The Beast Of Sin (Perversion); Fallen Angel (Demon)

"He Who Disobeys God." (Rebellion)

(Perversion Of God's Words And Commands In Any Way, Shape Or Form.)

Lesson: Lucifer.

-Sign Of Disobedience Of God's Words And Commands; Altering God's Words And Commands For Self Benefit.-

Enslavement: Changing What Is Perfect For Selfishness. Godlessness. Ungodliness. Untruth. Disobedience. Perversion. Desecration. Defilement. Error. Sacrifice. Enslavement. Death. Destruction. Depravity. Sin Itself. The Devil. Lilith. Self. Falsehood.

Affliction: Removal Of God. Punishment. Imperfection. Unholiness. Ungodliness. Disobedience. Defilement. Desecration. Perversion. Rebuke. Smite. Death. Error. Sacrifice. Enslavement. Destruction. Depravity. Sin Itself. The Devil. Lilith. Abandonment. Falsehood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin

In a religious context, sin is the act of violating God's will by transgressing his commandments.[1][2][3][4] Sin can also be viewed as any thought or action that endangers the ideal relationship between an individual and God; or as any diversion from the perceived ideal order for human living. To sin has been defined as "to miss the mark"

The word derives from "Old English syn(n), for original *sunjō... The stem may be related to that of Latin sons, sont-is guilty. In Old English there are examples of the original general sense, ‘offence, wrong-doing, misdeed'".[6] The English Biblical terms translated as "sin" or "syn" from the Biblical Greek and Jewish terms sometimes originate from words in the latter languages denoting the act or state of missing the mark; the original sense of New Testament Greek ἁμαρτία hamartia "sin", is failure, being in error, missing the mark, especially in spear throwing;[7] Hebrew hata "sin" originates in archery and literally refer to missing the "gold" at the centre of a target, but hitting the target, i.e. error.[8] (Archers call not hitting the target at all a "miss".)

Bahá'í[edit]

Main article: Bahá'í views on sin
In the Bahá'í Faith, humans are considered naturally good (perfect), fundamentally spiritual beings. Human beings were created because of God's immeasurable love. However, the Bahá'í teachings compare the human heart to a mirror, which, if turned away from the light of the sun (i.e. God), is incapable of receiving God's love.

Buddhism[edit]
Main article: Buddhist views on sin
Buddhism believes in the principle of karma, whereby suffering is the inevitable consequence of greed, anger, and delusion (known as the Three poisons).[9] While there is no direct Buddhist equivalent of the Abrahamic concept of sin, wrongdoing is recognized in Buddhism. The concept of Buddhist ethics is consequentialist in nature and is not based upon duty towards any deity. Karma is the direct result of the intention. Action is secondary. Karma whether good or bad is performed with Mind, Body and words would bring pleasant or unpleasant results. Defilement in mind cause the Karma and Karma defiles the being. One needs to purify his being with Four Satipatthanas to free oneself from the vicious circle. The purification reduces suffering and in the end one reaches Nirvana, the ultimate purification. An enlightened being is free of all the suffering and karmas. He would never be born again.

Christianity[edit]
Main articles: Hamartiology and Christian views on sin
See also: Christian views on the Old Covenant and Seven deadly sins
In the Old Testament, some sins were punishable by death in different forms, while most sins are forgiven by burnt offerings. Christians consider the Old Covenant to be fulfilled by the Gospel.

In the New Testament however, the forgiveness of sin is effected through repentance which involves confessing the sin. Sin is forgiven, when the sinner acknowledges, confesses, and repents for their sin.[10] The unregenerate man is expected to confess his sins to God through repentance in order to be restored to right relationship with God. The unregenerate man has never before been in a favorable relationship with God. When, as a part of his salvation, he is forgiven, he enters into a union with God which abides forever.[11] In the Epistle to the Romans 6:23, it is mentioned that "the wages of sin is death", which is commonly interpreted as, if one does not repent for his sins, such person will not merit salvation.[12]

In Jewish Christianity, sin is believed to alienate the sinner from God even though He has extreme love for mankind. It has damaged and completely severed the relationship of humanity to God. That relationship can only be restored through acceptance of Jesus Christ and his death on the cross as a satisfactory sacrifice for the sins of humanity. Humanity was destined for life with God when Adam disobeyed God. The Bible in John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting."

In Eastern Christianity, sin is viewed in terms of its effects on relationships, both among people and likewise between people and God. Also as in Jewish Christianity, Sin is likewise seen as the refusal to follow God's plan and the desire to be "like God" (as stated in Genesis 3:5) and thus in direct opposition to God's will (see the account of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis).

Original sin is a Western concept that states that sin entered the human world through Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden and that human beings have since lived with the consequences of this first sin.[13]

The serpent who seduced Eve to eat of the fruit was punished by having it and its kind being made to crawl on the ground and God set an enmity between them and Eve's descendants (Genesis 3:14-15). Eve was punished by the pangs of childbirth and the sorrow of bringing about life that would eventually age, sicken and die (Genesis 3:16). The second part of the curse about being subordinate to Adam originates from her creation from one of Adam's ribs to be his helper (Genesis 2:18-25); the curse now clarifies that she must now obey her husband and desire only him. Adam was punished by having to work endlessly to feed himself and his family. The land would bring forth both thistles and thorns to be cleared and herbs and grain to be planted, nurtured, and harvested. The second part of the curse about his mortality is from his origin as red clay - he is from the land and he and his descendants would return to it when buried after death. When Adam's son Cain slew his brother Abel, he introduced murder into the world (Genesis 4:8-10). For his punishment, God banished him as a fugitive, but first marked him with a sign that would protect him and his descendants from harm (Genesis 4:11-16).

One concept of sin deals with things that exist on Earth, but not in Heaven. Food, for example, while a necessary good for the (health of the temporal) body, is not of (eternal) transcendental living and therefore its excessive savoring is considered a sin.[14] The unforgivable sin (or eternal sin) is a sin that can never be forgiven; Matthew 12:30-32 : " 30 He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. 31 And Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."

In Catholic Christianity sins are classified into grave sins called mortal sins and less serious sins called venial sin. Mortal sins cause one to lose salvation unless the sinner repents and venial sins require some sort of penance either on Earth or in Purgatory.[15]

Jesus was said to have paid for the complete mass of sins past, present, and to come in future. Even inevitable sin is said to have already been cleansed.

The Lamb of God was and is God himself and is therefore sinless. In the Old Testament, Leviticus 16:21 states that ‘the laying on of hands’ was the action that the High Priest Aaron was ordered to do yearly by God to take sins of Israel's nation onto a spotless young lamb.

Hinduism[edit]
In Hinduism, the term sin (pāpa in Sanskrit) is often used to describe actions that create negative karma by violating moral and ethical codes, which automatically brings negative consequences. This is somehow similar to Abrahamic sin in the sense that pāpa is considered a crime against the laws of God, which is known as (1) Dharma, or moral order, and (2) one's own self, but another term aparadha is used for grave offences. The term papa cannot be taken however, in literal sense as that of a sin. This is because there is no consensus regarding the nature of ultimate reality or God in Hinduism. Only, the vedanta school being unambiguously theistic, whereas no anthropomorphic God exists in the rest five schools namely Samkhya, Nyaya Yoga, Vaishashikha, and Purva-Mimansa . The term papa however in the strictest sense refers to actions which bring about wrong/unfavourable consequences, not relating to a specific divine will in the absolute sense. To conclude, considering a lack of consensus regarding the nature of ultimate reality in Hinduism, it can be considered that papa has lesser insistence on God for it be translated as Sin, and that there is no exact equivalent to Sin in Hinduism.

