Talk:Sin

/Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 20 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mattt1235.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Sin is to the best of my knowledge, a distinctly abrahamic conceptualization of wrongdoing that speaks to concepts of trespass, and debt, and uncleanliness. As far as I can tell, this article has a few religion's concept of sin, with the Abrahamic ones so described and the non-Abrahamic ones notes as "this religion doesn't not have a doctrine of sin."

So why are they even in this article, and why does the article imply that sin is a generic term?--Tznkai (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Its a good question. A possible answer is that ideas about the divine don't belong to any one religion or group of religions - in a universalist worldview, ideas about the divine belong to everyone. Ostensibly there is some thought that sin is an aspect touched on by other religions, which I agree doesn't appear to necessarily be true. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Lede

The lede very much appears to need work. The concept of divinity is highly relevant and should be noted somewhere. I understand the reluctance to use language like "sin is a violation of a divine rule" because most people don't know what divinity is, or what it is not. Its much easier to talk about religion - that sins violate a religious rule, not a divine one. I don't think this is accurate, but it may work for now.

The lede also gets into distinctions between sins, which is a good idea, except that section is peppered with all sorts of links which don't seem too relevant to the topic. I suppose the links themselves may be passable but their placement in parenthesis makes them distracting and hard to read. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence has several refs backing it up. Also, you rein-stated a passage with the Bible as a reference for the first paragraph.That violates WP:PRIMARY source rules. Also, most of the lead is not referenced. Please provide references for your edits. Pass a Method talk 06:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the first sentence - the moral code part was a passage added by Editor2020, and I kept it as part of a compromise. Plenty of articles use the Bible as a direct source - we simply have to be careful in doing so. And you claim that most of the lede I wrote was not referenced. You say this, all the while reverting back to an older version of the lede:

"Sin can refer not only to physical actions taken, but also to thoughts and internalized motivations and feelings. Colloquially, any thought, word, or act considered immoral, selfish, shameful, harmful, or alienating might be termed "sinful"."

..which itself is not sourced anywhere, and adds nothing to the article. -Stevertigo (t | c) 17:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

If we use the Bible, why not use Hindu scripture or the Book of Mormons as a source? It is unfair to non-Christians. Pass a Method talk 17:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look around at other topics in Christianity and Judaism, the Bible is quite often cited. This topic, sin, is largely in the domain of the Abrahamic religions, because other religions, the Dharmic ones for example don't typically have such a concept in the same form: "The idea of sin or original sin has no place in Buddhism. Also, sin should not be equated to suffering."[1] Although Hinduism can be quite different from Buddhism in this respect.[2] Note also some IP editor removed the Hinduism section from this article (diff).

I appreciate that you have some energy to focus on this page, and I'm willing to work with you provided your edits aren't destructive. The passage I removed above might fit in the article if its reworked and sourced (probably doesn't belong in the first paragraph though). Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I attempted to verify the refs provided, and the Encyclopedia Britannica article does not support the current definition. Here is the actual quote from EB,

"sin, moral evil as considered from a religious standpoint. Sin is regarded in Judaism and Christianity as the deliberate and purposeful violation of the will of God. See also deadly sin.
The concept of sin has been present in many cultures throughout history, where it was usually equated with an individual’s failure to live up to external standards of conduct or with his violation of taboos, laws, or moral codes."

I would like to see a quotation from the other sources, to see if they have been correctly represented. Editor2020 (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Editor2020. Cheers. I note you've been doing good work at this and related articles. I agree with Pass a Method in that sin violates the divine (though I would rather use the term divine law rather than divine will). To say it violates a religious moral code misses the essence of what sin is about - the corruption of the soul. Granted, corruption (in this context) and soul (variously) are not philosophical terms. But not everything in religion can be projected in philosophical or otherwise secular terms: In this context, some things are actually divine, and among these things is the human soul. (Note "soul" is not a concept found in a secular description of the human being, and yet its fundamental to this article topic). Since this article is confined to a religious domain, it may be natural to start off by saying "In religious context, sin is..." I think I would agree to go along with that, and I'm in the habit of using this form in general when dealing with religious topics. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed new definition

Sin is an individual’s failure to live up to external standards of conduct or with the violation of taboos, laws, or moral codes. Sin is regarded in Judaism and Christianity as the deliberate and purposeful violation of the will of God. - Unsigned comment by Editor2020

I disagree with Britannica's take on this subject. Hence:

In religious context, sin is a violation of divine law.

-Stevertigo (t | c) 04:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The lede as it stands is good. The proposal is too christian/jewish centered. It is too obscure with the "moral code" language. It is also false since a taboo or breaking the law is not necessarily a sin.

Also remember tht "Sin" is a religious concept, whereas your interpretation sounds more secular. Pass a Method talk 07:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I would'nt go so far as to call the lede "good." It could use some substantiation in its first paragraph - maybe we can find a compromise, adding some from my version (corruption and the soul) and from Pass a Method's version (other related uses). Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 00:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

PS: Text from Stevertigo:

In a deeper sense, sin is the corruption of a being —through acts which are wicked or destructive, such that can cause a being to fall from grace and divine providence. While sins are generally actions, thoughts and internalized feelings may also be sinful, as these in themselves may be corrupt, and cause one to commit greater sins.

From Pass a Method:

Colloquially, any thought, word, or act considered immoral, selfish, shameful, harmful, or alienating might be termed "sinful". The term "sin" may also refer to the state of having committed such a violation.

