"Sin" is PRECISEDLY what I think it is.
And this would be because you're an accredited expert on all matters of spiritual concern, right? You know PRECISELY you say. Bible scholar? Theologian? Morality expert? Some kinda guru?
Or is it because you're an 85-year-old who has never been called out on maybe having a distorted knowledge of things that people who actually spend time studying religious texts still struggle with?
I suppose if you had more interest in Jainism or Buddhism, we'd hear you tell about how you know the Buddha is a god (they actually tell followers to kill Buddha if you see visions of him on the road) or that Jains worship the same god as Islam (they don't). Or something screwy on Shintoism. But because you only pretend to know about Christianity and Judaism, we get to put up with your "knowledge."
Not only is it obvious you didn't even skim the post I made on original sin, but you apparently "know it all" about regular sin. Yes, yes, sin is "displeasing some god" which is why you don't accept sin. Where is this definition from, a dictionary ? Yes, because a non-theological source would answer such questions correctly.
Actually sin is defined as "missing the mark", what you are doing right now.
Sin is also defined as separation from God. And we are assured that nothing can do so (I think it's Romans 8). Meaning sin is actually perception of separation, rather than separation itself.
Sin is defined a number of ways (including disobeying the law) but of course, yes, only YOU have this figured out.
(Or maybe you don't?)
The Bible has over 613 laws.
But the New Testament goes as far as calling the law a curse. So answer this question: if seen is really about disobeying God, why are there so many laws that you can't possibly keep them all? And why is the law called a curse? This cannot be the right answer for the definition of sin. That, or it is the right answer, but for 85 years, you have judged what God wants wrong.
Uhhhh, you don't understand me better than I think. You understand some stereotype of Christianity, and it has been patently obvious for about a year that you have "missed the mark". If you actually bothered to understand me, we'd be in a real conversation by now. Instead we're just kinda "Oh you don't understand, but I do because..." because what you're older? Yeah, you're senile.
I actually find that sort of arguing annoying. I like to write books, make video games, and I like to draw. I like to write interesting ideas and bounce them off people, even if such ideas would be considered crazy (for this reason, I accept a number of ancient aliens conspiracies, as even if they aren't true, they are incredibly interesting and could be true under the right conditions). I like to argue only with people who have an intelligent reason why I am wrong. When they say, "But here you've contradicted yourself. It should be this, that, and that," this is an intelligent debate. I like a conversation that allows me to question what I've thought, revise it, and come up with a new idea.
I loathe talking to people who I've explained the same concept four or five times, they don't offer any real debate, just "look at how stupid you are for believing that." Ad hominem is about the lowest form of debate, sorta "I haven't got any real argument here, but you're wrong and illogical (even though I haven't given any good logic). " I don't like re-explaining things to people who don't get me. Or to people who don't understand symbols or metaphor and keep saying they don't know what I'm talking about. Yeah, cuz you never bothered.
That gives me no pleasure, and it feels like I failed to explain. It's vaguely like sex when you're mute and want him to rub your clitoris, but instead he does anal. It's frustrating and infuriating to have someone incapable of understanding. Total turn-off.
You literally proved that you don't understand the first thing about me.