The definition of sin

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm not cherry-picking, I'm answering the central question that is the reason for this thread: a definition of sin. You, on the other hand, seem intent in avoiding the fact that a) clear definitions have been provided and are broadly in agreement with each other; and b) they don't mention specific sins... which you continuously bring the posts back to.

The purpose of this thread is for someone to present a clear definition of sin. I must be able to apply your definition to any conceivable scenario and determine for myself if an action qualifies as sinful.

That's from the OP. Based on what you said above, it's obvious you did not even read it.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

OK. So you think I'm stupid.

Well if you act that way, how do you expect people to think otherwise.

Because nowhere in the Bible does it say that addiction is a sin.

Which means you are going back to a set of rules. So you don't really want anyone to define sin, you just want them to give you a list of sins. It must be so frustrating for you that no-one is doing that.

I agree. But you're using secular reasoning here.

No I'm just using reasoning, it doesn't have to be secular (and in this case it isn't): Causing another person harm (by giving them something they are addicted to, is not loving to your neighbour (who includes the alcoholic). There is nothing specifically secular about this. It is the same if I were an alcoholic and drank a beer that was placed in front of (not loving oneself). It is all very easy, one wonders why you want to make it so complex.

"And that difference defines why it is sinful for one and not the other and why then any lists of sins are always going to be insufficient to cater for every situation."

Citation needed.

Citation for what? Why are you obsessed with lists of sins - the Bible clearly isn't - even Torah is not a list of sins, it is a list of situations and how to resolve them in the way that is best for Israelite society. The best you get from Christianity is Galatians 5:19-21:

"The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."

That is not actually very specific either (...and the like), which means that the point already made that Christianity isn't particularly interested in lists of specific sins, but IS interested in a changed life that desires to please God (even the above list is in contrast to the fruits of the Holy Spirit (again a list of things that please God).

So we started with a law that enforces racism and sexism, and allows rape and slavery, and then we get to the point where "what's true for you isn't necessarily true for me."

We haven't started with any such thing, you have. And I have to wonder at a mindset that seems to be so obsessed racism, sexism, rape and slavery when some of them aren't even there and others are derived from a very skewed understanding of the law.

I never thought I'd see someone say this. Wow.

Why not? From your OP onwards you appear to have a very skewed view of Christianity and that seems to cause you confusion. If you stop trying to fit the Christians here into the mould you have made for them understanding what they believe is so much easier. I know I did.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

The purpose of this thread is for someone to present a clear definition of sin. I must be able to apply your definition to any conceivable scenario and determine for myself if an action qualifies as sinful.

That's from the OP. Based on what you said above, it's obvious you did not even read it.

Yes, I did and the definition I provided works wonderfully. I've only met a handful of Christians who have ha any trouble applying it and a lot more who have tried to take what applies to them and make it apply to everyone else.

The problem is not with Christianity or its definition of sin, but that you want it to be like Islam, when it clearly isn't. You are comparing chalk with cheese.

For Christians, Jesus Christ came down to Earth to make it easier for humanity to relate to God. Relating to God is the key goal and anything that an individual does that gets in the way of that is sinful... but what gets in the way of that is going to vary from person to person because we are not automata or clones of each other, but complex beings each with their own baggage that needs dealing with so any list is going fail because it is never going to be sufficient cover every scenario, nor is it going to be valid for every person (e.g. drinking alcohol).

Any activity could be sinful for a given person if it is something that turns them away from God, but that does not mean that it is sinful for every person because if someone else can engage in the activity with no consequences to their relationship then the act in itself is not sinful.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well if you act that way, how do you expect people to think otherwise.



Which means you are going back to a set of rules. So you don't really want anyone to define sin, you just want them to give you a list of sins. It must be so frustrating for you that no-one is doing that.



No I'm just using reasoning, it doesn't have to be secular (and in this case it isn't): Causing another person harm (by giving them something they are addicted to, is not loving to your neighbour (who includes the alcoholic). There is nothing specifically secular about this. It is the same if I were an alcoholic and drank a beer that was placed in front of (not loving oneself). It is all very easy, one wonders why you want to make it so complex.

"And that difference defines why it is sinful for one and not the other and why then any lists of sins are always going to be insufficient to cater for every situation."



