NationStates Jolt Archive

What is something you view as a 'sin'?

What is something you view as a 'sin'?


Gay, anal sex.

Disregard for others. In my books that is the only real "sin", and everything I view as bad boils down to it.

Gay, anal sex.

Is docking ok? :D

Is docking ok? :D


I don't think so. Shrimping and tea-bagging ain't so good either.

Sleeping with your hands under the sheets is a no-no as well.

being an idiot.

being an idiot.

Being a girlie-man.

Disrespecting or hurting others. Everything else is allowed and ok

Stealing food and then selling it to the homeless who have the AIDs.

Being a girlie-man.

I will pray for your soul...ah. Yeahus! :)

Sin is a social construction designed to make people act in a particular way appealing to the constructor.

This can be both positive and negative.

Does anyone disagree?

I will pray for your soul...ah. Yeahus! :)


Please don't. Besides, I'm a rocker, I don't care for rules.

What is something you view as a 'sin'?
I no longer believe in "sin" per se. I do view things as influencing the world for either good or bad though. :)

Sin is a social construction designed to make people act in a particular way appealing to the constructor.

This can be both positive and negative.

Does anyone disagree? Absolutely true, the constructor being God.

(smooth)

Absolutely true, the constructor being God.

(smooth)
Sure...
I you could consider breaking a law a"sin", or even breaking from a societal norm for that matter.

Absolutely true, the constructor being God.

(smooth)
Not always true.

Even if you accept the idea that the Bible is a. written by God and b. the absolute author of right and wrong, it's difficult to deny that people have appropriated Biblical concepts of "sin" for their own agendas.

Biblical verses have been used to call people who were against slavery "sinners:"
http://medicolegal.tripod.com/patton1846.htm

Despite the questionable translation, the verse in Leviticus about homosexuality has often been used to condemn an entire group of people for no real reason (something God probably wouldn't approve of):
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

Also, analyses of Biblical text have shown the chances of the Bible being written by multiple people to be nearly a certainty.

Sure...
I you could consider breaking a law a"sin", or even breaking from a societal norm for that matter.
Read Plato's Crito for more on that subject. It's actually very interesting in discussing when breaking a law can be considered sinning.

Read Plato's Crito for more on that subject. It's actually very interesting in discussing when breaking a law can be considered sinning.
Would that entail analysing the action's justification?

Would that entail analysing the action's justification?
Yes, in part.

The situation in Crito is very complex. Socrates is in jail, about to be executed, for teaching material that most Athenians found to be offensive to their sensibilities. Socrates' friend offers to bust him out of jail.

Socrates refuses because he believes the law must be carried out.

A paradox, no? Socrates willingly broke the law once. Why does it matter the next time?

It matters because attempting to escape would be a refusal to accept the consequences of your actions (and essentially contradict the rest of Socrates' teachings, but that's neither here nor there).

In essence, if you break a law for a principled reason, you have to stand by that principle, which is caught up in accepting the consequences of your actions.

Yes, in part.

The situation in Crito is very complex. Socrates is in jail, about to be executed, for teaching material that most Athenians found to be offensive to their sensibilities. Socrates' friend offers to bust him out of jail.

Socrates refuses because he believes the law must be carried out.

A paradox, no? Socrates willingly broke the law once. Why does it matter the next time?

It matters because attempting to escape would be a refusal to accept the consequences of your actions (and essentially contradict the rest of Socrates' teachings, but that's neither here nor there).

In essence, if you break a law for a principled reason, you have to stand by that principle, which is caught up in accepting the consequences of your actions.
That is a paradox. He broke the law and then accepts the law. If his principles were to obey the law then why break them in the first place?

That is a paradox. He broke the law and then accepts the law. If his principles were to obey the law then why break them in the first place?
He had a principled objection to Athens' education laws. He broke those laws, knowing that there would be consequences.

He felt that if one was willing to break a law for a principle, you have to accept the consequences of your actions because otherwise one is only superficially committed to those principles.

