 | Sin is a difficult concept for humans. It is extremely difficult to humble oneself to the point of admitting sin's existence in the first place. Rationalization has been a millenia long past-time of both the armchair and academic sorts of philosophers and theologians. |
Only occasionally does one find an individual who can humble themselves to admit that they have failed morally. But even when someone can admit such a thing, it's almost always done with a false sort of humility. "Yes, I've failed morally. I mean, I'm sure I've told a lie before. But I've never killed anyone. I'm just as good as the next guy." Some are freely willing to admit moral failure, but minimize it as something that is an insignificant, relative, acceptable norm. These individuals didn't miss the mark, they just hit it imprecisely.
In a world where most sins are relegated to the realm of minor inconvenience and displeasure, many are confused and abhorred by the Christian notion of judgment. "The wages of sin is death? Even for a little lie?" The Old Testament seems to be an antiquated, barbaric system of "morality" that could have only been dreamed up by a nomadic, ignorant, ancient people group. How else could one explain the pettiness of its judicial system? While some of the confusion levied against the Old Testament theocracy certainly resonates with me, there is a larger game afoot. Our "enlightened" culture has not suddenly come into some esoteric understanding of what true morality is - we're still rationalizing our actions just like all the cultures before us. We're simply rationalizing morality under the guise of scientism.
RSS Feed