[metmom]

You have no right to define *sin*. That’s a religious term and only people who are religious or theists get to define their terms.

Just like evos say that only scientists can define *theory* as scientists use it and that anyone else’s attempts to define theory in that way is invalid.

So I propose that, not being qualified to define religious terms, by default your definition of *sin* is invalid.

[NicknamedBob]

"You have no right to define *sin*."

I would gently remind you that what Coyoteman posted was Robert Heinlein's definition or description of sin, not necessarily his own. (Although I believe he agrees.)

Heinlein also gave a very practical definition for love. In these two definitions, this master story-teller shared with us the wisdom of a long life of careful observation.

While this practical definition for sin may not agree with what a theist might prescribe, it could be a bit more practical for a discussion which is arguably, one that bridges science and theism.

[Jaime2099]

"Just like evos say that only scientists can define *theory* as scientists use it and that anyone else’s attempts to define theory in that way is invalid. So I propose that, not being qualified to define religious terms, by default your definition of *sin* is invalid."

Give em' their own medicine, they deserve it in heaps.