Martin Luther King Jr. felt the same way, expressed much more explicitly than Plato in his Letter from Birmingham Jail.

There's more tied up in Socrates/Plato's ideas about Athenian democracy, but this isn't the place for that discussion.

He felt that if one was willing to break a law for a principle, you have to accept the consequences of your actions because otherwise one is only superficially committed to those principles.
I see now. Everything has a consequence and you have to knwo the effect of your action.

I see now. Everything has a consequence and you have to knwo the effect of your action.
Know and accept it as part of a principled stance, yes.

Alright I think you guys are getting too specific for how to classify sin or not. Really (if you want to relate this to a monotheistic god) all you have to do to go to heaven is forgive yourself while remaining honest and mature. Yes, unfortunately even people like Timothy McVeigh can go to heaven as long as they finally repent and understand the truth of what they did. Remember, God is omniscient and omnipresent, so what the LORD views as valid or not is 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% (and much much more "9's") likely to hold different principles and virtues from you.

But even if you don't want to be all religious about it, think of it like this. Almost everyone here has said something that refers to being normal and respectful to other human beings. Wouldn't it be appropriate to say that before you can understand how others think and work, you should be able to analyze and control yourself first? Like everything that is built, practiced, or defined, opinions themselves have to be based upon fundamentals. Everyone that has posted here (nevermind those who have posted anywhere or people who have spoken a single word from their birth) has had some background and experiences that have defined their personality and character.

All you have to do to sin is go against your own standards. Even if you have a conflict of interest, that doesn't mean there is not a sinfree answer. Just prioritize what's the most important and everything will fall in place.

Personally, I believe that the only sin that exists is not being honest and honorable, but hey, if you think something else, then that's your standard for what is and what isn't sin.

Sin not going to church killing someone, is that what you mean by sin? of the religious pace.

I do not believe in "sin", but I do believe in evil. Evil:

Hate and intolerance with no good, logical reason behind it
Rape and any other form of sexual abuse
Imposing one's beliefs on others
Violence with no good, logical reason behind it
Mental, emotional, or physical abuse
Killing another person for no good, logical reason behind it
Killing a non-human animal for any reason other than survival

I do not believe in "sin", but I do believe in evil. Evil:

Hate and intolerance with no good, logical reasoning behind it
Rape and any other form of sexual abuse
Imposing one's beliefs on others
Violence
Mental, emotion, or physical abuse
Killing another person for no good, logical reason
Killing an animal for any reason other than survival
The wording you use is, to my mind, internally contradictory. Here's why:
Evil as a word has been used to justify the worst atrocities in human history. The Crusades, the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition, Japanese internment...all of these measures justified in the name of preventing an "evil" from permeating throughout a "good" society.

Therefore, the language of "evil" is generally used for the very purposes you designate to be evil in your post.

Who's to say that your conception of evil is the one that'll catch on? As long as you legitimize the language of evil as an appropriate socio-political one, there's always a chance that it gets appropriated toward horrific ends. Try to come up with a less-totalizing way of expressing what you mean.

Additionally, care to explain the animals one? I don't think that eating beef for pleasure is "evil" on the same level as killing a human being for no real reason.

The wording you use is, to my mind, internally contradictory. Here's why:
Evil as a word has been used to justify the worst atrocities in human history. The Crusades, the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition, Japanese internment...all of these measures justified in the name of preventing an "evil" from permeating throughout a "good" society.

Therefore, the language of "evil" is generally used for the very purposes you designate to be evil in your post.

Who's to say that your conception of evil is the one that'll catch on? As long as you legitimize the language of evil as an appropriate socio-political one, there's always a chance that it gets appropriated toward horrific ends. Try to come up with a less-totalizing way of expressing what you mean.

Additionally, care to explain the animals one? I don't think that eating beef for pleasure is "evil" on the same level as killing a human being for no real reason.
I don't assume anyone will feel the same way as I do about the meaning of the word evil. I don't nessecarily want them to. I was merely stating my beliefs. I'm sorry if you have a problem with them.

