Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Sin, Ancient and Modern
Cain killing Abel, marble relief on the facade of the Milan Cathedral, Duomo di Santa Maria Nascente. (Shutterstock.com)
Well, we know how that turned out.
Sin always seemed to be couching at the door of those ancient Jews. Here they were, tough men and women, eking out a precarious existence among enemies in a semi-arid land — and they obsessed, absolutely obsessed, over their sins. You’d think that kind of excessive and painstaking attention to sin, personal and communal, would be the last thing on their minds. They had weapons to make, borders to protect, sheep to tend to, clothes to weave, land to cultivate — and they apparently found time to agonize over their sins.
At least that’s the impression I get from reading the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible). From beginning to end, the Bible is glutted with the Israelites’ attempts to deal with sin—how to resist it, how to perform rituals associated with it, and how to atone for it when it occurred.
One way they had of atoning for their sins was to kill and roast an animal. Sometimes this sacrifice was used as a “sin offering.” (Lev. 4:1–5) At other times it was used as a “guilt” offering. (Lev. 7:1–10). In both cases, God was said to be pleased with the smell of the smoke that wafted upward from the roasting animals. That was apparently an indication that the offering was accepted and that the sins of the person or group who offered up the animal were expiated, for the moment at least.
They could also atone for their sins through the use of a substitute, a scapegoat. When the scapegoat was destroyed, the sins it carried were also destroyed. It worked like this: One of two goats was chosen by God (through the casting of lots) and sent as a “sin offering” into the wilderness to die. (Lev. 16:7–10) The scapegoating passages in Leviticus 16 are, to this day, read in many synagogues on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, a day of fasting and prayer when Jews petition God for forgiveness of their sins.
No one hated sin the way the prophets hated sin. Here’s Isaiah inveighing against heavy drinkers and flute-playing party-goers: “Woe to those who rise early in the morning to run after their drinks, who stay up late at night till they are inflamed with wine. They have their harps and lyres at their banquets, tambourines and flutes and wine, but they have no regard for the deeds of the Lord…. Therefore my people will go into exile … their men of rank will die of hunger and their masses will be parched with thirst. Therefore the grave enlarges its appetite and opens its mouth without limit. (Isaiah 5: 1–21) The grave is hungry, Isaiah says, for those who party too hard. Now that’s what I call a tough-minded prophet. But then all of those Hebrew prophets seem to have been tough-minded.
Well, you get the idea. The Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, is rich in passages that deal with sin and atonement, but I want to move on now to a consideration of sin in its post-Biblical milieu.
Some post-Biblical societies like the 17th-century Puritans took the Biblical focus on sin very seriously indeed. It was sinful, according to the Puritans, to hang garlands on a Maypole, to fly a hawk, to hunt a stag, to play chess, to wear lovelocks, and to put starch in a ruff (Macaulay’s History of England) Perhaps you remember H. L. Mencken’s definition of the Puritan mindset: ”The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”
The contemporary Christian order that places the most emphasis on sin and repentance is, of course, the Catholic Church, where it is centered on the confessional booth. It is there where one’s sins, both mortal (those sins that will result in hell if not atoned for) and venal (everyday sins) are confessed to a priest (temporarily God’s representative). The sin is not completely forgiven until the penitent completes his penance, given to him by the priest, of fasting, the giving of alms, or the recitation of prayers.
But for the most part, sin has fallen on hard times. Some mainline Christian churches rarely touch upon the concept of sin and its consequence at all. Sin has become as old-fashioned as a Puritan ruff. When a person lies in a court of law, very few people think, “Well, there’s a sinner.” But in fact, the liar, in Biblical terms, has broken the 8th Commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor.”
What I’m curious about are your thoughts about sin. As a “middle to right” political web site, we probably have more religious folk than your run-of-the-mill website. We’re a religious people, we Ricochettti, so we should have much to say.
Let me tell you about my feelings about sin first; then you can discuss yours.
I’ve lead a rather easy and untroubled life, which is not the kind of existence that leads to great sins. I was a literature professor (don’t judge) in a quiet college town, with an easy-going wife and two nice kids.
