I can still vividly recall my elementary Sunday school teacher teaching us a “kid-friendly” definition of sin:
Sin is anything you think, do, or say that makes God upset.
As a young child, this notion filled me with a sense of dread. What if I unintentionally said or did something that upset God? And for years this fear lingered because the reasons behind God's displeasure seemed more or less… arbitrary.
Traditional Western Christianity usually defines sin somewhere along the lines of transgression against the divine will. But what does the divine will entail? Are certain actions arbitrarily placed on a naughty list? Levitical laws, such as those prohibiting the mixing of fabrics or trimming beards, can contribute to this perception of arbitrariness.
But to me, the idea that sin is arbitrary ultimately means that there is not such thing as the Good, which I reject. So, I propose a different perspective — a perspective that views sin as dehumanization. I hold the belief that sin does involve transgression against the divine will, but that God's will is to redeem creation and restore true humanity, where every person bears the image of God.
For this reason, I propose that we can assess an act's sinfulness by examining whether it humanizes or dehumanizes individuals.
Let's consider examples: Acts of compassion, empathy, and justice affirm the dignity and worth of others, nurturing their humanity. In contrast, actions rooted in prejudice, discrimination, or oppression strip away the humanity of others, dehumanizing them.
Now, some people may prefer to view sin through the more “objective” lens of biblical commandments over the subjectivity of humanizing vs dehumanizing acts. However, I am confident that viewing sin through the lens of dehumanization brings us closer to the divine will, because we acknowledge the transformative power of our actions and our responsibility to foster the flourishing of all.
By embracing an understanding of sin as dehumanization, we embrace the ideals of justice, love, and the restoration of our shared humanity.
I actually quite like your conception of sin as being expressed in terms of humanizing and dehumanizing acts.
Additionally, I think it's important to consider how sin is related to understanding. Human beings acquired original sin as a result of consuming the fruit of the tree of knowledge. This metaphor represents a philosophical principle; understanding the consequences of one's actions naturally makes one responsible for said actions, assuming you believe in free will (I don't, but for the sake of discussion we can move past that).
Thus, sin is a natural result of our increased understanding compared to other living creatures. Also, that leads me to question whether someone can sin without being aware they are sinning. This is a complicated question because the human mind is capable of extraordinary self-deception, but @justastranger's identification of guilt as a marker of sin seems to fit in nicely with this conception.
Some traditions would argue that the concepts of original sin and total depravity necessitate that, as sinful people, everything we do, we do in sin, regardless of intention or knowledge.
For the most part, I reject that line of thinking. I think sin usually does involve some level of awareness. Again, I view sin primarily as the dehumanizing or objectifying of others. It’s viewing people not as other souls with inherent worth, but as a means of achieving your own desires. I think often, we are aware to some degree that we do this. But then, it could be argued that we may sometimes do this without realization.
Yeah, I agree, but it's hard to know for sure. I guess the good part is that it's not a critical issue, because we can still repent for sins that we are not aware of having committed. It's not necessary to specify every single mistake in order to be forgiven, as long as one is genuinely repentant.