When I was 9 years old I murdered someone.
Micronauts were for sale at K-Mart but I didn’t have enough money to buy them.
So I switched the Micronaut price tag with a cheaper item price tag.
It wasn’t actual murder…
…but my conscience didn’t know the difference.
In the store parking lot, a weird ache started in my gut.
Little anxiety spasms rippled through my mind.
By the time I got home, I wasn’t enthusiastic about the toys.
I couldn’t look at the Micronauts.
They each had disappointment etched on their tiny faces.
“We know what you did!” they seemed to say.
“We are ill-gotten!”
“We are plastic humanoid manifestations of your evil!”
There was no pleasure in Micronaut ownership.
Guilt desecrated joy.
Nobody knew what I’d done.
Besides, I hadn’t actually ‘stolen’ anything.
I’d paid for them!
Just not as much as the greedy store wanted me to pay!
So…
What was to blame for my torment?
…Religion!
Religion taught me that thievery is wrong.
The superstition of ‘sin’ made me feel bad.
This was really my MOTHER’S FAULT!!
(It’s ALWAYS mom’s fault.)
She’s the one who took me to church!
Church filled my head with the idea that some behavior is ‘wrong’.
Taught me that I’m responsible for what I do.
Religion left me with a pocketful of Micronauts and a soul full of shame.
So I made the only logical move.
…I quit religion.*
And all the guilt went away!
My conscience cleared.
The angst evaporated!
I forgave myself for my crime.
After all, stealing isn’t murder!
Later, under cover of darkness, I went back to K-Mart…
…and stole five crates of Legos.
I’d never felt so liberated!
*In reality, I returned to the store, confessed my sin, paid the difference for the Micronauts and THEN the guilt went away. Lesson learned.
Sin was not invented by religious people in order to scare other people into going to church. Guilt is an inescapable consequence of wrong behavior whether you’re religious or not.
38 Responses
@ Matthew Cross
Hey there!
I’m being picky about word choice here because there really needs to be complete clarity on what we’re discussing. As you’ve suggested, sin carries with it different connotations and packaging than moral wrongdoing does. Sin – even when it describes wrongdoing – is far more reaching than some morality would dictate. Thoughts can be sin, while some moral and ethical considerations would be silent on the matter. The differences between sin and morality outside Christian circles gets even more pronounced, partly because sin doesn’t carry much meaning outside of them.
As far as my linked post goes, there is hope and relief in not having to chase an afterlife. It’s tough to describe to people who are still Christians, but the hope comes in focusing on the here and now instead of worrying about things one can’t change. This might sound counter-intuitive, but it’s something one probably needs to experience in order to fully understand.
Concepts of love, grace, mercy, and redemption are not inherently repulsive. To provide an analogy (and it will sound harsh), convincing people that they will receive eternal torture if they don’t accept and participate in divine redemption is like fraudulently convincing people they have cancer so they will buy “medicine” for it. I’m not arguing against specific ideas of morality here; I am arguing against the divine packaging a lot of churches provide.
I hope this clears things up!
In my opinion, there won’t be anyone in Hell who doesn’t want to be there. Sure, Hell sounds terrible to people who still have the ability to think. But there are lots of people who think Hell still sounds better than having to bow to God. I’ve actually heard Atheists say, point blank, “Even if God showed up today, I’d ask why He’s such a dictator and give him the finger.”
So, as CS Lewis wrote, I believe “Hell is locked from the inside.”
By contrast, those who are actually looking for God will find Him. They won’t be “sent” to Hell for some accidental mess up. They will GO to Hell because they don’t want to accept God’s alternative.
I haven’t forgotten you, Sirius! I was, for several reasons, unavailable to respond yesterday. So, if you are willing, I have some more (hopefully clarifying) thoughts on the matter and some more questions for you, if you are willing to answer them. Anyway, I guess I’ll get to it.
I am trying to see where I went unclear here- and if there was just cause for the confusion, I apologize. I said that if I used the word “sin” and you used the word “wrongdoing” to describe the same act of stealing, we are talking about the same act of stealing. The words are interchangeable because we are talking about the same thing (the sin/wrong doing of discussion). Now, what we believe about what the consequences would be for the wrongdoings are different- but that is because of our different beliefs, not what word we used. My point was, you are discussing semantics that do not need to be discussed. To use another illustration, if you used “ two times six” to discuss the number twelve, and I used “ three times four” to discuss the number twelve, the fact that we are calling them different things doesn’t change the fact that we are both discussing the number twelve. You can interchange the two terms, because they are the same thing.