Citation for what? Why are you obsessed with lists of sins - the Bible clearly isn't - even Torah is not a list of sins, it is a list of situations and how to resolve them in the way that is best for Israelite society. The best you get from Christianity is Galatians 5:19-21:

"The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."

That is not actually very specific either (...and the like), which means that the point already made that Christianity isn't particularly interested in lists of specific sins, but IS interested in a changed life that desires to please God (even the above list is in contrast to the fruits of the Holy Spirit (again a list of things that please God).



We haven't started with any such thing, you have. And I have to wonder at a mindset that seems to be so obsessed racism, sexism, rape and slavery when some of them aren't even there and others are derived from a very skewed understanding of the law.



Why not? From your OP onwards you appear to have a very skewed view of Christianity and that seems to cause you confusion. If you stop trying to fit the Christians here into the mould you have made for them understanding what they believe is so much easier. I know I did.

There are many forms of Christianity. Some disavow the OT in its entirety. I'm addressing Judeo-Christianity - the sect that is inclined to defend the OT to its very last breath.

If you deny that the OT is sexist and racist, then you are either ignorant or lying. According to Mosaic law, a Hebrew male slave had to be set free after seven years whereas women and foreigners were property for life. That's racist and sexist. Hebrews could not be charged interest, but foreigners could. That's racist. Imagine a bank with a grand opening and a huge banner over its door which says, "Whites get 0% APR!!!! Everyone else: standard rates apply." Women were possessions, and if this is not obvious then you must be oblivious. The term "Philistine" was essentially meant as a derogatory term, that's how racist the Hebrews were. To this day, a Judeo-Christian could be caught slinging this term around as an insult.

If everyone is your neighbor, then the parable of the Good Samaritan would be silly: at its conclusion, when Jesus asks, "Who was his neighbor?", the audience would have laughed and said, "Everyone is everyone's neighbor." But that's not true. The term "neighbor" is carved out of a patriarchal and tribal hierarchy - the very concept is racist and sexist.

If you want to lob the "But this was 2000+ years ago, so times were different and racism was just a normal part of life" excuse at me, then at least you'll be honest in doing so and the conversation can continue. But if you tell me that the Bible is not racist or sexist, then I'd make better use of my time by having a discussion with a wall.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

There are many forms of Christianity. Some disavow the OT in its entirety. I'm addressing Judeo-Christianity - the sect that is inclined to defend the OT to its very last breath.

You are still sounding confused. I don't know of any groups that disavow the OT in its entirety. It is something that is very difficult to do, given that this then requires the disavowal of about a quarter of the NT also (which references the OT). The only group I can think of that did this were the Maricionites in the 2nd century.

Judeo-Christianity is a generic term for Judaism and Christianity - it is not any kind of formal organisation. If you are addressing the group of Christians that defend the OT to its very last breath, you should have said so up front. This wasn't clear in your OP or later posts. You may find people like that here, but I've not seen any yet.

If you deny that the OT is sexist and racist, then you are either ignorant or lying...

If you want to lob the "But this was 2000+ years ago, so times were different and racism was just a normal part of life" excuse at me...

Another statement that implies confusion on your part. If you know of the '2000+ years ago...excuse' why assume I must be ignorant or lying.

And if you know this history, why make such a fuss about slavery, racism, etc. when everyone is going to give you the same answer. Are you hoping one of those people who will defend the OT to its very last breath?

If everyone is your neighbor, then the parable of the Good Samaritan would be silly: at its conclusion, when Jesus asks, "Who was his neighbor?", the audience would have laughed and said, "Everyone is everyone's neighbor." But that's not true.

Firstly it is clear that the audience of Jesus' time did not think of everyone as their neighbour. They lived under the oppression of the Romans, they lived next to the Samaritans, who were Israelites who did not worship God 'correctly'. Their whole idea of neighbour was pretty literal. Which is why the parable was radical.

But that does not mean that it was originally intended that way. The original intent was to summarise the laws that provide a way of relating to other people. Your neighbour was anybody who needed you.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You are still sounding confused. I don't know of any groups that disavow the OT in its entirety. It is something that is very difficult to do, given that this then requires the disavowal of about a quarter of the NT also (which references the OT). The only group I can think of that did this were the Maricionites in the 2nd century.