Naturally, as a male, I think lascivious thoughts about women — much more when I was younger than I do now — and if I were a Catholic, I could confess that I have had impure thoughts. But really, I’ve never thought those were sins. It’s just something we men do. No harm, no foul. But to please the priest, I might confess that I’ve harbored impure thoughts. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have much to talk about. I’ve always hated to disappoint people.
There are a few things that have worried my conscience all these years. I shouted a few times at the dinner table at my daughter Annie about 40 years ago (I didn’t understand what she was going through), and I mistreated a dog about 70 years ago. I am truly sorry for those two offenses against man and beast. I would do penance if I thought it would do anyone any good.
Well, there is one more thing I do that I consider a sin, at least for me: the killing of animals for my food. I’ve been a vegetarian for the past, oh, twelve years or so. But lately, in the past few months, I’ve put on weight so I’ve been trying the keto diet. It’s almost impossible to be on a keto diet, which focuses on meat and fat, and be a vegetarian at the same time. I’ve lost some weight but my conscience bothers me about eating meat, so I’m returning to my vegetarian diet. I just don’t want to be complicit, in even the slightest way, in the killing of animals, animals who want to live as much as I want to live. (By the way, I don’t think any less of you if you eat meat. Vegetarianism is a personal thing with me, strictly between me and my conscience. My wife eats meat and I like her a lot.)
When I was a kid growing up in Compton, CA, I did a lot of juvie stuff, but that stuff doesn’t count, does it?
Small twinges to my conscience occur occasionally. A few hours ago, in the middle of the night, I ate the last piece of a cheesecake that I found in the refrigerator. I think Marie might have been saving that piece for herself. I’m a little sorry for my gluttonous act of thoughtlessness. But Marie has more of it that she plans to sell at a church bazaar. If she wants a piece so badly, she can take a piece out of that. I’ll confess to her in the morning. Maybe I’ll leave a cute message on the empty plate. I’ll have to think about that. I do feel somewhat guilty about the whole thing.
If I were a Catholic, I don’t think I would confess the cheesecake theft to a priest. It just seems too petty. Besides, the priest might laugh at me.
Is schadenfreude a sin? I’ve done a lot of that. Actually, I haven’t. I just like the word.
During the course of writing this post, I took a good look at the Ten Commandments. I’ve broken eight of them at some time or another in my lifetime. I’ll leave it to your imagination which two I’ve haven’t broken. What about you?
Why I Don’t Sin Very Much
That’s my front yard below. Can a person with such a tidy lawn, a faithful dog (see photo), and a statue of an antelope of some kind be a big sinner? I don’t think so. That tidy yard and sinning just don’t go together. Moreover, I have to walk the dog twice a day, vacuum the lawn once a week, trim the vegetation as needed, and cater to a sometimes cranky wife who needs a lot of love and attention. I really don’t have time to sin very much. Finally, I’m old. Old people just don’t sin as much as young people do. We aren’t spunky enough to sin very much.
So what do you think of all of this? Perhaps I’ve been more flippant than you prefer. I’m sorry. I lapse into flippancy too often. It’s a bad habit of mine. I don’t, however, consider it a sin. Just an annoying habit. It annoys Marie, so there’s that.
I’d like to hear your take on sin, as long as you don’t get all testy, especially about my vegetarianism. I’m a bit thin-skinned. Oh, go ahead and flail away. I‘ll buckle up.
Published in General
I used to teach The Bible as Literature, a junior-level class. But I’ve always been interested in the Bible.
Another thing about sin and the Bible, the Puritans left England because of religious persecution, but didn’t abandon it. Faith became the foundation of our country and documents, even the first Thanksgiving. Our foundation is unlike any other country in the world, but many are abandoning the faith and the foundation is on shaky ground. If you don’t want sin in the vocabulary, or to acknowledge its existence, and the consequences, you have what we are seeing today. Interesting how the Book of Romans follows the book of Acts. Romans is a snapshot of today. Hope I didn’t get preachy on you. You couldn’t teach the Bible today in a literature class, another example.
