Posted by
Rob on Friday, July 28, 2006 10:30:44 AM
I listen to the Dennis Prager show all of the time. He never ceases to amaze me with his thoughtfulness and rationality, and I admire the man immensely. If he were a work of art, I imagine he would be a giant statue sitting on a stump with his chin resting on his fist. This is why I become so disturbed when he discusses the concept of "Gradation of Sin". Basically, he feels that there is some sin that is worse than others. In his view, to feel anger towards someone is far different than murdering them. I have no problem with his premise. How could a rational person not see the difference between some ill feelings and homicide? What angers me is his complete dismissal of those who hold the view that all sin is equally bad as fools. It is for this reason that I want to make an attempt to rationally explain the other side of the coin.
When this issue is examined closely, it reduces to a matter of perspective. In other words, by what standard are we judged. Is it good enough to be better than most people on earth to obtain an eternal reward, or is the standard set higher than that? I think that there are two possibilities, either we are judged against some moral average of all of the people currently on the earth, or we are judged against the righteousness of God himself. It would not be fair to be judged against the conduct of individuals throughout all of history for two reasons. The moral struggles of those in the ancient world were much different than those of today, and It would be unfair to hold us to standard of conduct that was appropriate for an ancient culture with a completely different set of circumstances surrounding them. Also, those in Israel, for example, would have to be judged against our actions two thousand years before we performed them.
So which standard is the most just? It seems to me that the moral average of the world fluctuates throughout history. If we are judged by the standards of the world around us, the definition of righteousness has to change over time. This is profoundly unjust. Those who live in a more righteous world would find the standard higher, and thus harder to get into heaven. A good world would then be punished for their moral success. Therefore, there must be a single standard of judgement.
I believe that God is that standard simply because his nature defines what goodness is, but what are the ramifications of that belief? Since God is infinitely righteous, we will never be able to be good enough to get into heaven. Also, if we are judged against infinity, there is no difference between sin. All sin is rendered the same because of the standard by which it is judged. For example, imagine that a man is standing in the middle of Texas. The western border of the state represents angry thoughts directed towards an individual, and the eastern border represents murdering that same individual. According to the perspective of the man, how far apart are those two sins? Imagine that the man is standing on the moon looking down on Texas. Now how far apart do those sins seem to him? Finally, imagine that the man is standing on the complete opposite side of the universe looking down at Texas. The sins will look like they are lying on top of each other.
How can this be just? It would be just if God had enough mercy on us to give us a means to bridge that gap between our level of righteousness and his. I believe that he did so in his son Jesus Christ. Jesus was without sin, and was willing to pay the price for our sin, namely death, by sacrificing himself on the cross. By accepting that gift, we are shielded by his blood from God's judgement of us. This is my belief, and reasonable people can disagree. I also understand that this controversy is one of the biggest differences between Judaism and Christianity. What I wish is that Dennis Prager would acknowledge that if gradation of sin does exist, then Christianity doesn't. By insulting the idea that all sin is the same, then he unknowingly insults my savior and my God.