What was the first sin?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,552
308
49
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟14,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
What was the first sin?

I realize that some here will say that the first sin is only symbolized in the Bible, but I'm still hoping to have a good conversation about what the first sin was, biblically.

I have been taught that the first sin to appear in Scripture was when Adam ate of the fruit of the tree of life that Eve gave to him. This teaching further says that Eve was completely fooled by the serpant, Satan, when she ate the fruit and was not guilty of committing the first sin.

A different opinion came up in the Creationist forum, and I'd be interested to see what comes up here. :)

Btw, I recently had some personal struggles and spent some time away from the forum. I missed you guys and am glad to be back. :wave:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willtor

stumpjumper

Left the river, made it to the sea
Supporter
May 10, 2005
21,177
846
✟71,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
From my reading of Genesis, the first sin would be turning away from God. It would have been committed by a group of our ancestors that first recognized God's presence in the world and turned from God and that relationship that they experienced.

Of course, I'm taking a less than literal approach to Genesis 2...
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
A while back I jokingly wondered if all this really happened just because Adam gulped down some "contraband carbohydrate" ... I don't think that TEism necessarily denies original sin. I'll grant that it is possible to go from evolution, read the Bible, and then say "sin is something humanity evolved into on its own and sin is something we will evolve out of", and believe me, that scares me as much as it scares you. But I don't think the Christian idea of evolution necessarily leads to that.

In my view of things (which may or may not be Biblical - I haven't seen much solid evidence that it isn't) man's sentience is not found in Genesis 2 but in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 God breathed the breath of life into man, but that only made him alive on a status equivalent to other animals. We find the real man/animal difference in Genesis 1, where God declares that man is to be made in His image, literally as His "idol" or the physical representative of His spiritual power in the natural realm. When God elevated man by giving him this status, this enabled man to have a relationship with God whom he was representing.

Furthermore, God gave man alone of all creation the choice to either perform his duty according to God's plan or against God's plan. I believe that the giving of this choice is represented in God's giving of the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If you think carefully about it, there was no biological or physical necessity for the tree of knowledge to be there in the garden. Our modern ecosystems do just fine without it. Therefore its presence must have had spiritual significance. Even those who take Genesis 2 completely literally and historically would not deny this.

The significance of the tree of knowledge is that God gave man a choice. God gave Adam and Eve that first choice as representatives of humanity, which would be reflected much later in how God gave Moses and the people of Israel that same choice - to obey or to disobey - and how Jesus' coming would ultimately force all people to choose again between obedience and disobedience.

And one day man decided that what he figured out on his own was far better than what God wanted him to do. Maybe it was a gradual process, maybe it was a split-second decision. But man decided that he wanted to make his own decisions - and suddenly everything came crashing down, man knew shame and hurt and the need for subterfuge and hiding from God and from a wounded conscience. And from then on sin, which had only been a possibility God gave in giving man freedom, became a reality in man's world, and as God turned from man's sinful presence man also turned from God and found sin much more attractive than God.

That's my picture of how sin started. To me it is not so important what the first sin is ... I don't see sin in the act of Adam's eating the fruit (since I don't believe that tree was even a reality, it seems more like a symbol), I see sin in his decision to do so.
 
Upvote 0

stumpjumper

Left the river, made it to the sea
Supporter
May 10, 2005
21,177
846
✟71,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Also... What is sin?

I personally believe that sin is separation from God or disobeying God's will.

Original sin in that sense, then, is our propensity, inclination, or ability to commit actual sin. Original sin and actual sin are different...
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
More seriously, I think God gives us the picture of nicking some fruit, because if we really knew what the first historical sin was we would think whatever sin we like to commit so much less serious than quaglification or twernpty or whatever the first sin really was. "Sure I murdered my neighbour and married his wife but at least I'm not a twernptist".
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
To respond to Stumpjumper, first, I'll offer up my understanding of sin. Then I'll address how I approach the first sin.

Sin is separation from God. It is not an action or a thought (though an action or a thought can be said to be "sinful"). It is separation from God, itself. It is the alternative to unity with God. "Sinful" is sort of a misnomer because sin is not a thing like faith is a thing. Just as darkness is not a thing like light is a thing, sin is the absence of unity with God through faith. When a thing is sinful, one is really saying that it is faithless. It is contrary to unity with God.