Unless it’s in a Hillsdale charter school or Hillsdale College itself. When we toured what turned out to be our kids’ high school and saw Biblical stories posted in the Literature and History classes, we knew we were putting them in the right school.
Mrs. Cat, I too lament the erosion of religion in daily life. I prefer religious people to secular ones — even though I am one of those secular ones myself. I think religious belief is good for the individual and the country.
Although my grandparents, especially my grand mom, were traditional Christians and Bible readers, my parents, after moving from Oklahoma to sunny Californias, lost any trace of a religious impulse or belief, if they ever had one, though my mom sent me to Sunday School for awhile — until it was just too much trouble. Her two children, my sister and I, are both secular-minded.
My wife Marie is a traditional Christian, but we have absolutely no conflict in our marriage concerning religion. She would like me to be a Christian, I think, but I can’t quite do it. I’ve attended Church from time to time, but its sermons and rituals are mostly empty to me.
I’ve never felt anything was missing from my life. In fact, I love my life.
By the way, does my post, “Sin, Ancient and Modern,” currently show up on the Main Feed? It doesn’t on my iPad. It seems to have disappeared on my iPad. I contacted the editors, but I haven’t heard from them.
Yes its on the Main Feed. It was this morning as well.
This is well said. The reason “sin” is sin is because it separates us from God. For those who love God, they wish to eliminate sin as much as they can so they can love God and unite themselves with Him as much as possible. Since God also loves us, and is our Creator, following God by the mastering of ourselves and our sins also perfects us and is ultimately the only way to happiness.
I’m reminded of something the Irish fiddle master Martin Hayes once said. He said a master fiddler eventually gets to a point where the increments of improvement are miniscule. A lot of work goes into very tiny improvement. Now we could call that being “obsessed with musical sin”, but that’s a blinkered way of looking at it. Hayes isn’t obsessed with musical sin, but with perfecting his craft, making it as beautiful as possible, which involves rooting out every imperfection, no matter how tiny.
The Christian saint is someone who, submitting to the grace and discipline of God, hopes to make himself as beautiful as he can in the sight of God, because he loves God. So he wishes to root out and purify all his imperfections.
Concerning sin, it not only separates us from God, but is our biggest lifelong problem, built into our DNA. Sin drives us to see the world in terms of our own needs and desires, it drives us into ourselves, narrowing our focus. It is our built selfishness which cause us to see the world as those people who enable our desires or those who block our desires. On our own sin is irresitibly effective, because it blinds us to our selfishness. We naturally are the most vulnerable to our own self deceit, we believe our inner lawyer. This is one of the benefits of religion, religion describes how readily we fool ourselves, how readily we will worship false gods, how often we use our good works as a platform for acquiring the praise of our audience. Insight is not in the DNA of humans, nor in me, sin is.
But that isn’t all. To be forgiven, we must forgive others who sin against us. This may be the most challenging aspect of Christianity.
As the Lord’s Prayer states: “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”
Interesting, Theodoric. I’ve never heard of that as a part of the ritual of the confessional. But as a Catholic, you obviously know more about his than I do.
Who then can be saved? With God, all things are possible.
I think both the secular individual and the Christian can agree on the reality of sin, if by “sin” in this context we simply mean that something isn’t quite right with the world and ourselves. The question is just how deep that “wrongness” goes. Does it go “all the way to the bone”? Or is there a core within us that is unaffected and could serve as a basis of renewal?
If it goes all the way to the bone, then we have a mortal problem because any attempt we make to fix that wrongness will itself be infected with wrongness and ultimately be self-defeating. This, of course, is the Christian view and is why only a turn to God can save us.
I think the secularist has to hope that the wrongness is to some degree superficial. The left does this by assuming that individuals are themselves good and go wrong only because of the “sinful structures” of society that warps them. Get the right people in charge who will fix those structures and all will be well. I’m not sure about the secular right… unlike the secular left, they don’t seem to have a clear program as to how to move forward (c.f. John Derbyshire’s “We Are Doomed.”) I’d be interested to hear something on this from Ricochet’s resident secularists.