Suggest a possible merge. -Stevertigo (t | c) 00:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Instead of putting the merge in the 1st paragraph, why not put it in the 2nd paragraph? Pass a Method talk 07:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Im suggesting it be the second sentence, because currently theres just one lede sentence. One-sentence ledes are not proper form IMHO, so were adding something to that. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Add whatever you want, but make it short. I dont want a huge paragraph. I prefer a small 1st paragraph. Word it however u want as long as its short. Pass a Method talk 16:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi--I fixed up the lede a bit but it still needs a lot of work, particularly re sourcing. Also, it seems inappropriate to have a particular denominational (Roman Catholic) perspective in the lede itself, as distinct from the body of the article.Be-nice:-) (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I find the objection to abrahamic focus bizarre, since sin is a uniquely abrahamic concept, with highly specific theological baggage. The Hindu, Buddhist, and other non-abrahamic concepts on this page are not 'sin' (and they say as much in their short descriptions!), but those belief systems' own conception of religious taboo / consequences. And while all of these things might belong on a page about religious taboos, it's bizarre on a page about sin specifically. --2602:306:CFEA:E360:8CE6:F980:B64E:F596 (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Major revisions needed

This article needs to be fixed, but cannot be fixed until we decide whether we want to write about sin, the abrahamic concept, or a general notion of religious offense. I am O.K. with either, but as it stands, the article contradicts itself in several ways. My understanding of comparative religion literature is that both are defensible, but I don't know which is more current. Anyone out there with some information or a paper?--Tznkai (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a forum

Just a reminder that the Talk page is for discussion of the article, not a forum for a discussion of the nature of sin. Revanneosl (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That's your opinion. DeguJohn (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that's policy. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This is written twice.

One concept of sin deals with things that exist on Earth, but not in Heaven. Food, for example, while a necessary good for the (health of the temporal) body, is not of (eternal) transcendental living and therefore its excessive savoring is considered a sin.[7 --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

{{POV}} tag

I have placed the tag above because of the article's Christian bias. Christianity is covered about two times more than other religions, and I had to remove three paragraphs of Christian-only viewpoints on sin + a sentence saying that "sin, especially in Christianity, is violating God's will". Esquivalience (alt) (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Morality, sin, corruption, etc

Sin is definitely a religious concept. As someone mentioned, it is an Abrahamic concept. There are equivalents in other religions but I think it is unfair to apply the word to other religions. Thus, I propose to write a historical paragraph on the word itself. Then proceed with the meaning, as in the original conception. Then see equivalent concepts in other religions. The issue of morality will come up; thus establish a relationship to morality (Great article already available). The issue of man being naturally good or naturally evil will also arise. We might end up making a concept tree. I would like to hear suggestions and based on them, I can start making the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.242.104 (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Sin is solely a Christian concept

According to the article itself, the English word "sin" in it's sense of a religious transgression developed entirely in the context of English Christians translating the Bible. In my opinion, this makes the word refer solely to the Christian concept -- all the other religions mentioned in this article certainly have the similar concepts as described, but in my opinion, none of them are actually covered by the English word "sin". To me, this makes this entire article a huge violation of OR and / or SYN. But that's just my $0.02USD. Eaglizard (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The comparison to Buddhist karma seems especially meaningless, because if we define "sin" as the transgression of a divine law, there is no such thing as a god or a divine law in Buddhism. Moreover, karma is represented incorrectly. Karma is merely the consequence of an action, and even "good karma" as a result of "good action" is something that gets in the way of non-rebirth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.145.108.247 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Rearrange Contents

SethAF (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Right now, the contents of the article are a little haphazard. For instance, the different religions in which is the doctrine of sin are in no particular order, starting with a religion that most people have probably never heard of. I would suggest arranging them from most to least popular religion or something. This would ensure neutrality and give some sort of reason for where the contents of the article are.

Its arranged alphabetically. I don't think it should be rearranged. --GHcool (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Narrowing the focus

I would like to suggest that this page begin reorganization so that it is not a sparse overview of different religions stances on immorality or sin. I think a strong indicator that this page should narrow its focus to sin in the Abrahamic religions is the fact that it is the Abrahamic religions that have the most substantive citations. As several have suggested before, sin is an Abrahamic concept. Rightly so, however, there has been debate as to this, but without substantive citations to match the weight of those in the Abrahamic religions, the categories and their contents are left imbalanced and divergent.

To begin correcting this, I will be looking into how to coordinate this article with the feeder articles to see what content should remain on the page and what should be cut. On a separate note, I think one way this page could begin to incorporate more authoritative, secondary sources would be to add a section on controversies that come with the term itself. Of course, I would very much appreciate any and all input to these ideas so that we can begin to clean this page up! :) Sandbox draft to come. Mattt1235 (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is the sandbox draft that I put together if anyone would be willing to take a look. [[3]] You will find that I did not remove the Bahá'í section or the Buddhism section and that is because the two have their own articles to link out to. I think this is a good enough reason to keep the sections because the sin page could be used to condense the information on the referenced articles' most pertinent information. The Jainism and Hinduism, however, did not have respective articles to link out to and were also without citations entirely. For this reason I removed them. Take a look if you could, I'd appreciate it. :) Mattt1235 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. --GHcool (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate it! I'll begin incorporating some of the changes now. If anyone sees any problems with these edits, hopefully we can discuss them here. Mattt1235 (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Sin

Talk about it 197.215.23.66 (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)