Sin: What makes something sinful?

***

In a post I wrote recently I introduced you to a factitious character of mine named Timothy. I told you a story his of betrayal by his church when he attempted to reach out for help in sustaining his six month streak in sobriety from pornographic websites and sadomasochistic behaviour. You can read his story here. In a more recent post, located here, I discussed the idea that sin as it is understood in the Christian worldview is logically valid. When I began to place this blogpost on various social-media websites like Facebook and Google+ I mentioned in one comment section that it is important for us Christians to establish the nature of sin before we confidently condemn certain actions as sins. In the post regarding Timothy I explained that he has always believed that his sexual temptations were perverse and sinful and this was despite his attraction to them. Is sadomasochism perverse or morally neutrally diverse? In summation what is the criteria one should put up against an action to determine its morality? I explained in the second article alluded to above that all actions can be slotted into one of three categories: right, wrong (immoral) and morally neutral. However lets narrow the focus to what makes an action immoral thus sinful?

1. Is it biblical?: Does the Bible speak against the action? For an example Scripture speaks against murder, (cf. Exodus 20:13) and so it isn't a hard sell to suggest that murder is sinful. However there are a fair amount of actions that are not overtly spoken against in Scripture, such as abortion. So is the action of abortion sinful? ANSWER: If you break the aspect of abortion down to its basic essence it is killing a socially innocent human being, thus it is legal-murder; so the answer is yes. 
2. Is it misrepresentative of God?: Moreover, how about not doing actions that Scripture clearly commands us to do, such as witness? Is someone living in sin if they choose not to make every conversation that they have in a day about Jesus? No, but in everything we do we are to represent Jesus. Is doing something that misrepresents Christ sinful then? Yes. However not everyone believes in Jesus as God. The Christian accuses the Muslim for worshiping a false God but the Muslim accuses the Christian of a sin called Shirk, that "...is to attribute "partners" to God."[i] So if sin is a misrepresentation of God whose God is being misrepresented? As explain in the second article indicated above this is a good question but it's answer cannot be respectfully given in few sentences and thus it is best left for its own post.
3. Is it harmful to one's personal being and or society?: Let's look at Timothy's sexual predilection: Sadomasochism is defined as: 

"[Sexual] behavior that involves getting pleasure from causing or feeling pain"[ii]. 

In a short 2013 article in 'The Guardian' psychotherapist Pamela Stephenson Connolly tries to justify sadomasochism in the context of consent: She writes:

In BDSM, you must understand the notion of consensuality. If your partner gives you permission to inflict pain in an erotic context, the exact style and degree of that is agreed (understanding that the contract could be renegotiated at any time), and if you use appropriate safety mechanisms such as a "safe word", it is generally considered that consensuality is in place.[iii] 

The first give away that sadomasochism is a sin is the desire to hurt others (sadism) or be hurt by another (masochism) for sexual release or pleasure. However many might argue as Connolly did that it isn't wrong if it is between consensual adults. However Connolly even raises a 'red-flag' even when consent is in certain contexts: She writes:

But consent is brought into question when one has experienced physical, verbal or sexual trauma in the past, if you play under the influence of drugs or alcohol, if either has mental illness, or if permanent damage is likely to be caused. Consent is not just for the submissive person: you are conflicted about your dominant role, which in itself brings your consent into question.[iv]

So if one is under the influence of mind altering chemicals, and or in the possibility of real damage being done and or if there is a mental and or emotional background that will feed a psychosis even with consent sadomasochistic behaviour should be questioned. However she ends with this advise:

Think more carefully about your own limits. Define and express what is and isn't comfortable for you. And beware: dominant partners often experience burnout. Adjust your level of play accordingly.[v]

However lets step back and just look at the desire for pain for sexual pleasure. Irregardless of mental illness or a negative emotional background or a controlled environment to minimize long-lasting physical damage is not the desire to be hurt or to hurt another for sexual release perverse? In my opinion, yes it is definitely perverse, but putting my opinion aside for the moment lets ask the same question but in a significantly different way: "Is not the desire to be hurt or to hurt another for sexual release *objectively* perverse? One has to look at this word 'perverse' in order to answer this question. The word perversion is defined as "something that improperly changes something good"[vi]. So this would demand that a sexuality has a good ontology - a nature that was changed from its 'good-nature'. 