When I say "disavow" I don't mean that they deny it is true or refuse to affirm it. I mean that they refuse to defend it because they know it is a losing battle to do so.

Judeo-Christianity is a generic term for Judaism and Christianity

Judeo-Christianity is one thing, not two different things.

- it is not any kind of formal organisation.

Protestantism is not a formal organisation, and Judeo-Christianity is a sect thereof.

If you are addressing the group of Christians that defend the OT to its very last breath, you should have said so up front. This wasn't clear in your OP or later posts.

It seemed clear to you. In your very first post, you said these two things:

Actually it is very clear: there are no rules, only a relationship.

The problem is that a person who wants a clear definition is being legalistic not gracious.

So I took that to mean that you understood I was starting with Mosaic law. Your statements there seem to be an attack on the legalistic Pharisees.

You may find people like that here, but I've not seen any yet.

Sometimes Catholics identify themselves simply as Christian. Judeo-Christians almost exclusively refer to themselves as such. You won't know a Judeo-Christian until you talk to them - and sometimes they don't even know that they are a Judeo-Christian.

As far as finding them on this thread goes, I think @Tree of Life would be a good bet.

Another statement that implies confusion on your part. If you know of the '2000+ years ago...excuse' why assume I must be ignorant or lying.

One human being owning another is slavery, regardless of when or where it happened.

You can argue that slavery, sexism, racism, and etc were normal back in ancient days, and you can even try to argue that we should not judge the ancient world by our modern standards, but what you cannot do is deny that the Bible promotes such sentiments. To do so is to lie.

And if you know this history, why make such a fuss about slavery, racism, etc. when everyone is going to give you the same answer.

Because I expect more of a divinely inspired book than something that is considered normal, or perhaps merely progressive, for its time. I expect something astonishing, and I'm vastly underwhelmed.

Are you hoping one of those people who will defend the OT to its very last breath?

Do you mean,

Are you hoping [I am] one of those people who will defend the OT to its very last breath?

If so, then no. I just hope that you are honest while we are having a discussion.

Firstly it is clear that the audience of Jesus' time did not think of everyone as their neighbour. They lived under the oppression of the Romans, they lived next to the Samaritans, who were Israelites who did not worship God 'correctly'. Their whole idea of neighbour was pretty literal. Which is why the parable was radical.

You're closer, but not quite there.

But that does not mean that it was originally intended that way. The original intent was to summarise the laws that provide a way of relating to other people. Your neighbour was anybody who needed you.

False.

 

[Tree of Life]

@Nihilist Virus You may be thinking of "Messianic Judaism". This is a particularly Jewish flavor of Christianity, or perhaps a Christian flavor of Judaism.

Judeo-Christian is a broad term used to refer to western culture which has been influenced by the Bible. It's not a religious sect.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

@Nihilist Virus You may be thinking of "Messianic Judaism". This is a particularly Jewish flavor of Christianity, or perhaps a Christian flavor of Judaism.

Judeo-Christian is a broad term used to refer to western culture which has been influenced by the Bible. It's not a religious sect.

But if a westerner doesn't believe in half of the OT, writing it off as myth, and disagrees with the laws in it, but yet is Christian, then are they still a Judeo-Christian?

 

[Tree of Life]

But if a westerner doesn't believe in half of the OT, writing it off as myth, and disagrees with the laws in it, but yet is Christian, then are they still a Judeo-Christian?

More or less. "Judeo Christian" typically describes what is common between Jews and Christians. Family values, monotheism, Abrahamic tradition, etc...

 

[Nihilist Virus]

More or less. "Judeo Christian" typically describes what is common between Jews and Christians. Family values, monotheism, Abrahamic tradition, etc...

OK, thanks.

 

[Hawkins]

Non sequitur.

I was using a counter example. If you want to say that there were slave owners who were not evil, then by that reasoning there might have been Nazis who executed Jews and yet weren't evil. I reject both as being equally absurd.

This question is incoherent.

Right, and the final judgment has nothing to do with accountability. It has to do with whether or not you believed in a particular proposition.

There's no non sequitur here. It's rather your equivocation.

The whole point is, if slavery is an human establishment (or isn't it) and once accepted by the most conscientious humans on earth (or isn't it?), God thus reserves the right to design a mechanism to identify the good from the bad during the period of time when this establishment is lawful on earth. He thus doesn't need to put strict words against this establishment.

