“Sin” is defined as a violation of a religious rule. But there are thousands of religions so there is no standard for this violation. Blasphemy is considered a “sin” by most religions but I consider it a duty.
“Sin” is therefore self definitional. And with such a self referential aspect the entire concept is clearly bogus.
“Murder” is a legal construct and as such cannot be classified as “sin”. “Thou shalt not kill” does not make a distinction between self defense and honor killings or stonings. Homicide is clearly not a “sin”. Premarital sex is no longer considered “sinful” by most. The concept has no real meaning anymore.
Why the distinction?
I don’t want some jackass claiming another “died for my sins” as I don’t accept the conclusion or the premise.
What is a ‘sin’ to others is an ‘ethical violation’ to me. Example: Lying. Most of the time, you can lie and it is not a crime. It’s a sin to Christians but just wrong to others. Many ‘sins’ are based on universal concepts of what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.
In an absolute sense, no. However, it certainly is a meaningful term when you specify the religion you are talking about. You yourself said “Sin” is defined as a violation of a religious rule. So, it makes perfect sense to say that to fundamentalist christians divorce and remarriage is a sin. It isn’t to you (presumably) and it isn’t to me, but it is to them.
“Crime” is defined as violation of a legal rule. But there are hundreds of countries so there is not standard for this violation.
Each religion has different beliefs. That is true. Each believes it is correct; this is also true. But arguing to any of them that “there are other religions, therefore yours is false” doesn’t work; their position is “there are other religions, and they are all false”.
"
“Thou shalt not kill” is a translation. I’ve heard many times that it’s a poor translation, and that it’s “thou shalt not murder”. Which would be an unlawful or unjustified killing.
I’m not sure that something which is considered by most is a definition which is applicable. Sure, they may not believe it’s a sin (I don’t). That doesn’t affect the reality of whether or not it is (I reckon it isn’t, but I could be wrong).
I’m also not convinced that calling Jesus a “jackass” is an effective way to approach this debate. I mean - do you want to debate it, or just piss a whole bunch of people off?
To me the distinction is a crime is an offense against society (or an individual member of society) and a sin is an offense against God. Some acts are obviously both - murder for example. But there are acts, like eating a certain food, which are regarded as a sin but not a crime.
In my opinion, sin can only exist if you believe that God exists to be offended by sin.
. . . More of a moral/ethical rule with religious authority backing it up. Sometimes a religious rule in the strict sense, like turning your back on the altar or something. But, sin is always defined as sin because it is something against God’s will, I believe.
You’ve got offenses against sentient beings, offenses against society and offenses against ideology.
Sin, I guess, is a mix of all 3. You can be offensive towards a sentient being (hurting a person), or you can offend society (prostitution), or you can offend an ideology (blasphemy). That is my personal opinion of how it works.
However speaking out against Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung s considered the highest form of ‘sin’ in north korea. That doesn’t mean I have to respect those rules.
So in conclusion, I don’t know. But I know I don’t know enough to know. Which shows I know something.
Thou shalt murder is such crap anyway. You can kill in retribution for crimes against a person, against society or against an ideology. And you can kill in promotion of your tribe/nation. And you can kill those who are not members of your tribe/nation (not so much anymore but in the past a lot more). And you can kill sentient beings that aren’t human. A better saying should be ‘thou shalt not kill productive members of society, just so long as they keep being productive’. Killing those outside your society, or those that are a threat to your society generally haven’t been considered morally bad.
If sin is, by definition, the violation of a religious rule, then it’s very trivial to prove that sin exists. People violate religious rules all the time. Hence, sin exists.
Many things – like home runs, overdraft fees, and breeds of dog – only have meaning within their contexts, but that doesn’t mean they don’t “exist,” within those contexts and I don’t see the value to arguing about whether or not they “really” exist. It’s an argument with zero sides. We all know what sin means when people talk about sin.
If you want to say, “nothing is either good or bad but thinking makes it so,” that’s fine.
I think there are some things that a Person can do that take away a part of their soul, for lack of a better word. I don’t mean this in any religious sense.
The part that is taken away from you is a view or perspective. Since you don’t have it any more, you don’t know that it’s missing… Except for the hole it leaves behind.
Ive seen some people who have done enough that they are basically nothing but empty holes