Islam[edit]
Main article: Islamic views on sin
Muslims see sin (dhanb, thanb ذنب) as anything that goes against the commands of God (Allah). In Islam, Only the prophets and Angels are considered sinless. Islam teaches that sin is an act and not a state of being. The Qur'an teaches that,

For man's very soul incites him to evil unless my Lord shows mercy.

— Qur'an, sura 12, ayat 53[16]
It is believed that Iblis (Devil) has a significant role in tempting humankind towards sin.

Sin is also defined in the hadith, a collection of Muhammad's sayings. It is reported by An-Nawwas bin Sam'an:

"The Prophet (Muhammad) said, "Piety is good manner, and sin is that which creates doubt and you do not like people to know it.""

— [Muslim]
Wabisah bin Ma’bad reported:

“I went to Messenger of Allah (SAWS) and he asked me: “Have you come to inquire about piety?” I replied in the affirmative. Then he said: “Ask your heart regarding it. Piety is that which contents the soul and comforts the heart, and sin is that which causes doubts and perturbs the heart, even if people pronounce it lawful and give you verdicts on such matters again and again.”

— Ahmad and Ad-Darmi
In Sunan al-Tirmidhi, a Hadith is narrated:

Allah's apostle said, "Every son of Adam sins, the best of the sinners are those who repent."

— Sunan al-Tirmidhi,Hadith no. 2499
In Sahih Muslim, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari and Abu Huraira narrated:

Allah's apostle said," By Him in Whose Hand is my life, if you were not to commit sin, Allah would sweep you out of existence and He would replace (you by) those people who would commit sin and seek forgiveness from Allah, and He would have pardoned them."

— Sahih Muslim, 37:6621
In Islam, there are several gradations of sin:

sayyia, khatia: mistakes (Suras 7:168; 17:31; 40:45; 47:19 48:2)
itada, junah, dhanb: immorality (Suras 2:190,229; 17:17 33:55)
haraam: transgressions (Suras 5:4; 6:146)
ithm, dhulam, fujur, su, fasad, fisk, kufr: wickedness and depravity (Suras 2:99, 205; 4:50, 112, 123, 136; 12:79; 38:62; 82:14)
shirk: ascribing a partner to God; idolatry and polytheism (Sura 4:48)
One may sincerely repent to God for the wrongs committed and seek forgiveness, as stated in the Quran, "Our Lord! Forgive us our sins, remove from us our iniquities, and take to Yourself our souls in the company of the righteous." (Al-Imran.193/ 3.193).

"Say O my slaves who have transgressed against their own souls despair not of the mercy of God, verily He forgives all sins, verily He is the oft-forgiving, most merciful."

— Qur'an, Az-Zumar

Judaism[edit]
Main articles: Jewish views on sin and Golden mean (philosophy) § Judaism
Mainstream Judaism regards the violation of any of the 613 commandments of the Mosaic law for Jews, or the seven Noahide laws for Gentiles as a sin.[17] Judaism teaches that all humans are inclined to sin from birth.[18] Sin has many classifications and degrees. Some sins are punishable with death by the court, others with death by heaven, others with lashes, and others without such punishment, but no sins with wilful intent go without consequence. Unintentional violations of the mitzvot do not count as sins, since no one can be punished for something he did not know was wrong. "Sins by error" are considered as less severe sins. When the Temple yet stood in Jerusalem, people would offer sacrifices for their misdeeds. The atoning aspect of korbanot is carefully circumscribed. For the most part, korbanot only expiate such "sins by error", that is, sins committed because a person forgot that this thing was a sin. No atonement is needed for violations committed under duress or through lack of knowledge, and for the most part, korbanot cannot atone for a malicious, deliberate sin. In addition, korbanot have no expiating effect unless the person making the offering sincerely repents his or her actions before making the offering, and makes restitution to any person who suffered harm through the violation.[19][20]

Judaism teaches that all willful sin has consequence. The completely righteous suffer for their sins (by humiliation, poverty and suffering that God sends them) in this world and receive their reward in the world to come. The in-between (not completely righteous or completely wicked), repent their sins after death and thereafter join the righteous. The completely wicked also cannot correct their sins in this world and hence do not suffer them here, but after death. The very evil do not repent even at the gates of hell. Such people prosper in this world to receive their reward for any good deed, but cannot be cleansed by and hence cannot leave gehinnom, because they do not or cannot repent. This world can therefore seem unjust where the righteous suffer, while the wicked prosper. Many great thinkers have contemplated this.[20][21]

Mesopotamian tradition[edit]
In Mesopotamian mythology, Adamu (or Addamu/Admu, or Adapa) goes on trial for the "sin of casting down a divinity".[22] His crime is breaking the wings of the south wind.

Shinto[edit]
Evil deeds fall into two categories in Shinto: amatsu tsumi, "the most pernicious crimes of all", and kunitsu tsumi, "more commonly called misdemeanors".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venial_sin

According to Roman Catholicism, a venial sin (meaning "forgivable" sin) is a lesser sin that does not result in a complete separation from God and eternal damnation in Hell as an unrepented mortal sin would.[1][2] A venial sin consists in acting as one should not, without the actual incompatibility with the state of grace that a mortal sin implies; they do not break one's friendship with God, but injure it.

An act, when it is not ordered towards that which is good, is considered to be sinful – either venially or mortally. When such an act is venially sinful, it entails subject-matter that is not considered to be "grave." Such an action, even if it is committed with full knowledge and full consent, remains venial, so long as the subject-matter of the act is not serious. If the subject-matter of a given act is "grave," however, the commission of that act may be mortally sinful. Thus, in discussing the distinction between venial and mortal sin in his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas indicated that a venial sin differs from a mortal sin, in the same way that something imperfect differs from something that is perfect.

As such, one can arrive at what kind of sin, for example, was committed, by asking the following three questions:

Did the act involve grave matter?
Was the act done with full knowledge of the grave and sinful nature of the act?
Was the act done with full consent of the will?
If all three questions are answered in the affirmative, the criteria for a mortal sin have been met. If any one of the three questions are answered in the negative, only the criteria for a venial sin have been met. In cases of doubt regarding any of these three questions, it is assumed that the criteria for a mortal sin were not met.

Each venial sin that one commits adds to the penance that one must do. Penance left undone during life converts to punishment in Purgatory. A venial sin can be left unconfessed so long as there is some purpose of amendment. One receives from the sacrament of reconciliation the grace to help overcome venial, as well as mortal sins. It is recommended that confession of venial sins be made.[4][5] Venial sins require some kind of penance.[6]

According to the Magisterium, venial sins usually remain venial no matter how many one commits.[7] They cannot "add up" to collectively constitute a mortal sin, but their accumulation does lead to being more vulnerable to committing mortal sin.[8] There are cases where repeat offenses may become a grave matter. For instance, if one were to steal small amounts of property from a particular person, over time one would have stolen enough that it would develop into a serious theft from that person.[9]

In all this, one ought not to take venial sin lightly, especially when committed deliberately. No one without a special grace (generally taken to apply only to the Blessed Virgin Mary) can avoid even semi-deliberate venial sins entirely (according to the definition of Trent). But one must, to avoid mortal sins, seek (as far as possible) to overcome venial sins. The Magisterium teaches that although a number of venial sins do not themselves add up to a mortal sin, each venial sin weakens the will further, and the more willing one becomes in allowing such falls, the more one is inclined towards, and will inevitably fall into (if one continues along this path), mortal sin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin

Mortal sins (Latin: peccata mortalia) in Catholic theology are wrongful acts that condemn a person to Hell after death if unforgiven. These sins are considered "mortal" because they constitute a rupture in a person's link to God's saving grace: the person's soul becomes "dead", not merely weakened. A mortal sin is not necessarily a sin that cannot be repented, unlike an eternal sin. Thus, even after a mortal sin has been committed, there is a chance for repentance. According to Catholic teaching, repentance and a firm resolution to sin no more (with at least imperfect contrition) restores the link to God's saving grace in the sacrament of penance; and restoration outside confession if the contrition is perfect. Perfect contrition arises from a love of God, who has been grievously offended by a sinful act.[1] When perfect contrition is the means by which one seeks to restore one's relationship with God, there must also be a resolution to confess mortal sins in confession (if possible), as soon as possible.[2] The verse from which the term "mortal" sin is derived likely comes from the 1 John 5:16-17.