Your executing Jews argument however is completely something else.

In a nutshell, the point boils down to whether slavery is once a lawful establishment accepted by the most conscientious humans on earth or not.

If so, some of the humans (including the legal slave owners) can be saved by God. Whether they are in Europe of America, as long as they believe in Jesus Christ, they are thus identified to be the righteous people by their faith!

That's the point. Any other arguments remain your equivocation.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

There's no non sequitur here. It's rather your equivocation.

Maybe quote me bit by bit to show me my fallacy. If you just quote me in one huge block then I don't know what you're referring to. Or maybe you prefer it that way because you have no real case to make.

The whole point is, if slavery is an human establishment (or isn't it)

Is that a question? Obviously slavery is a human establishment.

and once accepted by the most conscientious humans on earth (or isn't it?),

This is not obvious to me. Can you show it to be true?

God thus

Let me stop you right here. Let's be clear on what you're saying. You're using the word "thus." It's a concluding word, like "therefore." If what you say next does not follow from what you said above, we have a non-sequitur.

reserves the right to design a mechanism to identify the good from the bad during the period of time when this establishment is lawful on earth. He thus doesn't need to put strict words against this establishment.

Non-sequitur.

Your executing Jews argument however is completely something else.

Because reasons?

In a nutshell, the point boils down to whether slavery is once a lawful establishment accepted by the most conscientious humans on earth or not.

Why? You're bolding this as though it's important, but not explaining why.

If so,

Concluding terms here. Non-sequitur incoming...

some of the humans (including the legal slave owners) can be saved by God. Whether they are in Europe of America, as long as they believe in Jesus Christ, they are thus identified to be the righteous people by their faith!

And there it is.

That's the point. Any other arguments remain your equivocation.

I'm guilty of equivocation? OK, which two words am I equivocating?

 

[Hawkins]

Non-sequitur.

God reserves the right to design a mechanism to identify the good from the bad during the period of time when this establishment is lawful on earth. He thus doesn't need to put strict words against this establishment.

The above is not a non-sequitur. It's a valid argument. It thus remains your equivocation to call it a non-sequitur, and continue with your other arguments against it.

I say here again, slavery is once a lawful establishment accepted by the most conscientious humans on earth. Thus God reserves the right to bypass such an establishment to save those can be considered as the most conscientious humans on earth instead of condemning them all in hell due only to the fact that they can be slave owners. Saving more souls whenever possible is God's job on earth.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Protestantism is not a formal organisation, and Judeo-Christianity is a sect thereof...

...Sometimes Catholics identify themselves simply as Christian. Judeo-Christians almost exclusively refer to themselves as such. You won't know a Judeo-Christian until you talk to them - and sometimes they don't even know that they are a Judeo-Christian.

As far as finding them on this thread goes, I think @Tree of Life would be a good bet.

Wrong: The definition of Judeo-Christianity is 'of or relating to the religious writings, beliefs, values, or traditions held in common by Judaism and Christianity.'

I'd say that if they don't even know they are 'Judea-Christian' it is because it is a term you have applied to them without even consulting them on the matter.

You may be mixing it up with 'Judeo-Christian values' which generally refers to the values held by Christians in the US, but this is not the same thing.

So I took that to mean that you understood I was starting with Mosaic law. Your statements there seem to be an attack on the legalistic Pharisees.

Given that you were asking for a Christian definition of sin, not a Jewish or Mosaic one, I think the mistake is hardly surprising. Once again you are sounding confused about what you want.

Because I expect more of a divinely inspired book than something that is considered normal, or perhaps merely progressive, for its time. I expect something astonishing, and I'm vastly underwhelmed.

There does seem to be some mixing of tenses here. I suspect that had you been alive in those times you would have been vastly overwhelmed by the radical nature of the things being proposed (e.g. women had to be looked after not discarded once used. Killing a slave was a crime punishable by death. Debts could be cleared every 7 years, etc.

You might well be underwhelmed now, but given that most of the laws of Western society has found its origins in the Bible, that is hardly surprising.

You're closer, but not quite there.

False.

