Treedbear
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2016
- Messages
- 2,567
- Location
- out on a limb
- Basic Beliefs
- secular, humanist, agnostic on theism/atheism
You have a very liberal view of the Bible definition of sin. This is what I always heard when I was a Roman Catholic (I'll borrow from abaddon's link):
Question: "What is the definition of sin?"
Answer: Sin is described in the Bible as transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4) and rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7; Joshua 1:18).
What I’m saying is not contrary to the Bible—or at least my intent is to keep what I’m saying from being contrary to it.
First, I have no qualms whatsoever with Bible verses, and it would be a gross misunderstanding to think i’m espousing disagreement with them.
Second, I hold the position that it’s words, not the referent to words, that are defined. Sin is the referent to the word, “sin,” and it’s the word, “sin” that is defined—not sin.
Third, I’m actually being charitable and accept that people sometimes mistakenly make explicit what it is that is defined; that’s why I graciously accept that the intended question is not about the definition of sin but rather the definition of the word, “sin.”
Four, while I have no qualms accepting as true what the Bible verses say, they do not answer the question posed. The Bible verses do a brilliant job in expounding upon what sin is, but my issue is that they are not definitions for the word—nor is it readily discernible that was the intention of them.
Five, there is a subtle ambiguity with the word, “is” that we should not let escape us, as it makes a mighty substantive difference. Consider the three is’s in philosophy. One is the “is of identity.” If I say that “a bachelor is an unmarried male,” that is the “is of identity.” That would be more akin to a definition.
If I say that “my ladder is tall,” that is another use (a different use and thus a different meaning) of “is” that is not akin to a definition. The Bible quotes are saying something many may find valuable, but they are not definitions just because the word “is” is used.
Six, note this definition that I just googled: an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
If an act is immoral AND CONSIDERED (oh, by anyone) to be a transgression against divine law, then the act is not only immoral but a sin as well. Notice how no God is required for it to be considered, considered to be ... a transgression ... .
I don’t particularly care for that particular definition, as it lacks something, uh (not sure how to word this), stenographic observed subtelties.
Here's what most Christians are taught. Sinners are punished by God. Not now when it might make a difference, but after they die when it's too late to change. Sinning is transgressing God's laws, period. It's not God making helpful suggestions. They're called commandments for a reason. And it's unlikely that "what the definition of 'is' is" will work as a defense. Society's laws address wrongs against mankind where punishment is served as a corrective action rather than as retribution.