What Is Sin?

[Dinwar]

This is a spin-off of another thread, where Darth Rotor came in saying that we all are sinners. I'd like to expand on this discussion, which is off-topic in that thread.

I want to start at the beginning: What is the definition of "sin"? Personally, I'd like to get definitions from various fields (religion, any philosophy that includes a similar concept, etc), but if it facilitates this discussion to narrow it down, that's fine too.

My reason for asking for a definition is twofold. First, I don't want to make strawmen. I grew up in the RCC, so I know their view--but I want it spelled out, along with any other view, preferably by people who advocate that religion, so that we can all be sure we're looking at what the believers actually believe. Second, I want to examine if the concept of sin is applicable to an atheistic worldview. Certain concepts are not, as they require some sort of god. And my point here isn't to tell theists "Haha, you believe in gods!" Rather, I want to examine the reasons why telling a group of atheists "you're all sinners" is typically met with ridicule and mockery.

So, anyone care to define "sin"?

[Monketey Ghost]

Speaking as an atheist who used to be Catholic, and that gives my opinion on the matter ultimate authority...

sin is... doing something you know isn't right with God according to your set of rules?

[BStrong]

I used to explain to young guys coming onto the job is that they'd need to differentiate between an infraction, a crime, and a sin, and act accordingly.

Guy has a pregnant wife, she goes into labor at home, 0300.

Guy gets the wife into the car, drives to the hospital. Along the way, he comes to a red signal light - he can see both ways down the street far enough to make sure there are no oncoming vehicles, so he runs the red.

That's an infraction.

Guy's driving drunk at 0300, blows the signal, that's a crime.

Guy's driving drunk at 0300, blows the signal, hits another vehicle, three people in that vehicle are killed on the spot.

That's a sin in my book.

I'm sure the philosophers have better explanations, but this one works for me.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well. . original sin is pretty much equivalent with what we secularists might call simply human nature (or just being human). The just-so story says it's our collective inheritance of Adam and Eve's sin of disobedience, but a more metaphorical reading of that story is that it's what happens when you eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (i.e. when you become human).

[Lowpro]

sin = whatever makes God cry

[Loss Leader]

Sin is a negative on one's metaphysical balance book. It must either be outweighed with positives or repented for in some way, depending on the religion.

Without a metaphysical scorekeeper, sin is a meaningless concept.

[Professor Yaffle]

Everything I've ever done
Everything I ever do
Every place I've ever been
Everywhere I'm going to
It's a sin

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Sin is a negative on one's metaphysical balance book. It must either be outweighed with positives or repented for in some way, depending on the religion.

That's more or less the Roman Catholic Church's view, as I understand it: Sin is anything that distances one from God. There's the Ten Commandments (well, a few versions of them), but there are innumerable other sins as well. And a few catch-alls like presumption (not such a commonly referenced sin now, but pretty popular in the Middle Ages).

Quote:

Without a metaphysical scorekeeper, sin is a meaningless concept.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy and while it doesn't have sin per say, it certainly does recognize moral failings. There's no metaphysical scorekeeper (again, atheistic); the failings are based on the O'ist answer to "why bother with morality anyway". A moral failing harms one's self--for example, if you're a farmer it's a moral failing to cook up your stock seed. It's also a moral failure to submit to or make others submit to your judgement (the mind is our basic tool of survival, thus anything that undermines it is detrimental). I'm not interested in debating the validity of O'ist philosophy in this thread; my point is that I'm not convinced that the concept of sin is necessarily tied to the concept of a deity. It USUALLY is, but there are versions of the concept which aren't.

Originally Posted by Monketey Ghost

sin is... doing something you know isn't right with God according to your set of rules?

The reason I don't agree with this is that it's not always your set of rules. In the Middle Ages you could be declared a sinner based on other people's rules (Chapter 1 of the Rule of St. Benedict shows an example, when discussing the types of monks).

Originally Posted by BStrong

I used to explain to young guys coming onto the job is that they'd need to differentiate between an infraction, a crime, and a sin, and act accordingly.

I gather from this that you are a police officer (please correct me if I'm wrong--but your example is certainly dealing with law enforcement). How do you deal with people who disagree with what you define as a sin? As an example, cops I've known view selling drugs as a sin (it does, after all, currently involve a certain level of violence). I've never done anything stronger than coffee and tsuika without it being medically necessary, but I disagree. One cop relative of mine views this as a horrible moral failing on my part; I view him arresting nonviolent drug offenders as a moral failing on his. How do you deal with such differences? How do you advise others to deal with them?