In Roman Catholic moral theology, a sin considered to be more severe or mortal is distinct from a venial sin and must meet all of the following conditions:

Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter.
It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense.
It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.[4]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines grave matter as:

1858. Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother." The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.[5]

This would include worshiping other gods, and the Catechism quotes the Biblical prohibition against blasphemy.[6] The Church itself does not provide a precise list of sins, subdivided into the mortal and venial categories. However, many sins are described as "grave sins", "grave offenses" or "gravely disordered actions" in the Catechism such as extramarital sex,[7] divorce[8] and masturbation.[9]

With respect to a person's full knowledge of a certain act being a mortal sin, the Catholic Church teaches that "unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders [mental illness]. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest."[10] Furthermore, Catholic teaching also holds that "imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors."[11]

Mortal sins should not to be confused with the seven deadly sins. The latter are not necessarily mortal sins; they are sins that lead to other sins.

Mortal sins may also be called "grave", "grievous", or "serious" sins. Theological debate, however, exists, as to whether this seemingly synonymous term is appropriate, or whether it de facto introduces a third category of sins.

Mortal sins must be specifically confessed and named along with how often they were done.[12] It is not necessary to confess venial sins although they may be confessed. Venial sins are all sins that are not mortal. The Church encourages frequent use of the sacrament of confession even if a person has only venial sins.

Some acts cause automatic excommunication by the very deed itself e.g. renunciation of faith and religion, known as apostasy,[13] a person who desecrates the Eucharist[14] and "a person who procures a completed abortion".[15] Those mortal sins are so serious that the Church through law has made them crimes, like abortion or heresy, to make their gravity realized. The Church excommunicates also so sinners come to repentance quickly when they would not otherwise. Because commission of these offenses is so serious, the Church forbids the excommunicated from receiving any sacrament (not just the Eucharist) and also severely restricts the person's participation in other Church liturgical acts and offices. A repentant excommunicated person may talk to a priest, usually in a confessional, about their excommunication to arrange for the remission. Remission cannot be denied to someone who has truly repented their actions and has also made suitable reparation for damages and scandal or at least has seriously promised according to church law.[16][17] However, even if excommunicated, a Catholic who has not been juridically absolved is still, due to the irrevocable nature of baptism, a member of the Church in the sense that they are still considered members of the Catholic Church, albeit their communion with the Christ and the Church is gravely impaired. "Perpetual penalties cannot be imposed or declared by decree...."[18] However, "the following are expiatory penalties which can affect an offender either perpetually...."[19]

The Catholic teaching on mortal sin was called into question by some within the Church in the late 20th century after the Second Vatican Council. In response to these doubts, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the basic teaching in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor. It is also maintained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states: "Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell."[20] However, the Catechism does not by name say a specific person is in Hell, but it does say that "...our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back."[21] Most significantly, the Catechism also proclaims that "There are no limits to the mercy of God...."[22] and that "...although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offence, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God."[21] We cannot see into their mind to know if it was deliberate or committed in full knowledge that it was a grave matter. Also, like the Parable of the Prodigal Son God forgives those who repent sincerely. Vatican II, in its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, shows that mortal sin is still mortal sin although some people have tried to twist the writings.[23]

Eastern Catholic churches[edit]
Eastern Catholic churches (autonomous, self-governing [in Latin, sui iuris] particular churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope), which derive their theology and spirituality from some of the same sources as the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, use the Latin Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sin, though they are not named mortal and venial. Similarly to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Catholic churches do not make a distinction between sins that are serious enough to bar one from receiving communion (and must be confessed before receiving once again) and those not sufficiently serious to do so.

Mortal sins[edit]
The following are actions defined as constituting a grave matter, or are sins directly/indirected labelled grave, by the Catechism of the Catholic Church or like sources (such as declarations by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).

Abortion "Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means,"[24] is "gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life."[24]
Adulation of another's sin "Every word or attitude is forbidden which by flattery, adulation, or complaisance encourages and confirms another in malicious acts and perverse conduct. Adulation is a grave fault if it makes one an accomplice in another's vices or grave sins. Neither the desire to be of service nor friendship justifies duplicitous speech. Adulation is a venial sin when it only seeks to be agreeable, to avoid evil, to meet a need, or to obtain legitimate advantages."[25]
Adultery ...refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire. The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely. The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry."[26]
Apostasy "the total repudiation of the Christian faith"[27]
Bestiality
Blasphemy ... is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin."[28]
Cheating and unfair wagers "Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant."[29]
Contraception especially if the primary intention is to prevent pregnancy.
Defrauding a worker of a just wage "A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good." Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages."[30]
Divorce If civil divorce, which cannot do anything to the spiritual marriage in the eyes of God, remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the protection of inheritance, or the care of the children it is not a sin.[31] To attempt remarriage (outside the Church) without pursuing dissolution of the prior marriage would be grave matter.
Drug usage …unless on strictly therapeutic grounds
Endangering …one's own life or the safety of others (e.g., by drunkenness, a love of speed on the road, at sea, or in the air, or gross negligence).
Freemasonry "The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion."[32]
Envy …if to the level of wishing grave harm to another.
Euthanasia …of human beings with souls. Euthanising non-human animals is not considered an offense.
Extortion
Extreme anger …at the level of truly and deliberately desiring to seriously hurt or kill someone
Fornication ...is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman."[33]
"Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices."[34]

Hatred …of a neighbor to the point of deliberately desiring him or her great harm
Heresy "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same"[27]
Homosexual actions "Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices."[34]
Idolatry
Incest ...corrupts family relationships and marks a regression toward animality."[35]
Lying The gravity is measured by "the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims."[36]
Masturbation The gravity is measured by, "the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability."[37]
"Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices."[34]

Missing Mass "[T]he faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin."[38]
Murder …and co-operation in murder. Abortion and euthanasia as well as acceptance by human society of murderous famines without trying to fix them are included as murder. "Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone's death, even without the intention to do so. Self-defense or defense of others when there is no other, way may involve homicide but does not constitute murder.[39]
Perjury "a perjury is committed when he makes a promise under oath with no intention of keeping it, or when after promising on oath he does not keep it."[40]
Polygamy "... is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive." The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.[41]
Pornography "... does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense."[42]
Practicing magic or sorcery "All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity."[43]
Prostitution "While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure."[44]
Rape ...is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life.[45]
Sacrilege ...consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist (i.e., receiving Communion while in a state of mortal sin committed post-baptism)."[46]
Scandal Deliberately causing someone to sin gravely.
Schism "the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."[27]
Simony Buying or selling spiritual things, such as sacraments.[47][48]
Suicide "Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide. We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives."[49]
Terrorism[citation needed] …that threatens, wounds and kills indiscriminately
Unjust prices Refusing or withholding a just wage; taking advantage of the poor.

