Interesting question.  Tthe short answer to your question is yes, I believe all men are sinners (with the exception of Christ himself who was true God and true man) and that sin is part of the human condition.  Having said that, I qualify my answer within the context of the nature of sin itself.

Sin is a philosophical, more specifically, a Theological concept of moral evil and not as my athiest daughter reminds me, a legal concept.  Thus, as a moral evil, sin may encompass rule-breaking, but is not necessarily defined by it.  For instance, my Catholic faith tradition sees abortion and artificial contraception as sins despite their legality in most countries.   

There is a lengthy academic discussion of the nature of sin here that outlines the church's teaching better and more succinctly than I can here.  Ultimately, it comes down to this.  If you believe in a loving God who has an ongoing relationship with mankind, and this God has laid out his expectations for that relationship (according to your faith tradition) then those things which damage (minor evil) or destroy (major evil) that relationship constitute sin. 

With respect to Weiner, it's not about rationalizing that all men are sinners and we should forgive and forget.  Weiner's sins are between him and God.  His rule-breaking is not.  Divine forgiveness relieves him of the guilt of sin, but not the consequences of sin (damage to his marital relationship) or his rule-breaking (lying and poor judgment) for which he owes reparation.

My question is:  Do you, as a religious man, believe all men are sinners?  That they cannot help but be sinners?  And, what is the nature of sin?

The answer to the last question defines the first two, yes? Of course, saints and philosophers have been arguing about these concepts for centuries.

Your question was aimed at Mike, of course, but I hope you don't mind my jumping in. As a lapsed Catholic myself, I've struggled with this conundrum.

It may sound simplistic, but I think it all really does boil down to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Did Weiner sin? If you believe his activities hurt someone, then the answer is yes. I think we can safely assume he hurt his wife. He may also have hurt the women he was corresponding with, inasmuch as he might have lied about his marriage or his intentions (although he doesn't seem to have worried overmuch about identifying himself). He most liklely hurt many of his supporters and constituents, who may have believed him to be a trustworthy person, and who may have believed his lies about his Twitter account being hacked and defended him. He also, clearly, hurt himself -- he's now out of a job, he's opened himself to much public ridicule and disgust, and his marriage may end -- not to mention the fact that he let down his constituents and colleagues.

Whether or not he hurt God -- well, that would be between the two of them.

Do your actions hurt others? That seems to me to be the main component of sin. Murder, rape, theft, infidelity -- all these have definite victims. Suicide is trickier, but you could argue that you hurt those loved ones you leave behind, who may blame themselves. Lying, inasmuch as it hurts others or covers up other sins, seems to fall under the same category.

Seems to me most of the commandments were pretty good ones, but I tend to disregard the ones about keeping the Sabbath and taking the Lord's name in vain. And I tend to think the last two are kind of impossible: You might not be able to help coveting your neighbor's wife or his goods. The sin, it seems more sensibly to me, is acting on that impulse by actually taking his wife or goods.

Henry, I don't mind you jumping in.  Ever.

I think I have a similar view to Henry's.  I certainly do not believe that man is born with the stain of "original sin."  I cannot see how a deity can say, "Go forth, be fruitful, and multiply," and then, in the next breath say, "But, those mutiplying-type activities will stain both you, and your fruit." 

I guess I disagree with those who cast "the big net" when it comes to defining sin.  I also cannot accept the maxim that "all men are sinners."  If there is no stain of original sin, how can Mother Teresa be a sinner?  I mean, I doubt she ever felt an uncontrollable urge to jerk Brad Pitt's pants around his ankles, or thought, "I would really like to have enough money to live in Trump Towers, because I covet the luxury and possessions of those who do."  I doubt she was a thief or a murderer.  I just don't think she thought, or acted that way.  In other words, I would not label her a "sinner."  If she was not a sinner, the whole concept of "all men are sinners" goes out the window.  I just can't agree with a big enough net to find some minor technicality in order to label Mother Teresa a "sinner."

By the way, I'm headed to the Ozarks for a few days, so it may be a while before I can get back to this.