Unity with God was a condition that God gave to Man. Whether through evolution or special creation, God created Man in His image and made Himself known to him. As Trinitarians, we understand that God created, not out of a need, but out of an overflow of love and the desire to share the relationship He already knew within Himself. Thus, God created us for our sake. This reveals something of the nature of love which inherently has an object towards which it acts. I think this is affirmed in the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of Christ ("greater love hath no man...").

The first sin was necessarily a refutation of love. It was something faithless. Some thought or action which was not towards the Other, but towards the self. When Man chose to look upon himself instead of upon God, his act was faithless. The Genesis account indicates that there was someone already in existence that had broken fellowship with God, and that this someone used deception and appealed to Man encouraging him to look to his own ends. "You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Of course, Man was already like God.

At any rate, the particular faithless decision was, by definition, contrary to the relationship between God and Man.
 
Upvote 0

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,552
308
49
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟14,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I grant you, Wiltor, that sin does seperate us from God. That's why we need Jesus, to bring us back into relationship with God.

However, I find this abstract concept of "sin" interesting although I'm not sure how Scriptural it is, in my best understanding of scripture. I think actions and thoughts certainly are sin. Sin is just as much a verb for actions that seperate us from God as it is the concept of being seperated from God.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Pats said:
I grant you, Wiltor, that sin does seperate us from God. That's why we need Jesus, to bring us back into relationship with God.

However, I find this abstract concept of "sin" interesting although I'm not sure how Scriptural it is, in my best understanding of scripture. I think actions and thoughts certainly are sin. Sin is just as much a verb for actions that seperate us from God as it is the concept of being seperated from God.

I'm not trying to make it seem abstract. I'm trying to encourage an approach to it that views it as the absence of faith. Again, we say that something is in darkness or that something is darkness, but really, what we mean is that it has no light. If sin were a thing, like faith is a thing, then it must have been created or it must have been there from the beginning. It is contrary to Scripture to say that it was there from the beginning, so if it was created, who created it?

If the Bible says that an action is sinful, I take it to mean that to act in that way is to act in un-fellowship with God. This is why so many Biblical authors contrast sin with faith.

I actually think that a discussion of faith must necessarily preceed a discussion of sin. This is one of the major reasons why, IMHO, we have the creation story. It begins by telling us about fellowship with God and then it tells us about un-fellowship and the consequences.
 
Upvote 0

jereth

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
560
41
Melbourne, Australia
✟8,426.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
A very important related question is: how does sin spread from person to person?

It seems that YECists almost universally believe (either implicitly or explicitly) that sin spreads genetically or biologically from parents to children. That's why they insist we must all be descended from Adam and Eve, who committed the first sin. That's how they make sense of Romans 5.

Problem is, the Bible nowhere teaches that sin spreads genetically/biologically. Indeed, if we interpret Genesis 3 literally, then the very first spread of sin -- from Eve to Adam -- did not occur biologically. Therefore it is clear that sin can and does spread "laterally" -- i.e. from one living person to another.

Also, it is very clear that righteousness does not spread biologically. It spreads laterally, and even backwards in time (eg. from Christ to Abraham and other OT believers).

Romans 5 puts sin and righteousness parallel to each other. So if righteousness can spread laterally, and forwards and backwards in time, why can't sin? This clearly removes the need for a literalistic/YECist conception of "the first sin", committed by Adam and subsequently spread to all his biological descendants.

Here's an alternative scenario:
Adam was a literal, historical figure living in neolithic Mesopotamia. He made a deliberate, conscious choice to oppose God's will (symbolised in the eating of the fruit). When this happened, sin spread laterally to the thousands of humans living at the same time, as well as backwards in time to every other human who had ever lived since man first appeared on earth. People living before Adam lived lives separated from God (i.e. in sin), but not through conscious choice (just as Abraham did not have conscious faith in Jesus Christ). Both pre-Adamite and post-Adamite humanity are sinners in Adam. (Just as pre-Christ and post-Christ believers are righteous in Christ.)