Kent, I have to say I am impressed with your knowledge of the Bible.
Thanks Kent. I love your name.
Evening Climacus,
I think the social science research rather confirms Biblical insights. Social science tells us we judge others using a different harsher yardstick than we apply to ourselves, we are hypocrites, all of us. The research tells us that we will share equally if we are being monitored, but if we can shade the balance slightly to benefit ourselves we will. As Heinlein says “we are not rational creatures, we are rationalizing creatures”, the smarter we are the better we can justify our behavior. There is a lot of research showing subjects cheat to benefit themselves and disadvantage others and show how subjects shade the truth to their benefit. And even worse we tend to believe our own lies. This research is not necessary for those who have had children. My favorite example concerns twins my wife and I have stayed with part of one day a week for several years. When they were young, noticing that the girl needed her diaper changed, we asked “do you need you diaper changed” in an instant she said, “no, but my brother does”. This knowledge that one can change the behavior of others by lying is something that every child learns as soon as the can talk. So for the secularists, I do not see any research that would encourage us to believe that humans are basically good and that somehow our group structures corrupt us to become less moral than we were. I think the research suggest the opposite. The reasearch also notes that when subjects are watched by others their behavior changes for the better, they cheat less, share more, they work harder, pay more attention, lie less. That is not encouraging, we are moral when we are watched, otherwise we are selfish, there is nothing shocking about this finding. For those who would hope to live a life where their faith helps change their behavior, they need brothers who will lovingly point out their sins and hold them accountable, because folks of faith are not more insightful, we are told that we are so flawed that we need to be Redeemed.
Though I have attended various churches over the past 35 years, I am now an agnostic-atheist and have been for at least since 2017 when I had a political disagreement with the Leftish Presbyterian Church my wife and I were attending at the time. Maybe I’ll get into that later, if time permits.
But let’s dig into your question. How would a right of center secularist deal with the issue of sin?
It seems that the word “sin” is used in at least two different ways.
First, there is “original sin.” Maybe you didn’t steal your neighbor’s stereo or sleep with someone else’s wife or murder the guy over a parking spot at the mall, but you are still a sinner because, well, because of Adam’s and Eve’s disobedience to God in the Garden of Eden.
I, as an atheist-agnostic, see the Adam and Eve story as a fable, a myth, not an event that actually happened in history. But I do believe that as a fable, the story of “the fall of man” in the Garden of Eden does describe human nature in a simplified way.
Women do suffer pain during childbirth. Less so in 21st century America compared to the ancient world due to modern medicine. Men do have to scratch out a living and it’s often hard to do so. Less so in 21st century America compared to the ancient world due to the application of technology.
I don’t believe in man’s total depravity, at least not in a collective sense. Sure, there are some people who have a damaged prefrontal cortex and, thus, do not care how their behavior impacts others. Many of these people become mass murderers or con artists.
Most human beings, however, have the capability of understanding the needs of other human beings while also having the desire for the approval of others.
[I am running out of words. So, I’ll continue on the next comment.]
There is a second way that the term “sin” is often used. Let’s say someone admits to having premarital sex. Another person might say, “You have sinned.” This person isn’t referring necessarily to “original sin,” the sin committed by Adam and Eve resulting in the “fall of man,” instead referring to a specific act that God disapproves of.
As an agnostic-atheist, I am not confident that God exists or that if God does exist that God disapproves of premarital sex. In fact, if God exists, I am not sure what God sees as right or wrong.
Perhaps we can stipulate that the God we are talking about isn’t just some Super Being who created the universe but, more specifically, the God we read about in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. As I see it, the writings that ended up in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament are the writings of human beings. Human beings are entirely capable of creating stories and commands and narratives without any inspiration from God.
I realize that it is entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that some events described in the Bible did actually happen while other events described did not happen. Secular Biblical scholars earn PhDs attempting to discern what is factual and what is mythical in the Bible.
Still, since @kentforrester mentioned that he is a vegetarian, I’ll use the common desire to improve ones health as a topic for discussion.
