beastmaster

I saw your post above and figured we were on a similar wavelength.

There is a modern tendency to attempt to equate the concepts of sin and evil. I see it often in posts by *both* atheists and theists. For example, Koy's OP indicated that A&E could not discern sin because, before eating the fruit, they did not know evil. Thus, Koy implicitly assumes that evil and sin are the same thing. But it is not necessary for A&E to know evil (or morality in general) before they can know sin. Sin and evil are different things.

How different? For one thing, we are told that evil (along with good) comes from God. Sin, in contrast, is the opposite of God. Sin is, as you say, independent thought, and it is an inevitable consequence of man's separation from God. And, although evil sometimes accompanies sin, a great deal of sin is amoral or (arguably) "good" -- such as laboring on the Sabbath or, say, eating a fruit that happens to improve one's knowledge of the world.

We are so immersed in the blessings of liberalism today that we cannot even cognitize a culture in which independent thought is regarded as a punishable offense! And I think that makes it very difficult for us to understand what the OT authors are getting at with all this business about "sin."

Devilnaut

I agree that that is an important point, beastmaster.


I would say that the most general definition of sin is "deviation".

beastmaster

True. I suppose sin can be variously described as: alienation from god, separation from god, deviation from god, rebellion against god, independent thought, etc. -- depending on what aspect of sin you want to emphasize.

Doctor X

The word translated as "sin" in the NT is often--if not always . . . why I should not prat on without the references infront of me--a variation of harmetia. This is to "miss the mark" as is missing a target.

--J.D.