According to Fr. Allyne Smith, "While the Roman Catholic tradition has identified particular acts as 'mortal' sins, in the Orthodox tradition we see that only a sin for which we don't repent is 'mortal.'"[51]

In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death... These categories do not exist in the Orthodox Church. Sin is sin. Concerning Confession, having a list of deadly sins could, in fact, become an obstacle to genuine repentance. For example, imagine that you commit a sin. You look on the list and do not find it listed. It would be very easy to take the attitude that, since it is not on a list of deadly sins, it is not too serious. Hence, you do not feel the need to seek God's forgiveness right away. A week passes and you have completely forgotten about what you had done. You never sought God's forgiveness; as a result, you did not receive it, either. We should go to Confession when we sin—at the very least, we should ask God to forgive us daily in our personal prayers. We should not see Confession as a time to confess only those sins which may be found on a list.[52]

Though not part of the dogma of the Orthodox Church the mortal/venial distinction is assumed by some Orthodox authors and saints as a theologoumenon. For example, Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov (1807–1867), in his book A Word on Death, in a chapter entitled "Mortal sin", says:

It has been said earlier that mortal sin of an Orthodox Christian, not being cured by repentance, submits him to eternal suffering; it has also been said that the unbelievers, Muslims, and other non-orthodox, even here are the possession of hell, and are deprived of any hope of salvation, being deprived of Christ, the only means of salvation. Mortal sins for Christians are the next: heresy, schism, blasphemy, apostasy, witchery, despair, suicide, fornication, adultery, unnatural carnal sins,* incest, drunkenness, sacrilege, murder, theft, robbery, and every cruel and brutal injury. Only one of these sins—suicide—cannot be healed by repentance, and every one of them slays the soul and makes the soul incapable of eternal bliss, until he/she cleans himself/herself with due repentance. If a man falls but once in any of these sins, he dies by soul: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. (James 2:10,11)

* Under "unnatural carnal sins" the following are implied: sodomy, bestiality, masturbation, and any unnatural intercourse between married people (such as using contraceptives, consummated oral or consummated anal intercourse, etc.) as is explained in the book Ascetical Trials, also written by Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov (1807–1867).

Similarly, the Exomologetarion of Nicodemus the Hagiorite[53] (1749–1809) distinguishes seven classes of sin:[54]

Pardonable
Near the pardonable
Non-mortal
Near the non-mortal
Between the mortal and the non-mortal
Near the mortal
Mortal
Nicodemus gives the following example for the seven classes of sin. "The initial movement of anger is pardonable; near to the pardonable is for someone to say harsh words and get hot-tempered. A non-mortal sin is to swear; near the non-mortal is for someone to strike with the hand. Between the non-mortal and the mortal is to strike with a small stick; near the mortal is to strike with a large stick, or with a knife, but not in the area of the head. A mortal sin is to murder. A similar pattern applies to the other sins. Wherefore, those sins nearer to the pardonable end are penanced lighter, while those nearer to the mortal end are more severely penanced."

He also stipulates seven conditions of sin:[55]

Who is the doer of the sin
What sin was committed
Why was it committed
In what manner was it committed
At what time/age was it committed
Where was it committed
How many times was it committed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestral_sin

Ancestral fault (Greek προγονικὸν ἁμάρτημα, προπατορικὸν ἁμάρτημα) is the doctrine that the sins of the forefathers leading to punishment of their descendants. In Christian hamartiology, the concept is also known as ancestral sin (προπατορικὴ ἁμαρτία or προγονικὴ ἁμαρτία).

Martin West (1999) draws a distinction between inherited guilt (ancestral fault or ancestral sin in the narrow sense) and ancestral curses (in the form of genetic corruption or general "persistent but unexplained adversity").[1]

The most detailed discussion of the concept is found in Proclus' De decem dubitationibus circa Providentiam, a propaedeutic handbook for students at the Neoplatonic Academy in Athens. Proclus makes clear that the concept is of hallowed antiquity, and making sense of the apparent paradox is presented as a defense of ancient Greek religion. The main point made is that a city or a family is to be seen as a single living being (animal unum, zoion hen) more sacred than any individual human life.[2]

The doctrine of ancestral fault is similarly presented as a tradition of immemorial antiquity in ancient Greek religion by Celsus in his True Doctrine, a polemic against Christianity. Celsus is quoted as attributing to "a priest of Apollo or of Zeus" the saying that "the mills of the gods grind slowly, even to children's children, and to those who are born after them."[3] The idea of divine justice taking the form of collective punishment is also ubiquitous in the Hebrew Bible, e.g. the Ten Plagues of Egypt, the destruction of Shechem, etc. and most notably the recurring punishments inflicted on the Israelites for lapsing from Yahwism.[4]

The formalized Christian doctrine of original sin is a direct extension of the concept of ancestral sin (imagined as inflicted on a number of succeeding generations), arguing that the sin of Adam and Eve is inflicted on all their descendents indefinitely, i.e. on the entire human race. It was first developed in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, in his struggle against Gnosticism.[5] Irenaeus contrasted their doctrine with the view that the Fall was a step in the wrong direction by Adam, with whom, Irenaeus believed, his descendants had some solidarity or identity.

Orthodox Christianity[edit]
Ancestral sin is the object of a Christian doctrine taught by the Orthodox Church as well as other Eastern Christians. Some identify it as "inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors".[7] But most distinguish it from this tendency that remains even in baptized persons, since ancestral sin "is removed through baptism".[8]

St. Gregory Palamas taught that, as a result of ancestral sin (called "original sin" in the West), man's image was tarnished, disfigured, as a consequence of Adam's disobedience.[9] The Greek theologian John Karmiris writes that "the sin of the first man, together with all of its consequences and penalties, is transferred by means of natural heredity to the entire human race. Since every human being is a descendant of the first man, 'no one of us is free from the spot of sin, even if he should manage to live a completely sinless day.' ... Original Sin not only constitutes 'an accident' of the soul; but its results, together with its penalties, are transplanted by natural heredity to the generations to come ... And thus, from the one historical event of the first sin of the first-born man, came the present situation of sin being imparted, together with all of the consequences thereof, to all natural descendants of Adam."[10]

Roman Catholicism[edit]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Greek translation of which uses "προπατορική αμαρτία" (literally, "ancestral sin") where the Latin text has "peccatum originale", states: "Original sin is called 'sin' only in an analogical sense: it is a sin 'contracted' and not 'committed' - a state and not an act. Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants".[11] And Eastern Orthodox teaching likewise says: "It can be said that while we have not inherited the guilt of Adam's personal sin, because his sin is also of a generic nature, and because the entire human race is possessed of an essential, ontological unity, we participate in it by virtue of our participation in the human race. 'The imparting of Original Sin by means of natural heredity should be understood in terms of the unity of the entire human nature, and of the homoousiotitos[12] of all men, who, connected by nature, constitute one mystic whole. Inasmuch as human nature is indeed unique and unbreakable, the imparting of sin from the first-born to the entire human race descended from him is rendered explicable: "Explicitly, as from the root, the sickness proceeded to the rest of the tree, Adam being the root who had suffered corruption" (St. Cyril of Alexandria)'".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, namely the sin of disobedience in consuming from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.[2] This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.[3]

The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon in his controversy with certain dualist Gnostics. Other church fathers such as Augustine also developed the doctrine,[2] seeing it as based on the New Testament teaching of Paul the Apostle (Romans 5:12–21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22) and the Old Testament verse of Psalm 51:5.[4][5][6][7][8] Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose and Ambrosiaster considered that humanity shares in Adam's sin, transmitted by human generation. Augustine's formulation of original sin was popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated original sin with concupiscence, affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom.[2] The Jansenist movement, which the Catholic Church declared to be heretical, also maintained that original sin destroyed freedom of will.[9]

The story of the Garden of Eden and the Fall of Man represents a tradition among the Abrahamic peoples, with a presentation more or less symbolical of certain moral and religious truths.