Now is the word “sin” used often in churches while “wrongdoings” used in secular settings? Sure. But association of location doesn’t change what we are talking about either. I am from the Midwest, so I would call a Dr. Pepper a type of “pop”, other people in different regions of the United States would call it either a “soda” or a “Coke”. Now, whether people ask the questions “what type of pop/soda/Coke would you like?” they are asking the same thing, no matter if they used “pop”, “soda” or “Coke”. Now, I realize that this is a fairly rough comparison- for a “Coke” would be a type of “pop” in the Midwest- but that aside, I hope I made my point.
Semantics aside, I believe the point of this post was to dismiss the idea that the church is to blame for using guilt as a manipulation for attendance. Since we all have ideas about right and wrong, and we feel guilt after our own shortcomings, the church does not have the “guilt” market- so to speak. In fact, I hear the word “guilty” used more in the courtrooms and tv shows such as Law & Order than in the church building.
Building on this point, and the rhetorical question that I asked you about whether love, grace, mercy, and redemption were repulsive: Christians do not go to church to avoid hell- they go to worship the God of love, mercy, redemption, and grace. They go to fellowship with other believers. They go to get equipped to evangelize to other groups of people. There are multiple reasons (even more than the ones that I listed) why Protestant Christians go to church, and “feeling guilty about sin” isn’t at the top of the list. It doesn’t even make it on the list of reasons that I go.
But I do not find your last illustration harsh, I find it untrue. To use an analogy about how I view the Church and the “packaging they provide” it would be like this:
In a world where “disease” exists, the Church talks about “the cure”. Now, also in this world where “disease” exists, all people believe that they have an “illness”. Some people may not say they are “diseased”, but they might say they are “ill” to some degree. Now, this “Doctor’s office”, provides a reason for people’s “illnesses”, and they call these illnesses “diseases”. Although they do find these illnesses/diseases deadly, they also talk about the Doctor that offers “the cure”. And “the cure” is free! There is no required payment made at the appointment. Now, people could give this “Doctor” a tip of appreciation when they make a visitation to a “Doctor’s office”. And the people who have accepted “the cure” are no longer going to die because of the “disease”- however, they symptoms of this “disease” remains. And these people might have days where they get moments of “illness”- but they are still cured of the disease.” But because they are cured, and this Doctor is so great, they tell other people about “the cure” and the “Doctor”. However, some people believe that they will not die because of their “disease”, and some people even go as far as saying “the disease does not exist, however, I am ill.” Which sounds absurd to the “doctors” (the ones who have accepted “the cure” from the “Doctor”).
I could go on, and I was rather improvising this, so I really do not know if somebody has already done an analogy like this- but I wasn’t intentionally ripping them off of their credit and creativity. The point was, that “the doctors” talk about “the cure” and “the Doctor”, more than the death because of the disease. And also, that “the cure” is free. They do not have to buy it at all.
But, I am rather disheartened by your experience at church. I am wondering where you are from, what church you went to, and how old you are. If you are willing to tell me these things about you, I’d like to know. I am a millennial, and Hell and the “fire and brimstone” sermons have not circulated around the denomination (we call ourselves a “movement” but I didn’t want to add confusion.) I attend for about 20-30 years. I have never heard a “fire and brimstone” sermon. But I have heard countless sermons on love, grace, mercy, and redemption. My parents, on the other hand, have heard several sermons about Hell. But, I would say in the Church as a whole (In the United States, at least) that the focus isn’t on “sin” it is on “love”.
Oh, but I have been reading your conversation with mrsmcmommy. To see what she means by “religion”, I would suggest reading “Everyone’s Got Religion” and the comments beneath on The Comedy Sojourn that was posted on March 1, 2016 to see what she means by “religion”.
Hello again!
This is a very thorough response, and I apologize in advance if I don’t cover something you might have wanted covered. My goal isn’t to camp out on Mr. Branyan’s blog here.
That said, I think your analogy and the remarks about word choice stem from the same area of thought. Yes, we have different beliefs, and I wish to avoid leading people on as much as possible. To this end, I’ve found that using precise language is more helpful so that people don’t make improper assumptions about what I’m saying. Likewise, it clears things up for me so I don’t have to worry about misunderstanding someone.
To borrow your math analogy, six times two is the same result as three times four. However, what if we’re talking about transporting office equipment? Twelve office desks means something completely different than twelve laptops. That’s what I’m driving at. Other views might be making assumptions that I’m not making, so I want to be clear that I am not making them. Therefore, I can’t use some words interchangeably, especially when there are more precise ideas out there that accurately convey what I mean.
