Lloyd - I apologize. I know this question was NOT directed at me, but is in the open forum (not a private message), so please excuse me for responding.
Right you are. All opinions are valid here, Lloyd, so have at it.
There was no disrespect intended to Susan on my part, when I invoked the term "unfair" and what followed. It's just that I am certain that I know where this line of discussion leads.
Secularists often place unfair burdens on believers, when it comes to the mechanics of why we believe. In many cases, this plays out as an unwillingness to consider evidence or dismiss it outright; then they preach that 'evidence' is what matters to modern thinkers and that to not agree with such a thing is not rational. Basically, those secularists who think this don't know what 'rationalism' is.
The notion of trying to get a believe to demonstrate exactly what a sin is is equally skewed, and the best way to demonstrate that is to shift the onus by asking them to describe an abstract perception that we all agree is real, like happiness. Case closed, unless anyone reading this can provide a tidy definition of happiness, one that we can all agree completely defines that concept. Like 1 plus 1 equals 2.
Lloyd - As important (perhaps more so) no one ought to be attacked personally for asking a question, even a silly impertinent one so long as it's on topic.
Let me be clear about another thing, Lloyd. I don't think that Susan's question or her topic here is 'silly'. On the contrary, I think it's worthy of discussion which is not something I find here a lot anymore. At the end of the day, Susan believes that there is no sin and that we only make mistakes. That, I would say, is incorrect and is not very well considered. I would say, further, that the reason why it isn't considered is because Susan has a very strong secular bias. To say that a serial pedophile, rapist, etc etc etc simply makes "mistakes" is, in my opinion, not silly but ridiculous.
That said, I agree with Nolondil that Susan has raised an indirectly related point here, that being the extent to which we are guilt driven by people who would make us feel incarerated by such things, if we let them.