So we have the 'best of both worlds' -- a literal, historical Adam who committed a literal, historical sin (so YECs are happy), as well as the million years of human evolution (so TEs are happy)

What do y'all think?
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As I've suggested before, I think the sin is the break in the relationship. They can't be separated. At one point, humanity had a relationship with God, but Man broke it off. Original sin is the reality. We start off without a relationship with God because of this break.

I agree that it's not a biological thing, but I think it was passed by Adam and Eve (or the original population, or whomever) to their descendants. I think this is subtly different from the Incarnation, wherein Abraham (for example) didn't know. He probably had some inkling that reconciliation was the nature of God's promise. But he had a relationship with God and only later was the mechanism revealed to the world. In other words, although he didn't know that the Word would become flesh, he knew the Word.
 
Upvote 0

jereth

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
560
41
Melbourne, Australia
✟8,426.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Willtor said:
As I've suggested before, I think the sin is the break in the relationship. They can't be separated. At one point, humanity had a relationship with God, but Man broke it off.

Personally, I believe that the point of Genesis 3 is not that "man was once upon a time sinless, and subsequently became sinful", but rather "man ought to be righteous, but he has in fact been sinful right from the very beginning".

Whether you are a YECist or a TEist, you will believe that humanity has sinned from its first generation. The question then is: was the first generation Adam and Eve 6000 years ago, or a bunch of homo erectus 1 million years ago?

The clearest definition of sin in the scriptures is found in Romans 1:18 ff., where Paul teaches that the essence of sin is to recognise God's presence and power in the world, yet to turn from him and worship created things instead. I believe that even homo erectus was able to recognise something of God's power -- this means that homo erectus was "without excuse" when he rejected what little he could recognise of God, and therefore a sinner just like you and me.

As human recognition of God increased (as the human brain evolved greater intelligence), each succeeding generation continued to reject what it could recognise of God. When Adam finally came along 1 million years later, he was given a more thorough revelation of God and consciously rejected it, thus cementing the human condition.

Please note that the above is not meant to be a certain reconstruction of the history of sin. I do not believe we can be certain of what happened, because the Scriptures do not tell us. All we are given is a figurative story. But I believe that it is a viable and biblically consistent theory.

I agree that it's not a biological thing, but I think it was passed by Adam and Eve (or the original population, or whomever) to their descendants.

Yes they passed it on, but not in the sense of genetic inheritance. The Bible doesn't teach that.

My point is that YECists are wrong when they reason thus:
- All humans are sinners
- Adam and Eve committed the "original sin"
- Therefore all humans must be biologically descended from Adam and Eve

You don't have to have a biological relationship with Adam in order to share in the sinful human condition. Australian aborigines cannot possibly be related to a man who lived in Mesopotamia 6000 years ago; yet they are still sinful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gluadys
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not sure about the idea of sin spreading backwards from Adam. If Adam was an individual, was he the first with a God given spiritual nature? Without that could earlier men actually sin?

I agree the spread of sin is 'lateral' rather than genetically/biologically. We are not sinners because we share in Adam's death. If I read Paul correctly, we share in Adam's death because we sin. Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.

While YECs like to talk about how utterly perfect Adam was and all he incredible things his perfect mind and body could do (like give names to every species in a single afternoon) I think the bible shows us someone with the moral developments of a 2 or 3 year old. Now there is nothing wrong with the moral development of a 2 or 3 year old, in a 2 or 3 year old anyway. Morality is something we learn. Heb 5:14 ...mature people, whose minds are trained by practice to distinguish good from evil. Adam, whether a single individual or the human race, had not had any experience of moral decisions before and the choice God laid before him was the simplest one around.

I find it interesting that the earliest religious and moral code in the bible is the simplest one of taboo, it is not a coming to a complex decision of what is morally right or wrong, or understanding how understanding how decisions would hurt someone else, but simply 'Don't eat that. God says no'.

What I also see is Adam being given a choice between the natural inclinations of his flesh, his hunger, and God's call. His flesh had done a very good job protecting and feeding his ancestors through their evolution and making sure the species survived to successive generations. But now God was calling man higher, and walking in the spiritual relationship with God he was being called to, would mean mastering the demands of the flesh. Gal 5:17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh. Of course we read 'flesh' as 'our fallen sin nature', but what if it meant simply what it says, our human nature, which was very good while the human race evolved, but now holds us back from God's spiritual call? It sound very like the comparison between the law and the gospel, the law was very good and acted as a schoolmaster, but now that grace has come it can hold people enslaved (Gal 4).