The doctrine of ancestral fault (προγονικὸν ἁμάρτημα progonikon harmatema), i.e. the sins of the forefathers leading to punishment of their descendants, was presented as a tradition of immemorial antiquity in ancient Greek religion by Celsus in his True Doctrine, a polemic attacking Christianity. Celsus is quoted as attributing to "a priest of Apollo or of Zeus" the saying that "the mills of the gods grind slowly, even to children's children, and to those who are born after them."[11] The idea of divine justice taking the form of collective punishment is also ubiquitous in the Hebrew Bible.[12]

St Paul's idea of redemption hinged on the contrast between the sin of Adam and the death and resurrection of Jesus. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned".[13] "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."[14] Up till then the transgression in the Garden of Eden had not been given great significance. As the Jesus scholar, Geza Vermes has said:

Paul believed that Adam's transgression in a mysterious way affected the nature of the human race. The primeval sin, a Pauline creation with no biblical or post-biblical Jewish precedent, was irreparable by ordinary human effort.[15]
The formalized Christian doctrine of original sin was first developed in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyon, in his struggle against Gnosticism.[2] Irenaeus contrasted their doctrine with the view that the Fall was a step in the wrong direction by Adam, with whom, Irenaeus believed, his descendants had some solidarity or identity.[16] Irenaeus believed that Adam's sin had grave consequences for humanity, that it is the source of human sinfulness, mortality and enslavement to sin, and that all human beings participate in his sin and share his guilt.[17]

The Greek Fathers emphasized the cosmic dimension of the Fall, namely that since Adam human beings are born into a fallen world, but held fast to belief that man, though fallen, is free.[2] They thus did not teach that human beings are deprived of free will and involved in total depravity, which is one understanding of original sin.[18][19] During this period the doctrines of human depravity and the inherently sinful nature of human flesh were taught by Gnostics, and orthodox Christian writers took great pains to counter them.[20][21] Christian Apologists insisted that God's future judgment of humanity implied humanity must have the ability to live righteously.[22][23]

Historian Robin Lane Fox argues that the foundation of the doctrine of original sin as accepted by the Church was ultimately based on a mistranslation of Paul the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans (Romans 5:12–21) by Augustine, in his On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin".[24]

Augustine[edit]

Augustine of Hippo wrote that original sin is transmitted by concupiscence and enfeebles freedom of the will without destroying it.[2]
Augustine of Hippo (354–430) taught that Adam's sin[25] is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire",[26][27] resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.[2] When Adam sinned, human nature was thenceforth transformed. Adam and Eve, via sexual reproduction, recreated human nature. Their descendants now live in sin, in the form of concupiscence, a term Augustine used in a metaphysical, not a psychological sense.[28] Augustine insisted that concupiscence was not a being but a bad quality, the privation of good or a wound.[29] He admitted that sexual concupiscence (libido) might have been present in the perfect human nature in paradise, and that only later it became disobedient to human will as a result of the first couple's disobedience to God's will in the original sin.[30] In Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all humans inherit. As sinners, humans are utterly depraved in nature, lack the freedom to do good, and cannot respond to the will of God without divine grace. Justo Gonzalez interprets Augustine's teaching that grace is irresistible, results in conversion, and leads to perseverance.[31]

Augustine articulated his explanation in reaction to Pelagianism, which insisted that humans have of themselves, without the necessary help of God's grace, the ability to lead a morally good life, and thus denied both the importance of baptism and the teaching that God is the giver of all that is good. Pelagius claimed that the influence of Adam on other humans was merely that of bad example. Augustine held that the effects of Adam's sin are transmitted to his descendants not by example but by the very fact of generation from that ancestor. A wounded nature comes to the soul and body of the new person from his/her parents, who experience libido (or concupiscence). Augustine's view was that human procreation was the way the transmission was being effected. He did not blame, however, the sexual passion itself, but the spiritual concupiscence present in human nature, soul and body, even after baptismal regeneration.[32] Christian parents transmit their wounded nature to children, because they give them birth, not the "re-birth".[33] Augustine used Ciceronian Stoic concept of passions, to interpret St. Paul's doctrine of universal sin and redemption. In that view, also sexual desire itself as well as other bodily passions were consequence of the original sin, in which pure affections were wounded by vice and became disobedient to human reason and will. As long as they carry a threat to the dominion of reason over the soul they constitute moral evil, but since they do not presuppose consent, one cannot call them sins. Humanity will be liberated from passions, and pure affections will be restored only when all sin has been washed away and ended, that is in the resurrection of the dead.[34][35]

Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin.[36][37] The Latin Church Fathers who followed Augustine adopted his position, which became a point of reference for Latin theologians in the Middle Ages.[38] In the later medieval period, some theologians continued to hold Augustine's view, others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all: unaware of being deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoyed a state of natural, not supernatural happiness. Starting around 1300, unbaptized infants were often said to inhabit the "limbo of infants".[39] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261 declares: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,'[40] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." But the theory of Limbo, while it "never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium ... remains ... a possible theological hypothesis".[41]

Cassian[edit]
In the works of John Cassian (c. 360 – 435), Conference XIII recounts how the wise monk Chaeremon, of whom he is writing, responded to puzzlement caused by his own statement that "man even though he strive with all his might for a good result, yet cannot become master of what is good unless he has acquired it simply by the gift of Divine bounty and not by the efforts of his own toil" (chapter 1). In chapter 11, Cassian presents Chaeremon as speaking of the cases of Paul the persecutor and Matthew the publican as difficulties for those who say "the beginning of free will is in our own power", and the cases of Zaccheus and the good thief on the cross as difficulties for those who say "the beginning of our free will is always due to the inspiration of the grace of God", and as concluding: "These two then; viz., the grace of God and free will seem opposed to each other, but really are in harmony, and we gather from the system of goodness that we ought to have both alike, lest if we withdraw one of them from man, we may seem to have broken the rule of the Church's faith: for when God sees us inclined to will what is good, He meets, guides, and strengthens us: for 'At the voice of thy cry, as soon as He shall hear, He will answer thee'; and: 'Call upon Me', He says, 'in the day of tribulation and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me'. And again, if He finds that we are unwilling or have grown cold, He stirs our hearts with salutary exhortations, by which a good will is either renewed or formed in us."[42]

Cassian did not accept the idea of total depravity, on which Martin Luther was to insist.[43] He taught that human nature is fallen or depraved, but not totally. Augustine Casiday states that, at the same time, Cassian "baldly asserts that God's grace, not human free will, is responsible for 'everything which pertains to salvation' – even faith."[44] Cassian pointed out that people still have moral freedom and one has the option to choose to follow God. Colm Luibhéid says that, according to Cassian, there are cases where the soul makes the first little turn,[45] but in Cassian's view, according to Casiday, any sparks of goodwill that may exist, not directly caused by God, are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention ensures spiritual progress;[46] and Lauren Pristas says that "for Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace."[47]

