Ö÷²¥´óÐã

So would that be, Herge's adventures of Sin TIn?

Sorry, even I'm embarrassed by that attempt!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Since my comment has been censored I will try and rewrite it in a way that is more palatable to those of a sensitive disposition. I can only assume that my comment was pulled because I lifted some material from another website. I will not do so in this post, and hopefully this will get through the system.... (or am I deluding myself about that?)

I think "sin" has become one of the most misunderstood words in the English language. I prefer to use the word "evil", which is, in fact, what "sin" is. But I guess most people associate "sin" with petty naughtiness, and can't understand the fuss these silly outmoded religious people make of something that gives life a bit of fun.

Hamartiology (the "study of sin") is, in my opinion, one of the most neglected and ill thought through aspects of Christian theology.

In my prohibited post I referred to a comment on another website about a particular atrocity that occurred in the 1990s. It was a comment by a Christian who seemed (to me) to play down the particularly vicious nature of the murderer by saying that "the world is full of such people" - referring to the perpetrator, and "we are all sinners, after all" and yet he became particularly irate about two policemen who were traumatised by the incident and sought huge amounts of compensation because of their experience.

Then I made the following remarks about the comment on that website:

In one sense, as a Christian, I agree with this comment. I do not deny that "sin" has affected the whole human race. I do not deny that each one of us has the ability to commit acts of great evil.

But there is something about this comment that troubles me. The feeling seems to be that, while the commentator is acknowledging the evil of the mass murderer, he seems to be implicating the whole human race in this atrocity. By implication that would include his victims!

He criticises the media for implying (if that is what they were doing) that the murderer was "the sinner" and "everyone else is perfect". This is a false dichotomy. The imperfection of other people does not in any way exonerate or excuse or play down the seriousness of what the murderer did. But this is a very typical evangelical response to evil: "Oh well, but for the grace of God go I; we are all sinners; so do not judge etc etc" - therefore the evil act is cut down to size and its horror and despicable nature is minimised with reference to the general human predicament.

But furthermore, this commentator not only identifies the whole human race with the wickedness of a man who gunned down all those helpless people, but then gets irate about the two policemen who apparently cashed in on the incident. He seems more upset about this "evil" than what the murderer did! He says "I will restrain my language..." suggesting, of course, that he is hopping mad! But his attitude towards the murderer is casual and dismissive: "But the world is full of such people...".

I find his hamartiology completely skewed. It is a selective hamartiology in which the most heinous crimes are played down, and much lesser offenses are played up. On the "compassion" thread we read about God's love and mercy towards the likes of Adolf Hitler and Fred West, and yet not a lot of compassion towards the many victims of these two monsters. There seems to be a morbid fascination with the most evil people, and a casual disdain for the victims (the latter are generally dismissed with the comment that "Oh well, they are all sinners anyway...blah, blah, blah....")

Is this our Christian attempt to be unself-righteous and humble? Because if it is, it is a false humility.

Evangelicals go on about "sin" being defined as "missing the mark". Well, that may be true, but think about this illustration: there are two archers. One of them stands looking at the target and attempts to fire his arrow as near to the bullseye as possible. Unfortunately he misses the mark, but it is not for want of trying. The other archer couldn't care less about attempting to hit the target. He deliberately turns his back on the target and impudently shoots the arrow in the opposite direction.

Both archers have missed the target. But is there not a moral difference between these two people and their respective failures?

Just think about that when next generalising about human sinfulness.

So what I am saying is that it is about time the Church gave more time and showed more concern for the victims of crime and perhaps a little less fascination with the perpetrators!!!


Now is that OK for the moderators....?

LSV

Well, you've gone and put the tin hat on it now!

Oops! Too late. I see you have already reposted!

Moderation! That's what you need, if you want to be a commentator!