I should emphasize that I'm genuinely curious about this. It's a bit off-topic, but certainly a close enough tangent (and one worth-while enough) to warrant a brief aside.

[dlorde]

As a child, I always thought that conscience (as in personal subjective perception of right and wrong) was key. So it was a sin to do something you believed to be wrong. The same action would not be a sin if you did not believe it to be wrong. Naive, but effective (derived from my interpretation of what the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil' was about).

This was a contributory factor to my rejecting the Catholic belief system early in life - in particular, the idea of Original Sin seemed patently absurd and unjust.

[Hokulele]

In my experience, a "sin" is dependent on morality. In other words, a sin is something that breaks a moral rule. Where things tend to get hairy is when people start with the assumption that morals are universal, absolute, and objective, and of course their morals are the correct ones. This can be seen easily in most religions, but isn't limited to religion.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by dlorde

As a child, I always thought that conscience (as in personal subjective perception of right and wrong) is key. So it was a sin to do something you believe to be wrong. The same action would not be a sin if you did not believe it to be wrong. Naive, but effective.

Yeah....that doesn't work for me. I thought emotions were evil--then I heard Enya. Had to re-build my ethical philosophy from scratch. So I've never, far as I can tell, had what people call a conscience--as I understand it, an automatic subconcious subroutine to evaluate the morality of an action. Or rather, I do but I don't trust it.

Quote:

This was a contributory factor to my rejecting the Catholic belief system early in life - in particular, the idea of Original Sin seemed patently absurd and unjust.

That's another issue I'd like to get people's views on, particularly theists if any care to comment. Original Sin certainly seems to take free will out of the equation--I'm guilty because, well I'm just guilty. It's like hanging someone for excreting enzymes to digest food. And the RCC view doesn't make things any clearer. I once got a devout Catholic to say "Original Sin is free will" (remember, free will is supposed to be a gift from God).

[Resume]

"Remember Jerry, it's not a lie if you believe it."

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

This is a spin-off of another thread, where Darth Rotor came in saying that we all are sinners. I'd like to expand on this discussion, which is off-topic in that thread.

I want to start at the beginning: What is the definition of "sin"? Personally, I'd like to get definitions from various fields (religion, any philosophy that includes a similar concept, etc), but if it facilitates this discussion to narrow it down, that's fine too.

My reason for asking for a definition is twofold. First, I don't want to make strawmen. I grew up in the RCC, so I know their view--but I want it spelled out, along with any other view, preferably by people who advocate that religion, so that we can all be sure we're looking at what the believers actually believe. Second, I want to examine if the concept of sin is applicable to an atheistic worldview. Certain concepts are not, as they require some sort of god. And my point here isn't to tell theists "Haha, you believe in gods!" Rather, I want to examine the reasons why telling a group of atheists "you're all sinners" is typically met with ridicule and mockery.

So, anyone care to define "sin"?

Everything from murder to eating shellfish.

[Denver]

If you look at the definitions of religion (and some interpretations of its etymology) it is a means to reconnect, or get back to, the "diety", from which we have otherwise become separated. Sin, then, is anything that is an obstacle to that.

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by Resume

"Remember Jerry, it's not a lie if you believe it."

Depends on how you define 'lie'. I'd go with 'deliberate falsehood'; if it's not deliberate it's a mistake not a lie.

I was always led to believe a sin was something between you and God, so I saw it as conceptually separate from what society said was wrong - although I mostly thought that what society said was wrong was a sin, not least because my conscience was largely determined by the fundamental values I picked up from my parents.

"Jerry...this woman hates me so much...I'm starting to like her."

[Piscivore]

"And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."

"It's a lot more complicated than that-"

"No. It ain't. When people say things are more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts."

[I Ratant]

A sin is something you do that affects someone else... or even yourself, that you feel is wrong.
The churches have escalated that to make any such actions "offenses in the sight of whichever god they're selling" to establish some guilt about not being "saved".
The cure for the offense is a confession. To some mumbley priest in the box, or a mass release of the feeling in a revival setting.
It's seldom a redress of the grievance.. an apology to the victim directly, that takes the church out of the loop.
Sins can be crimes... ask any Catholic priest... but not their bishops or cardinals or popes.
The need to redress the crime for those guys is a session in the box, and a novena or three. Never turning oneself into the secular authorities!!!