Church reaction[edit]
Opposition to Augustine's ideas about original sin, which he had developed in reaction to Pelagianism, arose rapidly.[48] After a long and bitter struggle the general principles of Augustine's teaching were confirmed within Western Christianity by many councils, especially the Second Council of Orange in 529.[2] However, while the Church condemned Pelagius, it did not endorse Augustine entirely[49] and, while Augustine's authority was accepted, he was interpreted in the light of writers such as Cassian.[50] Some of the followers of Augustine identified original sin with concupiscence[51] in the psychological sense, but this identification was challenged by the 11th-century Saint Anselm of Canterbury, who defined original sin as "privation of the righteousness that every man ought to possess", thus separating it from concupiscence. In the 12th century the identification of original sin with concupiscence was supported by Peter Lombard and others,[citation needed] but was rejected by the leading theologians in the next century, chief of whom was Thomas Aquinas. He distinguished the supernatural gifts of Adam before the Fall from what was merely natural, and said that it was the former that were lost, privileges that enabled man to keep his inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to his supernatural end. Even after the fall, man thus kept his natural abilities of reason, will and passions. Rigorous Augustine-inspired views persisted among the Franciscans, though the most prominent Franciscan theologians, such as Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, eliminated the element of concupiscence.

Protestant reformation[edit]
Martin Luther (1483–1546) asserted that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. The second article in Lutheranism's Augsburg Confession presents its doctrine of original sin in summary form:

It is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers' wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit. Rejected in this connection are the Pelagians and others who deny that original sin is sin, for they hold that natural man is made righteous by his own powers, thus disparaging the sufferings and merit of Christ.[52]

Luther, however, also agreed with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (that Mary was conceived free from original sin) by saying:

[Mary] is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.[53]

Protestant Reformer John Calvin (1509–1564) developed a systematic theology of Augustinian Protestantism by interpretation of Augustine of Hippo's notion of original sin. Calvin believed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. This inherently sinful nature (the basis for the Calvinistic doctrine of "total depravity") results in a complete alienation from God and the total inability of humans to achieve reconciliation with God based on their own abilities. Not only do individuals inherit a sinful nature due to Adam's fall, but since he was the federal head and representative of the human race, all whom he represented inherit the guilt of his sin by imputation. Redemption by Jesus Christ is the only remedy.

John Calvin defined original sin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion as follows:

Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin. The works that come forth from it – such as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, carousings – he accordingly calls "fruits of sin" (Gal 5:19–21), although they are also commonly called "sins" in Scripture, and even by Paul himself.[54]

Council of Trent[edit]
The Council of Trent (1545–1563), while not pronouncing on points disputed among Catholic theologians, condemned the teaching that in baptism the whole of what belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but is only cancelled or not imputed, and declared the concupiscence that remains after baptism not truly and properly "sin" in the baptized, but only to be called sin in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin.[55]

In 1567, soon after the close of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius V went beyond Trent by sanctioning Aquinas's distinction between nature and supernature in Adam's state before the Fall, condemned the identification of original sin with concupiscence, and approved the view that the unbaptized could have right use of will.

Roman Catholicism[edit]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.

Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".

As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").[56]

The Catholic Church teaches that every human person born on this earth is made in the image of God.[57][58] Within man "is both the powerful surge toward the good because we are made in the image of God, and the darker impulses toward evil because of the effects of Original Sin."[59] Furthermore, it explicitly denies that we inherit guilt from anyone, maintaining that instead we inherit our fallen nature. In this it differs from the Calvinism/Protestant position that each person actually inherits Adam's guilt, and teaches instead that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants ... but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man".[60] "In other words, human beings do not bear any 'original guilt' from Adam and Eve's particular sin."[61]

The Church has always held baptism to be "for the remission of sins", and, as mentioned in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 403, infants too have traditionally been baptized, though not guilty of any actual personal sin. The sin that through baptism was remitted for them could only be original sin, with which they were connected by the very fact of being a human. The first comprehensive theological explanation of this practice of baptizing infants, guilty of no actual personal sin, was given by Saint Augustine of Hippo, not all of whose ideas on original sin have been adopted by the Catholic Church. Indeed, the Church has condemned the interpretation of some of his ideas by certain leaders of the Protestant Reformation.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that in "yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state ... original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed"—a state and not an act" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 404). This "state of deprivation of the original holiness and justice ... transmitted to the descendants of Adam along with human nature" (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 76) involves no personal responsibility or personal guilt on their part (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405). Personal responsibility and guilt were Adam's, who because of his sin, was unable to pass on to his descendants a human nature with the holiness with which it would otherwise have been endowed, in this way implicating them in his sin. The doctrine of original sin thus does not impute the sin of the father to his children, but merely states that they inherit from him a "human nature deprived of original holiness and justice", which is "transmitted by propagation to all mankind".[62]

In the theology of the Catholic Church, original sin is regarded as the general condition of sinfulness, that is (the absence of holiness and perfect charity) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. This teaching explicitly states that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants".[60] In other words, human beings do not bear any "original guilt" from Adam's particular sin, which is his alone. The prevailing view, also held in Eastern Orthodoxy, is that human beings bear no guilt for the sin of Adam. The Catholic Church teaches: "By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free."[63]

The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is that Mary was conceived free from original sin: "the most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin."[64] The doctrine sees her as an exception to the general rule that human beings are not immune from the reality of original sin.

However, soon after the Second Vatican Council, biblical theologian Herbert Haag raised the question: Is original sin in Scripture?[65] In fact, according to his exegesis, Genesis 2:25 indicates that Adam and Eve were created from the beginning naked of the divine grace, an originary grace that, then, would never have existed and even less would have been lost due to the subsequent events narrated.

Eastern Orthodoxy[edit]
The Eastern Orthodox's version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil, "for the devil sinneth from the beginning. (1 John iii. ".[66] They acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin[67][better source needed] into the human race affected the subsequent environment for humanity (see also traducianism). However, they never accepted Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.[68][better source needed]

Orthodox Churches accept the teachings of John Cassian, as do Catholic Churches eastern and western,[43] in rejecting the doctrine of Total Depravity, by teaching that human nature is "fallen", that is, depraved, but not totally. Augustine Casiday states that Cassian "baldly asserts that God's grace, not human free will, is responsible for 'everything which pertains to salvation' – even faith."[44] Cassian points out that people still have moral freedom and one has the option to choose to follow God. Colm Luibhéid says that, according to Cassian, there are cases where the soul makes the first little turn,[45] while Augustine Casiday says that, in Cassian's view, any sparks of goodwill that may exist, not directly caused by God, are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention ensures spiritual progress.[46] and Lauren Pristas says that "for Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace."[47]

Eastern Orthodoxy accepts the doctrine of ancestral sin: "Original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin."[69] "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal."[70]

The Orthodox Church in America makes clear the distinction between "fallen nature" and "fallen man" and this is affirmed in the early teaching of the Church whose role it is to act as the catalyst that leads to true or inner redemption. Every human person born on this earth bears the image of God undistorted within themselves.[71] In the Orthodox Christian understanding, they explicitly deny that humanity inherited guilt from anyone. Rather, they maintain that we inherit our fallen nature. While humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death."[72]

On whether Mary actually ever sinned, or was stained by original sin, the view of the Eastern Orthodox Church varies, though there is general agreement that she was cleansed from sin at the Annunciation.[73][74]

Classical Anglicanism[edit]
The original formularies of the Church of England also continue in the Reformation understanding of Original Sin. In the Thirty-Nine Articles, Article IX "Of Original or Birth-sin" states:

Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in the Greek, Φρονεμα σαρκος, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.[75]