Easy for you to say, clearly a lot harder for you to show

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Wrong: The definition of Judeo-Christianity is 'of or relating to the religious writings, beliefs, values, or traditions held in common by Judaism and Christianity.'

I'd say that if they don't even know they are 'Judea-Christian' it is because it is a term you have applied to them without even consulting them on the matter.

You may be mixing it up with 'Judeo-Christian values' which generally refers to the values held by Christians in the US, but this is not the same thing.

OK. I have no respect for dictionaries, but if this legitimately how the term is used then I accept that.

Given that you were asking for a Christian definition of sin, not a Jewish or Mosaic one, I think the mistake is hardly surprising. Once again you are sounding confused about what you want.

The OP concluded by saying,

The purpose of this thread is for someone to present a clear definition of sin. I must be able to apply your definition to any conceivable scenario and determine for myself if an action qualifies as sinful.

You have not done this. Don't pretend that you have, and don't act like the fault is on my end when you show up here utterly unprepared.

You led by saying,

Actually it is very clear: there are no rules, only a relationship.

The problem is that a person who wants a clear definition is being legalistic not gracious.

And really this is not saying anything at all. It absolutely does not address the OP.

There does seem to be some mixing of tenses here. I suspect that had you been alive in those times you would have been vastly overwhelmed by the radical nature of the things being proposed (e.g. women had to be looked after not discarded once used. Killing a slave was a crime punishable by death. Debts could be cleared every 7 years, etc.

You leave out things like the following:

1.) Rape victims were expected to marry their rapists
2.) Hebrews could not be charged interest, but foreigners could
3.) Hebrew males were slaves for a maximum of seven years, but women and foreigners were slaves for life

Seems pretty racist and sexist to me. Again, you can argue that it was progressive for its time, but you cannot tell me that these commands—which apparently came from your deity—were not racist and sexist. To do so would be to lie.

You might well be underwhelmed now, but given that most of the laws of Western society has found its origins in the Bible, that is hardly surprising.

You're not American, so I'll give you a pass. But the short story here is that America was founded as a secular nation, and the rest of the western world slowly adopted similar sentiments. America, unfortunately, backslid into Christianity while Europe is progressing in the correct direction.

With regards to the American constitution and Biblical law, the first amendment contradicts the first commandment. Of the ten commandments, only "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not murder" are actually laws. To be generous, we can count the "false witness" one as well—while it is totally legal to lie, we cannot do so under oath in the court of law.

These are extremely basic preconditions of any society, and you would be quite silly indeed to insist that we derived these ideas from the Bible.

Here's the ten commandments:

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

America was founded upon racism, sexism, slavery, genocide, and rape, so you could argue that it did derive at least those things from Biblical law.

Easy for you to say, clearly a lot harder for you to show

Already did.

 

[Willis Gravning]

Religion in general, and Christianity in particular, does not always want things to be clear. If, for instance, a clear outcome is expected after a session of prayer, then the effectiveness of prayer will be shown to be statistically equivalent to randomness.

However, a religion like Islam, as far as I understand, makes it absolutely clear what is considered right and wrong. Any contradiction in scripture is resolved by the understanding that a later statement overrides an earlier statement. So Muslims have a clear understanding of what is expected of them (even though most, fortunately, ignore the clear commands to murder people). While being easily the world's most despicable religion, Islam is nevertheless clear, concise, and well defined by religious standards.

Christianity, on the other hand, does not make it clear what is right or wrong. One might think that the rules are similar to Islam in that the New Testament overrides the Old Testament, but that does not seem to actually be the case. Jesus and Paul, the two main founders of Christianity, did away with much of the Old Testament, but John - the fourth most important founder of Christianity behind Peter - says in 1 John 3:4 that "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." It would seem to make sense that the law as dictated by God through Moses is the "objective morality" that some Christians refer to, which would mean that sin is defined as defiance of any of the 600+ commandments in the law. Yet, essentially no Christian on earth would attest to the absolute authority of everything listed in the Mosaic law.

I've never gotten a clear answer on this issue. Worse, I don't know if I've ever even seen two Christians agree on this. Worst, this is the criteria by which we will be evaluated as worthy of eternal hellfire, and yet we have no access to this criteria.