Alan,

We have different perceptions of original sin.  Original sin refers to man's sinful nature--his propensity for choosing self instead of God.  It is the human condition itself.  That self-centerness that is manifested when man is inspired to actions that indulge or advance oneself personally at the expense of others, including God.  Overcoming "self" and sacrifice are learned and free-will chosen behaviors that transcend sin.

And yes, if you could talk to Mother Theresa she would tell you that she too was a sinner.   In her own words,

"I must go to confession with love because I have an opportunity to make my soul clean, to become pure.”

“It is a place where I allow Jesus to take away from me everything that divides, destroys.”

“Only to confession can we go as sinners with sin and come out as sinners without sin.”

 

Pope John Paul II recognized his sinfulness and went to confession daily.   There was a time when he had been ill and his attendant told him, "I'm worried about your Holiness."  He replied, "I too am worried about my holiness."  He recognized truth that the nature of sin was not only in what he had done, but also in what he failed to do.    

Mike,

I have a feeling Mother Teresa and the Pope use a bigger net to define sin than I do.

Mike,

Let me take this in pieces:

Since "sin" is a theological concept, not a legal one, who better to define it than a theologian?

Since theologians are "supposedly" the epitome of devout piety, asking them to be the ones to decide if we are sinners is like going to a hypochondriac to find out if we are sick.  I can't help laughing at the thought of being the priest for the Pope's confession...

"Forgive me Father, for I have sinned."

"What are these sins, my son?"

"I only spent forty five seconds brushing my teeth this morning, instead of two minutes.  And last night, as I said evening prayers, my heart was not really in it."

"You call that sinning?  Hell, you shoulda seen the long weekend we spent camping with a case of whiskey and them sorority girls.  THAT was some sinning!"

I do agree that actions which hurt others could/should fall into the category of "sin."  However, I would add the caveat that the hurtful action must be intentional.  If I accidentally drive a car over your foot, that's not a sin.  If I do it on purpose, it is.  You have to know you are doing something wrong, or at the very least, you have to fall into the legal category we use to arrest people for hunting over bait:  "Known, or should have known."

...dumb-ass stuff we humans do...

That there, my friend, is a category broad enough to cover a whole lot more than what I would consider "sins."  I should have been dead three times in my youth.  I was dead for a few minutes once.  But youthful stupidity is not always "sinful."  Sometimes, it's just exactly what it is... youthful stupidity and ignorance.  Sometimes you just have a firm belief in invincibility.  I used to say it would take three silver bullets to kill me.  I'm pretty sure I used up two of 'em already.  I'm certain I used one.  But it was not because I was sinning.  I just never thought "Hey, this shit could kill us."  Harmful intent was absent.

Enjoy the beauty of the Ozarks.  If you can't see the hand of God there, you need glasses. :-)

I did enjoy the beauty of the geology, chemistry, and evolution on display. 

And I was wearing glasses. :)

I did enjoy the beauty of the geology, chemistry, and evolution on display.

Incredible photos!  Thanks for sharing.  I'm sure God enjoyed creating the geology, chemistry, and evolution that made that beauty possible for you to enjoy.

But to address the thread, let me offer some thoughts.  A theologian's job is to explore (push) the envelope of our understanding of theological concepts.  That can make them damned unpopular with the institutional church.  Theology itself is most often defined (in Theological circles) as, "Faith seeking understanding."  With that in mind, I agree you do not go to a Theologian to determine if you are a sinner.  But you do go to them to explore the limits of the nature of sin as a philosophical concept.  Whether that exploration leads to a conclusion of applicability to any particular person lies in the conscience of that person him(her)self. In other words,I think its safe to say that a theologian would comment on the nature of sin, not whether any specific person is a sinner.

However, I would add the caveat that the hurtful action must be intentional.

Absolutely!  That is consistent with church teaching as well.  Sin must be consciously chosen.  It is a willful rejection of God's law.  Intent matters as you rightly pointed out. That pretty much eliminates your examples of papal sin as frivolous.  It's also the reason the church's stand on suicide has changed over the years to recognize that they "may" not have possessed the ability to make a fully willful, conscious decision to kill themselves.  The church does not therefore, make any judgments whether their actions were sinful.  That is God's job, not the church.