Hasn’t Psychology Determined There’s No Such Thing as “Sin “?

So what is this Sin thing that I always seem to hear Christians complaining about?

Isn’t SIN an antiquated concept held by a bunch of hypocritical , self-righteous, hating, bigots? Hasn’t Psychology determined there’s not really anything such as sin?

So almost no one knows this, but the word SIN is actually an acronym.  S.I.N. actually stands for Subjective Interpretative Negation.  Whaaaattt? S.I.N. happens when someone does something that they instinctively know (or patently know) or feel in their conscience is not OK.  However, in these situations we rationalize some reason(s) that justify our actions/non-actions.  

For example, you know that you shouldn’t really take that cookie, because 1) it’s not yours and 2) you are already over the calorie budget for the day and its not even lunch time.  That said, your job is driving you nuts and you just had a fight with someone so you figure some nuts and some chocolate are absolutely essential to your survival.  So what’s he problem?  1) THEY AREN’T YOURS and 2) you are at or above the your desired weight.  I know, silly example, and no, cookies in and of themselves are NOT sinful.  

Here’s the point, you know something is outside some boundary but you convince yourself any of the following: this, whatever it is, doesn’t apply to me, its just who I am, its no big deal, no one gets hurt, etc, etc.  That is you subjectively interpret and negate (SIN) a “rule” ( not cool to take someone else’s stuff) and decide for one of several reasons that it actually is OK for me.  Most of the time we have a much easier time justifying our S.I.N. well, because it benefits (or we think it benefits us – more on the thinking part later).  However, if it’s our cookie that gets eaten without our permission we may strongly disagree that someone else’s actions were not S.I.N. at least as it relates to me.  

So there are all kinds of reasons you can utilize to justify your actions; you were deprived of cookies as a child and the person you took it from has cookies all of the time, so how fair is that?  Here’s the issue, the more times you take a cookie the easier it gets to take one, you might begin to think you’re entitled to free cookies.  Eventually your brain actually tells you that taking cookies is your right and that it is right – for you- to take them, besides what’s the harm?

But seriously what’s the harm?

So imagine this about several different “things” in our world multiplied by like a billion S.I.N.’s per day, it’s not hard to do. Most of us are not sociopaths but over time our thinking becomes warped and dare I say we develop a subjective view of our own S.I.N. but a bitterly objective view of someone else’s.  We judge ourselves on our intentions but we judge you solely on your actions.  I’m, special but you are definitely not.  So think about a billion people being wronged in a day, and their reactions to that and then the counter reactions, think road rage on a global scale.

So whose rules do we have to follow anyway?

So who gets to decide what’s ok and what’s not anyway?  Let me say this about that, imagine for purposes of this discussion a person with knowledge far far greater than anyone else.  So lets, for talking purposes, say this person created a reality with beings in his image. So while these beings are intelligent their knowledge is nowhere near to His knowledge or intellect. Would it be ok to agree that the person with the superior knowledge should have something to say about how things should operate?   

Hard to imagine something like this?   Let me give an example of something that may make this easier.  Since I started with cookies lets stay with that example.  Imagine loving and caring parents, I know, sadly we didn’t all have that but I think we can imagine it. So into this world of loving parents a child is born, lets say the child is fairly young, but old enough to move around independently, feed themself, and have definite opinions.  Lets say the parents have told the child (whom they love with all they have)  that they are not to eat any cookies before mealtime for nutritional reasons.  Let’s say the child does not yet understand this concept.  Lets say the first time(s) the child eats one cookie before dinner.  The next time the child eats two, the next three and as far as the child is concerned there’s no damage done whatsoever.   The child reasons, based on their knowledge and experience, the restriction is unreasonable and designed to unfairly deny them something good and pleasurable.  They base their decision on their intelligence and experience based knowledge.  They Subjectively Interpret and Negate their parent’s guidance which was intended to protect their health. What do you suppose are possible outcomes?  Imagine the child, based on this, believing that other restrictions are likewise unreasonable, say like touching the stove, or leaving the yard? 

Why does SIN matter?

So you say I get it, but in the end we all S.I.N. and we suffer natural consequences, or not.  So why if there is a First Cause why do they care so much about our S.I.N.?  Why does it matter?

If you posit a First Cause keep in mind just how powerful and intelligent they must be, just think about the vastness of the known universe for a nano second. I propose that there are some things we just are not capable of understanding fully – I know humans are just a few experiments away from understanding the universe in complete totality, uhh not even close.  

We can’t fully understand the impact our S.I.N. 

Let me give another real world example that might help us.*  A couple of years ago I was on an RV trip with our son, daughter in law and our grandchildren.  We were outside while the kids were inside.  Our granddaughter “A”, age 3 or 4, decided to explore Nana’s purse, something she had done previously and was told not to do.  Later, Nana discovered her wedding rings were missing. “A” was asked did you get into Nana’s purse?  Denial was followed by admission (or being ratted out by a sibling, I can’t remember exactly) and then genuine regret, a common response to S.I.N. (which she definitely was guilty of).  While she understood she had done “something she had been warned not to”, all she could say was a reluctant sorry.   “A” didn’t really understand the magnitude of her S.I.N. nor was she in position to adequately repay, even if she wanted to,  someone else would have to pay.  We all do what is right in our own eyes (followers will recognize this language and the problem with that kind of thinking), the problem is we have very differing ideas about what’s “right.”  

We need an objective standard, fortunately we have one.

The First Cause is PERFECT and we cannot fully understand them or their ways.  Isn’t it safe to say that someone who has the ability to create the universe should have their guidance followed even if I don’t fully understand why?  Even if I  wouldn’t choose the same exact things as “rules”?  I think it’s a good choice to trust that someone who created me, loves me, and has my best interests at heart, even if I can’t fully understand why.  Know that our S.I.N. matters, it has effects that we can see, effects we ignore and effects that we just can’t fully understand the magnitude of.  More importantly the longer we continue to think that my way is the right way the more our brain actually believes it.  Thank goodness that the First Cause anticipated this issue and found a way to for justice to be served and make restitution for us.

Cookies are a fun example but…

The bottom line is that our choice to S.I.N. is like disobeying our parents, it’s arrogant and demonstrates a distrust of someone who only has your best interests at heart, at its core it’s a rejection of one who loves you unconditionally.  It’s not cute nor is it harmless, its effects are devastating, people are brutally mistreated, and murdered because of it.  Don’t kid yourself, it all starts when we practice Subjective Interpretative Negation. 

* (Credit for the concept of this type explanation must be given to Andy Stanley.  Andy tells a similar but different story in his Starting Point video series.  The above story I relate is in fact true and also demonstrates the concept I am borrowing from Andy Stanley’s work.)