Sin, I don't believe in Sin.

[Minimalist]

That's like saying you don't believe in the person who invented baseball because there was a lot of baseball players in the past that cheated.

You are typical in a staggering ability to miss the point. So I guess I have to explain it simply for your benefit. Your church was founded by a collection of scumbags for the purpose of controlling dolts ( look in a mirror ) with absurd promises of "rewards in the next life..." meanwhile STFU and do what they tell you and you happily agree to this absurd bargain.

Either produce evidence that your jesus actually existed AND did all the magic tricks you find so wonderful or admit that your particular superstition is not more reasonable than Osiris or Odin.

As Sam Harris notes in Letter to a Xtian Nation....

There is, in fact, no worldview more reprehensible in its arrogance than that of a religious believer: the creator of the universe takes an interest in me, approves of me, loves me, and will reward me after death; my current beliefs, drawn from scripture, will remain the best statement of the truth until the end of the world; everyone who disagrees with me will spend eternity in hell. ...

An average Christian, in an average church, listening to an average Sunday sermon has achieved a level of arrogance simply unimaginable in scientific discourse—and there have been some extraordinarily arrogant scientists.

Your beliefs are infantile. They are the ultimate ego trip. Grow up and figure out how badly you have been conned.

[ScienceLovesGod]

First you say this.

... but when we have chosen evil, like when Even chose to eat the fruit, we have created a sin.

Then you say this.

When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, it opened their eyes to the difference between good and evil.

If Adam and Eve had no understanding of good and evil, how did they choose evil by eating the fruit, and more importantly, why would god allow the consequences of this action to taint all of humanity when there was clearly no intent?

1- God told them not to, and when the serpent tempted them to eat, she said, "But God...". She did know what to obey, and she didn't listen.

[King_Charles]

The concept of "sin" inhabits nearly all religions and was originally a cultural mechanism for preventing conflict and ensuring stability and harmony by making taboo those actions that would result in instability or conflict within a group. Originally, in fact, it was exactly the same as taboo. Later on when religion arose and became more sophisticated, you stated to get systems which codified sin, as in Leviticus, a rift started to emerge between what was considered law/sin and what was taboo. Later on law started to split off to have its own separate sphere. Fast forward thousands of years and now we have the law which is the product of the state, taboo, which is the product of society, and sin which is the product of religious doctrine.

All of them are split from the same root and have the same basic function. Both law and the concept of sin can be used an abused by those in power.

[Minimalist]

Both law and the concept of sin can be used an abused by those in power.

Yes.

[Polaris]

We all call sin (well what we see as sin, not as the Christians define sin these days or how it may actually be defined...aka going against the will of God) different things. You can call someone who sins as doing evil, being a criminal, doing something that is wrong, etc. or saying that the negative energy they send out to the universe will come back to haunt them. In this world, sin harms others.

[Cyberman]

Unfortunately, one person's evil is quite often another's good. Certain countries impose strict laws against drinking alcohol, for religious reasons, whereas others rely on it for their economies. Person A might consider recreational drugs as sinful, while person B can't imagine any other lifestyle. For every person who decides to undergo an abortion, for whatever reason, there may be a hundred who wish terrible harm upon her and the doctor carrying out the procedure. Personally, I consider unreasoned, dogmatic manipulation of other people to be, if not actually evil, then at least highly damaging to society. What say you?

[Polaris]

I believe oppression whether it be by religious groups against those who oppose their values or secular groups trying to stamp out religious expression as wrong. Both groups are two sides of the same coin called bigotry and intolerance. Society cannot advance with either of them.

[Cyberman]

Good point, however I was thinking more of indoctrination than oppression. Besides which, the whole point of secularism is to allow everyone the freedom to express whatever religious beliefs they may or may not have, just so long as they also accept responsibilty along with their rights. By which I mean the only way freedom of religion can ever possibly work is if it goes in lockstep with freedom from religion. You absolutely have the right to play your music as loud as you like; I have the right not to hear it at two o'clock in the morning.

[Polaris]

Well if I can get annoyed by Green Peace (I hushed them once with my answer) walking out of Best Buy, I think religious groups should have the right to annoy except when it actually goes above and beyond what secular groups are allowed to do. I may not like being bothered by religious groups, but they have a right to bother within reason.

[Cyberman]

"Getting annoyed" is one thing, as is being annoying. Deliberately pushing the line between church and state, in the political as well as the civil arena, then playing the martyr card and demonising one's opponents when they call you out on it is quite another.