[I don’t think I have ever been to Great Debates before. I hope this is not an intrusion upon a more or less private thread.]
There is a movie Netflix: Madeinusa, DVD and streaming, in which a remote Peruvian village believes there is no sin during those several hours when Jesus is “dead” - Friday night until Sunday morning, I think. Reviews treat it favorably. I found it a most interesting twist from virtually all movies were religion plays a prominent role in the plot.
I agree, and I would like to see Linden Arden and anyone else who sees significance major significance in the existence of different religions address this point. Crime would be only one example. In mathematics there are different definitions of the derivative or the integral or even addition. Do those things not exist as well? And heck, not everyone agrees on how to define a garden or a newspaper or a wall. Do those things also not exist?
I think sin is a religious construct, and that it doesn’t exist outside the parameters of religion.
A nonbeliever would say that someone commits crimes or breaks rules, which are societal precepts. If the perpetrator is caught, a nonbeliever would go on to say that punishment is defined and carried out by human beings.
As I understand Judeo-Christian theology, sin is disobedience toward God; the point of the Fall of Man is that Adam and Eve sinned through that disobedience. And that was far more important to the writer than the physical act of eating the apple.
I assume other religious traditions have concepts of sin that are more or less similar.
No no, these things are all free for alls. You’re certainly welcome, the flick sounds pretty interesting. I’ll check it out.
I honestly think sin is just guilt from having doing something you know is wrong. If you read the Bible with that understanding, it works. Granted, you have to alter between the feeling of guilt and factual guilt, but it definitely works.
As for other religions, I was under the impression that they borrowed the term from Christianity. For some, the concept is the same, while, for others, it’s rather different.
Sin is simply a free will decision to step outside the will of God. In other words depart on a different path. It is a state of separation from God, you are walking on your own. It does not mean you have violated any laws or rules, it means you are now given them to live under instead of living above the law with God.
Hmm. In some Greek mythology, some chowderhead decides to forego giving the proper sacrifice to Poseidon, or something, before setting out on a journey. Poseidon, naturally, interferes with the journey, “punishing” the transgressor (and with considerable fallout on nearby folk, I might add).
That act was not called a “sin”? (I realise that Greeks 2500 years ago did not speak English.) What was the word(s) they might have used?
I am not a praticing Christian or anything, but I think you’re forgetting to mention a whole set of stuff (from the Abrahamic religions, specifically):
There is a promised afterlife or paradise where God rewards the faithfull with everlasting happiness, while the “sinners” are seperated out and don’t get the goodies.
Edit: If you were speaking in a much more general, broader sense, to include the non-Abrahamic religions, I apologise.
Most religions include, I think, a warning of the consequences for “sinning”, even if milder than the Abrahamic ones.
I don’t know what words they would have used to describe it in Greek, but conceptually displeasing a Greek god is not necessarily like breaking a moral imperative.
I am sorry, I am having problems focusing my brain today. I don’t understand what you mean.
A devout true believing Greek would have felt it was his moral duty to show proper respect for the gods, no?
While all paths of sin (walking without God) will lead to death and destruction, and God does much to make it nicer then it should be, at some level of traveling without God (in sin) everyone will want to return to walk with God, and thanks to Jesus, everyone is able.
So once you depart and start to walk on your own you have already lost all goodies (why Adam died the day he ate, though he appears to still be alive - the mercy of God slows down the death process giving time to repent), once you want to come back they are restored. Parable of the prodigal son shows this.
There are plenty of stories in which the wishes of Greek gods conflict with each other. How can that be the case if this defines morality?
I believe that the wishes, desires, and impulses of Greek gods were not necessarily considered moral imperatives by definition.
The gods bickered amongst each other, sure. But I think the gods would all agree that humans were lower on the pecking order, and when Poseidon punished Odysseus for failing to make the proper show of respect, none of the others stepped in to stop him (at least, not right away). They all understood the motivations behind Poseidons actions.
A moral imperitive is not one enforced by some secular authority (like King Agamemnon), but by either some god you offended, his high priest, or your own conscience. We use the word “sin” to narrow that further to say that it is offense against (a) god, and not necessarily against your own concience.
“Coming back” is not inevitable. Those who do not repent will never received the promised afterlife.
Merely saying that the “choose to walk a different path” [now] leaves out a whole lot about what will come of this “sinning” in the future.
You should not say that a man on death row is merely walking a different path. 
You draw a law comparison below, which I’ll address in a second, but I think it’s apt to apply it here in that, even if we ignore the idea that there are multiple nations or, even within the US, that there are varying laws depending upon what state, county, and city you’re in, and so there are conflicts about what is or what should be legal or illegal. But even within the same jurisdiction, there are arguments about what various laws mean and how they should be interpretted. The idea that we cannot agree on whether or not a specific act is lawful or unlawful is not evidence that law does not exist. Similarly, that people disagree one what is and is not a sin, even in some cases those who follow the same or similar sect of the same religion, does not mean that sin, as a concept does not exist.
That murder is a legal concept does not mean that it is not also a sin. Consider the argument that it is illegal to use controlled substances therefore they cannot be classified as cheating. Well, then, I guess the idea of professional athletes cheating by using steroids and HGH doesn’t really have a real meaning anymore. Murder is illegal, but it is also a sin by virtually every belief system of which I’m aware.
Further, that many people do something doesn’t mean that it’s not necessarily still a sin. For instance, it’s illegal to possess or use pot in any capacity in my state, and yet I know dozens of people who do both. That’s not an argument that it’s not a law. Now, some may disagree on whether or not something like pre-maritial sex is a sin or may simply not care that much, but there certainly are a number of people who believe it to be so.
Without envoking religion, I would define a sin as a violation of moral or ethical guidelines. And of course, as such, people will disagree on what those guidelines are, particularly since religion plays a large role in determining morals and ethics, but that doesn’t mean there’s not a lot of common ground and it doesn’t mean that the concept doesn’t exist or that it isn’t useful.
In this sense, sometimes there is overlap between moral and legal guidelines, like murder and theft, and sometimes there’s not. Sometimes something is legal but immoral, like cheating on your spourse, and sometimes something is moral but illegal, like protests in totalitarian states. As such, I think it is a meaningful distinction and makes the term useful.
The only thing that religion really adds to the concept is that it will typically define the moral rules and assign some punishment or withhold some reward for sinning.
I’m really not sure what this has to do with anything. It sounds like you ran into a jerk evangelist or just have something against Christianity.
Actually a man on death row could be waking exactly God’s path to eternal life, see Paul of Tarsus (one of many).
1 God’s plan is perfect.
2 God desires all to come to repentance
3 God created everyone, planned it all out before creating the earth
4 Jesus overcame the grave given the power to raise from the dead
5 That power is given to all that follow Jesus
Conclusion, everyone will be saved, though some may be saved in Hell, or the Lake of Fire. God will not lose a single soul.
Also note that believing and being baptized does not mean you won’t spend time in Hell, biblical example is Jesus.
Scylla, I have to compliment you on this truly profound thought. Very thought provoking and insightful.
thx for the post.
If sin doesn’t exist I guess we can get rid of sin taxes, right?
Are you thinking of the Odyssey? Odysseus kills the cyclops Polyphemus, who is Poseidon’s son, and Poseidon spends the next ten years keeping Odysseus from getting home.
Unfortunately, I have no Greek, ancient or modern, so I don’t know how the ancient Greeks said “sin”.
Strong’s G266, “hamartia,”
a) to be without a share in
b) to miss the mark
c) to err, be mistaken
d) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
e) to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act
collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many