[Beelzebuddy]

Came for Weatherwax. Leaving satisfied.

You want an objective answer, that's the best I've ever heard.

[Pup]

One can define sin in ways that work from an atheistic point of view, by talking about behaviors that cause measurable harm. But what about the common religious sin of not worshiping the right god?

A Christian and an atheist might agree that murder is a sin, but I can't think of any atheistic sin that's equivalent to "thou shalt have no other gods before me."

[Agatha]

The word "sin" seems to have an additional connotation, over and above transgressions of a law or moral code, of being something that is forbidden by a deity. As such, the word is fairly meaningless for atheists, I think.

If I do something that is against the law, I will consider it to be wrong, but not sinful. I will feel guilty and ashamed, I will feel I've let myself/my family/my society down, but I don't feel I've "sinned".

People who consider that everyone is a sinner, what forms does that sin take? Are babies sinful?

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Guy's driving drunk at 0300, blows the signal, that's a crime.

Guy's driving drunk at 0300, blows the signal, hits another vehicle, three people in that vehicle are killed on the spot.

That's a sin in my book.

The difference between a crime and a sin is a matter of luck?

[Garrette]

1. I don't think sin is definable as there are, as this thread has already demonstrated, myriad definitions, most of which are as reasonable as the rest.

2. (I place this comment separate because I think it is separate and should be argued separately from the first): I don't think sin can be present without the belief in a deity. Dinwar's comments re: Objectivism define transgressions, but sin would have to be defined that way for those transgressions to fall under it; I think that is merely an appropriation of the term in a sense not originally intended.

[AvalonXQ]

"Sin" is separation from God that results from making a choice contrary to God's will.

The choice itself, and the resulting act, can also be referred to as "sins", "sinning", or "sinful".

Sin depends on the condition of the heart - a willfull disobedience, an attitude of malice or or negative emotion, inevitably accompanies sinful behavior.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

"Sin" is separation from God that results from making a choice contrary to God's will.

The choice itself, and the resulting act, can also be referred to as "sins", "sinning", or "sinful".

Sin depends on the condition of the heart - a willfull disobedience, an attitude of malice or or negative emotion, inevitably accompanies sinful behavior.

That adds a different spin to it.

Let's say that an atheist has no interest in worshiping a god that others believe requires worship. They say the atheist is willfully refusing and therefore sinning. Is he?

From the believers' point of view, the atheist is sinning, because he's been told the god exists and requires worship, yet he's willfully refusing to do so. The believers think they've provided enough evidence--it's good enough for them, after all--but the atheist is still willfully refusing to believe.

From the atheist's point of view, he's not willfully refusing; there's just not enough evidence to believe.

Sin, or not?

That's why calling something a "sin" sounds like a way for believers to arbitrarily and unilaterally accuse non-believers of being sinful, based on whatever conditions they feel like setting.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by Mojo

The difference between a crime and a sin is a matter of luck?

That's what I wondered about that example.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Pup

Let's say that an atheist has no interest in worshiping a god that others believe requires worship. They say the atheist is willfully refusing and therefore sinning. Is he?

He may not be; it depends on his true beliefs and attitude.

I don't necessarily believe that failing to believe in or accept God is itself a sin, although I vaguely recall some scriptures which may prove me wrong.

[AvalonXQ]

Here's a useful passage on the subject:

Originally Posted by Romans 1:18-32 (NKJV)

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

I think this is saying that the nature of God is clear enough, based on just what we can all see in the natural world, that choosing to act against Him or deny Him is a deliberate act.

The later part goes through some examples of "things that are not fitting".

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I think this is saying that the nature of God is clear enough, based on just what we can all see in the natural world, that choosing to act against Him or deny Him is a deliberate act.

The later part goes through some examples of "things that are not fitting".

I would argue that one's view of the world and its contents is highly dependent on one's upbringing and circumstances. I doubt that the person born in poverty in rural India has the same perspective on "nature of God" as does the Harvard-educated businessman/woman. Besides, I believe that if it really were that self-evident, the various religions would be more in agreement as to the nature of the divine than they currently are, or even have been.

Furthermore, you also have the issue of those people who do not exhibit the behavior listed there, but yet do not believe there are any god(s). Could that still be considered sin?