I am still thinking through all this, but that is where I am at present...

Assyrian

 
  • Like
Reactions: jereth
Upvote 0

Numenor

Veteran
Dec 26, 2004
1,517
42
114
The United Kingdom
Visit site
✟1,894.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Conservative
I'd say disbelief leading to pride leading to covetousness. Eve was deceived into disbelieving what God said about the fruit which lead to pride in setting up her own wants over the comand of God, which lead to her coveting the fruit because she saw 'the fruit was good and adelight to the eyes'.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
shernren said:
A while back I jokingly wondered if all this really happened just because Adam gulped down some "contraband carbohydrate" ... I don't think that TEism necessarily denies original sin. I'll grant that it is possible to go from evolution, read the Bible, and then say "sin is something humanity evolved into on its own and sin is something we will evolve out of", and believe me, that scares me as much as it scares you. But I don't think the Christian idea of evolution necessarily leads to that.

The question in the OP was "What was the first sin?" not "What is original sin?" We should always keep in mind that "first sin" and "original sin" have quite different meanings.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
jereth said:
A very important related question is: how does sin spread from person to person?

It seems that YECists almost universally believe (either implicitly or explicitly) that sin spreads genetically or biologically from parents to children. That's why they insist we must all be descended from Adam and Eve, who committed the first sin. That's how they make sense of Romans 5.

Problem is, the Bible nowhere teaches that sin spreads genetically/biologically. Indeed, if we interpret Genesis 3 literally, then the very first spread of sin -- from Eve to Adam -- did not occur biologically. Therefore it is clear that sin can and does spread "laterally" -- i.e. from one living person to another.

A good point. Personally, I think sin spreads sociologically. Consider the analogy of language. We are all born with a propensity to learn language, yet we are not born speaking any language in particular. We learn the language of the culture we are born into through imitation of the adults around us.

Similarly we are all born with a propensity to sin (original sin), but we have not yet committed any sin. But we all learn to act sinfully through imitation of the family and society around us. We cannot learn otherwise, because there is no example of a human or a human society without sin around us and we can only imitate the examples we see. We necessarily imbibe sin because we are immersed in sin from our earliest days.

Another way to look at it is that we are all born in alienation from God. How can we be other than sinners when we are born of parents already alienated from God and everyone around us is an example of someone alienated from God? We learn by imitation and the condition of original sin is the only example we have to imitate.
 
Upvote 0

ChetSinger

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
3,518
650
✟124,958.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Pats said:
...I have been taught that the first sin to appear in Scripture was when Adam ate of the fruit of the tree of life that Eve gave to him. This teaching further says that Eve was completely fooled by the serpant, Satan, when she ate the fruit and was not guilty of committing the first sin...
I've been taught that, too. Certainly, Adam gets the rap in New Testament by Paul.

OTOH, I think John draws a deliberate parallel between Eve's actions and the sinful world:


Gen 3:6 - So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

1 John 2:16 - For all that is in the world--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--is not of the Father but is of the world.


But in the end, I'll vote for Adam's actions constituting the first sin. Paul says Adam understood what he was doing, while Eve didn't. And that sin came into the world through Adam.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pats
Upvote 0

jereth

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
560
41
Melbourne, Australia
✟8,426.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Assyrian said:
Not sure about the idea of sin spreading backwards from Adam. If Adam was an individual, was he the first with a God given spiritual nature? Without that could earlier men actually sin?

I guess this is where TEs may disagree. There are 2 possible points of view:

A. The "Simple"Option

Adam represents a real, historical individual (or group of individuals). He and his contemporaries were the first generation who were endowed with a spiritual nature, and as a consequence, with real moral choice and the ability to know God. If he chose righteousness, he would have had eternal life.

Pre-Adamite humanity, on the other hand, were spiritual animals despite being anatomical humans. So they did not have moral capability or any consciousness of God. They died just like animals, and will not face judgment by God for their moral actions. They will not be resurrected or end up in heaven or hell -- no different from my pet cat.