Over 9 years ago I did some reading about nutrition and became convinced that by giving up meat, dairy and eggs and junk food, I could improve my future health. I have always enjoyed ice cream and bacon cheeseburgers. But having read this information on nutrition and its impact on human health, I decided to no longer consume ice cream and cheeseburgers.
One could say that I was able to reform myself, to make myself better. Others might say that I have done no such thing, that the nutritional information I read was inaccurate and that avoiding meat, dairy and eggs and junk food will not improve my health, that I my imperfect cognitive ability to separate fact from fiction caused me to fail.
To continue from my previous comment.
Regardless of whether one agrees with the idea that avoiding meat, dairy and eggs and junk food will improve a person’s health, one might agree that there is some objective truth about optimal human nutrition, even if we human beings have an imperfect understanding of it.
Similarly, with morality. I don’t have the answers for all of the tough moral questions that one might hurl at me.
But I do tend to think of morality as the process of trying to increase the happiness and health of human beings (and possibly animals too) while reducing the pain and suffering of human beings (and possibly animals too).
So, if I see someone beating their dog, I might think of that person as immoral. But do I think of my wife as immoral for eating a piece of chicken? I don’t. But perhaps I should. Perhaps I am biased towards my wife to the point that when she eats chicken I don’t see it as immoral. Also, since I have grown up in a culture where eating chicken is common, perhaps I am unable to see eating chicken as immoral.
And there are practical considerations too. If someone is on the brink of starvation, it’s hard for me to think of that person as immoral if they eat some chicken to stay alive.
One of my favorite books written by a secularist, agnostic-atheist is “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature,” by Steven Pinker. Pinker explains how so many people believed that human behavior is simply a product of environmental (instead of genetic) influences.
The fact of the matter is that both environment and genetics influence human behavior.
So, I hope I have gone some part of the way in answering the question as to what a right of center atheist/secularist thinks about human sin and human renewal. If not, I’ll take another stab at it.
But I’d like to know what Kent thinks about this too.
Also, Milton Friedman was an agnostic. But he was pretty confident that the free enterprise system was more moral than socialism.
Heavy Water, thank you for your response. You have indeed given us much to chew on. I can’t chew this morning, though. I’m on my way to walk the dog, and Marie and the dog are almost out the door and in the car. (We drive to a place where we can let Bob off his leash.) I’ll try to get back after dog-walking and grocery shopping.
But let me say a few things now while they wait. Sin for me is entirely personal and has little to do with Biblical injunctions. My conscience would bother me (which I equate with sinning) if I mistreated my wife or dog. It also bothers me when I eat meat.
None of these three matters seem to have bothered the priests who wrote the Torah.
I am in agreement with you on this.
The kinds of actions that I think of as immoral or sinful, if we insist on using that term, can be different from what many (though not all) religious poeple think of as immoral or sinful.
I think the question posed to right of center secularists was, however, whether human beings are “bad to the bone” as George Thorogood once wrote.
I am not a Calvinist. I am not even a Christian. So, I don’t subscribe to TULIP.
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints
Steven Pinker was once on Dennis Prager’s radio talk show that Prager asked Pinker if he thinks that human beings are basically good or basically evil. Pinker said that human nature is complex and did not choose from Prager’s options.
I’m big on definitions. Give me a closed form definition of “sin.” I’ll be credulous. And generous – I’ll allot you 40 words.
I’m watching The Five right now. I’ll get back to you.
Why do we need a specific definition of “sin?” Are we trying to develop an ethical system that could apply to all people in all circumstances?
Usually religious people think of “sin” as any action that offends God. Non-religious people tend not to use the term “sin” very much.
What are we trying to accomplish by defining “sin?”
Are we trying to create a new set of “Thou Shalt Nots” to guide people?
I’m usually against definitions because I don’t want to be boxed in by them. Sometimes I can exploit them in my favor, though.
Back now from The Five.
To give a simple definition, sin is what the Bible (Hebrew, Old, and New) says is a sin. That definition has been used for hundreds of years by countless rabbis and ministers from the pulpit.