However what if there is no objective standard for sexuality and that the standard is subjective? In the second article alluded above, I discussed that all societies set down and enforce laws; and they also punish persons who violate those laws. If the standard for sexuality is subjective then on what grounds does a society have to outlaw any sexual practice? Opinion? Okay then how is this opinion formed? Laws are laid down as a means of keeping order and societal peace and safety. And therefore sexual predilections like beastility or pedophila are outlawed in practically every country on earth as they are societally and personally harmful. 

Another argument that may be offered is: "In light of the idea that sadomasochism is harmful, should then the government control what goes on in the bedrooms of consenting adults?" No. A mark of freedom is to be free to be stupid. People should be given the right to practice their sexuality however they see fit; but the permission to be unwise doesn't negate the perversion of sexual practices like sadomasochism. 

Furthermore, sexuality is an expression of love. Is hurting someone an act of love? No. Therefore sadomasochism is a perversion, a sin. However what if someone's sexual satisfaction surrounds sadomasochism would it not then be an act of love for someone to cater to their spouses' sexual desires may they be masochistic or sadistic? Otherwise they may not be sexually satisfied. ANSWER: Which is a true act of love? Catering to the roots that cause sadomasochistic tendencies by either, if possible, professionally discovering and addressing the roots or at least undermining the spirit of the roots with kindness? Or feeding the psychosis by submitting to it by hurting the one you love or allowing to be hurt by the one you love? ANSWER: The former as feeding one's sickness is harmful not helpful.

So to conclude when we as Christians condemn a practice as sinful we should be prepared to explain why its sinful. An act, especially in the realm of sexuality may churn your stomach, but that doesn't mean that the act is wrong. Conversely however an act that you may not see any issues with or even endorse doesn't make it proper.

_______________________

[i] - http://carm.org/religious-movements/islam/what-islam - accessed June 28, 2014

[ii] - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sadomasochism - accessed June 28, 2014

[iii] - http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/07/enjoying-sadomasochism-bdsm - accessed June 28, 2014

[iv] - Ibid., - accessed June 28, 2014

[v] - Ibid., - accessed June 28, 2014

[vi] - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perversion - accessed June 28, 2014

Sin: Is this really a crazy claim?

A few years ago when I was at my old church I was given the opportunity to teach a high school class; and do you know what the best part was? I got to teach from my heart! I was given the opportunity to take these young minds and mold them with what I felt was important for them to learn.

As a result I designed a five week course that I entitled 'Christian's Crazy Claims'; a course of which inspired the name for this blog. This course that analytically looked at the necessary set of beliefs that one has to accept if they are going to believe the Christian Gospel message. It is these claims that are ridiculed as being crazy by this unbelieving world. One of these necessary points that I discussed is the idea of 'sin'.

Sin: What is it?

What exactly is sin? Inspired by Child Evangelism Fellowship, (CEF) but also commonly adopted in many Christian children's ministries worldwide sin is encapsulated as 'anything that a person says, thinks or does that breaks God's law.' And like the Gospel message as a whole if one is going to accept this definition of sin they by necessity have to believe in the existence of God as an actual being and not as a fairytale; and if one comes from such a premise CEF's definition of sin logically follows. However if one springboards off of the presupposition that God does not exist then there is no law of God to break by any means and thus CEF's definition of sin is null and void.

So is CEF's definition of sin off base or is it on point? So to answer this we have to look at three things: 1) Morality: what is it? 2) What is the origin of morality? And 3) why is 'law and order' a basic fundamental in the fabric of human society?