[George152]

An invention of religion as a method of controlling their followers

[Mark6]

Originally Posted by Mojo

The difference between a crime and a sin is a matter of luck?

Yes, BStrong's definition rings very very wrong to me.

[Agatha]

I don't see a prohibition there in passive-aggressive signatures, you'd think an omniscient God would have foreseen such things. It's a puzzle, to be sure. I mean this more of a joke than in a snarky way, but is it not "evil-mindedness" to call an unspecified number of your fellow forum members jerks?

What about people who don't do any of those "things which are not fitting", but don't believe in the Christian God, or who don't believe in any god? Are they sinful?

[AvalonXQ]

I'll admit, I don't really think such people exist.

I've certainly had attitudes that would put me on that list; haven't you? Hasn't pretty much everyone?

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I don't necessarily believe that failing to believe in or accept God is itself a sin, although I vaguely recall some scriptures which may prove me wrong.

Well, there's Jesus' whole "Believe in me or you'll burn in Hell" thing (don't have specific passages on-hand, but I know he alluded to this at the Last Supper, and on other occasions). Christianity has been split over that for a long time, with some factions believing that he meant ANYONE who didn't believe Jesus was God would roast for eternity, and others beleiving that only if you heard about Jesus and rejected him would you roast. The RCC followed the latter path, while some of the more...agressive...Protestant sects follow the former.

Quote:

"Sin" is separation from God that results from making a choice contrary to God's will.

This sets up three things as necessary for sin to exist:

1) God
2) God's will
3) Individual choice

If any one of these doesn't exist, sin doesn't exist. For example, if God is a clockmaker god, who started the universe then stopped messing with it, sin would be a non-issue. If there are no gods it's impossible to act contrary to their will, so sin is a non-issue. And if someone doesn't have a choice on something, sin is a non-issue (that's why the RCC is getting wound up about whether homosexuality is biologically programed or a choice).

Quote:

I think this is saying that the nature of God is clear enough, based on just what we can all see in the natural world, that choosing to act against Him or deny Him is a deliberate act.

I would disagree. It reads more like the sins listed are supposed to be examples recognizable to that culture. After all, it's not unnatural for animals to engage in homosexual behavior (check out hiena pack order sometime...when you're not at work, anyway). It's not an uncommon tactic--but it's also not necessarily an accurate representation of the culture. I'm sure SOME of those people engaged in homosexuality (again, it actually is a natural thing), but it's almost certainly not their defining characteristic. I mean, nothing in that list couldn't be said with all honesty about Ancient Greece.

Further, I'm not sure this best supports your argument. You said

Quote:

I don't necessarily believe that failing to believe in or accept God is itself a sin, although I vaguely recall some scriptures which may prove me wrong.

My understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you were citing Romans to support this argument. But what this passage actually supports is the opposite--failure to believe in and accept God was directly the cause of the sin, according to this passage. And considering the author's evidence for his god was "It's obvious when you look around" you'd be hard-pressed to find someone (sane, at least) who WOULDN'T, by this author's view, "know God".

I'm not saying "Haha, you're wrong!" Rather, I'm trying to present you with what I'm getting out of what you're saying, so that if I'm misunderstanding you you can see how, why, and how to fix it.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'll admit, I don't really think such people exist.

I've certainly had attitudes that would put me on that list; haven't you? Hasn't pretty much everyone?

Personally, I have no doubt I can be accused of being "proud", but sure, I have met people like that. The most recent one was a monk at a Buddhist temple in Japan. I seriously doubt he worships what most Christians would refer to as "God", though.

[Agatha]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'll admit, I don't really think such people exist.

I've certainly had attitudes that would put me on that list; haven't you? Hasn't pretty much everyone?

Probably; without envy the human race wouldn't strive for very much; what constitutes sexual immorality is pretty much dependent on the society in which one lives; I've probably told lies though I can't immediately call any to mind and I know I've whispered - why is whispering a sin?

[Dinwar]

Quote:

I'll admit, I don't really think such people exist.

Which part? Are you saying that you don't think people who don't do any of those "things which are not fitting" don't exist? Or are you saying that you don't think atheists who don't do any of those "things which are not fitting" don't exist, but theists (specifically Christians) who don't do?

