What came first? The Sin or the Sinner?

Which came first?

Impossible to answer, but you can try. It’s like asking “Which came first-the chicken or the egg?” :slight_smile: Peace.

I find the question rather vague. If you’re asking which existed first, obviously the sinner existed first, because he existed before he sinned, bringing the sin into existence.

I don’t really understand the merit of the question.

Seriously? And I wonder at the reasoning behind, or the usefulness of the polls.

obviously both at the same time,
As Jesus said, “Sin is conceived in the heart.”

If a person wilfully decides for a mortal sin, in freedom and full knowledge, they have both sinned in the mind mortally and become a sinner at the same time, just through the mind, before the action has even been carried out.

It’s like when someone officially signs up and wins a place in the Olympics, they become an Olympian at that moment that they qualify.

Sin did not exist until the angels and man existed and choose to sin.

And is not “a thing”.

Well, obviously other posters disagree with you, so its not as “obvious” you claim.

I do not really understand why you commented with a answer on this thread if you are not capable of understanding the question.

WOW!!! This is not the way to gain friends and influence people! :frowning:

Hmm, interesting attitude there. Are you even interested in receiving meaningful answers to your poll and thread? I made it clear by my post that I found the question vague, and so I gave a conditional answer, and you saw fit to respond like this?

Better would be to clarify your poll so that people understand how it is meaningful. And don’t respond with snarkiness when **three **posters apparently found your poll confusing or otherwise unanswerable.

Ok lets take a look.

  1. Yes I wanted answers, that is why I asked the poll. You felt the need to insult my intelligence by stating my question had no merit.

  2. You found the question vague, yet you still said the answer was obvious. Great Logic. And other posters did not find the question vague, they may have not known the answer, but did not accuse me of being vague. Yet the answer was “obvious” to you.

  3. Once again no one else except for you is complaining that the poll is vague. Their is a difference between not knowing and being confused by a question.

And finally why are you so intent on starting a fight with me my friend?

Why comment if you have nothing serious to comment.

Ok, this is silly. I don’t think you even read my post carefully. In my first post I said: “If you’re asking which existed first, obviously the sinner existed first, because he existed before he sinned, bringing the sin into existence.”

That was a conditional answer. I was answering the poll question in the context of that possible meaning, and I hoped that you would respond to tell me if that was what you were asking, or if you were asking the question in a different context.

Also observe that the first three responses to your thread indicated that the poll had insufficient information to make an accurate answer. The first responder said it was “impossible to answer”, and the third responder didn’t seem to think the poll had much merit either.

I never explicitly insult someone’s intelligence. If your ego feels hurt because I pointed out vagueness in your poll question, I’m sorry that happened, but I can’t take any responsibility for it. You are the person who posted the poll, and you are the person who got defensive when issues were pointed out.

This is an anonymous forum, and it’s hard to get to know people properly, so I am very slow to make judgements of others here. I think you’re most likely a decent person, and I won’t begin to think otherwise based on just a few conflicts. I never think less of someone who merely has a different opinion or belief than my own, because that is common.

Keep in mind that even when you disagree with someone, you should make the utmost effort to help the conversation move forward towards something profitable, as opposed to just arguing or getting defensive.

I choose the sin because without the sin of pride, the devil would not have fallen and would not have tempted Eve.

Sin is not some substance that exists. It’s a word used to describe disunion with the good, with God. That state happened at the same time the the first sin was committed. It happened simultaneously with a person becoming a sinner.

Ok. However there are people on this thread who disagree with you, So instead of just saying the answer is obvious, and that the original question has no merit, Perhaps you would be willing to explain your question in greater detail.

I was asking if Sin existed before the Devil (The Sinner) committed the first sin.

Once again you fail to make a distinction between “Impossible to answer” and vague. Lets look at the question “Is Hitler in Hell?”. It is impossible to answer, but in no way vague. The third res ponder had nothing serious to add to the discussion and in no way explained why the question was ridiculous.

I can take your personal attacks, I am not a delicate little flower. If you feel the need to pick apart every thread then that is on you, not me. Once again the poll is not vague, just because you cannot answer the question does not make it vague.

Agreed, I think you probably are a good person as well. However I think you are quick to use personal attacks when their is a simple disagreement.

Agreed, but when you hijack my thread with technicalities, I am bound to get a little irate.

I think you are splitting hairs and making a big deal out of little things, such as the wording of my posts. I’m not interested in continuing to talk about your apparent frustration with my posts.

I am interested in continuing to talk about the topic of the thread, which you have finally given some clarity to:

I was asking if Sin existed before the Devil (The Sinner) committed the first sin

I can work with this. Let’s start with the definition of sin, according to St. Thomas Aquinas:

Sin is a word, deed, or desire, contrary to the eternal law. (ST I-II Q71 A6).

If one uses this definition, then before Lucifer committed the first sin, sin did not exist. No one had yet done any act which was contrary to Divine Law. When Lucifer sinned, he brought that first sin into existence.

Therefore, the “Sinner” existed before the “Sin”. The “Sinner” may not have been a sinner until the moment he committed the sin, but he still existed before the sin existed.

To address the question, would you say sin exists in the frutit of the tree of the knowledge of good and.evil? Then we could say sin existed first. Perhaps the serpent had his fill of the fruit even before setting up Adam and Eve. If we say sin.is the movement away from God, involving free will, then it was latent before creation, possible at the creation of the first being with free will and actual in the fall.

Peace, Again is say Peace+

Agreed, lets put the earlier part of the conversation behind us.

Shouldnt have God known about the concept of sin, or at least know that one day someone would break his word and commit sin. He would have known about sin before the sinner commited the sin. But since the sinner had not actally sinned yet, the sin came first.

It seems that sin gives rise to law, is there any need for law if there is no sin to be prohibited? So Paul says-
To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, RM 5 13

Yes, God knew that sin would be committed, but that does not bring sin into existence.

Since you are asking if sin **existed **before the sinner who committed it, we are treating with matters of existence, not of whether it was known by God before it existed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.