1. What is morality? Merriam-Webster defines morality as: "beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behaviour"[i]. Let's break this definition down. Morality is a set of beliefs that categorizes behaviours into three camps: right, wrong and neutral. Even though this definition talks about beliefs being slotted into 'right' or 'wrong' categories and neglects the category of moral neutrality it is important to be sure to not exclude moral neutrality as the third option; this is because there are many behaviours that are right or wrong, such as murder, there are also actions that are neither right nor wrong, such as going to the movies vs. going to a restaurant. This means that these three camps exist and every human being recognizes this fact. Every human being has within their nature an aspect that C.S. Lewis calls The Law of Nature (Mere Christianity, pg. 7). This natural part of the human being is what enables people to decide that an moral action is either right, wrong or morally neutral. 
2. Where does morality come from? There are three options to choose from: A) biology, B) human opinion or C) a standard that transcends human opinion and biological systems. If morality comes from one's biology then is something as grotesque as genocide really wrong? No. As such morality becomes Darwinian of sorts: survival of the fittest; for an example Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party's success lasted as long as it did simply because they were the fittest (that is until they weren't) and not because they prevailed on the positive side of the moral scale. Furthermore, if morality comes from human opinion then the Holocaust being wrong is wrong but only in the opinion of those who don't agree with it. However it was also morally okay as Adolf Hitler and the members of the Nazi party thought it was good. So if morality is in fact merely human opinion then nobody is correct in there assessment about anything may it be genocide or charity as their assessment is merely their opinion. This makes the very essence of morality neutral therefore rendering and the other two camps: right and wrong void. However if morality finds it ontology in the existence of a transcendent standard that is outside of and superior to human opinion and biology then what Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's did will either be objectively wrong or objectively right or morally neutral. Adolf Hitler and the Nazis may think it was good to do what they did to those millions of people; but if those who believe that the Holocaust is wrong is correct then irregardless of the views held by Hitler and his supporters or the views held by those who believe that the Holocaust is morally relative the Holocaust is objectively wrong. In the same way if the Holocaust is absolutely morally relative then despite the distain that many people have towards this event there is nothing objectively wrong about it; and this same standard must be applied to the notion of the Holocaust being objectively right if Hitler and the Nazi's views of it being right is objective. 
3. Given the fact that people protest things as individuals and as nations is evidence that the point made above (see point #1) regarding CS Lewis' "Law of Nature" is correct. All nations are run on order and justice. When a crime is committed the victim demands justice. If a society subscribe to morality as either of the first two options then there would be no way to make something law; why should murder be prohibited, as it is only wrong by the means of opinion; and can a society really legislate opinion? No. Of course countries do right into law personal values that they hold to either be permissible, promotable or prohibiting - values that others disagree with - however when one gives an opinion they are burdened with the expectation of an explanation as to why X is their opinion. What caused them to arrive at the opinion that action-X is either wrong, morally neutral or right?

So sin is the breaking of a law and more specifically God's law. Human beings arrive at their opinions of what is right or wrong from two fundamental assets: 1) Their ingrained consciousness of the two plains 'right' and 'wrong' and 2) the variable that they hold to be the standard from which they derive their conclusions from, there God; see here for details.

There is another important thread that needs to be tied down: Where did the human being get this consciousness of right and wrong? We are left with two conflicting options: A) biology or B) a creator with a conscience. Again, if our conscience is exclusively biological processes then its Adolf Hitler's conscience vs. my conscience vs. your conscience, etc. But if however this conscience is intelligently designed into our natures just as a computer chip is intelligently designed into a computer then our morality finds its origins in the same place we find ours: God; but again whose God? If this 'god' is a natural one then we are back to morality being biological. If however it is the supernatural God then there is a metaphysical aspect to this physical world. And if morality is metaphysical and finds its origins in a supernatural intelligent creator then there are foundational laws that give birth to our laws; and the same thing goes for social punishment for when these laws are violated. And of course there is the question of 'whose supernatural God' is God? Allah, Yahweh, Elohim, Hare Krishna, etc. but that is a discussion that is best for another post. The point of the matter is the premise of sin being a violation of God's law is valid and to believe that sin is merely a biological processes or human opinion is false. 

However there is one last view that needs to be discussed: Human error.  Aren't human beings really just imperfect? That is to say we are error prone good creatures? Under the premise of morality being merely human error makes morality invalid; as if the grotesque actions of mankind like genocide are merely human mistakes then that puts a genocide on the same moral plain with forgetting to pass along a phone message to someone due to being stressed out. 

