Re: [asa] sin or Sin?

I note that all the Latin applies to those recognized as moral agents.
They do not apply to the insane adults. They do not apply to young
children. Mammals other than Homo sapiens are not recognized as moral
agents. Human beings are, but could have become so by either a slow
process or an immediate transformation. But we have to face an exegetical
and hermeneutical problem. Were human beings created simultaneously and
given some commandments, or were man and woman produced consecutively,
with just the man given the original, different commandment? Were the
dual records history in the modern sense, or are we to understand that
they represent a different category? Is Dick's approach veridical, or do
we seek a different approach? How does natural development enter into the
total picture? Looks to me as though we should not be too quick to impose
an approach, given the various difficulties.
Dave (ASA)

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:05:26 -0500 "Alexanian, Moorad"
<alexanian@uncw.edu> writes:
> One is advocating here some sort of discontinuous transition in early
> man, from brute to moral man. Knowledge of God and His laws
> transformed the brute into moral man. Was that a slow transition or
> an abrupt one? It is hard to understand the afterthought on the part
> of God to make Himself and His laws known to man so "late" in his
> life. It seems that we are substituting the "instant" biblical
> creation of man from the dust with knowledge of God and His laws by
> the evolutionary history of man with God imposing knowledge of Him
> as an afterthought.
>
> Moorad
>
> Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat
> (Latin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin> for "ignorance
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance> of the law
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law> does not excuse" or "ignorance
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance> of the law
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law> excuses no one") is a public
> policy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy_%28law%29>
> holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape
> liability <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability> for violating
> that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content; that
> is, persons have presumed knowledge of the law.
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat> )
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of George Murphy
> Sent: Wed 2/20/2008 11:55 AM
> To: ASA list
> Subject: [asa] sin or Sin?
>
>
> I have spoken in the past - & fairly recently here - about the
> need for creatures to have become "moral agents" before it's
> possible to speak about them "sinning." I.e., our primate ancestors
> would to some extent have deceived, stolen from, been sexually
> promiscuous with, and killed other members of their same species but
> we would not say that in so doing they would have "sinned." It is
> only when they had a sense of right & wrong that that term would be
> appropriate.
>
> I've realized that that kind of language is inadequate. The
> first criterion for a creature to be able to sin is for it to be
> aware in some way of God and God's will, so that that creature can
> intentionally give something other than God 1st place in its life.
> I.e., it has to be able to violate the substance of the 1st
> Commandment. That is the fundamental sin, as Paul argues in Romans
> 1. There "worshipping the creature rather than the creator" is Sin
> with a capital S, & all the consequences that Paul lists - sexual
> immorality &c - are sins with a small s. Those are the things we
> usually describe as "moral failings."
>
> I actually made this point in the 2006 PSCF that I referenced in
> my post to Moorad yesterday, but by continuing the "moral agents"
> language may have clouded the issue. The point is not simply
> "morality" in the usual sense of the term but "religion" as
> "ultimate concern. This means that in order for some group of
> hominids to be capable of sin, they would somehow have to have
> become aware of God and God's will for them, however murkily that
> may have been.
>
> This has a number of consequences. E.g., there has been a good
> deal of discussion of the evolution of morality, some of which has
> been used to discredit claims that the existence of a moral sense in
> humans is an argument for religion. (Dawkins, e.g.) How the
> evolution of morality is connected with the emergence of religious
> awareness is something that needs to be explored, but the
> distinction is significant.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 20 15:01:50 2008