When Adam chose to disobey God, sin came into the world, bringing death with it (Rom 5). In actual fact, of course, physical death was already a natural part of existence for Adam's ancestors -- so the meaning of "death" is really "spiritual death". Humanity (in Adam) had the choice to transcend spiritual death by choosing righteousness, but he didn't.

B. The "complex" option
This second option rejects the idea that there was some kind of sudden, miraculous transition from pre-Adamite humanity to post-Adamite humanity. Humanity was not given a "spiritual nature" suddenly. Spirituality, moral awareness, God-consciousness etc. developed gradually as part of the evolutionary process.

So now we have the problem: was pre-Adamite humanity sinful? This is what my previous post seeks to address. I believe that the answer can be "yes", because all that is needed for "sin" is some awareness of God's existence.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Romans 1:18-21

Paul says here that God's presence has always been recognisable, and men have always rejected it. A homo erectus may not have perceived much of God, but if he rejected what little he could perceive, then he is a sinner.

So this is where I get the idea of Adam's sin spreading backwards in time. Pre-Adamite humanity did not have the same knowledge of God that Adam did -- yet they rejected what they did have. So they were also partakers in Adam's sin, and counted as sinners.

This is exactly parallel to Christ's righteousness (as in Rom 5). Pre-Christ believers (Abraham, David, etc.) only had a small glimpse of God's righteousness -- yet they had faith in what little they could understand, and were therefore counted as righteous. Thus we say that Christ's righteousness has spread backwards in time to them.

Which option is correct?
Personally I currently lean towards option B, because the scientific evidence appears to suggest that spirituality evolved gradually in humanity. There is good evidence that 100,000 year old humans practiced religious rites. So I don't think it makes sense to say that pre-Adamite humanity was non-spiritual, and post-Adamite humanity was spiritual.

I'm interested in hearing what other TEs think...

I am still thinking through all this, but that is where I am at present...

Thanks for your input. I think we are all on a proverbial "journey" of understanding. I hope that other TEs can share their opinions about this too.
 
Upvote 0

jereth

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
560
41
Melbourne, Australia
✟8,426.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
gluadys said:
A good point. Personally, I think sin spreads sociologically.

Yes, there is absolutely no doubt about that.

1And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-- 3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. Ephesians 2:1-3

I think this passage is very helpful. It teaches that sin enters a human being in a threefold manner: from the world (i.e. sociologically), from Satan, and from the flesh/body/mind (i.e. biologically). So there is certainly a biological or genetic component to sin. But that's by no means the whole story.

Thanks glaudys.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi jereth

I still have problems with sin spreading backwards in time. It seems to be totally unjust. People were either innocent, or guilty of their own sin. To condemn people as sinners based on what someone else did generations later is simply not right. The parallel with righteousness doesn't work because righteousness is a gift which is freely accepted by those who receive it. Condemnation as a sinner is not something anyone would want as an undeserved gift.

I lean more toward B the complex option myself. A lot depends on how the human spirit originated. The bible is clear it is a gift from God he gives to everyone, but that does not tell us how he gives this to us, either as individuals or as a species. I quite like the idea the the human soul/spirit/consciousness is an emergent property that came with the increased size and complexity of our brains. That doesn't mean it is not still the gift of God. While an emergent property, could point to a slow development of the human spirit, it also leave open a sudden leap forward as the new property clicks into place. (I am not wild about that line of thought because it leads to the idea that the human spirit only emerges in children too as their brains reach a certain size.)

I see two possible bases for as you call it some kind of sudden, miraculous transition from pre-Adamite humanity to post-Adamite humanity. One is a Pentecost type outpouring of a God given spirit to the human race, a spirit that returns to God when we die, unlike animal spirit which return to the earth when the body dies, (as the preacher suggested in Eccles 3:21). I think Pentecost is a good parallel here because we have seen God pour out a gift of a new spirit, (his own Holy Spirit in the case of Pentecost) on a large group of people without the need for any change in mental or biological development. The other possible basis for a sudden transition is the moral responsibility that comes with being given an actual command from God, temptation was only possible when there was a law to break though I think moral responsibility comes with moral awareness rather than law.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.