So is CEF's definition of sin valid? ANSWER: Yes. 

___________________

[i] - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality - accessed June 26, 2014

Hyperactive Christianity: How not being grounded in God's word causes irrational behaviour

Let me tell you the tragic story of a young man named Timothy. Timothy was a Christian for well over 20 years. He grew up in the church. He went to Sunday school. He was taught that he deserved to go to hell for breaking God's law and so Jesus, the Son of the Father, the Son of God and God in the flesh (cf. John 1:1, 14) came down as a man, died on a cross as a replacement for the father's wrath that hung over his head. He grew up as a passionate Christian, telling all of his friends about this love that God had him and that they are in the same boat of condemnation as he is and the same love that God has for him He has for them. And it wasn't until high school when he was given the name God Boy and Jesus Freak, names that he proudly wore.

Timothy had a great reputation as being an on-fire-for-Jesus Christian. In his early twenties he taught Sunday school to kindergarten children at his church and as the years past he climbed the proverbial corporate-church-ladder and was given free will access to the church building. Everyone praised Timothy for his hyperactive childlike demeanour but also for his maturity as a leader to young minds.   In sum nobody could say anything bad about Timothy.

However Timothy had a dark secret. He had a serious attraction to the darker sides of human sexuality, namely sadomasochism.[i] For years Timothy fought this attraction and it seemed to be a loosing battle as even though he'd have weeks and even months of sobriety from pornographic websites and self-abuse (he abused himself as he never met anyone who shared his sexual predilection) there always came that day when his body and mind ganged up on him and turned his entire being into knots. And as a result he eventually went back to bingeing on sadomasochistic websites and self-destruction.

Over the years Timothy prayed and pleaded with God to take this sexual perversion (as he saw it) away from him but nothing happened. He struggled with this so much that it effected his evangelical ministry. He knew on one hand that it may have been best to step down from ministry until he got a handle on this sexual struggle of his (if he ever would be able to), but he didn't want to; he loved Jesus and desperately wanted to teach everyone about Jesus' love. So he continued his ministry: he served people with the good news of the Gospel by day and in silence he served his sexual desires; and in some cases his binges lasted for weeks at a time.

Timothy was confused. Why would God not relieve him of his sexual sin if it is clearly having such an impact on his ministry, a ministry that he dedicated to God? This confusion played on his mind for years and he even began to consider the possibility that this sexuality was not a perversion as he always believed but just a preference, his sexual orientation as it were. He rationalized that the reason God didn't take away this sexual issue was because he was fine with it and thus so should Timothy be. However he just couldn't bring himself to accept that as fact given what he believed Scripture said.

Then one day Timothy gave sexual sobriety another hard go. He adopted the philosophy held by Alcoholics Anonymous: One day at a time. So beginning with one day and going at it one day at a time, he was successful for three consecutive months. However by the third month rolled around he began to wobble and he knew that if he was going to keep the momentum going he would have to get another human being in his corner. So he prayed for the courage to tell someone about his sexual struggles as up to now his three month success was just between him, his Bible and Jesus.

Three more months goes by and he still is hanging in there, but barely. He knew that he had to have support, no questions asked so he made an appointment to have lunch with a pastor / friend of his at his church. This pastor was one who Timothy had talked to and confided in for years. At 12 noon Timothy had a church, a ministry and respect and at 2:00 PM Timothy had no church, no ministry and had lost the respect he had earned. Why? Because he confide that he had a sexual sin that he had repented of but was struggling with. What was the one thing do you think Timothy pulled out from this experience? ANSWER: Keep your mouth shut about your sin! (Especially any sexual sin!)

This lesson unfortunately is one that many people who struggle with same-sex attraction seem to have learned: stay in the proverbial closet unless you want to be rejected and demeaned. It is true that God hates sin and thus so should the Christian but the church that Timothy went to was so hyperactive regarding its hatred for sin that they were unBiblical; or at least as it pertained to the subject of sin. Timothy believed that the church held to the view that although we can teach that all have sinned (cf. Romans 3:23) we ought not to show that fact. However the disciple John begs to differ.

