The Nature of Sin

I was having dinner with some friends a few weeks ago, when, as usual, the conversation veered away from polite, onto the verboten topics of religion and politics. I'm like a victim of Turret's syndrome, I just can't stop myself from blurting out things that get people riled up.

The issue that got the ball rolling was the question of whether homosexuality is a choice, or is caused by genetics or some other reason. My statement that I believed that in males, choice is seldom a factor, but that in women, choice is often a part of the equation, immediately got the women at the table stirred up. I've written about this before, and if you are interested in my reasoning, look up my blog from December 2009 "The New Reality".  By the way, I  recently read about a study of Identical twins, both male and female which corroborated my reasoning.

The conversation followed several vectors. From the cause of homosexuality, we went on to weather or not the marriage of gay couples should be recognized, and if so, should they be allowed to be married in the church. We were in uneasy agreement about the first part, but I was definitely in the minority on the second. We all pretty much agreed that gay couples should be afforded the same legal rights as straight couples, but I argued that they should be allowed to be married in the church as well. The chief argument against gay marriage in the church, was that it would sanction a sin as stated in the Bible. Here the conversation took a surprising third turn.

My agnostic views are pretty well known, so I guess the question one of my friends asked should not have surprised me. He asked me how I can even recognise sin if I am not convinced in the existence of God. I cast about for an answer, muttering something about my moral compass not needing religion to show me the way, but like most spontaneous conversation, there was not time for deliberation. I've had time to think about it, so here we go.

When I think about the Biblical concept of sin, there are two main sources, the first being the Ten Commandments, and secondly, the many specific sins delineated all through the Bible, especially in the old Testament.

I think that they can all be broken down into two categories, the first, being questions of fairness, and the second , sins of social convention.

In the ten commandments, the last six fall under the first category, and the first four under the second. It is certainly unfair to lie, steal, murder, commit adultery, dishonor your parents, and generally covet your neighbor's property. The first four are about the social conventions that strenghten the bonds of monotheism in the Jewish and Christian faiths. You can see that the commandments of fairness have withstood the test of time, while the first four have been somewhat subject to the pressures of modern times, especially the commandment to honor the sabbath.

Beyond the Ten Commandants, most of the other sins of the Bible fall under the category of sins of social conventions. Some are still pertinent, while others are archaic and are widely ignored. All are subject to revision as societies knowledge and beliefs change.  These conventional sins cover a lot of ground, including masturbation, homosexuality, dietary requirements, dress, etc.  In many cases, it seems that the rules were instituted for control of the masses by the church, especially the control of women.

I find it interesting that the Cardinal sins:  Lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy , and pride, seem to be largely ignored by most, or even embraced as virtues by my objectivist friends.  These sins are essentially sins of selfishness.

Personally, I find that the Golden Rule (a version of which can be found in almost all religions); "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you",  encompasses  everything I need to know about sin.  I may occasionally get lost, but this moral compass keeps me headed in the general direction.

,