Additionally, care to explain the animals one? I don't think that eating beef for pleasure is "evil" on the same level as killing a human being for no real reason.
I agree with your statement about "evil" and "sin". Now we're moving the conversation into ethics and judging morality as subjective or objective in a sense.

I always held the belief that "sin" is defined by whatever the over-riding values of society where at that time. Hence, "Sin" and by logical extension morality is indeed subjective.

I don't assume anyone will feel the same way as I do about the meaning of the word evil. I don't nessecarily want them to. I was merely stating my beliefs. I'm sorry if you have a problem with them.
That misses the point of the original argument. I was quibbling a bit with your categories at the bottom, but the more sweeping critique was of the word "evil" and the way you deployed it. I say that your discourse is self-defeating; namely, that it can't accomplish its goals through the use of the word "evil." My questioning was supposed to be "constructive criticism," not get you all in a tizzy.

I agree with your statement about "evil" and "sin". Now we're moving the conversation into ethics and judging morality as subjective or objective in a sense.
I like discussing these things in ethical language and through an ethical lens much better. I tend to think it allows for a more interesting discussion.

I always held the belief that "sin" is defined by whatever the over-riding values of society where at that time. Hence, "Sin" and by logical extension morality is indeed subjective.
Agreed. See my first post on this thread.

Not always true.

Even if you accept the idea that the Bible is a. written by God and b. the absolute author of right and wrong, it's difficult to deny that people have appropriated Biblical concepts of "sin" for their own agendas.

Biblical verses have been used to call people who were against slavery "sinners:"
http://medicolegal.tripod.com/patton1846.htm

Despite the questionable translation, the verse in Leviticus about homosexuality has often been used to condemn an entire group of people for no real reason (something God probably wouldn't approve of):
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

Also, analyses of Biblical text have shown the chances of the Bible being written by multiple people to be nearly a certainty. Bloody hell, I wasn't expecting this level of response...

Well, I was referring to the standard definition of sin, when I said that the social constructor in this case was God. That's what I meant... and I thought it was common knowledge that the Bible was written by many people - the books of Matthew and Luke, etc., are a fairly big hint...

I will not comment on homosexuality. I know where this will go if I do.

Bloody hell, I wasn't expecting this level of response...
Thanks :p

Well, I was referring to the standard definition of sin, when I said that the social constructor in this case was God. That's what I meant... and I thought it was common knowledge that the Bible was written by many people - the books of Matthew and Luke, etc., are a fairly big hint...
That makes sense in the context of societal analysis. My response was directed toward the statement that Biblical construction of morality/ethics was a good way to create society's moral compass.

A lot of people believe the Bible to be the direct word of God. If it's not, then God isn't the arbiter of morality. Some guys who wrote in His name are.

I will not comment on homosexuality. I know where this will go if I do.
Good plan. Someone would get mad and the thread would get locked. Inevitably.

Well, some people choose a middle route: that God inspired the Bible and men wrote it. I don't particularly subscribe to that myself...

Well, some people choose a middle route: that God inspired the Bible and men wrote it. I don't particularly subscribe to that myself...
That's actually the view I tend to go with (men here meaning people to me).

It makes more sense than either of the two poles, I think.

This may constitute threadjacking...

More like rambling off the beaten path. ;)


Anyway, er, back to sin... well, my religious definition would have to be something that is "against God's will knowingly". Secular definition? Don't know.

More like rambling off the beaten path. ;)


Anyway, er, back to sin... well, my religious definition would have to be something that is "against God's will knowingly". Secular definition? Don't know.
Sin in a religious sense is somewhat easier to define.

MMmmm..... sin. I love sin. A sin, IMO, is something that a person has done or said and, regardless of their feelings at the time of commital, they can or would regret at a later time. ie I have no pants on right now and it feels good. However, if my wife comes in I will feel baaaaddddd!


Sinner! :eek:

Very true, especially as religious morals tend to be absolute. As far as I know, "sin" is exclusively a religious definition... tell me if I'm wrong?