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. - 1 John 1:8

He says that if he put sin in the closet (pretend that it doesn't exist and even claim so) we are deceiving ourselves and we are not teaching truth. So John is saying not to hide the sin nature. However is he saying then to flaunt our sin proudly? No. So what are we do to? ANSWER: Own and then disown our sin nature. John carries on to say:

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. - 1 John 1:9

So what can we do regarding our fellow fallen friends, gay or straight? Accept them with open arms but love them by encouraging repentance from their sin. Homosexuality like sadomasochism is a perversion of sexuality and it should be discouraged and repented from. But this message cannot be received by the person who needs to hear it if they are receiving the boot from the place or the company from which they should be receiving acceptance, God's church and people. In a pro-homosexual video on Vimeo about Grand Canyon University's condemnation of homosexuality a woman states that it is not the university's fault that gay people feel afraid to confess their same-sex attraction but rather it is the Christian's fault.[ii] The spirit of her words presume that a rejection of homosexuality is a rejection of the homosexual, something that is clearly wrong; but one cannot deny that there is an element of truth to her claim. It is important that the Christian hates sin with a passion, but this passion cannot get in the way of the Christian's job: representing Jesus. John carries on to say that "[if] we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us." In the same way then if we keep sin in the closet and pretend it doesn't exist not only are we merely playing lip-service to the teaching of sin's reality we cannot proceed love our neighbour (cf. Matthew 22:39) by helping them get a handle on or overcome their sin.
___________________

[i] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadomasochism - accessed June 17, 2014
[ii] - http://vimeo.com/97782575 - accessed June 18, 2014

Intelligently Designed Morality

In 2006 world renowned atheist professor Richard Dawkins' blessed (or cursed) us with his four-hundred page rant, The God Delusion. However not all of the teachings in this book are wrought with nonsense; for an example, Dawkins proposed one of the oldest assumptions:

Intelligent design suffers from exactly the same objection as chance. It is simply not a plausible solution to the riddle of statistical improbability. And the higher the improbability, the more implausible intelligent design becomes. Seen clearly, intelligent design will turn out to be a redoubling of the problem. Once again, this is because the designer himself ... immediately raises the bigger problem of his own origin.[i]

In sum since the intelligent design proponent insists that the God of their religion is the originator of this universe Dawkins is asking for an answer explaining the origin of their god and at a more basic level the basic claim of *God* in the general sense. And rightfully so as it is the responsibility of everyone to explain their worldview if they proclaim it to be a natural fact of reality. This fact applies to the natural reality that we are living in and also to the question of morality. 

Where does morality come from? I was at a pro-life conference one day. And as it was with almost every pro-life conference that I've been to, there was at the street entrance to the church a band of sign-bobbing pro-choice advocates chanting their outdated chants. With me at this conference was a fellow pro-life advocate and a friend of about 15 years; so to protect her identity I'll call her, Sara. However unlike me Sara was an atheist. In the main auditorium she and I engaged into a debate about morality. The debate was of course not on the morality of abortion as we both agreed that it is wrong to kill another human being at any stage of life, but rather the origin of morality. She insisted that morality is originated in realm of subjectivity but inconsistently insisted that the views held by the band of pro-choice advocates regarding abortion is objectively morally wrong. I tried to explain to her that as an atheist she had no right to condemn their views as wrong and stand proud with her views believing them to be objectively correct. This is simply because if her belief that God doesn't exist is true then her pro-life views are, like those of the pro-choice advocates, subjective. Her views are neither right or wrong, but merely right or wrong for her. 