Finally, I grew up going to several churches, and none of them preached fire and brimstone. Instead, I got the ideas straight from the Bible, which was encouraged in the LCMS. Indeed, I even got to talk about some of these doctrines in depth with clergy and peers. And if that wasn’t enough, I had to prove that I’d learned it sufficiently in confirmation classes. I hope that addresses at least some of your concerns!
“Sin was not invented by religious people in order to scare other people into going to church. Guilt is an inescapable consequence of wrong behavior whether you’re religious or not.”
What you’re doing is equating sin with guilt. Unless I’ve forgotten scripture, Jesus didn’t die on a cross to alleviate your guilt. Rather, it was to pay the penalty for sin. If I recall correctly, the wages of sin being death and all that (Romans 6:23 KJV). The gift of the Christian deity was eternal life in return for this payment.
So yeah, sin is a religious construct. It only has an effect within religious teachings. Specifically in Christianity, it’s that thing Jesus died to wash away. As a construct, it creates an alleged debt that was allegedly repaid to prevent an alleged permanent death (and potentially alleged eternal torment, depending upon one’s specific denominational leanings).
Outside of religious teachings, one has to use other concepts like guilt and empathy and morality. These things do not have inherently religious meaning. In fact, context can put them quite outside of religious meaning. Putting them next to each other or using them interchangeably with religious concepts does not make them equal in weight and measure. It’s basically making a word salad, where you’re benefiting off of mixed meanings.
Without using religious constructs, can you explain why you feel guilty about certain things?
Hello there! I don’t believe we’ve interacted before!
Sure! It’s part of a learning process that everyone goes through, where they associate guilt with certain thoughts and actions. If you look at it as a function of learning, it would also explain why some people fail to feel guilt about certain things, and it would also explain why non-religious and religious people can feel guilty about similar things.
How about you? Can you explain how some Christians automatically associate the religious doctrine of sin with guilt?
Christians don’t see sin as a “doctrine.” “Sin” is just another way of saying “doing wrong things.”
And doing wrong makes a person feel guilty.
The problem for non-religious people is to explain why they’re definition of “wrong things” and “morality” don’t count as doctrine…
“Christians don’t see sin as a [‘]doctrine.[‘]”
Doctrine, as I’m using it, means “beliefs associated with an idea.” To say that you don’t believe it’s a doctrine is to say that you don’t have any beliefs associated with the idea. Is this what you’re trying to say here?
I’m saying that EVERYBODY has a doctrine associated with the idea of doing something wrong…
Atheists don’t like the word “sin” because it sounds too religious. But everybody has beliefs about right/wrong. We can call it whatever you want to call it.
What word do you prefer?
“Atheists don’t like the word [‘]sin[‘] because it sounds too religious. But everybody has beliefs about right/wrong. We can call it whatever you want to call it.”
Actually, I’ve explained why using “sin” and “morality” (the word I’d use to describe right and wrong) are not equivalent. Most of that can be found here in my post and subsequent dialogue with Mr. Branyan. Even above, I’ve cited at least one point in the Bible (Romans 6:23) that succinctly shows that sin is not equivalent to moral failure or guilt.
If I may, please let me simplify my point here. Sin is this set of beliefs which justifies the notion that people are going to hell for their behavior and ill-intent. Implicit in this are a few religious messages, but the relevant ones are: there is a hell, and sin is the reason people deserve it.
Morality, on the other hand, is that set of beliefs about what actions, inaction, and thoughts ought to be preferred over another.
The difference, then, is that sin says you will go to hell for stealing things from a store, but moral principles might say you shouldn’t steal from that store, without any afterlife involved.
I’ve read your post, Sirius. It doesn’t explain the difference between sin and wrong doing at all. And neither does Romans 6:23.
I’m suggesting to you: the word “sin” and the word “wrong-doing” can be used interchangeably. But I’ll use whichever term you want to use.
I don’t know of anyone who says you shouldn’t steal because you’ll go to Hell. Not one. Everyone says you shouldn’t do it because IT’S WRONG. But things like “right/wrong” can’t be explained from an evolutionary perspective.
I’ll show you…
Why, from a secular perspective, shouldn’t you steal from a store?
“I’m suggesting to you: the word [‘]sin[‘] and the word [‘]wrong-doing[‘] can be used interchangeably.”
And I’m suggesting it’s not, for the reasons I’ve stated above and in my post and dialogue on my site.
To answer your question, a secular perspective can justify not stealing for many reasons. First, it’s illegal, and illegal actions risk severe penalties. Second, it could be wrong because the potential thief has empathy and doesn’t want to risk feeling the hurt of another person. Third, the person could view it is wrong because it violates some personal moral code that it violates.