However, more recent doctrinal statements (e.g. the 1938 report Doctrine in the Church of England) permit a greater variety of understandings of this doctrine. The 1938 report summarizes:

Man is by nature capable of communion with God, and only through such communion can he become what he was created to be. "Original sin" stands for the fact that from a time apparently prior to any responsible act of choice man is lacking in this communion, and if left to his own resources and to the influence of his natural environment cannot attain to his destiny as a child of God.[76]

Methodism[edit]
The Methodist Church upholds Article VII in the Articles of Religion in the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church:

Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.[77]

Seventh-day Adventism[edit]
Seventh-day Adventists believe that humans are inherently sinful due to the fall of Adam,[78] but they do not totally accept the Augustinian/Calvinistic understanding of original sin, taught in terms of original guilt, but hold more to what could be termed the "total depravity" tradition.[79] Seventh-day Adventists have historically preached a doctrine of inherited weakness, but not a doctrine of inherited guilt.[80] According to Augustine and Calvin, humanity inherits not only Adam's depraved nature but also the actual guilt of his transgression, and Adventists look more toward the Wesleyan model.[81]

In part, the Adventist position on original sin reads:

The nature of the penalty for original sin, i.e., Adam's sin, is to be seen as literal, physical, temporal, or actual death – the opposite of life, i.e., the cessation of being. By no stretch of the scriptural facts can death be spiritualised as depravity. God did not punish Adam by making him a sinner. That was Adam’s own doing. All die the first death because of Adam’s sin regardless of their moral character – children included.[81]

Early Adventists Pioneers (such as George Storrs and Uriah Smith) tended to de-emphasise the morally corrupt nature inherited from Adam, while stressing the importance of actual, personal sins committed by the individual. They thought of the "sinful nature" in terms of physical mortality rather than moral depravity.[81] Traditionally, Adventists look at sin in terms of willful transgressions, and that Christ triumphed over sin. Adventism believes that Christ is both our Substitute and our Example.[82] They base their belief on texts such as "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4)[83]

Though believing in the concept of inherited sin from Adam, there is no dogmatic Adventist position on original sin. Related articles dealing with the subject are publicly available on the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s official website on theological doctrine, the Biblical Research Institute.[84]

Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]
According to Jehovah's Witnesses, all humans are born sinners and inherit sin, corruption, and death from Adam. They believe Adam was originally created perfect and sinless, but with free will; the Devil, who was originally a perfect angel, but later developed feelings of pride and self-importance, seduced Eve, and then through her, persuaded Adam to disobey God, and to obey the Devil instead, rebelling against God's sovereignty, making themselves sinners and transmitting a sinful nature to their offspring.[85][86] Instead of destroying the Devil right away, as well as destroying the disobedient couple, God decided to test the loyalty of the rest of humankind, and to prove that man cannot be independent of God successfully, that man is lost without God's laws and standards, and can never bring peace to the earth, and that Satan was a deceiver, murderer, and liar.[87]

Witnesses believe that all men possess "inherited sin" from the "one man" Adam, and that man is born corrupt, and dies because of inherited sin and imperfection, that inherited sin is the reason and cause for sickness and suffering, made worse by the Devil's wicked influence. They believe Jesus is the "second Adam", being the sinless Son of God and the Messiah, and that he came to undo Adamic sin; and that salvation and everlasting life can only be obtained through faith and obedience to the second Adam.[85][86][87][88][89][90] They believe that "sin" is "missing the mark" of God's standard of perfection, and that everyone is born a sinner, due to being the offspring of sinner Adam.[91]

Mormonism[edit]
The Book of Mormon, a text sacred to Mormonism, explains that the opportunity to live here in a world where we can learn good and bad is a gift from God, and not a punishment for Adam's and Eve's choice.[92] As Mormon founder Joseph Smith taught, humans had an essentially godlike nature, and were not only holy in a premortal state, but had the potential to progress eternally to become like God.[93] He wrote as one of his church's Articles of Faith, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."[94] Later Mormons took this creed as a rejection of the doctrine of original sin and any notion of inherited sinfulness.[93] Thus, while modern Mormons will agree that the fall of Adam brought consequences to the world, including the possibility of sin, they generally reject the idea that any culpability is automatically transmitted to Adam and Eve's offspring.[95] Children under the age of eight are regarded as free of all sin and therefore do not require baptism.[96] Children who die prior to age eight are believed to be saved in the highest degree of heaven.[97]

Swedenborgianism[edit]
In Swedenborgianism, exegesis of the first 11 chapters of Genesis from The First Church, has a view that Adam is not an individual person. Rather, he is a symbolic representation of the "Most Ancient Church", having a more direct contact with heaven than all other successive churches.[98] Swedenborg's view of original sin is referred to as hereditary evil, which passes from generation to generation.[99] It cannot be completely abolished by an individual man, but can be tempered when someone reforms their own life,[100] and are thus held accountable only for their own sins.

The doctrine of "inherited sin" is not found in most of mainstream Judaism. Although some in Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam for overall corruption of the world, and though there were some Jewish teachers in Babylon[102] who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam's sin, that is not the dominant view in most of Judaism today. Modern Judaism generally teaches that humans are born sin-free and untainted, and choose to sin later and bring suffering to themselves.[103][104]

Jewish theologians are divided in regard to the cause of what is called "original sin". Some teach that it was due to Adam's yielding to temptation in eating of the forbidden fruit and has been inherited by his descendants; the majority of chazalic opinions, however, do not hold Adam responsible for the sins of humanity,[105] teaching that, in Genesis 8:21 and 6:5-8, God recognized that Adam did not willfully sin. However, Adam is recognized by some[106] as having brought death into the world by his disobedience. Because of his sin, his descendants will live a mortal life, which will end in death of their bodies.

The concept of inherited sin is not found in any real form in Islam.[108][109] And so the concept of original sin is not recognized in Islam. Muslims believe that Adam and Eve were forgiven by God, and use the following Koranic suras to support this belief:

"O Adam, dwell with your wife in the Garden and enjoy as you wish but approach not this tree or you run into harm and transgression. Then Satan whispered to them in order to reveal to them their shame that was hidden from them and he said: 'Your Lord only forbade you this tree lest you become angels or such beings as live forever.' And he swore to them both that he was their sincere adviser. So by deceit he brought them to their fall: when they tasted the tree their shame became manifest to them and they began to sew together the leaves of the Garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: 'Did I not forbid you that tree and tell you that Satan was your avowed enemy?" Sūrat al-Aʻrāf:19–22.

"They said: 'Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves souls. If You forgive us not and bestow not upon us Your mercy, we shall certainly be of the losers' " Surat al-Aʻrāf:23

".. Thus did Adam disobey his Lord, so he went astray. Then his Lord chose him, and turned to him with forgiveness, and gave him guidance." Surat Ṭā Hāʼ:121–122

"(ِGod) said: 'Get down (from the Garden), one of you an enemy to the other [i.e. Adam, Eve, and Satan]. On earth will be a dwelling-place for you and an enjoyment – for a short time'. He (God) said: 'Therein you shall live, and therein you shall die, and from it you shall be brought out [i.e. resurrected]." Surat al-Aʻrāf:24–25.

