• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe

Historical Thoughts about sin?

M!$TER-ED

Moderator: NMI; SLR; TR
Staff member
Joined
Jun 9, 2025
Messages
2,377
Location
Central NY
My personal understanding about is a strong secular approach in that sin is religious condition that does not exist outside of its context.
However, before Christianity Hebrew ideas of wrongdoings used words associated with Christian theology emerged from Judaism
  • ḥaṭṭā't / ḥāṭā': literally "to miss the mark" or fail.
  • 'āwōn: iniquity, guilt, crookedness.
  • peša': rebellion or transgression against God.

These terms describe not only moral failures but also breaches of covenant, ritual errors, and social injustice

The New Testament: Greek terminology


The New Testament was written primarily in Greek. The most common word translated as "sin" is:


  • ἁμαρτία (hamartia)

Like the Hebrew root behind ḥāṭā', hamartia could mean "missing the mark," though in Christian writings it became much broader: a condition of alienation from God as well as individual wrongful acts.


Writers such as Paul of Tarsus transformed the concept significantly. For Paul, sin was not merely something people did. It became an almost cosmic power that enslaves humanity (see Romans 5-7).

3. When did the English word "sin" appear?


The word itself is Germanic, not Hebrew or Greek.


  • Old English: synn
  • Old High German: sunta
  • Proto-Germanic reconstruction: *sundjo

These terms were already used by Germanic peoples before the full Christianization of England. When missionaries and translators rendered the Bible into Old English, they adopted synn as the translation for Hebrew and Greek concepts.


So Christianity did not invent the word. Rather, Christian translators mapped existing Germanic vocabulary onto biblical ideas.

4. How Christian theology expanded the idea


Between the 2nd and 5th centuries CE, Christian theologians developed increasingly sophisticated doctrines of sin.


Some major developments:


Irenaeus (2nd century)


  • Viewed human wrongdoing largely as immaturity and spiritual growth gone awry.

Augustine (354-430 CE)


  • Formulated the influential doctrine of original sin.
  • Argued that Adam's fall damaged human nature itself and that all humanity inherits this condition.

This was a major shift. Sin became not just an action but a state into which humans are born.


5. Different Christian traditions today


Not all Christians understand sin in the same way.


Western Christianity (Roman Catholicism and many Protestants)


  • Often emphasizes guilt, transgression, and original sin.

Eastern Orthodoxy


  • More often emphasizes sin as spiritual illness, corruption, or brokenness rather than inherited guilt.

Liberal and progressive theologians


  • May interpret sin as alienation, social injustice, oppression, distortion of relationships or failure to love.
Many secular philosophers would agree with something close to this view. They might say that:


  • Harm is real.
  • Injustice is real.
  • Cruelty is real.
  • But "sin" is a theological interpretation of those realities, not a universal fact independent of a religious framework.

Traditional Christianity, however, generally rejects that conclusion. Most Christian theologians would say:


Sin is not created by belief. Sin is a condition of humanity whether one believes in it or not.


A Christian analogy might be: gravity affects someone whether they believe in gravity or not. Likewise, according to Christian doctrine, separation from God affects a person whether they acknowledge God or not.


The disagreement, then, is not really about behavior but about ontology: what kind of thing sin is.


There are at least three major ways people understand it:

  1. Classical Christian view
    • Sin is an objective condition rooted in humanity's relationship with God.
    • Belief does not create or remove it.
  2. Existential or liberal theological view
    • Sin is alienation, estrangement, self-deception, or broken relationship.
    • The language points to a human condition, but may not require a literal doctrine of original sin.
  3. Secular view
    • Sin is a religious concept.
    • Moral failures may exist, but "sin" itself does not exist apart from belief in the religious framework that defines it.
My question is can concepts like guilt, moral responsibility and human flourishing be fully grounded without appealing to the concept of sin?

I think that is something we decide for ourselves.

What are your thoughts?

Information gathered from AI Copilot
 
Like the Hebrew root behind ḥāṭā', hamartia could mean "missing the mark," though in Christian writings it became much broader: a condition of alienation from God as well as individual wrongful acts.

or etymologically speaking one might also consider ...