The phrase, as written, is ambiguous, and I'm merely looking for clarification on this point.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Well, there's Jesus' whole "Believe in me or you'll burn in Hell" thing (don't have specific passages on-hand, but I know he alluded to this at the Last Supper, and on other occasions). Christianity has been split over that for a long time, with some factions believing that he meant ANYONE who didn't believe Jesus was God would roast for eternity, and others beleiving that only if you heard about Jesus and rejected him would you roast. The RCC followed the latter path, while some of the more...agressive...Protestant sects follow the former.

My understanding is that it's not lack of belief in Christ directly that condemns you -- it's your own evil acts, that all men perform and know to be evil. Failing to acknowledge Christ just means you don't have the remedy for sin; if you never sinned in the first place, you wouldn't need Christ either.

Quote:

This sets up three things as necessary for sin to exist:

1) God
2) God's will
3) Individual choice

If any one of these doesn't exist, sin doesn't exist. For example, if God is a clockmaker god, who started the universe then stopped messing with it, sin would be a non-issue.

I don't see where you're coming from with that. Why couldn't a non-intervening God still have things he wants to happen in the universe, and why can't there still be punishment for going against His will?

Quote:

If there are no gods it's impossible to act contrary to their will, so sin is a non-issue.

Agreed.

Quote:

And if someone doesn't have a choice on something, sin is a non-issue

Agreed.

Quote:

(that's why the RCC is getting wound up about whether homosexuality is biologically programed or a choice).

The "homosexuality is a choice" thing is still a non-starter, because choosing to have sex is a choice whether or not you're sexually attracted to some individual or group.
The fact that God made me to be attracted to an opposite-sex adult who is not my spouse doesn't make my choice to commit adultery somehow okay or "natural". Sexual attraction is temptation; giving into temptation is sin. Sexual preference is irrelevant.

Quote:

I would disagree. It reads more like the sins listed are supposed to be examples recognizable to that culture. After all, it's not unnatural for animals to engage in homosexual behavior (check out hiena pack order sometime...when you're not at work, anyway). It's not an uncommon tactic--but it's also not necessarily an accurate representation of the culture. I'm sure SOME of those people engaged in homosexuality (again, it actually is a natural thing), but it's almost certainly not their defining characteristic. I mean, nothing in that list couldn't be said with all honesty about Ancient Greece.

I was mainly citing that passage for the "natural theism" argument, not that the sin list was at all comprehensive. I agree with you that the sin list is basically a list of acts that arise when cultures no longer acknowledge God, and Paul is saying that those are the result, not the cause.

It's still a list of acts contrary to God, though, and hence at least one list of sins.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Agatha

why is whispering a sin?

He's talking about rumor-mongering, or gossiping -- spreading lies about people in secret.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Which part?

I'm saying that everybody has done something that they, themselves, would recognize as being immoral/bad - so the hypothetical about a person who has no sin other than failing to acknowledge God is a non-starter. I don't think such a person exists.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I don't see where you're coming from with that.

From this:

Quote:

"Sin" is separation from God that results from making a choice contrary to God's will.

The highlighted parts are the specific areas that lead to my three points: a god has to exist, it has to be capable of having a will, and the entity that sins has to have free will.

I'll admit, the clockmaker god was an off-the-cuff example; you're right, it's not perfect. Some have hypothesized a god without will, though, and such a god would render sin, by this definition, nonsensical because you can't violate the will of something that has none (you can't act against a rock's wishes, for example).

Quote:

The "homosexuality is a choice" thing is still a non-starter, because choosing to have sex is a choice whether or not you're sexually attracted to some individual or group.
The fact that God made me to be attracted to an opposite-sex adult who is not my spouse doesn't make my choice to commit adultery somehow okay or "natural". Sexual attraction is temptation; giving into temptation is sin. Sexual preference is irrelevant.

IF the RCC had said adultery or sex outside of marriage is a sin, I'd agree with you. They don't, however--they say HOMOSEXUALITY, as such, is a sin. The RCC itself is drawing the distinction between homosexuality and regular unauthorized fornication; I'm merely reporting it.

Quote:

I agree with you that the sin list is basically a list of acts that arise when cultures no longer acknowledge God,

You missed my point. I wasn't saying that it's what happens when a culture no longer acknowledges God--I'm saying it reads like a list of "offenses" that one culture would levy against another when they already had an issue with that other culture. Again, the exact same list could be read against the Greeks, or Romans. The list could have been talking about Medieval monks, and certainly against the moderrn clergy. If you look hard enough in any group and you'll find a reason to hate them.