the nature of sin

[Drich]

---

again uzzah is an example sin is not about moral and imorality only. as uzzah's sin was not a matter of morality. this makes sin something bigger than a failure in morality. sin is like a virus, and if you do something to catch it back then you had to die which was the only way to contain it. now we have the vaccine.

Yes, we do have a vaccine. To wit:

“The human race has suffered for centuries and is still suffering from the mental disorder known as religion, and atheism is the only physician that will be able to effect a permanent cure.” (Joseph Lewis) 

the only people susceptible to suffering are those indoctrinated to the point where they need to quote others to validate their own thoughts.

---

Does morality have an "ontological existence"?

It seems to me that it's something made up by people. Yet it does exist in some way. Do laws have "ontological existence," or guidelines for safe driving?

If sin is also made up by people, then wouldn't it "exist ontologically" in the same way as morality?

Morality relates to actions between people with harm/pleasure/benefit/etc. as vectors, and ethics is the codification of that, so yes. 'Sin' doesn't enter into it.

Laws are man-made codifications of behavior, so they exist as much as behavior  that has an impact on people's lives, so yes.

One is not like the other. 'Sin' is made up, without referrals, unlike what morality or laws do.

---

Ultimately, 'sin' is about transgression against god(s) laws or 'divine' laws, whereas morality is about interaction between people.

actually morality is anything you say it is. what is moral today would have had you executed a generation prior. and like wise what was moral then would have you executed today. morality is simply the evil in which you can justify one want to accept into your life.