Sin - innate or learned?

[AndyHB]

I appreciate that there are some here who

... find the ramblings of ignorant, male-chauvinist goat-herders from thousands of years ago to be rather an unreliable source of answers ...

and that there are others for whom feelings are far more important to our well-being than adhering to a written standard by which we judge behaviour.  I would,however, like to ask which of us here could honestly claim not to be murderers AND adulterers, let alone liars or fraudsters, when judged by the definitions of those two behaviours given us by Jesus in Matthew 5?  I realise that they are both far more radical and deep-reaching than even our complex and advanced laws here in Britain - but that, in itself, begs a number of questions.

Lest you are not sure what Jesus said in Matthew 5 on these two issues - here it is from the new English Standard Version

Anger
 ²¹"You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' ²²But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire. ²³So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, ²⁴leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. ²⁵Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. ²⁶Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.
Lust
 ²⁷"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' ²⁸But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ²⁹If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. ³⁰And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

(obviously, in these days of equality, what is said of men in verse 28 clearly applies equally to women  )

Would folk claim that these are taught behaviours, or are they far more inbuilt?  If learned behaviours, who is to blame?

[JJ]

Here's a starter for ten:

http://www.guardianbookshop.co.uk/BerteShopWeb/viewProduct.do?ISBN=9780713997910

[AndyHB]

Here's a starter for ten:

http://www.guardianbookshop.co.uk/BerteShopWeb/viewProduct.do?ISBN=9780713997910

Perhaps you could summarise Simon Baron-Cohen's findings for us, JJ.  The 'trade review' and 'synopsis' don't really give much of a clue.

[ecuworrier]

Sin - innate or learned?

i noticed that the originator of this line was going off on one on post 1 whilst me i got waylaid on the title .....  thinking quite plainly: yer wot!?

what is it that is being presumed here?  with this strictly anthropomorphic and intrinsically  abusive statement of intent rather than fact.....    and really where on earth would GOD fit into all this?

which is a shame ... cos that's a pretty cool discussion of sorts


GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[JJ]

Here's a starter for ten:

http://www.guardianbookshop.co.uk/BerteShopWeb/viewProduct.do?ISBN=9780713997910

Perhaps you could summarise Simon Baron-Cohen's findings for us, JJ.  The 'trade review' and 'synopsis' don't really give much of a clue.

No I can't.  It just looks like an interesting angle.  Published this week I think and reviewed in the papers this weekend.  I saw it in the Sunday Telegraph this morning.

[EliB]

Well, in today's age the scriptures as quoted are hardly relevant, so going by reality - I can't say I've NEVER told a lie - anyone who DOES say that IS lying! But I am not a murderer, adulterer or fraudster!!

But if I was a murderer, WHY I was one could be down to either inbuilt evil or a reaction to circumstance!! EG - there are 2 people alive (as far as I KNOW they're still alive) whom, if I had the chance to kill, then I WOULD!!! Most definitely!!! But that's not because I myself am evil - but because THEY are!! My behaviour would be provoked - their's was just downright evil for evil's sake!!! That's NOT to say that I wouldn't deserve punishment - I would - but it would most definitely be worth it!!!!

[AndyHB]

Sin - innate or learned?

i noticed that the originator of this line was going off on one on post 1 whilst me i got waylaid on the title .....  thinking quite plainly: yer wot!?

Quite simple, ecu.  Innate means part of our make-up, which is what those who believe in 'original sin' or the fall of humanity in the way outlined in the story of the Garden of Eden would argue, or is evil something that a chilkd has no knowledge of when born but learns through their early life - suggesting that someone is necessarily teaching them to do wrong (which most parents would argue isn't them).

[AndyHB]

But that's not because I myself am evil - but because THEY are!!

Two questions, Eli.  Isn't revenge both natural but inherently evil in itself?  Secondly, do 2 wrongs make a right?

There was an interesting discussion on Nicky Campbell's 'Your Call' last week where this was the underlying topic.  Does a harbouring of feelings of revenge (also referred on the programme as a refusal to forgive - albeit not forget) actually do damage to the harbourer?  Is there not a danger that it acts as a canker inside slowly poisoning all aspects of one's life?