Any Transgression to God's will is Sin.

That misses the point of the original argument. I was quibbling a bit with your categories at the bottom, but the more sweeping critique was of the word "evil" and the way you deployed it. I say that your discourse is self-defeating; namely, that it can't accomplish its goals through the use of the word "evil." My questioning was supposed to be "constructive criticism," not get you all in a tizzy.

What exactly do you think the goals of my discourse were? As I have said, I was merely stating my opinion. I was not "in a tizzy", as you say, but I am about to be, if you continue to make assumptions and put words in my mouth.

Don't Linskenland; Yeah the church has screwed up a lot over history, but don't take pot-shots @ people's religion!

Very true, especially as religious morals tend to be absolute. As far as I know, "sin" is exclusively a religious definition... tell me if I'm wrong?
sin

1. The ordinate of the endpoint of an arc of a unit circle centered at the origin of a Cartesian coordinate system, the arc being of length x and measured counterclockwise from the point (1, 0) if x is positive or clockwise if x is negative.
2. In a right triangle, the ratio of the length of the side opposite an acute angle to the length of the hypotenuse.
I thought that one was amusing.

1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2. Theology.
1. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
2. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.

So, sort of. But not entirely.

(All definitions dictionary.com)

Sin is a social construction designed to make people act in a particular way appealing to the constructor.

This can be both positive and negative.

Does anyone disagree?

*Points* See, this person thinks that there is no right or wrong I'll bet. Hmm, what does that mean, I wonder...

Surely you can't think that killing and cheating, stealing, lying, and all that stuff is okay!

Trying to sound smart is okay, but please don't lie.

What exactly do you think the goals of my discourse were? As I have said, I was merely stating my opinion. I was not "in a tizzy", as you say, but I am about to be, if you continue to make assumptions and put words in my mouth.
The point of any system of morals, particularly one that defines something as "evil," is to make certain practices cease by declaring off-limits to "good" people. By constructing even a personal set of morals, you legitimize the use of the word "evil" which I said was bad. I'm simply pointing out a seeming internal contradiction in your analysis of morality. That's all.

*Points* See, this person thinks that there is no right or wrong I'll bet. Hmm, what does that mean, I wonder...

Surely you can't think that killing and cheating, stealing, lying, and all that stuff is okay!

Trying to sound smart is okay, but please don't lie.
Note the "can be positive" statement. Using morality to tell people that theft and murder are wrong is a positive construction of moral rules.

[snip]
Surely you can't think that killing and cheating, stealing, lying, and all that stuff is okay!
[snip]
Killing-in my opinion, sometimes okay
Cheating-in my opinion, sometimes okay
Stealing-in my opinion, sometimes okay
Lying-in my opinion, frequently okay

When it comes to Christianity, there are simply ten rules! Ten rules that state it all loud and clear! You debate and debate but still come up with no answers.

The point of any system of morals, particularly one that defines something as "evil," is to make certain practices cease by declaring off-limits to "good" people. By constructing even a personal set of morals, you legitimize the use of the word "evil" which I said was bad. I'm simply pointing out a seeming internal contradiction in your analysis of morality. That's all.
I don't even believe in "good" or "evil" people-just "good" or "evil" actions. I prefer the use of the word "evil" because "sin" to me sounds far too preachy, if you'll allow me to use a spot of Slanglish, and I despise preachiness. I'm not saying that my views are absolutely correct in every case, to everybody or even anybody else, but in my opinion, everything I listed was absolutely inexcusable even if I am or ever will be guilty of them. I'm not exactly sure what the contradiction is.

When it comes to Christianity, there are simply ten rules! Ten rules that state it all loud and clear! You debate and debate but still come up with no answers.
Yes, the rules are seemingly simple, but that does not make them nessecarily true.

