Malachi151

Judging from the things that are identified as "sins" in the Bible, I'd say that a "sin" is simply anything that a person does that is harmful to society.

Joan of Bark

And many things that are not harmful to society ...

Malachi151

Such as?

Here is a great essay on the topic by McCabe:

The Human Origin of Morals

gstafleu

Since this is BC&H, lets try a BC&H-like approach. The word often used is αμαρτια (hamartia), as in Matt 1:21 "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins [αμαρτιων].” LSJ describes this as:
The literal meaning is, apparently, something like "missing the mark." Notice that the "normal" (not religious) meaning does not have the negative moral connotation that the religious use has.

However in Matt 5:29, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you," the word that the NKJV translates as "causes to sin" is σκανδαλιζει (skandalizei), which LSJ describes as "cause to stumble, give offense or scandal to any one." This matches the non-religious meaning of αμαρτια.

From this (I haven't examined all versions of "sin" in the NT, so maybe someone can comment more) I wouldn't be surprised if there is a development, during the first few centuries CE, from the morally rather neutral meaning of "sin" to the current morally negative judgmental one. What the latter version of "sin" means would then be apparent from the context of (later rather than earlier) writings. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was "anything we don't like."

Gerard Stafleu

Celine

Yes, it's a peculiarly evasive term. Since all language is fluid, this is not surprising, but usages are what fuel the 'evolution' of a term.
For some people, it's simply the "Humpty Dumpty" approach: "It means whatever I say it means (or whatever authority/essay I quote as providing it's meaning.)"
But if it's going to provide the gravity and substance it always seems to promise, then I think it needs to have a fairly common or agreed upon usage which can at least connect or trace somehow back to its more ancient or religious connotations.
The literal "missing the mark" connotation is fascinating to me.

rizdek

Thought sins like coveting or lusting which don't hurt society unless one acts illegally or immorally on those thoughts. Pride doesn't hurt society, again unless it triggers some sort of antisocial behavior. The sin of "not loving god with all your heart" doesn't hurt society. Taking god's name in vain hurts no one in society. It might offend someone if they hear it, but cursing under ones breath or when one is alone should not be a sin. Even hating doesn't hurt anyone unless someone acts illegally or immorally on their hate. These should not be considered "sins," for which someone is punished, but rather people should be taught the pragmatic value in not obsessing over things because it might lead to behavior that actually harms society.

spamandham

'Sin' was the name of a competing Sumerian god. The cult of YHWH decided that YHWH was opposed to all practices Sin worshippers engaged in, that they did not.

That is what the Bible originally meant by 'sin'. Later writers came to interpret it to mean "anything I tell you it means".

Chili

It is well known that the cross of eternal salvation is for sinners only and thus sin is good . . . if salvation is desired.

The concept sin is religion specific but is the heart of each and every mythology to make known the stream of consciousness against which sin is effective for the inner man to convict the outer man. The bible concept of sin is just a tool to arouse this conflict and in the end will serve to convict the outer man of his sinful nature (original sin we call it) after which an identity shift will lead to the abandonment of the masked pretender also known as ego identity.

evangelical

Eating fish and meat on Fridays is not a sin. Killing your son for minor disobedience would be (you got it backwards). Your response betrays an apparently superficial knowledge of the biblical concepts of law and sin.

evangelical

1. None is good but God alone.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Therefore, Jesus is good (i.e. sinless).

Secondly, I don't know where many unbelievers get the idea of the biblical God being a great sadist. I have read the Bible through cover-to-cover several times and have studied it in depth for years. I find a loving, gracious, and merciful God there. That there are passages that can be taken out of context that appear to imply a divine monster, no one denies. In addition, the Bible makes it very clear that God is also very holy and so justly punishes sinners. If we did not get what we deserve then God would be unjust and, only then, a monster.