"That no burdened person (with sins) shall bear the burden (sins) of another. And that man can have nothing but what he does (of good and bad). And that his deeds will be seen, Then he will be recompensed with a full and the best [fair] recompense." Surat an-Najm:38–41

I.J.J. Spangenberg (2013) has stated:[clarification needed]

Darwin,[110][111] did not set out to undermine the grand narrative of Christianity, but his theory of evolution through natural selection led to conclusions that were diametrically opposite to those that Christians traditionally believed and proclaimed. The research carried out under the paradigm of evolution brought to light that Augustine's convictions on "original sin" and death could no longer be held. However, conservative theologians and church members are reluctant to acknowledge this (Bowler 2007:225).[112] Nevertheless, a change in traditional theology is a prerequisite for any meaningful dialogue between religion and science.[113]

That what Spangenberg calls "traditional theology" is not the only accepted contemporary theology is evident from the writings of Reinhold Niebuhr[114] and others reviewed in Jerry D. Korsmeyer's Evolution and Eden[115] and Tatha Wiley's Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meanings,[116] and from the fact that, with regard to official Catholic Church doctrine on original sin, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church "explicitly acknowledges that the account of the fall in Genesis 2 and 3 uses figurative language".[2][3][117] Difficulty for what Spangenberg calls the dialogue between religion and science arises, in the view of Korsmeyer, from a confrontation between a few popularizers of scientific knowledge and "religious fundamentalists who consider that their religious knowledge includes scientific conclusions drawn from the Bible".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_sin

In Christian hamartiology, eternal sins, unforgivable sins, or unpardonable sins are sins which will not be forgiven by God. One eternal or unforgivable sin is specified in several passages of the synoptic gospels. Mark 3:28-29, Matthew 12:31-32, and Luke 12:10 state that there is one sin considered eternal and that is "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit".

Several passages in the Bible are frequently interpreted as referring to the unforgivable sin:

Matthew 12:30-32: "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy. But the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
Mark 3:28-30: "Truly I tell you, all sins and blasphemes will be forgiven for the sons of men. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin. He said this because they [the Pharisees] were saying, ‘He has an evil spirit’."
Luke 12:8-10: "I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."

Roman Catholicism[edit]
See also: Venial sin and Mortal sin
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church §1864, there are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.[1]

Thomas Aquinas lists, or has responded to six sins that supposedly go against the Holy Spirit:[2]

despair: which consists in thinking that one's own malice is greater than Divine Goodness, as the Master of the Sentences teaches,[3]
presumption: if a man wants to obtain glory without merits[4] or pardon without repentance[5]
resistance to the known truth,
envy of a brother's spiritual good, i. e. of the increase of Divine grace in the world,
impenitence, i.e., the specific purpose of not repenting a sin,
obstinacy, whereby a man, clinging to his sin, becomes immune to the thought that the good searched in it is a very little one.
Thomas Aquinas explains that the unforgivability of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit means that it removes the entrance to these means of salvation—however, it cannot hinder God to take away this obstacle by way of a miracle.[6]

According to one source however these are mortal sins against the Holy Spirit and not blasphemy against him though apart from presumption none of these are listed as mortal sins by the Catechism.[7]

However, the Church further believes there is no offence, however serious, that cannot be taken away by Baptism, or absolved from in the Confessional—that no one, however wicked and guilty, may not confidently hope for forgiveness.[8] The Catechism says that Christ desires "the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin."[9] As did St Augustine the Catholic Church today teaches that only dying not being sorry for one's sins is the only unforgivable sin.[10][11][12][13] Indeed, in Dominum et vivificantem Pope John Paul II writes "According to such an exegesis, 'blasphemy' does not properly consist in offending against the Holy Spirit in words; it consists rather in the refusal to accept the salvation which God offers to man through the Holy Spirit, working through the power of the Cross", and "If Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven either in this life or in the next, it is because this 'non-forgiveness' is linked, as to its cause, to 'non-repentance,' in other words to the radical refusal to be converted. This means the refusal to come to the sources of Redemption, which nevertheless remain 'always' open in the economy of salvation in which the mission of the Holy Spirit is accomplished."[14]

Protestantism[edit]
See also: Conditional preservation of the saints
Protestant denominations and theologians have taken various approaches in defining the sin against the Holy Spirit.

John Calvin wrote:

I say, therefore, that he sins against the Holy Spirit who, while so constrained by the power of divine truth that he cannot plead ignorance, yet deliberately resists, and that merely for the sake of resisting.[15]

Similarly, Jacob Arminius defined it as "the rejection and refusing of Jesus Christ through determined malice and hatred against Christ". However, Arminius differed with Calvin in believing that the sin could be committed by believers, a conclusion he reached through his interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6.[16]

Some modern Protestant interpretations of the sin include the deliberate labeling of good as evil, as rejecting the conviction of the Holy Spirit, of publicly attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan, and attributing the work of Jesus to Satan (under this interpretation, the sin could only have been committed in the first century AD). For example, The United Methodist Church, which was founded by John Wesley, upholds:

that the penalty of eternal separation from God with no hope of return applies in scripture only in two cases—either, as in Hebrews 6 and 10, to persons who willfully, publically [sic] and explicitly reject Jesus as Savior after having confessed him, or, as in the gospels, to those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit by declaring that the works of Jesus were the works of the Evil one.[17]

According to Billy Graham, refusing to turn to God and accept his forgiveness is the eternal sin.[18]

Regardless of their interpretation, Protestant interpreters generally agree that one who has committed the sin is no longer able to repent, so one who is fearful that they have committed it has not done so.[16][19]

Mormonism[edit]
Main article: Son of perdition (Mormonism)
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, have a similar understanding of eternal sin. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, said in the King Follett discourse:

All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_sin

Internal sin, in Christianity, is the idea that sin may be committed not only by outward deeds but also by the inner activity of the mind, quite apart from any external manifestation.[1] Thought crimes were as old as heresy, but the Reformation's alarms received new emphasis at the Council of Trent (Session XIV, chapter. v). The session, while reiterating that all mortal sins must be confessed, singled out the unspoken ones that "sometimes more grievously wound the soul and are more dangerous than sins which are openly committed".[2]

Three kinds of internal sin are usually distinguished by Catholics:

delectatio morosa, the pleasure taken in a sinful thought or imagination even without desiring it;
gaudium, dwelling with complacency on sins already committed;
desiderium, the desire for what is sinful.

Matthew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Romans 6:12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_sin

According to Roman Catholic tradition, actual sin, as distinguished from original sin, is an act contrary to the will and law of God whether by doing evil (sin of commission) or refraining from doing good (sin of omission). It can be either "mortal" or "venial"

Mortal sin[edit]
In Roman Catholic moral theology, a sin, considered to be more severe or mortal sin is distinct from a venial sin (somewhat similar to the secular common law distinction of classifying the severity of a crime as either a felony or a misdemeanor) and must meet all of the following conditions: Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter. It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (Article 1860 of The Catechism Of The Catholic Church specifies;) "Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. the promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders (mental illness). Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest." It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin. (Article 1859 of The Catechism Of The Catholic Church specifies;) "Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin." [1]

Venial sin[edit]
In Roman Catholic theology, venial sin will not cause loss of heaven in itself, but can eventually lead to the death of the soul by making the doer weaker to resisting mortal sin. Sin is made venial in two ways:

The sin is not seriously wrong.
The sin is seriously wrong, but the sinner honestly believes that it is only slightly wrong, or does not give full consent.
A venial sin weakens our power to resist mortal sin, and a venial sin makes us deserving of God’s punishments in this life or in purgatory.

Capital vices or the seven deadly sins[edit]
In Roman Catholic theology, the "Capital vices" or sins, also known as the "seven deadly sins", are the main roots of sin. They are called capital sins not because they are the greatest sins or necessarily mortal sins, but because all sins are in some way related to at least one of them. These sins are:

Lust
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Wrath
Envy
Pride