{"id":53520,"date":"2025-07-17T15:06:09","date_gmt":"2025-07-17T20:06:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.wlbott.com\/?p=53520"},"modified":"2025-07-17T15:17:15","modified_gmt":"2025-07-17T20:17:15","slug":"wlbott-defines-sin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wlbott.com\/?p=53520","title":{"rendered":"WLBOTT Defines “Sin”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A part of our popular ongoing series: Sin!<\/strong><\/u><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because some day, WLBOTT <\/strong>will be recognized as a spiritual, moral, and digestive force, let’s try our hand at defining sin. It would be very difficult to include “eating a cheeseburger during Lent” into this definition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here’s what we came up with:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the goal is to meet the needs of all people, then sin is any deviation from this goal.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I asked Elder G for a critical response, and s\/he made a very good observation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Elder G:<\/strong>
Whoa – hold on, L. Ron<\/strong><\/em>. It’s a good start, with a thoughtful and provocative definition, but there are some problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here’s the good news:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Human-Centered Ethics<\/strong>
It shifts the focus from divine commandments to practical compassion<\/strong> – <\/strong>addressing real needs like food, safety, dignity, and connection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Broad Moral Inclusivity<\/strong>
It invites action beyond personal piety: systems that allow poverty, injustice, or neglect<\/strong> become sinful, not just individual actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moral Clarity with Purpose<\/strong>
It defines sin teleologically<\/strong> (by end goal) – which is a clear and functional way to frame ethics in terms of human flourishing.<\/p>\n<\/div>

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

The Problems – let’s think this through before you start a Holy War.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Overly Broad & Vague<\/strong>
    \u201cMeeting the needs of all people\u201d is an extremely ambitious and ambiguous goal<\/strong>. What needs? Physical, emotional, spiritual? Who defines them?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Unrealistic Scope for Individual Moral Judgment<\/strong>
    Under this definition, virtually every person is in a constant state of sin<\/strong>, simply by not doing enough<\/strong>. A bar set too high can become morally paralyzing.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Room for Conflict<\/strong>
    People’s needs may conflict<\/strong>. What one person sees as a need (e.g., religious expression) might violate another\u2019s (e.g., freedom from religious coercion). How do we navigate that?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Neglects Intent or Motivation<\/strong>
    A purely outcome-based definition doesn\u2019t distinguish between a mistake and malice. Is someone who fails to meet another’s needs out of ignorance equally “sinful” as someone who harms intentionally?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Secular but Sacralized<\/strong>
    It sacralizes social failure<\/strong>\u2014turning public policy gaps and systemic injustice into sin.<\/em> That might be useful rhetorically, but it could dilute the concept of sin into political ideology, rather than moral failure rooted in spiritual consciousness.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
    \n\n\n\n

    Okay, then, Elder G. What do you suggest?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Elder G:
    <\/strong>How about this?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n


    \u201cSin is the conscious or careless harm of others, or the systems that enable such harm, when it obstructs our shared duty to meet one another\u2019s needs.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n


    That still holds your human-centered goal, but adds agency, accountability, and nuance<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/div>

    \"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

    Why This Works (Even in the Real World):<\/p>\n\n\n\n