The purpose of this thread is for someone to present a clear definition of sin. I must be able to apply your definition to any conceivable scenario and determine for myself if an action qualifies as sinful. If you think my expectations are unreasonable, please explain why Islam is capable doing this.

I think of sin as our thoughts and actions which are less than perfect which bring grief to ourselves and others. Not one of us is immune. It is like gardening. We try to raise a good garden but weeds are always popping up. Nothing we do will prevent them. We simply do our best to nurture the good within ourselves and look to providence for the sun and the rain.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

The OP concluded by saying,

The purpose of this thread is for someone to present a clear definition of sin. I must be able to apply your definition to any conceivable scenario and determine for myself if an action qualifies as sinful.

You have not done this. Don't pretend that you have, and don't act like the fault is on my end when you show up here utterly unprepared.

You led by saying,

Actually it is very clear: there are no rules, only a relationship.

The problem is that a person who wants a clear definition is being legalistic not gracious.

And really this is not saying anything at all. It absolutely does not address the OP.

Odd that you would refer to your conclusion, but completely ignore the conclusion of my response to your OP which states:

Rather than concentrating on sin and defining what it is, you would be best concerning yourself (as the NT does) on what it isn't. *Start* with the OT summary of the Law: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength; and love your neighbour as yourself.'

This should not have come as any surprise to you given that two of the previous responses said exactly the same thing... as I pointed out in my later summary of the responses to the request for a definition of sin.

Your OP asks for a Christian definition of sin, but when you got it, you seem to have dismissed it because it is not 'Judeo-Christian' (whatever you meant by that, which is still not clear).

It seems that you don't want a definition of sin at all, you just want a list of things that are sinful... which no-one has done because that is not how sin is defined in Christianity. You could have save us all a lot of bother by defining up front that:

a) you wanted only 'Judeo-Christians' to respond (even though some of them don't know that they are of this persuasion).

b) you want a list of sins, not a definition that can be used to work out what is sinful.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The purpose of this thread is for someone to present a clear definition of sin. I must be able to apply your definition to any conceivable scenario and determine for myself if an action qualifies as sinful. If you think my expectations are unreasonable, please explain why Islam is capable doing this.

The simplest definition I can muster. "Sin" is choosing to reject or be apart from God...period. "Goodness" is anything that conforms or aligns with the will of God and His purpose....period. "Evil" is then a prevation of some good that ought to be there...period. Any questions?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Odd that you would refer to your conclusion, but completely ignore the conclusion of my response to your OP which states:

Rather than concentrating on sin and defining what it is, you would be best concerning yourself (as the NT does) on what it isn't. *Start* with the OT summary of the Law: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength; and love your neighbour as yourself.'

I didn't ignore this. Recall that we had lengthy arguments over the definition of "neighbor." I referenced the parable of the good Samaritan.

It is absolutely clear that not everyone is your neighbor. If everyone was one's neighbor, it would say to love everyone.

And I think you agreed that not everyone was one's neighbor. I believe you said that it refers to those who are in close proximity. I argued that the meaning of the word was referring only to a man from your own country who is of fatherly age. The term "neighbor" is what defines the racism and sexism that has become the moral standard of the Bible.

This should not have come as any surprise to you given that two of the previous responses said exactly the same thing... as I pointed out in my later summary of the responses to the request for a definition of sin.

I don't know what your complaint is. I address your posts directly.

Your OP asks for a Christian definition of sin, but when you got it, you seem to have dismissed it because it is not 'Judeo-Christian' (whatever you meant by that, which is still not clear).

I recall an issue with Judeo-Christianity coming up, but I don't think I asked for a definition and then rejected it when presented with it. If I did this, it was probably because the definition was not up to the standard put forth in the OP. Sorry that this was so long ago - I was banned for a month, although I was not told exactly why.

It seems that you don't want a definition of sin at all, you just want a list of things that are sinful... which no-one has done because that is not how sin is defined in Christianity. You could have save us all a lot of bother by defining up front that:

a) you wanted only 'Judeo-Christians' to respond (even though some of them don't know that they are of this persuasion).

b) you want a list of sins, not a definition that can be used to work out what is sinful.

What I want is a definition of sin such that I can infer for myself whether any given action is a sin under said definition. Anything less is not up to the standard of the OP. I think this demand is reasonable given the mainstream description of hell.