I didn't sin - It was my brain

[Keegs]

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/05-i-didn.t-sin-it-was-my-brain

Article about the latest neuroscience relating to the act of "sinning." It appears that not only is "sinning" not necessarily an act of free will, but trying not to sin might be an uphill battle. This idea, brings to mind something I've been asking in conversation recently: how do we have free will if our will is subject to chemicals in the brain?

[nathan]

Old news:

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my body. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

I changed the NIV's "sinful nature" to read body. I guess we didn't need a scientific study to know that sin is caused innately by our physical nature.

I think the question of free will and brain chemistry as you posed it is irrelevant. It is what you do with that information (one way or another) which is significant. In most cases, societies will still not tolerate bad behavior, even if it is induced directly by brain chemistry.

[Keegs]

I suppose my real question should have been: Why would anyone want to punish the soul for something the body does? (eg. sending souls to hell for "sin").

[Grog]

The basis of Christianity is that sin is an uphill battle.

[Keegs]

The basis of Christianity is that sin is an uphill battle.

I can only see that as being partially true. I'd expect that if the entire basis for Christianity was that "sin is an uphill battle" that the approach that it would take to gaining popularity might be a lot more like "we just want to help you bear the weight of this struggle..." and less like "believing what we say is the only chance you have of salvation, although it will not necessarily change your performance in the battle against sin..."

It makes me wonder what the value of a religion (or deity) is, for that matter, that in any way needs or requires belief. Honestly, why is belief/trust the sticking point? How does that make the difference? What is to be gained by believing something blindly, other than perhaps being mislead?

[Grog]

Why on earth would you expect that truth would necessarily conform to the most popular marketing scheme? Just because it would be easier to swallow something like "Everybody sins and it's no big deal if you try your best to be good" doesn't mean that it's true.

[Keegs]

Why on earth would you expect that truth would necessarily conform to the most popular marketing scheme? Just because it would be easier to swallow something like "Everybody sins and it's no big deal if you try your best to be good" doesn't mean that it's true.

I don't expect that truth necessarily conforms to the most popular (read: compassionate) marketing scheme. However, making claims like "you will suffer forever, if you don't believe this..." only appeals to the emotional side of the brain, and not the logical side. All I ask for with a claim like that is hard, verifiable evidence to back it up. It really shouldn't be very hard to come up with such evidence, considering Almighty God is supposed to be on your side. However, hearsay, written or not, just doesn't cover it.

If you want to talk marketing, then you should at least recognize the brilliance of the Christian message in selling itself -- in many ways it is much more effective than alternatives, even the alternative that I proposed.

1) Believing in the message grants you happiness at some later date, but disbelief will make you suffer at that later time.
2) You don't particularly loose anything in an outward and immediate way by believing the Christian message.
3) Any hypocrisy or shortfall in the message itself is defeated by the simple phrases: "God works in mysterious ways" or "who are you to judge the actions of God?"
4) There's enough disagreement on what the message is, that it can be tailored to other POV's without much hassle; the message is never so clearly defined as to be countered with a direct argument, with much success.
5) The message of Christianity picks up words (goodness, righteousness, evil, torture, suffering, heaven, hell, power, almighty) that give rise to our brain's emotion centers, thereby allowing it much more breathing room from logical confrontation.