Originally posted by: Tetarannia
Any transgression to the will of God is a sin

I adhere to the morals laid out in the New Testament as absolute; however, there may be some things Jesus said that didn't make it into the accepted canon. The Christian church's doctrine has undergone thousands of years worth of editing. But to answer the question: I think
1. Extorting or bullying anyone weaker than you
2. Homophobia or other kinds of bigotry
3. Lying &
4. ing

Are all major sins

I do not believe in "sin", but I do believe in evil. Evil:
....Killing a non-human animal for any reason other than survival

So you believe swatting a fly in your home is evil? You don't actually believe the fly will kill you by spreading disease do you? Sure it's gross...but you can survive with them.

I think a sin is when you do something Jesus wouldn't have done. And I don't mean skydiving, or anything like that. The only reason Jesus didn't skydive was because the technology hadn't been invented then.

So you believe swatting a fly in your home is evil? You don't actually believe the fly will kill you by spreading disease do you? Sure it's gross...but you can survive with them.
[snip]

I believe it's needless violence and loss of innocent life. Even though I have swatted a fly, yes, I do believe it's evil to prey on the innocent.

If the fly has bitten you, then it is fine because it has harmed you and therefore its death would not be at all considered a loss of innocent life by my world view.

Talking to you people is like talking to the deaf, they can't hear. I wish sometimes that people would listen instead of wearing their pride like a badge. You discuss over matters constantly and never come to a conclusion. Do you truly think then, that you are any different than our government, those of you who despise the US government? Do you truly think that you are fixing things when no true action is taken in the correct direction? I just want to see what your reasoning is for this. I confess I'm not the greatest myself, but atleast I admit it. I refuse to live a life where there is no belief in anything but the here and now. I refuse to think that we live for nothing and that anything is okay. I don't desire to have my hands bloodied because of murder or something that you people allow. You are all the same, no individual thoughts, sometimes because of laziness, and sometimes it's because you have an opinion and you don't search and study to figure out whether or not it's the truth, you just believe what people tell and don't have individual thoughts. And sometimes, if someone doesn't think the way you do, you cuss at them and try to proove them wrong, whether they are or aren't simply because it would hurt your pride if it wasn't true. You live in the here and now, thinking only of yourselves. I confess that I do some of these things too, but again, I admit it. Why don't we all get along? That's why. I've found that over the last few years, the main cause of war or battle is because one group hates another, and all of you should know this. That is a type of racism. Oh, as if there wasn't enough of that.

I could go on and on, but I'll spare you the details, I think you get the picture.

Talking to you people is like talking to the deaf, they can't hear.
[snip]

*Laughs* Oh, wow, what a profound metaphor.

*Laughs* Oh, wow, what a profound metaphor.

See, they don't listen. They are ignorant.

Sin is, without any room for discusion, the breaking of a religious norm.
If your faith say you shouldn't do it, and you do it then you have sined, if it says you should do it and then you dont, then you have sined. (Note: this applies to thoughts, if your faith says you shouldn't think it then thinking it is sinful).
Any other fault is not sin but moral failing.

Killing-in my opinion, sometimes okay
Cheating-in my opinion, sometimes okay
Stealing-in my opinion, sometimes okay
Lying-in my opinion, frequently okay

How about ( IMHO ):

Murder - never ok
Killing - sometimes necessary
Cheating - hardly ever ok
Stealing - ok only to help another avoid starvation
Lying - ok only when it saves the life of another

:)

Evil, pure evil, is merely ignorance and needless cruelty (*note: all cruelty is needless). All else might be good.
For one who is not ignorant can see that evil deeds will always come back and bite your bottom, and all but cruelty has a good side to it.

*Points* See, this person thinks that there is no right or wrong I'll bet. Hmm, what does that mean, I wonder...

Surely you can't think that killing and cheating, stealing, lying, and all that stuff is okay!

Trying to sound smart is okay, but please don't lie.
How can one prove that such actions are sin?

How about ( IMHO ):

Murder - never ok
Killing - sometimes necessary
Cheating - hardly ever ok
Stealing - ok only to help another avoid starvation
Lying - ok only when it saves the life of another

:)

Murder - never ok
Killing - is murder
Cheating - is immoral and is a vile stealing.
Stealing - never okay. (if you NEED to take something away from someone else then do so, but you will end up paying)
Lying - Not okay, a lesser immorality but wrong nonetheless.