"Sin" is directly translated from Latin into English as the word "without" and is resolved to an "object " i.e.

Sin Dei or "Without God" as in not in communion with God.

Dei is the genitive for the word Deus which makes it the object of "sin", grammatically speaking .

Most of the Christian Bible was translated from Arameic or Hebrew (depending on language of the original book) to Greek, subsequently to Latin and then to secular languages. That jump from Latin to secular is a big jump in languages as those that are like English do not resolve as accurately as Latin does and there can be many more meanings in English than Latin and Greek. Many versions were hand copied in order to preserve texts for future generations (for example) during the Medieval Era; and errors are quite possible. Luke wrote his contribution in Greek so in his case it would be Greek to Latin and then to secular and has one less layer of translations. It should also be noted that in ancient Hebrew writings there were no vowels and modern Hebrew does. there's always that.

Not to even mention that all times have contexts that cannot be recorded and conveyed in written texts.
-----



Something to think about if one has a mind to...
 
What do you think the credibility of the apostle Paul? The guy who defined as a cosmic power that enslaves all of mankind especially homosexuals
 
i've pretty much tried to live following the seven virtues and vices as the guidebook
each word tells me what not to do.

Pride = don't boast
Greed = don't take more than needed
Lust = don't get lost in sexual desires
Envy = don't covet what others have
Gluttony = don't overindulge
Wrath = don't be consumed by anger
Sloth = don't be habitually unproductive

i've noticed that behaviours tied to these words usually have real world consequences

and it's easy to notice a propensity to these behaviours in people

e.g. fat person is gluttonous, man driving flashy car is proud

serves as an easy guide for what sort of people to avoid in life
 
As a Marxist no i dont believe in sin. It's something that was defined by a book written by people long before we where ever thought of being conceived. Absolutely nothing to do with the modern world. Also other religions have very different interpretations of sin then Abrahamic religions
 
What do you think the credibility of the apostle Paul? The guy who defined as a cosmic power that enslaves all of mankind especially homosexuals
With respect to Christianity:
I think that Paul, while he has had the right to have formed his own opinion, is incapable of deciding what actions are actually "sinful". The Bible clearly states that all humans are incapable of judging other people's actions and beliefs. In fact the original sin (In the garden of Eden) was to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge between good and evil, so as to become "like God". Yet it is common that many, many Christians do judge others, even though Jesus told everyone not to. Some Christian religions more than others. All that the Bibles actually says is that "sin" is the the consequence or act of separation from God.

In the parable of the man who sowed good seed, the man's workers asked the owner if the weeds that sprung up should be pulled up and discarded. In that story the owner told his workers to let the weeds grow along with the wheat, so that no wheat be destroyed with the weeds; and that they will be separated when the harvest is brought in. In this way Jesus was teaching us not to judge others, for it will be done in proper time and manner on the judgement day.

Not only that, but within the body of those who are believers, no human can ever know what the consequences of sin will be since only God judges that. One of the biggest fault I find with "Christians" is that many keep forgetting that they cannot and and should not judge others.

Christ said "Do not judge the speck of dust in other peoples eyes, while having a boulder in your own. "

Paul said a lot of things; he was not incapable of error. In fact I find that quite a few things that he said are questionable.
 
This may sound weird but could it be that god had adam & eve under a spell so to speak and when they ate forbidden fruit the spell was broken and god could no longer hide the truth from adam & eve?

granted there is a lot I don't understand but as much I have tried to be christian or get in touch with faith/christianity it has always fallen flat over time. I recall not long ago I made up my mind god did not exist in the way I was taught, nor did god exist in the way religion presents god, jesus or anything remotely related to god. preachers i have spoken to are narrow minded that being one way or no way at all. This does not make sense to me given the multitude of different cultures and beliefs.

When I stopped believing in god I had to come up with a replacement meaning instead of praising and thanking god for everything I reasoned it is myself who was able to care and manage my life, not god. Even though I cannot explain how I managed to be who I am, except as a human whether I understand or not it is and has always been myself, not a celestial entity who is only real to those who believe this way.

Higher consciousness awareness, enlightenment etc in my opinion did not come god, it came about in me as result of growth, experience and maturity. I used to pray, thank god etc. when I stopped believing, I stopped praying which took some time for me to adjust because not believing means no god.

