From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

/Archive 1

A modest proposal[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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[1] —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.[2]
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)


  1. ^ Galatians 6:8: KJV: "For he that soweth to his flesh (NIV:"sinful nature") shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting."
  2. ^ Book of Matthew 5:29: Jesus: "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."

Major revisions needed[edit]

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[edit]

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.[edit]

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 -- (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

{{POV}} tag[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)