This, goes to prove, partly, my point above. One same deed might be viewed as evil, not evil, or good depending on the person.

Sin is, without any room for discusion, the breaking of a religious norm.
If your faith say you shouldn't do it, and you do it then you have sined, if it says you should do it and then you dont, then you have sined. (Note: this applies to thoughts, if your faith says you shouldn't think it then thinking it is sinful).
Any other fault is not sin but moral failing.

What if you are without religion or what you call "faith"?


BTW, here is what Google found for the word sin:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Asin&btnG=Google+Search

What if you are without religion?
Ahhh! Then, my friend, you cannot sin. Sin is strictly religious. You can be immoral, true, but that is up to you and your moral limits. And, should you break your moral laws, there is no punishment other than that you wish to inflict on yourself.

Ahhh! Then, my friend, you cannot sin. Sin is strictly religious. You can be immoral, true, but that is up to you and your moral limits. And, should you break your moral laws, there is no punishment other than that you wish to inflict on yourself.
I have to disagree. Sin could be viewed as breaking your own personal morals. If you were to shoot someone and you didn't believe it was a "sin" then there would still be punishment because of law.

I am without sin and I have a big pile of stones.

Homosexuality is pure sin :mp5:

Ahhh! Then, my friend, you cannot sin. Sin is strictly religious. You can be immoral, true, but that is up to you and your moral limits. And, should you break your moral laws, there is no punishment other than that you wish to inflict on yourself.
Every dictionary definition of sin (from a secular dictionary) disagrees with you.

They first list the religious aspect, and then the second definition is always something like "moral transgression."

Homosexuality is pure sin :mp5:
No, it's not.

Care to share any reasoning or remotely enlightening comment on this thread?

With six words I can summarise how not to sin
Do not treat people as things.
The only other definition would be doing things you know are wrong

Murder - never ok
Killing - is murder
Cheating - is immoral and is a vile stealing.
Stealing - never okay. (if you NEED to take something away from someone else then do so, but you will end up paying)
Lying - Not okay, a lesser immorality but wrong nonetheless.

This, goes to prove, partly, my point above. One same deed might be viewed as evil, not evil, or good depending on the person.
I make a differentiation between killing to protect others and murder. Murder is unjustified; killing is sometimes justified.

With six words I can summarise how not to sin
Do not treat people as things.
The only other definition would be doing things you know are wrong
Those two can contradict each other. What if you don't see it as 'wrong' to harm someone or treat them as a thing?

Don't Linskenland; Yeah the church has screwed up a lot over history, but don't take pot-shots @ people's religion! Huh? Wh-what? When did I take pot-shots? I get pot-shot at enough by other people without doing it myself!

Homosexuality is pure sin :mp5:
Is it? Please, elaborate on that baseless accusation.

Having 'thoughts' or 'actions' intentionally that leads to an increase of suffering....to self or others...

Sitting in Judgement of others is big on my list.

Sitting in Judgement of others is big on my list.

May the one without sin cast the first stone...something like that....

What is something you view as a 'sin'?

Basically, harming others or forcing your will on them.

Having 'thoughts' or 'actions' intentionally that leads to an increase of suffering....to self or others...
Even thoughts?

What is something you view as a 'sin'?

Squandering a God-given gift.

Stealing - never okay. (if you NEED to take something away from someone else then do so, but you will end up paying)


Actually, it's ok to steal to feed your family. Nothing of luxury, mind you, and only that which you can carry in your hands. For instance, it's not a sin to walk into a neighbor's corn field and carry out 3 or 4 ears.

That is, unless you don't have Torah as your authority on sin and, well, then I'm curious as to where you draw the conclusion that stealing is *always* wrong.

May the one without sin cast the first stone...something like that....
That about covers it. Happens too often but & I admitt to getting sucked into the mentality from time to time.

