Sin

In the post below, when I rendered the older translation into contemporary English, I substituted transgression for sin. 

Sin in modern English is strongly identified with a Christian worldview, in which I'm sure there is a lot of merit, but that is not what I understand Marcus Aurelius to be making reference to. There is of course the original Latin, which does indeed use the word sin; however, this is not helpful. The question is not translation. Sin in pre-Christian Latin can't be imputed as having a Christian worldview merely because it does so in contemporary English. The question is, what did the word mean to Marcus Aurelius as a Stoic in the second century Roman Empire? 

(Consider the slippery world of word usage: 'Genius' seems to have been used at least from the Elizabethan era into the nineteenth century as a metaphor drawn from Roman religion, to mean the animating spirit of person or place. This usage has disappeared entirely and the word is now restricted to 'prodigy', 'rare intellectual ability' and like meanings.)

This got me thinking about the differences between the worldview of Marcus Aurelius, as revealed in Meditations and that of Christianity, to the extent I understand the two of them. There is a level of abstraction on which all systems of thought converge. I don't mean that; I mean, on the plane of specifics. 

In the following, I use 'Stoicism' as shorthand for the individual viewpoint of Marcus Aurelius, as expressed in Meditations. I attempt to compare neutrally. 

1. The divine. In Christianity, God is a god of infinite love and omnipotence, but also of lawgiving and final judgment. In Stoicism, it is ultimately unknown if the gods exist or to what extent they have power to affect events, but if they do exist, they are most likely beings of greater forgiveness, tolerance, and nonjudgment. If the gods are evil, they should not be followed or worshiped. 

2. Salvation (i.e., life after death).  In Christianity, Jesus Christ is the medium between an irreconcilably sinful and rebellious human spirit and the perfect divine. Salvation depends on availing oneself of the medium. In Stoicism, there isn't a medium; if the gods and souls exist, salvation is simply through the gods' greater virtues, in spite of individual human failings. 

3. Sin. In Christianity, sin has a fixed reality. Subjective perception has a role to play in promoting understanding in human relations, but not to undermine God's law, the source of morality. The practical implications of the Christian worldview are that one should eschew sin because of God. In Stoicism, virtue and morality do not derive from the gods. Sin exists relatively, but it is a matter of subjective perspective. The practical implications of the existence or nonexistence of the gods are nearly identical--one should live a virtuous life.

I have an opinion about which one is correct, but I will omit my conclusions. I don't see how this would be a virtue for me if I went about advancing my favorite system of thought and telling other people that theirs is wrong. There are many systems of thought and there have been for a long time. This is just how the world works.