[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For all those who understand

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Alex here, I'm back. I'll make a SAFemail ASAP for those who'd like to contact me. 1-8-16

File: 1458208546422.jpg (40.64 KB, 600x481, 600:481, nietzsche-horse.jpg)

df34b9 No.261074

Can anyone point me to a comprehensive academic level "theory of sin"?

I see many claims that sin is the explanation for the problem of evil and suffering, but I have tried in vain to find a detailed working out of that idea.

My atheist friends claim that "sin" is just an excuse and no-one actually believes it. They claim that if people did believe it, they would be actively exploring the theory and working to understand its implications.

I would expect such a working out to provide a detailed explanation of such things as

* The inherently error prone nature of human reproduction and the inevitable birth of children with many gene-based illnesses and deformities

* The existence of diseases and parasites such as malaria

Any good theory should

* Parsimoniously explain the known facts

* Make surprising predictions that, when checked, turn out to be true

* Explain things that don't make sense within the framework of other theories such as natural selection.

Pic refers - a human showing compassion for a suffering animal.

64f8fd No.261081

File: 1458217848261-0.jpg (122.81 KB, 1012x770, 46:35, 1.JPG)

File: 1458217848263-1.jpg (179.85 KB, 1245x670, 249:134, 2.JPG)

Check this out, I'm going to help you learn anything you want. Take note that you can do this for any subject.

Often when you can make sentence that goes "I want to find (something)" You can go to a search engine (like this one www.google.com , but there are other ones which don't invade your privacy if that is a concern), and then type that something directly into it.

So go there, and type in "comprehensive academic level "theory of sin""

The first 5 results are a Calvinistic view on the subject, a systematic theology break down by Berkhof, Augustine's view on sin compared with an eastern view, an angelican document, and then some guys blog. Refer to picture 1.

This will then help you refine your search, because these might not be exactly what you want. But it gives you a good starting off point if they are.

Next, go to wikipedia. Find the topic you are interested in. Since the entry is supposed to be a sort of summery of the topic, that will help you identify that this is what you are looking for. In this case, this seems to be what you are looking for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_sin

Now clearly you want something more in depth. So here is what you do, you go down to the bottom of the page and look at the sources for the entry itself. Refer to picture 2.

Some of the footnote references only give a name, these entries correspond to the works listed in the bibliography.

There are also external links that can often take you exactly to that material itself. In this case, works by Augustine or Aquinas. In this case, the link to Aquinas is actually EXACTLY what you are asking for in this case, going in depth as to the nature of sin itself. A good many Christian hold the same view as he does on this matter.

Now, if that doesn't satisfy you, you have loads of other leads to follow. You can go to any other of the works listed and look through them if you want. Or refine your search.

I hope this helps.


1fe001 No.261083

File: 1458218432190.png (146.6 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, 1433459045677.png)

I don't understand what you are on about OP. Sin is basically what God does not like, such as but not limited to; adultery, drunkenness, hurting other people and so on. All sin is bad for you, you keep sinning (I don't care what it is) you will deteriorate as a person.


df34b9 No.261160

>>261081

Thank you for the lesson in how to use google.

I have been down those rabbit holes. For example, beyond google I went through the theology and moral philosophy sections at the local college library. I also aaked friends with theology degrees to no avail.

But I have not found what I was looking for as I described in the OP. I am beginning to suspect it does not exist and that "sin" as an explanation for the problem of evil is nothing more than a thought terminating cliche.


64f8fd No.261167

>>261160

In the post I referenced several things that go into the topic of sin. In more indepth that you can ask for. Specifically linking them. You can see them in the link.

>sections at the local college library

Ok..

>I also aaked friends with theology degrees to no avail

So blessed to have multiple friends with degrees in theology. Surprising that they apparently couldn't point you to any of the resources in the post that are wildly know like the summa theologica or Augustine's works…

If I were more cynical, I'd suspect you are trying to pull something here.


69ca23 No.261189

>>261074

I thought maybe a verse from the New Testament could help with the thought process???.. Romans 5:12 – 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

So that what we have here, along with the whole of scripture is that death(and the process there of) did not exist yet in our world as paradise lost will become paradise restored, that is there will be no more death, mourning, crying, for the old world has passed away and been made new…

So in conclusion that before sin entered thru the one man there was no death, and we will be restored back to God thru faith in Christ and the raising up at the last day.


670abb No.261197

Not 100% sure what you and your friend mean, but it kind of sounds like you are expecting that there should be a more or less one-to-one correlation between sin and illness. Sin and illness are both defects, but not in the same sense. Sin is a moral defect, while illness is a bodily defect. Illness might be sent as a punishment for sin, but sin is not a direct cause of illness in the same way that a hand moving a ball is a direct cause of the ball's motion.