“I don’t know of anyone who says you shouldn’t steal because you’ll go to Hell.”
You’re absolutely correct! But people do say that unrepentant sinners go to hell, don’t they? Why is it that nobody uses “unrepentant sinner” and the specific sins they commit interchangeably?
When something is objectively wrong, then we write a law to prevent it. You can’t say stealing is wrong BECAUSE it’s illegal.
It’s actually the reverse. Stealing is illegal BECAUSE it’s wrong.
The same can be said of your other answer. Stealing isn’t wrong BECAUSE we feel bad when we do it. We feel bad BECAUSE it’s wrong.
Right and wrong are laws built into the universe.
If someone does wrong things and doesn’t feel bad about it, what should be done?
“When something is objectively wrong, then we write a law to prevent it. You can’t say stealing is wrong BECAUSE it’s illegal.”
While this might be an interesting tangential discussion, your original question asked for secular reasons why people shouldn’t steal. Specifically, I mentioned avoiding legal penalties, and not the underpinnings of legal statutes themselves. The focus is on doing things to avoid harm to oneself, not on some grand moral scheme.
“Right and wrong are laws built into the universe.”
We still don’t agree on this. I’ve provided my reasons. I think that if you respond to the questions I raised in my previous comment to you, that would greatly further this discussion. If you are uncomfortable or unwilling to answer them, please let me know.
I’m just trying to be honest when I say this, Sirius: I’m not answering your questions because they’re not clear. I literally don’t know what you’re arguing or asking. (Again, no offense meant.) That’s why I’M asking questions, to try and understand your position better. You seem to believe you’ve already made a solid case about morality without God, but I don’t think you have.
NOTHING is right/wrong in a world where all of us are just acting on instincts and conditioning. Everything in nature, including us, just IS… Our behaviors are neutral. And we’re taught to believe things certain actions are better than others.
It’s quite alright that there’s some confusion. To be clear, I’m not trying to say that I’ve proven anything here; I’m just saying that I’ve stated reasons why I have my position. People get to decide on their own if they’re convinced, and I’m not here to force anyone to agree with me.
As a former Christian, I really do get where you’re coming from. Sin gets used frequently and in a lot of different contexts, and most often it gets used as a shorthand for moral wrongdoing. Sometimes, it gets used in its religious contexts without really noticing when that happens. So, you’ll get people talking in a Sunday Bible study about how to stop sinning (the wrongdoing), and then at church you’ll hear a sermon about how Jesus died and washed away your sins so you can go to Heaven.
The former could be a class that talks about specific things people do, while the latter is talking about a metaphysical barrier to entry into the afterlife.
Sin (wrong -doing) prevents you from being qualified for Heaven, yes…
But, as I’ve asked before–from A SECULAR position, what do you think should be done with people who do wrong and don’t feel sorry about it?
To answer your question, I’d say that people forming a consensus on moral conduct and using their means to enforce such conduct is working pretty well for us so far. Granted, it’s not perfect, but it’s the best we’ve got.
Think about what you’re saying, Sirius. Those “people forming a consensus” are using RELIGIOUS standards to enforce right/wrong (even though more and more are claiming a non -religious perspective).
People need to know they’re not just walking in circles, jumping through hoops that their great, great, great grand-apes got started…
No wonder depression and suicide are at unprecedented rates. Our species has evolved to discover there’s no real point to any of this.
Correct?
These are some pretty big claims. Let’s start with the first one. Can you give an example of people using religious standards to enforce right and wrong here in the United States?
It would be quicker and easier if you gave an example of a law that WASN’T written based on some form of religious opinion.
See, Atheists think they can decide what counts as a “religion” and what doesn’t. But Humanism is a type of religious standard, too. Just because a person says “I don’t believe in God” doesn’t mean their opinions about right/wrong are non-religious…
Actually, you made the claim, so it would be fair if you provided an example of what you’re talking about. I can’t guess as to what you’re using to justify your worldview.
I’m claiming that ALL LAWS are written on a moral framework. ALL LAWS are supposed to encourage “right” and to discourage “wrong.”
Morality is a religious concept–whether your religion is godless or not.
So laws against murder, laws against theft, laws to promote “justice” and to encourage “love” and “freedom” and “happiness.” All of those things are religious ideas, regardless of your particular brand of religion.
There’s a lot of big claims in there, but I’d like to say that I think we’ve made progress as to where we disagree.
“Morality is a religious concept–whether your religion is godless or not.”
