respecting legitimate authority and tolerating some evils is one thing; actually doing evil because the government commands it is another.)
5) You miss the point and ask if private property laws are immoral. I scratch my head and ask myself how in the hell..?
No, private property laws are a good thing, but no law can exhaust every possible case. Private property laws protect the great majority of people, but in your exceptional case of the starving child, they actually pervert justice. No one is obliged to follow the civil law in such a case, even if it means risking punishment. The child has a moral right to the bread, whether the government acknoweges it or not. No commandment is broken, because it is not “stealing”.
LikeLike
“No commandment is broken, because it is not “stealing”.” This is your assessment of the situation. You can’t claim that this would be the view of any other Christian.
“Remove far from me falsehood and lying; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me, lest I be full and deny you and say, “Who is the Lord?” or lest I be poor and steal” God will provide the food, no need to steal. Stealing is breaking a commandment.
Regarding keeping civil laws and obeying those in charge: “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right … Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.”
Seems clear enough to me. But obviously each Christians likes to fabricate their own interpretation of the clear word of the god God.
LikeLike
I’m not the only one. Off the top of my head I can think of Thomas Aquinas, who in ethics mostly built off of other medieval thinkers:
“If the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property. Nor is this, properly speaking, theft.”
As for the second point, your quote from St. Paul says nothing about cases in which the law is unjust. Had the emperor commanded St Paul to slap his own mother, there is nothing in the above that would indicate St Paul should obey. Respecting authority and spineless obedience are not the same thing. This distinction is really a very simple one and I’m surprised you are still clinging to objections.
LikeLike
The quotes I provided are more than clear about the Bible’s position on these matters. The fact that you and Tom want to apply common sense, and weave an interpretation that is more socially acceptable, just points to the utterly ridiculous nature of Christianity. The Bible says this but we’ve worked out this. Indeed. And let’s not even start to discuss that the vast majority of Christian adherents would have no idea what you’re talking about.
Back to your original comment, I’d be delighted if you could find time to work through your ‘moral right’ theory with regards to same sex marriage. 🙂
LikeLike
I can’t help it if you insist on extrapolating things from scripture that just aren’t there.
It is funny that you are trying to teach me what Christians believe. I don’t go around trying to teach people what atheists believe.
Maybe you have a point insofar as that while the Bible gives practical indications for day to day life, the problem of an overall theory of ethics that incorporates Biblical wisdom is open. There are a couple of competing visions.
As for the issue of gay marriage, while I’ve done a few posts touching on the matter I’ve never really stated my own opinion. In part because I think the cultural hoopla surrounding the issue is more interesting than the issue itself – it is neither a great civil rights cause nor the end of human civilization as we know it – in part because my opinion is not quite settled.
Anyway, I’d rather do a post about it on my own blog. I’ll let you know if I do.
LikeLike
“I don’t go around trying to teach people what atheists believe.” Of course not, we don’t have a rule book. And we especially don’t have a rule book that we cherry pick from and create interpretations that suit us. 🙂
“Anyway, I’d rather do a post about it on my own blog.” That’s what I meant, but specifically linking it to your ‘moral truth’ line of thought because I don’t see how that could make sense, even for you. 😉
LikeLike