Parallel Worlds

[JimL]

Religionists are also very selective about what sin actually is. To the Pope, masturbation is a sin. Teaching that Lourdes is a special place where the infirm receive healing, not so much.

Reminds me of a quote from Shakespeare's Hamlet. "Theres nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

[ZackMartin]

Religionists are also very selective about what sin actually is. To the Pope, masturbation is a sin. Teaching that Lourdes is a special place where the infirm receive healing, not so much.

Humans - whether secular or religious - have disagreements about ethics. And some of them even have ethical views that you or I think are wrong or even self-serving. The Pope included. You'll find religious leaders with views very different from his - has anyone asked Katharine Jefferts Schori for her views on masturbation? I don't see what the specifically religious angle is here.

As I've argued, even though "sin" in English has peculiarly religious connotations, if we go back to the original Greek NT term "harmatia", it isn't specifically religious at all, but applies equally to secular concepts of wrongdoing. Maybe they should drop the English word "sin" as a translation for "harmatia", because it gives contemporary English speakers misleading ideas.

[Whag]

Humans - whether secular or religious - have disagreements about ethics. And some of them even have ethical views that you or I think are wrong or even self-serving. The Pope included. You'll find religious leaders with views very different from his - has anyone asked Katharine Jefferts Schori for her views on masturbation? I don't see what the specifically religious angle is here.

As I've argued, even though "sin" in English has peculiarly religious connotations, if we go back to the original Greek NT term "harmatia", it isn't specifically religious at all, but applies equally to secular concepts of wrongdoing. Maybe they should drop the English word "sin" as a translation for "harmatia", because it gives contemporary English speakers misleading ideas.

Whether it's sin in the papal sense or sin in secular sense, sin is inevitable. You keep going back to the secular definition, but the context is the religious perception. In particular, the context is the Christian belief that human beings are some kind of unique failure that, through its "missing the mark," deteriorated the universe, causing thorns and chaos. When presented with the same challenges and obstacles, any parallel sentient species is bound to be a major disappointment and miss the mark on some level. The "mark" in this case seems to be a euphemism for "bull's eye."

By the way, this thought came to me after hearing a Christian evangelist pontificating about the wickedness of early humans in engaging in human sacrifice. He obviously did not understand the circumstances that precipitated such acts.

[ZackMartin]

Whether it's sin in the papal sense or sin in secular sense, sin is inevitable. You keep going back to the secular definition, but the context is the religious perception. In particular, the context is the Christian belief that human beings are some kind of unique failure that, through its "missing the mark," deteriorated the universe, causing thorns and chaos. When presented with the same challenges and obstacles, any parallel sentient species is bound to be a major disappointment and miss the mark on some level. The "mark" in this case seems to be a euphemism for "bull's eye."

By the way, this thought came to me after hearing a Christian evangelist pontificating about the wickedness of early humans in engaging in human sacrifice. He obviously did not understand the circumstances that precipitated such acts.

I can understand, at some level, the idea that Adam's sin produced thorns - although they'll probably call my ideas hopelessly heterodox.

As I said elsewhere, my take on "original sin", is that original sin is the sin of our existence, because we are beings who can only exist in a world full of evil. In a perfect world, you and I and everyone else would not exist. Other people would exist instead. So we, as particular people, have original sin, whereas people in a perfect world would not.

God created this world because he loved with a particular love those particular persons who existed in it. He loved us in spite of our sinfulness, loved us so much that he caused us to exist in spite of the sinful nature of our own existence. The universe only exists because of us. The laws of physics exist for us. So thorns only exist for Adam; if God did not love Adam, there would be no thorns. I actually doubt that God made any worlds without thorns - any other universes God has created, even those with very different laws of physics, would be about as thorny as this one - but I could be wrong about that.

God didn't start by writing the laws of physics, and we so happened to be the product of that. God started by loving us, and then wrote the laws of physics for us.

If God made another Adam in a different garden, would that garden have thorns? I don't know. I don't know if a perfect from the beginning world is possible or not, only that it is not possible for us. But if he made such an Adam, it would be in a different universe with different laws of physics from our own.

I don't believe the Fall came after the Creation; I think the Creation and the Fall are the same thing. God loves us so much he created this world despite its wrongness from the beginning. The goodness that God saw in the world, was the goodness of ends, not of means.

[Doug Shaver]

If we go back to the original Greek of the NT, sin is ἁμαρτία (harmatia), which doesn't have the many of the religious connotations that English "sin" has.

It would have had whatever connotations the NT authors intended it to have.

The Greek poets used it to refer to the tragic hero's fatal flaw. Given that, I don't think "sin" as the NT originally meant it was an exclusively theological context, because the same word was used in non-theological contexts.

The Greek poets' usages might or might not have constrained the NT authors' usages. If I want to know what Paul meant by hamartia, I think I would be foolish to rely solely on a study of how Sophocles used the word.





The word "sin" in English has developed into a very religious sounding word, that would rarely be used in secular contexts, but the original NT concept wasn't so exclusively religious.[/QUOTE]

[Whag]

God didn't start by writing the laws of physics, and we so happened to be the product of that. God started by loving us, and then wrote the laws of physics for us.

