I can still vividly recall my elementary Sunday school teacher teaching us a “kid-friendly” definition of sin:
Sin is anything you think, do, or say that makes God upset.
As a young child, this notion filled me with a sense of dread. What if I unintentionally said or did something that upset God? And for years this fear lingered because the reasons behind God’s displeasure seemed more or less… arbitrary.
Traditional Western Christianity usually defines sin somewhere along the lines of transgression against the divine will. But what does the divine will entail? Are certain actions arbitrarily placed on a naughty list? Levitical laws, such as those prohibiting the mixing of fabrics or trimming beards, can contribute to this perception of arbitrariness.
But to me, the idea that sin is arbitrary ultimately means that there is not such thing as the Good, which I reject. So, I propose a different perspective — a perspective that views sin as dehumanization. I hold the belief that sin does involve transgression against the divine will, but that God’s will is to redeem creation and restore true humanity, where every person bears the image of God.
For this reason, I propose that we can assess an act’s sinfulness by examining whether it humanizes or dehumanizes individuals.
Let’s consider examples: Acts of compassion, empathy, and justice affirm the dignity and worth of others, nurturing their humanity. In contrast, actions rooted in prejudice, discrimination, or oppression strip away the humanity of others, dehumanizing them.
Now, some people may prefer to view sin through the more “objective” lens of biblical commandments over the subjectivity of humanizing vs dehumanizing acts. However, I am confident that viewing sin through the lens of dehumanization brings us closer to the divine will, because we acknowledge the transformative power of our actions and our responsibility to foster the flourishing of all.
By embracing an understanding of sin as dehumanization, we embrace the ideals of justice, love, and the restoration of our shared humanity.
If I understand you correctly, I think I could get on board with your interpretation in the sense that this may be the method by which God has designed humans to gradually develop an understanding of sin, but I would differ in that I believe there is an objective morality towards which we’re aligning. If sin is truly memetic, then the Good either doesn’t exist or is inaccessible/unknowable, which is inconsistent with my understanding of God’s self-revealing nature.
Good is subjective/memetic as well. It exists, but it exists and starts within us rather than us reaching out to the divine for its definition. After all, what one considers a good act (for an example where those championing it feel absolutely morally justified, let’s say opposing abortions) someone else might consider evil (such as opposing all abortions, even the ones for those that won’t survive childbirth).