[JJ]

Sin - innate or learned?

i noticed that the originator of this line was going off on one on post 1 whilst me i got waylaid on the title .....  thinking quite plainly: yer wot!?

Quite simple, ecu.  Innate means part of our make-up, which is what those who believe in 'original sin' or the fall of humanity in the way outlined in the story of the Garden of Eden would argue, or is evil something that a chilkd has no knowledge of when born but learns through their early life - suggesting that someone is necessarily teaching them to do wrong (which most parents would argue isn't them).

Just want to point out that people aren't necessarily taught to do wrong at all.  Mostly it's the result of imperfect conditions whether that's parenting or circumstantial.   

[AndyHB]

Just want to point out that people aren't necessarily taught to do wrong at all.  Mostly it's the result of imperfect conditions whether that's parenting or circumstantial.

If something is a learned behaviour, it necessarily requires a teacher, JJ.  I appreciate that that teaching may not be conscious or active, but passive teaching is just as bad.  For instance, if I as a parent, fail to criticise racist behaviour or cruelty to animals in front of my children, I am - effectively - condoning this kind of action, thus teaching them that its OK.

[JJ]

I don't think I made myself clear.  A lot of bad behaviour or sinning is because of imperfect conditions - I didn't realise you were comparing learned with innate exclusively.  There are many other reasons for behaviour apart from those two causes.  I would say most bad behaviour is from other causes other than learnt behaviour.

[AndyHB]

I don't think I made myself clear. ... I would say most bad behaviour is from other causes other than learnt behaviour.

JJ, you're making yourself perfectly clear, and from a educational/child development perspective, I'm disagreeing with you.  If a child is born without sin as part of their make-up, they will not sin as part of their behaviour in a perfect world.  Therefore, somehow, they must be learning to do something that is wrong.  Let me take an imprecise comparison.  No baby is born with a specific language in their 'head'.  They will have the innate ability to use language, but they will have to learn a specific one before being able to use it (no-one has the natural ability to speak English, or Japanese, or Swahili, for instance).

What would be interesting to know is just what is going wrong with their upbringing.  Yes, there will be those parents (or siblings) who teach their children to steal or lie (do you know of anyone who was born a pickpocket, for instance?).  Generally, though, parents try to bring up children in a positive way.  If not parents and family members, is it society to blame?  Is it extremes of wealth and poverty?  If so, why aren't all children from extremely wealthy/poor families equally badly behaved?  What is it that modifies the influence of the same parent/social context of two siblings, such that one becomes a doctor, for instance, and the other a burglar.

[JJ]

But the world isn't perfect Andy.  That's the whole point.  So many children are abused and consequently their behaviour is affected by it - not taught by anyone.  And that is from a child development perspective.  You now change the goal posts a little as earlier on you said that for children to learn - someone must be teaching them.  I questioned that and you have now changed to saying that they must be learning to do something wrong.  They are habituating their response and that might be wrong, and that might be learnt behaviour - but there is no-one teaching them that.  That is what I am asserting.


There's an interesting fact about the language thing - for the first 9 months any child is sensitive to the accent it hears around it - children who are introduced to a new language later than 9 months quite often cannot distinguish subtle differences of pronunciation whereas babies who have been around that language from birth can tell the difference.  And often in Wales it's impossible for non Welsh speakers to pronounce ll as natives do.  It's not innate but heard from the womb. 

It's wrong to compare siblings from a family if one turns out bad, no-one can tell the psychic effects of birth and upbringing on an individual, it doesn't mean that the bad person was born bad - biochemical, circumstantial and innate abilities cause every person to turn out different.  One person thrives in a lovely family - another is suffocated by the same family conditions or a very bad experience at school.  Our experiences make us what we are and most people grow quite well, but some are ruined by something another would find a healthy challenge.

[AndyHB]

But the world isn't perfect Andy.  That's the whole point. 

So, JJ, if humans are all born sinless, which I understand to be your POV, where does the imperfection come from?  Despite all the Baron-Cohenesque attempts to explain the occurrence of evil in some way other than the original sin concept, no-one has managed to adequately explain where evil comes from.

[JJ]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13128701

Interesting bit of research here (as a side issue to the subject of this thread) about the subtleties of rearing children.