My personal definition of sin is a personal act that bothers my conscience (has me regretting the act) for more than a few weeks. In this definition, sin is what an individual “feels” is a sin and is therefore not applicable to others.
It’s analogous to that old saw that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Sin is in the eye of the beholder. But I’ve never cared much for that old saw.
There are, of course, certain acts that all people would consider a sin: beating a child, murdering an innocent person, being unfaithful to one’s spouse, and so on.
It’s complicated.
Many of the things we think of as “sinful” are also “harmful.” But what if an action doesn’t appear to cause harm?
For example, in Numbers 15:32-36 a man was caught gathering sticks on the Sabbath.
In this case, the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath might have commited a “sin” in the eyes of religious poeple, but no harm was caused by this man’s actions. The harm was caused by God commmanding Moses and the congregation to kill the man. Homosexuality is viewed by many as a sin. But the harm is actually caused when the Iranian regime tosses homosexuals off of buildings to punish them for the sin. That’s why I tend to think obsessing about “sin” can be counterproductive.
The word origin for “sin” means “to miss the mark,” like an arrow gone astray. It usually falls into four categories having to do with addiction to pleasure, to honor, to wealth, and to power. It is almost always a violation of the telos of a thing/person.
Contraception is sinful because it corrupts the purpose of the marital act, which is both procreative and unitive (complete self-giving of the spouses to one another). It makes sexual intimacy an act of exploitation. Anything which exploits people for personal gain is sinful — for example, the way Democrats exploit blacks to acquire power. But, lacking God’s perfections, we all sin every single day (with the exception of Mary, but that’s for another discussion). We miss the mark.
How are we ever supposed to live up to the standards of God’s perfections? Well, a) we can’t (although, I like Klavan’s “be the person God made you to be and you’ll get there), which is why we need the Savior, and b) we can become saintly by the grace of God. And, thankfully, God is merciful.
BTW, I’m not advocating for the Protestant doctrine of total depravity. We are made good (it says so right there in Genesis), but we have a fallen human nature which makes us prone to sin. Judeo-Christian religious beliefs are beneficial to individuals and societies because it’s good to strive for excellence in all things and to have an agreed upon Standard of what that looks like.
If this is true, why does the Christian nation of El Salvador have one of the highest murder rates in the world? Is this because the people of El Salvador are not actual Christians?
What about Nigeria, another Christian nation? Has Christianity really helped Nigeria achieve excellence?
What about Argentina and Brazil? Both are Christian nations. But are economic basket cases with high murder rates.
Sure, if one looks at the United States, Christianity looks pretty darn good. But Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was neither Christian nor Jewish and deliberately removed those portions of the Bible he found implausible or offensive.
Geeze, I’m a little embarrassed to answer the question. Yes, murderers are not living out their Christian faith, are they? I mean, really. It’s kind of an obtuse question.
The problem with these nations isn’t their Christian history, it’s their abandonment of Christianity for secular, socialist, leftism. And, btw, I wouldn’t consider the US a Christian nation anymore either. Any nation with an abortion rate as high as ours isn’t very Christian. The moral consensus has broken down and we’re seeing what it does to individuals and society when we don’t share values any longer. It’s literally murderous.
Evening Barfy,
To sin is to create or join in creating an injustice. That is to prevent or deny someone what they are owed. Sin is also, to want, work toward, or get what one does not deserve, what one is not owed. It is essentially a selfish understanding of obligation, where one’s obligations are limited and negotiable or do not exist, and what you are owed is expansive. At its most selfish, the self is center and everything else is to serve one’s needs and desires, and everyone else is a vehicle to give you what you want or a block for getting what you want. Sin strips humanity from others.
Looks like there are as many definitions as there are Ricochet posters. But it’s important that we misunderstand each other on this, otherwise we’re not likely to get along.
Sorry it took me so long to circle back to this. Thank you @westernchauvinist for the poetry of “to miss the mark.” Thanks @jimbeck for phrasing a definition structured to my taste. Thanks @thereticulator for answering the concerns of @heavywater – without definitions we each go our own way and talk past each other, and the whole enterprise frays.