What the Middle Ages called sins we call other things. The benefit of calling them sins is that it reinforced the idea that whether one succumbs is somewhat a matter of choice. The disadvantages, we know.
The benefit of our psychological way of seeing it is to remove guilt — but it promotes the idea of our helplessness, or victimhood.
Also, I think, the idea of “sin” is somehow attractive to us. Something forbidden implies something fun. It’s the lure to the red light.
I like “A Course in Miracles” perspective. Look at sin for what it is. An error, i.e. a mistake that needs correcting if we are to find genuine peace.
My two cents.
I would be interested in hearing more. Guilt always causes unproductiveness whether through a feeling of helplessness, victimhood or lowered self-esteem. Guilt is like a cancer that starts small and then continues to grow until the victim feels overwhelmed to overcome it and more than likely tries to ignore it, or numb it which only keeps it spiralling like a whirlpool until the victim is sucked into it and totally out of control of it. Guilt has to be faced and forgiven. Forgiveness is the antidote to guilt’s cancerous effect on our lives. Any and all things that lead to guilt can and should be forgiven and forgiveness releases guilt’s grip, but until the person forgives themselves…..like a preying tallon guilt snage the psyche once again. Maybe this is all in your conversation, I didn’t get much of it. Sherry
Some years ago i read a book on the seven deadly sins that said that when we hear of the sins we tend to think they’re harmless, perhaps even attractive — especially lust — until we think of specific examples of anger, say, or envy, and then we realize that in fact deadly means deadly.
I devised an acronym to remember them: LEG CAPS. Lust, envy, gluttony, covetousness, anger, pride, sloth. If there is a form of human self-destructive behavior that isn’t covered by one of those seven descriptors, i can’t offhand think of it.