Your definition of a theory could use some reworking. Yes, a theory should be consistent with the known facts. However, a theory doesn't have to make "surprising predictions." Much of the time, theory is just a systematic explanation of what we already know. There's no guarantee that anyone will derive any future insight from it. For example, if someone formulated the theory of plate tectonics and then immediately a comet struck the earth destroying all human life, plate tectonics would still be a theory even though no insight was derived from it. You could say that what matters then is not that people actually do derive any significant insight from the theory, but that the content of the theory is such that they could potentially. But I think it is begging the question to assume that theories of sin do not lead to any insights or discoveries. Since sin is moral failing, the theory of sin is equivalent to the theory of morality, which is necessary for a lot of insights (e.g. into ethics, law etc.), and if nothing else, helps us to do better to avoid sin then if we did not have a clear idea of what sin was.

A theory doesn't have to explain things that nothing else can explain either. In the case of your example, sin examines issues through a lens of morality. Natural selection examines things through an amoral lens, only considering what happened to be advantageous for reproduction in a particular set of circumstances. To give an analogy, a historian can look at history through an economic lens and give an explanation of events in those terms. However, that does not mean that a historian cannot look at historical events in terms of the personal motivations of the actors, nor does a compelling narrative in that aspect invalidate an economic explanation. Different theories are often complementary, or at least not contradictory. Things are never so simple that they can only be explained in one way, but theories are generally simplifications that look at things only in one particular dimension.


757ece No.261290

Sin is just shit God hates, ie, If I was God, soccer would be a sin, as well as pixie haircuts.


df34b9 No.261424

File: 1458362086613.jpg (85.26 KB, 1000x557, 1000:557, knight-at-the-crossroads.jpg)

>>261167

The problem is that the Christian material on sin mostly focuses on things like the apparent conflict between free will and God knowing the future, the philosophical problems of free will, whether grace or works are needed, how Jesus's sacrifice allows us to be forgiven, different notions of sin, etc.

There is virtually nothing about precisely how "sin" creates the havoc and suffering in the world. It is recognized that there is human evil and natural evil and that natural evil is a harder problem.

In general Christian responses to the problem of evil use an argumentative strategy that it common among religious people - the "could have" argument.

Sin "could be" the explanation for the suffering in the world. People seem satisfied with that. This is in itself telling, because if they actually believed it, they would be interested in following through its ramifications. But because the only purpose of the argument is to resolve the problem of evil, once this purpose is served by the "could have" argument, they lose all interest.

> If I were more cynical, I'd suspect you are trying to pull something here.

This is a common response by people who don't have an answer. Accuse the person of trolling.


df34b9 No.261427

File: 1458362606620.jpg (52 KB, 541x601, 541:601, women-feelings.jpg)

>>261197

>Your definition of a theory could use some reworking.

No, I was giving the characteristics of a good theory not a definition. The criteria I gave are well established in the philosophy of science.

A theory that just barely explains what we already know is not a good theory, like the epicycles theory of the solar system.

> natural selection

I am glad you raise this because Darwin's theory of natural selection does all the things a good theory should do - unify a lot of previously disparate facts in a parsimonious framework; make surprising predictions, is consistent with facts as yet unknown (eg close similarities between ape and human DNA, plate tectonics), etc.

The problem with sin as a theory is that it explains very little, and what it explains it explains badly.

I would like to find at least one attempt at helping to explain the state of the world as a consequence of sin.

Something more than "sin therefore the badness" or "sin could explain the bad things.


df34b9 No.261428

>>261189

But this is merely a hand waving explanation. It is like saying there is fire because phlogiston. There are not specifics, there is no working out the detailed consequences. There is no "AH! I see why there is malaria now!"


df34b9 No.261430

>>261167

>So blessed to have multiple friends with degrees in theology.

Their view for what it is worth is that "sin" is our response to the badness in the world. We see bad things and we call it "sin".

It is no more a causal agent than "luck" causes some specific person to win the lottery. We might say that a person who won the lottery was lucky but we don't really think there is such a thing as pure luck (of course people can make their own 'luck' to a degree by working hard, creating opportunities, and seizing them when they come along).

In this view, "sin" is not an explanation for the problem of evil.


64f8fd No.261434

>>261424

The problem is you have been given all the material possible to answer your problem but you keep professing you want something else. Then you make up lies about "friends with degrees in theology" who can't even answer basic questions. You don't have friends as such.

You also don't understand the basic concept of categorical scope. Well you do, because if you didn't you wouldn't be able to function in every day life. You are pretending you don't because you think you are proving a point by being impossibly stupid. This cannot be overstated, your entire line of thought is faulty from the start. You don't even know what these words I just said mean.

The only point being here that your just trying frustrate people because you think you are somehow clever for doing so.

If you read the material it would answer your question all together. You haven't read it, and instead just want to troll. Even when linked to it.

You don't even know what you are asking, and you aren't going to get an answer in 2000 characters or less when the material linked covers hundreds of thousands of words of explanation.

Go waste your time somewhere else.


69ca23 No.261490

>>261428

but that's just it. It is right there in front of you, ' death' in all it's forms, decay, disease, rot…etc… the root if you will.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]