"God started by loving us" is only a religiously significant statement, based only on assertion. Ditto god's writing the laws of physics specifically for higher primates.

I don't believe the Fall came after the Creation; I think the Creation and the Fall are the same thing. God loves us so much he created this world despite its wrongness from the beginning. The goodness that God saw in the world, was the goodness of end

The Bible indicates no such thing. You cherry pick from it to suit your personal preferences.

Please define "goodness of end."

[ZackMartin]

It would have had whatever connotations the NT authors intended it to have.


The Greek poets' usages might or might not have constrained the NT authors' usages. If I want to know what Paul meant by hamartia, I think I would be foolish to rely solely on a study of how Sophocles used the word.

I never said we should rely solely on how Sophocles used the word. I think we should start from the assumption that the NT is written in standard Koine Greek, and that knowledge of other Greek texts (whether archaic, classical or Koine) is relevant to understanding the Greek of the NT. That doesn't exclude that the NT sometimes has some distinctive Jewish or uniquely Christian usages - clearly it does. But it remains to be demonstrated in each particular case that we are dealing with one of these unique usages, as opposed to a standard Greek word being used more or less in its standard sense.

Paul and Sophocles clearly don't have exactly the same understanding of "harmatia". But are they talking about two completely different things, or two different understandings of the same thing? I'd say, that whatever their differences in understanding, they are talking about fundamentally the same thing - errors, mistakes, misdeeds, flaws, evils, wrongdoings, etc. I don't think in either case the concept is exclusively religious, but neither is it purely secular - indeed, to ask whether their concept of "harmatia" is secular or religious is to anachronistically project unto them a distinction which would certainly have been alien to their thought.

[ZackMartin]

"God started by loving us" is only a religiously significant statement, based only on assertion. Ditto god's writing the laws of physics specifically for higher primates.

I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe.

The Bible indicates no such thing. You cherry pick from it to suit your personal preferences.

For me, the Bible is not an authority, it is just a source of spiritual ideas, some of which I will accept, some of which I won't, some of which I will accept with some modifications or rearrangements. If you want to call it "cherry picking" - well, you can call it whatever you want, but you make it sound like a bad thing, when I don't think it is. Rather than abdicating my own conscience, intellect and insight to someone else, I read the Bible as subject to those, keeping those bits which I find in agreement with my conscience, intellect and insight, and putting aside those bits which disagree.

Please define "goodness of end."

Things that are good in themselves, as opposed to a mere means to some good end. Love, happiness, companionship, friendship, pleasure, art, music, beauty, family - these things are all good in themselves, good as ends. Money by contrast is a mere means - money has no inherent value, it is only useful because you can use it to buy stuff. Having money is good - you can spend it on yourself, on your loved ones, on charitable causes. But it is not a good in itself, it is merely good as a means. The moment money ceases to be good as a means - e.g. if the economy collapsed and the currency became worthless - it ceases to be good at all. But love, happiness, companionship, friendship, pleasure, art, music, beauty, family - unlike money, these things could never cease to be good.

So God created evil, not as an end in itself, but merely as a necessary means to the greater good. But the things that are good in themselves God created for their very own sake. So I don't take " God saw all that he had made, and it was very good" to mean an absence of evil, for even the evil is good as a necessary means to a good end. Evil is good, but not good-in-itself, only good-as-a-means.

[Doug Shaver]

I think we should start from the assumption that the NT is written in standard Koine Greek, and that knowledge of other Greek texts (whether archaic, classical or Koine) is relevant to understanding the Greek of the NT.

I'm with you so far.

That doesn't exclude that the NT sometimes has some distinctive Jewish or uniquely Christian usages - clearly it does. But it remains to be demonstrated in each particular case that we are dealing with one of these unique usages, as opposed to a standard Greek word being used more or less in its standard sense.

This is a religious community we're talking about, and it is a self-consciously deviant religious community. The notion that they would consistently use certain words in a special sense, keyed to their particular theology, seems hardly unreasonable to me.

Granted, I don't assume unanimity among early Christians, even among the canonical authors. I doubt they had only one notion of sin, and it would not surprise me at all if Paul's notion was different from that of the author of I John. But I think that supports my position, which is that if someone wants to talk to me about sin, then it's up to them to tell me exactly what they want to talk about, because Christians themselves do not agree among themselves now and never have agreed among themselves.

It seems to me that through most of Christian history, a theological construal has been the usual one among Christians, and so I take that as the default when the subject arises in an apologetic context. I don't insist on it, though. If my interlocutor says, "No, that's not what I mean by sin," then we can go from there.

We secularists have no problem with the idea that nobody is perfect. I have my moral code, and I don't think I live up to it or even can live up to it as I should. But when I fail, I don't say I have sinned. You're telling me I could say it. Yes, I could, but why should I, when so many people would pounce on that as an admission that I have transgressed divine law? I choose my words, as best I can, for their communicative efficacy. When I have done something wrong, "I did wrong" conveys every thought I wish to convey.