I guess if you haven't walked a mile in someone else shoes. I feel you can't judge what is right or wrong. Maybe their action was the best they could do in their situation.

People should try to help each other rather then bring each other down.
Offer assistance rather than scream what they did was wrong.

Even thoughts?

Well, hate, anger, selfish thoughts..etc...would definately lead to an increase of your own capacity to suffer in similar future events...since it leads to an increase of attachment...that's going by a bit of the buddhism's philosophy actually...
Made sense to me...

Also, analyses of Biblical text have shown the chances of the Bible being written by multiple people to be nearly a certainty.

Considering it was written over a period of over a millinea, if it was written by one person, I would be shocked

Disregard for others. In my books that is the only real "sin", and everything I view as bad boils down to it.

Aye, aye.

What is something you view as a 'sin'?

Not keeping the Seventh Day Sabbath.

Actually, it's ok to steal to feed your family. Nothing of luxury, mind you, and only that which you can carry in your hands. For instance, it's not a sin to walk into a neighbor's corn field and carry out 3 or 4 ears.

That is, unless you don't have Torah as your authority on sin and, well, then I'm curious as to where you draw the conclusion that stealing is *always* wrong.
To me it is always wrong, morally. Not sinful mind you. Needful thievery is not sinful, just immoral (to me)

I have to disagree. Sin could be viewed as breaking your own personal morals. If you were to shoot someone and you didn't believe it was a "sin" then there would still be punishment because of law.

But you are not sinning, you are comiting a crime. We are past those days (at least in many regions of the world) where religious law was civil law.
Payment is always extracted. If by your morals, your god(s)(dess)(es), or by the law. If no repercusions come then you did no wrong.

Every dictionary definition of sin (from a secular dictionary) disagrees with you.

They first list the religious aspect, and then the second definition is always something like "moral transgression."

That is due to years of the churches dabbling into politics and ergo monopolizing the moral field.
The first is the true meaning, the second is a meaning that became attached.
As I strive to make a diference between one's own set of moral values and those that are imposed I regard the second definition as null. My opinion might have no weight but my statements are based on that opinion. And on the fact that the morals of a person are not something that may be proved, therefore there is no standard mesure, and the rules in a faith are (mesurable).

I make a differentiation between killing to protect others and murder. Murder is unjustified; killing is sometimes justified.

Perhaps, but this occasions are not the norm (albeit I made an error with the never).
Yet, i know you might not say this but to make myself clearer, to kill in a "kill or be killed" situation is without justification, as is without justification to kill something because we fear/loathe it.

To me it is always wrong, morally. Not sinful mind you. Needful thievery is not sinful, just immoral (to me)

Well the Bible disagrees with you, but that's ok ... it disagrees with me in a lot of places, too. Incidently, this must mean you think Jesus committed an immoral act when he went into the field and plucked corn that wasn't his (Luke 6:1-4).

What is something you view as a 'sin'?
Just one example? Hmm...well, I consider it "sinful" to carry a pregnancy to term with the full intent of putting the infant up for adoption. Think that will piss enough people off? :)

What is something you view as a 'sin'?
Raping the earth.

Just one example? Hmm...well, I consider it "sinful" to carry a pregnancy to term with the full intent of putting the infant up for adoption. Think that will piss enough people off? :)


So... putting an infant up for adoption is a sin unless you decide it within five minutes after it's born? Interessting ..

:D

I don't see anything as "sinful". In fact, I don't see anything as right or wrong, or even think in terms of it. What is better or worse depends entirerly on whatever goal(s) you are working towards, as I see it.

Well the Bible disagrees with you, but that's ok ... it disagrees with me in a lot of places, too. Incidently, this must mean you think Jesus committed an immoral act when he went into the field and plucked corn that wasn't his (Luke 6:1-4).

By my moral standards yes, he was commiting an immoral act.
Then again, if he was indeed a manifestation of the supreme power, then he was taking what was his, for the universe is the posesion of that power.