I’ll try one more time to convey my meaning, which I fear is not coming across properly.
You and I (and the Pope, for that matter) can recognize the utterance as a christian sin. But from a theological (as opposed to dogmatic) point of view, “sin” is defined differently by different faiths. Your absolute assertion that it is a sin is dogmatic - you adhere to your definition of sin, no matter the context.
The assertion, no matter that I agree with it, is insufficient to address the theological debate I was proposing. Because this debate must be predicated on balancing one religion’s tenets against another’s, the dogmatic assertion of primacy of christianity is unsupportable - on an academic level.
The debate has nothing to do with feelings - it has to do with the definition of “sin”.
“The debate has nothing to do with feelings - it has to do with the definition of “sin”.”
If you say so. I like to present God’s law as absolute, and the God of the Bible as the only true God. I don’t like to go along with different presuppositions. For instance, I don’t like to conjecture, what if there is a different God? Or what if God’s law isn’t in the Bible? Or so on.
I am a big fan of absolute truth.
For what it is worth, sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.