Returning our attention to Dr. Richard Dawkins on Facebook I saw a video clipping of Dawkins at a conference. During what seemed to be the Q&A section of the festivities a Muslim man raised his hand and asked this question: 

Considering that atheism cannot possibly have any sense of absolute morality, would it not then be an irrational leap of faith ... for an atheist to decide between right and wrong?[ii]

And with a confident smile on his face Dawkins replied: 

...the absolute morality that a religious person might profess would include stoning people for adultery, death for apostasy, punishment for breaking Sabbath; these are all things that are religiously based absolute moralities. I don't think I want an absolute morality. I think I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, argued, discussed and based upon, I could almost say by intelligent design. Can we not design our society which has the sort of morality that we want to live in?[iii]  

"Can we not design our society which has the sort of morality that we want to live in?" The answer is of course, yes, but this begs the question: whose design for morality will we use? Dr. Dawkins' is being internally inconsistent with his worldview. On one hand he condemns as logically wrong punishment for adultery, apostasy and breaking the Sabbath; facets of a socially designed morality by people who want to live in that society; but he likewise insists that a morality which rejects slavery and that subscribes to gentleness, the equality for women and the kindness to animals[iv] is logically right. I of course agree with him on the latter as I too wish to live in a society that promotes these as actions as moral values. But who is he to tell a person who believes that punishing adultery is wrong when he doesn't have any vice in his worldview to determine it to be so? If all Dawkins is doing is giving his opinion then he has no right to impose is opinion onto others who hold to different opinions on the same subject matter and wish to live in a society who subscribes to their opinion. If Dawkins doesn't believe in condemnation for adultery then he ought to live by his conviction and not condemn adultery; but since he is merely giving his opinion he should likewise mind his own business and not push his pro-adultery views onto his neighbour who believes he (or she) is justified in condemning their spouse for cheating on them. If however Dawkins is presenting condemnation for adultery as wrong, as a fact then he has the burden of proof to show why he feels justified in shaming his neighbour for condemning their spouse for their adulterous behaviour.

If Dawkins' atheism is true and there is no objective moral measuring facet to life and thus morality is akin to paintings in an art gallery (morality is right or wrong in the heart of the subscriber just a piece of art work is beautiful or ugly in they eyes of the viewer) then there is no difference between the current North American anti-slavery morality and the Old Testament Jewish law regarding homosexual practice (cf. Leviticus 20:13). They are just two types of moral designs that are both reasoned, argued and discussed. Now of course they are reasoned, argued and discussed from different foundations that is, a consensus on preference and subjective opinions vs. a proclaimed to be holy-book, the Bible. And one could believe that the Bible is an unreasonable foundation to determine morality but the same is said by Christians worldwide about secularism as a moral foundation. But neither view negates the fact that the difference in morality of such practices are in both systems intelligently "...thought out, reasoned, argued [and] discussed...". 

Furthermore, Dawkins' desire to not have an objective morality is seemingly inconsistent with his insistent of the usage of the 'scientific method' - a means of determining the truth of a fact of this natural world. We know that earth's gravitational pull is 9.81 m/s squared[v] based on objective facts about this physical planet and not based on someone's opinion. Imagine what the field of the natural sciences would be like if people determined things like earth's gravity based on their opinions; we could have answers ranging from: "a lot" to "who cares" to "I guess it would be around...", etc. Why then should morality be treated any differently?  

What might be a parallel standard to the scientific method in determining the morality of something? Since the intelligence of human societies reason through and debate their moral views with each other and ultimately end up with different perspectives human intelligence is not a good candidate for an objective moral standard. What then is left? ANSWER: The intelligent designer, known as God as he is outside of human opinion.

However this begs the question: Who's God? Everyone has a worldview and everyone's worldview has a God, even atheists; see here for details. The answer to this question is: the worldview that is consistent with reality. However everyone believes their worldview is consistent with reality. This is true but just as earth's gravity is determine by facts, not opinions, a persons insisting opinion is irrelevant; their worldview will either be consistent with reality or it won't be. So whose worldview is consistent with logic, science and history?

________________

[i] - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. (Great Britain: Bantam Press, a division of Transworld Publishers,2006), 145-146.

[ii] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4w_8Z8SE_4 - accessed June, 16, 2014

[iii] - Ibid., - accessed June, 16, 2014

[iv] - Ibid., - accessed June, 16, 2014

[v] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth - accessed June, 16, 2014