I do not claim to have answers for anyone including myself, however, faith is not what I beleive in nor is god, jesus, or the bible. It is curious to me however, how many people particularly in the US support super naturalism along with christian worldviews without question? It seems to me if religions were truly meant to help humanity, they would welcome discourse and scrutiny. As it is however, religions do not want to be scrutinized or questioned for validity. Instead religions put fear into those who dare to think freely
 
This may sound weird but could it be that god had adam & eve under a spell so to speak and when they ate forbidden fruit the spell was broken and god could no longer hide the truth from adam & eve?

granted there is a lot I don't understand but as much I have tried to be christian or get in touch with faith/christianity it has always fallen flat over time. I recall not long ago I made up my mind god did not exist in the way I was taught, nor did god exist in the way religion presents god, jesus or anything remotely related to god. preachers i have spoken to are narrow minded that being one way or no way at all. This does not make sense to me given the multitude of different cultures and beliefs.

When I stopped believing in god I had to come up with a replacement meaning instead of praising and thanking god for everything I reasoned it is myself who was able to care and manage my life, not god. Even though I cannot explain how I managed to be who I am, except as a human whether I understand or not it is and has always been myself, not a celestial entity who is only real to those who believe this way.

Higher consciousness awareness, enlightenment etc in my opinion did not come god, it came about in me as result of growth, experience and maturity. I used to pray, thank god etc. when I stopped believing, I stopped praying which took some time for me to adjust because not believing means no god.

I do not claim to have answers for anyone including myself, however, faith is not what I beleive in nor is god, jesus, or the bible. It is curious to me however, how many people particularly in the US support super naturalism along with christian worldviews without question? It seems to me if religions were truly meant to help humanity, they would welcome discourse and scrutiny. As it is however, religions do not want to be scrutinized or questioned for validity. Instead religions put fear into those who dare to think freely
Well, I get it. :cool:
That's your journey and I cannot walk it.

I can discuss what religions believe and practice, but I cannot nor do not wish to change what any religion does, and believes.

I've studied and participated in "higher awareness" communities including Freemasonry, the hermetic traditions, Tarot, etc. I have nothing against them and will discuss them, but usually don't start threads on them because quite frankly, they are in my past so I don't think much about tthem.

So much of our perception of the world is due to each individual's unique experiences, that cannot be denied. All I can hope for you is clarity so that your journey ends up where you actually want to go.
 
We've had this discussion before, don't be angry, never was my intention, questioning and searching is what I do. I constantly analyze, evaluate and question, shaping my opinions and thoughts as I go. It would be easier for me if I believed in something completely, having no need to question and analyze but that is not who I am. So onward I go...
 
I
We've had this discussion before, don't be angry, never was my intention, questioning and searching is what I do. I constantly analyze, evaluate and question, shaping my opinions and thoughts as I go. It would be easier for me if I believed in something completely, having no need to question and analyze but that is not who I am. So onward I go...
I'm not angry, LOL...
But I try to open doors to knowledge
Everyone has to test for truth individually, and truth today is lost in the static of modernism; expediency is found instead of accuracy far too often.
You're still young...
Relatively speaking 🤔
 
I

I'm not angry, LOL...
But I try to open doors to knowledge
Everyone has to test for truth individually, and truth today is lost in the static of modernism; expediency is found instead of accuracy far too often.
You're still young...
Relatively speaking 🤔
You’re still young sort of but not really.
 
My view of sin is a pragmatic one.
Why something is forbidden.
For example.
If you go into the woods and find a mushroom there that you don’t recognize, you look it up in a book to find out whether it’s edible, conditionally edible, or poisonous. It took a long time for people to figure out which mushrooms were poisonous…or edible. And they wrote it down for future generations. Many people had to die to figure it out.
It’s similar with sins. Over the course of millennia, people have figured out what is good, bad, or deadly for them. And they’ve written it down.
Nowadays, people consider this outdated.
I don’t see it that way. It’s just that, at the moment, it’s unpopular to follow any rules.
But in light of what has been written down, it’s unwise.
 
Top