Why is sin a noun?

I do believe that language is used to show how man’s thoughts progress…

What interests me is how the word sin is a hardcore noun-in-and-of-itself.

Good isn’t so much, and I can’t think of a positive word that counters sin tit for tat.

“Sin” almost seems to have some level of personification, doesn’t it? It’s as though we separate the Sin from the Sinner. Aren’t the two the same? Why do we associate good deeds with the man and the sin with… the sin.

Or is it just my perspective that is blurring how I interpret the Western language’s interpretation as a whole?

Hope that helps.

“Good” and “sin” are not antonyms. “Good” and “evil” can be antonyms.

“Sin” is a noun because it refers to a type of thing. A sin. Two sins. Many sins. A fish. Two crimes. Many fishy crimes.

If we consider sin to be this: to turn away from God, ie a state of denial of God. Then the antonym for this state is one in which you are in the light of God, fully acknowledging God, known and knowing God. Now what is the noun naming that state? Enlightned? Knowledgeable? Perfect?


Wow, that is VERY interesting. I never knew that, thank you!


Yes, that’s what I was trying to get at.

Sin is personafied, but there’s no equivalent for an act of good.

<<i’m in the middle of making notes for an upcoming exam, that’s why i know this>>

it’s so bizarre that you ask this, rafa, b/c i’ve just been reading berkeley and he has a problem with accounting for evil in the universe. while i’m not going to provide a deep biblical account that theundergroundman did, needless to say, sin is personified.

in the christian tradition, all sin originates from thought. i would bet good money on this coming from aristotle, but anyway, you’re right in saying that there is no contrary for sin. but i this is b/c it’s a state, not an act. to sin requires the intent to be there, which means that the thought (origin of the intent) was wrong in the first place – the corresponding actions are equally wrong, but everything does boil down to that original thought.

there’s no contrary b/c to sin is to be in error, to miss the mark. the theory is that we are naturally supposed to be inclined to a certain way of thinking, and to turn away from this is to sin. so i think it can be argued that the opposite of sin is nature.

this theory is really beautifully displayed in boethius’ consolation of philosophy. i really liked that book. what is the interesting conclusion that i find is that if we are naturally supposed to be rational (in the way that the universe/God has orchestrated) and sin is to fall away from this, then sin is really the only act of invidiualism that we have afforded to us. being rational is to follow a pre-determined life, but to reject this! why, we’d be fully accountable/responsible for who we become/are.

i suppose the question is who would want to step out nature (and therefore sin)? what benefit is to be gained? there’s the knowledge that you are totally yourself (at least in the positive sense, but not the negative) and to me this seems enough. i’m not sure it is.


Interesting stuff…

But isn’t the opposite of missing the mark hitting the mark? Isn’t the opposite of The Wrong The Right?

What is contrary to A Sin? God? Jesus? The Holy Ghost? And why don’t we see The Hits personafied like we do The Misses.

Why does it seem that there is only Sin, Sinners, and God?

Even errors have their opposite.

You have to remember that being a sinner is not a state of being. Sinning is an act. The opposite of sinning biblically is one who is in accordance with the law, god. Can the righteous man sin? Ofcourse. Is he still righteous then? Yes, he becomes so when he goes back on the right path so to speak.

In Judaism a hit personafied is a mitzvah.

i don’t know what undergroundman is talking about. to the extent of my knowledge, the concpet of sin comes from aristotle and the medieval scholars studying him. he never laid out a doctorine, but de anima is arguably the main basis for christian theology (along with the timeas). anyway, here’s the arg’t for sin to the best of my knowlege.

  1. man is a rational animal
  2. to be a man, must engage in rationality
  3. rationality, like everything else in the friggin world, is both actual and potiential. it is actualized in the world via the unmoved mover, and potiential only in man
  4. man must actualize such knowledge
  5. all acts based on knowledge (at the very least, jointly responsible)
  6. acts that are not based on knowledge are wrong – this is the root of sin

it’s impossible, therefore, for any christian to consider my killing my father under duress as a sin – it wasn’t because me intention isn’t there. however, catholics do consider it a very serious sin to have ‘unpure’ thoughts, for example. the concept of sin presents an imparitive need to occupy the correct state of thought. failing this, the acts that committed are sinful. so, it would be sinful for a person to donate to charity with the intention to gain a positive reputation.

this makes sense to me, sins as an act is silly b/c of all these variables. as a state, the opposite to sin would be the unmoved mover (in aristotle’s system) and i do agree that it is silly. but it also needs to be pointed out that god/unmoved mover is thought to be above the labels of ‘good’ – might suggest why sin is not synonomous with evil.

why it seems like there’s only sin sinners and god. well, i hope it’s obvious now – it’s because there’s only one acceptable way to reason. granted, the concept of sin and sinners is far more diverse than at first glance. there are probably innumerable ways to not engage in rationality…i think i’m holding down about 50 different states right now and pray that i’d reach the ultimate one before my friggin exams. damn damn damn!!