I don’t think we’re using “religion” in the same sense of the word.
You’re correct. We probably are using the term “religion” differently. As I said, Atheists often want to decide what counts as “religion” and what doesn’t.
I’m not sure why the word religion is so scary. 🙂
Well, I don’t think the word religion is scary. I just think the way you’re using it doesn’t accurately reflect how other people use it.
For all these statements you’ve made about what atheists want, have you ever stopped to ask why atheists don’t agree with some of them?
I have had literally HUNDREDS of conversations with Atheists… that’s how I know they would do well to spend less time figuring out what they DON’T agree with, and much more time trying to figure out what they DO believe.
That doesn’t answer my question, though. But really, I don’t need an answer from you. I invite you to consider it as food for later thought.
I also invite you to consider how atheists and Christians who might come across this discussion will view your side of things. Do you think they’re going to see a Christian woman actually trying to learn about someone else’s point of view, or are they going to see a Christian woman just insisting on her own point of view?
Similarly, what about Christians who read this? Do you think they’ll all agree with how you handled things? Do you think that they’ll respect how you represent your faith? There’s no one answer here, and I’m not looking for one. Spend as much or as little time on it as you like.
As far as the rest of this conversation is concerned, I think it might have hit that point where it will go in circles. I think I’ll let my earlier comments speak for themselves, and let people make whatever they want of them.
Have a great day, Sirius! Pop in any time. 🙂
Sirius, I see that you objected to the phrase ” Sin was not invented by religious people in order to scare other people into going to church. Guilt is an inescapable consequence of wrong behavior whether you’re religious or not.” Could it be possible that John is talking about sin (the deed itself) and you are arguing about sin (the word)? If you decide to call an act of stealing, for example, a “wrong-doing” and I decide to call it a “sin” does it change the act we are describing? A specific act of stealing is the same act of stealing- whether you call it a sin or a wrongdoing. Christians do believe that the penalty of these immoral acts is death, whatever word you want to call it. You, apparently, do not believe that the penalty of these immoral acts is death (except for the legal system on the death penalty, but I think you understood my point) no matter what word you call it. Interchanging the words doesn’t change the description of an immoral act. You could say “I believe there is no eternal consequence for unrepentant sinners” and “I believe there is no eternal consequence for unrepentant wrong-doers” and the message would be same. But if you said ” Christians believe there is an eternal consequence for unrepentant sinners” and ” I believe there is no eternal consequence for unrepentant wrong-doers” the difference wouldn’t be the “unrepentant sinners” and ” unrepentant wrong-doers”, the difference would be in the two beliefs. Or, if you think you are getting trapped into saying that you actually have a belief about the afterlife, ( I know other bloggers that are frequent commenters on The Comedy Sojourn are quite persistent in the whole “lack of belief” thing), you could say the difference is that Christians have the belief of the afterlife, and you lack it. My point is, the difference between the Christians and the non-religious isn’t on the word “sin” itself, it is the views about the sins discussed. On a separate note, I read the blog that you had linked in the comment above and I have a few questions: Is there any hope or relief in the knowledge that we don’t have to be “good enough” to have eternal life? Are the concepts of love, grace, mercy, and redemption somehow repulsive? What would be the better alternative?
I find that as I get older and closer to the Lord, the Holy Spirit pricks my conscience in “smaller” things, things that never bothered me before. An unkind word, a less-than-stellar attitude at work, and even some things I had done many years ago and never felt guilty for at the time.
Rather than shrug and say to myself “everyone makes mistakes”, I use the guilt to become a better me, a more Christ-like me. Thank God for His ever-present Holy Spirit and His ever-increasing voice that gains in volume the more I listen.
A good self-check for me in my spiritual growth is how loud I am hearing His voice. If it seems to be getting fainter, that is my sign that I am getting off track.
Thanks as always, John. for an article that makes me look inward and upward.
Here is another “treat”:
Romans 8:1-7 (ESV)
8 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.
Dave
You’re doing what I hope to– you don’t come off judgmental or even didactic. I just get the medicine because you serve it with a spoonful of sugar. Nice.
Another good article! Bonus points for using Micronauts too 🙂 Not that you care about my bonus points … they are much like campaign promises and penny stocks, they cost very little and provide nothing of substance in the future.
Micronauts were the Cabbage Patch Kids for boys of my generation.
Totally agree. I’m 46 and back in my Micronauts days, I even collected some of the comics too. Also remember thumbing through the Sears Christmas catalog, dreaming of which Micronauts I’d love to have. Ah the good ol’ days!