[ZackMartin]

This is a religious community we're talking about, and it is a self-consciously deviant religious community. The notion that they would consistently use certain words in a special sense, keyed to their particular theology, seems hardly unreasonable to me.

I'm not objecting to the idea that they did - clearly, they did have some particular usages that were explicitly Christian, and they had other usages which were not explicitly Christian, but were specifically Jewish Greek usages. The question is though, is the NT's use of "harmatia" so distinctive so as to represent a completely different concept from non-Jewish/non-Christian uses of the term? Or just a different set of ideas about what is fundamentally the same concept.

Granted, I don't assume unanimity among early Christians, even among the canonical authors. I doubt they had only one notion of sin, and it would not surprise me at all if Paul's notion was different from that of the author of I John. But I think that supports my position, which is that if someone wants to talk to me about sin, then it's up to them to tell me exactly what they want to talk about, because Christians themselves do not agree among themselves now and never have agreed among themselves.

My argument isn't really about the word "sin" at all. "Sin" is an English word, which is sometimes used to translate the Greek word harmatia, but quite possibly is a less than accurate translation of that word. If we want to talk about the original Christian concept, it is the Greek word harmatia, not the English word "sin".

If I was translating the NT, I don't think I would translate harmatia as "sin". I would look for a different word to use, and keep my NT "sin"-free. "Error", "wrongdoing", etc., are the sort of words I would pick, because like Greek "harmatia", and unlike English "sin", they aren't exclusively religious terms.

It seems to me that through most of Christian history, a theological construal has been the usual one among Christians, and so I take that as the default when the subject arises in an apologetic context. I don't insist on it, though. If my interlocutor says, "No, that's not what I mean by sin," then we can go from there.

Take a more neutral word like "wrongdoing". Do religious people believe in wrongdoing? Yes. Do non-religious people believe in wrongdoing? Yes. Do religious people have specific beliefs about wrongdoing that non-religious people lack? Sure. But are those specific beliefs, such to make religious and non-religious "wrongdoing" completely different things, or just different set of beliefs about the same thing. I would say the later. And something like "wrongdoing" is a better translation for harmatia than "sin", because "sin" in contemporary English has exclusively religious connotations which harmatia in Koine Greek lacks - although I think "sin" originally was not an exclusively religious term in English either, but its meaning has evolved in that direction over the centuries.

We secularists have no problem with the idea that nobody is perfect. I have my moral code, and I don't think I live up to it or even can live up to it as I should. But when I fail, I don't say I have sinned.

Yes, because the contemporary English word "sin" has strongly religious connotations than a word like "wrongdoing" lacks. An atheist is unlikely to say "I have sinned", but much more likely to say "I've done wrong".

You're telling me I could say it. Yes, I could, but why should I, when so many people would pounce on that as an admission that I have transgressed divine law?

I'm not advising you that you should use the word "sin". It has certain connotations in contemporary English; whatever it used to mean, none of us can change the fact that this is the way the language has developed. But what relevance should that have to Christianity? The NT, not being written in English, never uses the English word "sin". It does use the Greek word harmatia. The question is, how good a translation is "sin" for "harmatia"? In my opinion, not a very good one. "Harmatia" is not an exclusively religious concept, even though it can have religious aspects; "sin" is closer to being exclusively religious. But "sin" isn't the biblical concept; "harmatia" is.

I choose my words, as best I can, for their communicative efficacy. When I have done something wrong, "I did wrong" conveys every thought I wish to convey.

And "done wrong" is all the NT's use of harmatia means. Sure, they believe that all "doing wrong" is an offence against God; but that belief does not somehow turn wrongdoing into something completely different than what it would have been without that belief; it is simply taking the concept of "wrongdoing" common to all (Christian, Jew, Pagan, sceptic, whatever) and attributing a religious relevance to that common concept, without thereby turning it into a completely different concept.

[Doug Shaver]

The question is though, is the NT's use of "harmatia" so distinctive so as to represent a completely different concept from non-Jewish/non-Christian uses of the term? Or just a different set of ideas about what is fundamentally the same concept.

Of course they're not completely different, but that doesn't make them the same concept, even if they are "fundamentally the same" in some sense of "fundamental." A Ford and a Chevy are both automobiles. Does that make them fundamentally the same kind of vehicle? Maybe it does, but that doesn't mean that whatever you say about a Chevy you can say about a Ford.

"Harmatia" is not an exclusively religious concept

I'd say that depends on context. When the NT authors used the word, they might have intended an exclusively religious meaning. I'm not saying they certainly did, just that it might not be unreasonable to think they did.

And something like "wrongdoing" is a better translation for harmatia than "sin", because "sin" in contemporary English has exclusively religious connotations which harmatia in Koine Greek lacks - although I think "sin" originally was not an exclusively religious term in English either, but its meaning has evolved in that direction over the centuries.

If you're suggesting that modern Christians are mistaking what some of the founders of their religion were trying to say, I can hardly disagree. But when I'm talking with a modern Christian, it's what they believe that I have to respond to. What I say to them might not be the same things I would say to Paul, if I could have a conversation with Paul.