You don't believe that one's conscience could lead one to, for instance, retrieve an escaped slave or euthanize something or someone hastily (or not euthanize where it should be done)?

You don't believe that one's conscience could lead one to, for instance, retrieve an escaped slave or euthanize something or someone hastily — BitconnectCarlos

Retrieve an escaped slave - possibly, but it's a stretch. Slave-catchers were mostly bounty hunters who did it for money.
Euthanize something or someone - very likely, if something (I assume by this you mean an animal) or someone were in extreme pain and distress. Hastily? Do you mean, while they could still be saved and repaired? Possibly, but that would be due to poor medical judgment rather than conscience. I don't call that an atrocity.

(or not euthanize where it should be done) — BitconnectCarlos

That's much tougher. Many - I mean, really, very many - people still believe in the Biblical god who arrogates all death-dealing to himself alone. They would be afraid to kill anyone who simply desired to be relieved of life. Oddly enough, a large percentage of these god-fearing people are comfortable with the idea of capital punishment - that, too, is in the Bible.
But there is a divide between approving of a deed and doing the deed yourself. Many people who support assisted suicide in theory could not bring themselves to administer the lethal dose. It's not just a matter of conscience; there is also sensibility and courage to consider. It can be a very hard decision.

Nonetheless, if sin is in fact some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God, then it’s impossible for me (and for most people, I’d argue) to KNOWINGLY sin. — Art48

Stop boasting. You've just committed the sin of pride, one of the seven deadly sins. Besides, you'll sin regardless of whether you do so knowingly.

You don't have to knowingly sin to be sinful. You're tainted with the proclivity to sin by virtue of being born. You're going to sin whether you know it or not; just as you'll die whether you want to or not.

What makes you think God must reveal his will to you, by the way, before you can sin? Are you Moses, to be favored with a divine revelation? Might not God's will be made manifest without the need for a visitation?

If conscience is thought of as a sort of "set of moral first principles," à la Aquinas, it seems possible to explain how people can often get things so wrong when it comes to judgements about politics.

Conscience has the easiest time connecting to proper judgment/discernment when we do not have to reason very far from "first principles." E.g., in simple cases of child abuse, armed robbery, etc., it is relatively easy to make judgements about which acts are morally unacceptable. The realm of international politics is significantly more murky, both due to its complexity, the trade-offs faced by policymakers, its unpredictability, and due to the problem of most people not being particularly well informed about issues they take a stand on.

People often base their claims in these cases on things that are shown to be patently false. Here, to the degree the individual can be held responsible, the defect isn't so much in conscience as in theoretical reason and epistemic virtue (both of which are ultimately necessary for proper moral judgement).

Whether by official definitions of sin, or my own expectations for moral behavior, I'm a sinner. I have sinned. Just guessing, but all 8 billion of us fail to meet either an official standard of goodness or our own, whatever that may be. We are flawed creatures who try to be good most of the time, except when we are not.

Norman Greenbaum's contribution to sin or sinlessness was published in 1969, his only hit "Spirit In The Sky.

Never been a sinner, I never sinned
I got a friend in Jesus
So you know that when I die
He's gonna set me up
with the spirit in the sky — Greenbaum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZQxH_8raCI

I love the song, and I like his assertion that he is sinless and never sinned. It belongs to a period of Hippiedom in which this sort of deep positive self-regard could pass without deep frowns and raised eyebrows, at least among the Hippie peers.

Such a statement would definitely not fly in the Protestant / Catholic milieu in which I was raised, in which we are rotten to the core with sin, a view which is not altogether helpful.

Whether by official definitions of sin, or my own expectations for moral behavior, I'm a sinner. I have sinned. Just guessing, but all 8 billion of us fail to meet either an official standard of goodness or our own, whatever that may be. We are flawed creatures who try to be good most of the time, except when we are not. — BC

The most ironic part of that is the people who try hardest to refrain from sinning also set their standard higher than those whose conscience is quiescent and acquiescent. The most decent people I've known tended to fret over every minor infraction, while the most corrupt not only forgive themselves but expect forgiveness from their victims.

Nor would it fly in Jewish circles. I'll hear this song and think to myself "no way." Paul is right when he says all have sinned. But Judaism doesn't say we're all rotten to the core with sin. As long as your good deeds outnumber your sins you're considered righteous. :ok:

So just do more good than bad. But Paul falls short in many ways and he knows he's gonna need a lot of grace and a lot of faith.

Paul says a lot of things I don't much like. I like the idea that one's good deeds should outnumber one's bad deeds. That is something we flawed creatures can manage.

Rather than keep score, how about we just try to avoid doing whenever possible and do a good turn whenever we can afford to?

The most decent people I've known tended to fret over every minor infraction — Vera Mont

Yes. The most corrupt behave abominably. But fretting over trivial infractions (and confusing etiquette with morality) isn't healthy either. Endless fretting can exhaust people, and hobble their ability to focus on the basics of loving their neighbors.

Well, sure; we aren't supposed to 'keep score" such that 5 good deeds allows a couple more bad deeds.

Paul says a lot of things I don't much like. I like the idea that one's good deeds should outnumber one's bad deeds. That is something we flawed creatures can manage. — BC

I also do not agree with everything that Paul says nor do I believe his word should be taken as absolute truth. That's Jewish tradition. Paul has always seemed to me a very flawed person trying to make the best of his situation.

But fretting over trivial infractions (and confusing etiquette with morality) isn't healthy either. Endless fretting can exhaust people, and hobble their ability to focus on the basics of loving their neighbors. — BC

Very true. It's difficult to maintain a healthy balance. I suppose 'fret' was not the most accurate word I could have chosen. I meant little mean acts, like passing on gossip or voicing a negative comment on someone's demeanour or taste, taking the last cookie, 'forgetting' to clean the catbox, keeping the felt pen that one overlooked in the shopping cart and didn't pay for. I've known a few people who would really feel guilty about those things - me, I'm a small-time but laid-back sinner; I know it was wrong, but if no great harm came of it, I keep truckin.

Perhaps he should have stuck with tent making.

Well, Christianity is known as a pretty big tent.

Perhaps, but then I don't think we have Christianity given Paul's role in spreading it. I wasn't raised Christian so I don't have that baggage. I understand though that many Christians focus quite strongly on Paul's views and place them essentially on par with Jesus's word.

I understand though that many Christians focus quite strongly on Paul's views and place them essentially on par with Jesus's word. — BitconnectCarlos

Above. Moses', too. Jesus tends to get shoved into the background in much of Christian practice.

Perhaps, but then I don't think we have Christianity given Paul's role in spreading it. — BitconnectCarlos

That's an intriguing thought experiment.

Maybe not relevant. In the Greek Christian bible the usual words for sin are ἁμαρτάνω - amartano. Usually defined as I miss the mark or more generally fail in some way. The noun being ἁματία - amartia - missing the mark, or failing. This consistent with the ancient notion that success was the measure of the man.

This consistent with the ancient notion that success was the measure of the man. — tim wood

Success at what? Might it not mean failing at the attainment of virtue, or missing the standard one sets for one's own behaviour?

No. The good king was the king who defeated the enemy and protected his own, and so forth. Failure in these meant he was a bad king. The good and attaining virtue having nothing to do with it.

The good king was the king who defeated the enemy and protected his own, and so forth. Failure in these meant he was a bad king. — tim wood

It is not, and never was, that simple. The ancient Greeks were far more subtle in their thinking, far more canny in their understanding of psychology. (Actually, all the ancients were.)
The good king defends his people, yes, but not all by himself: he has to earn the trust and loyalty of his generals and troops; he has to treat people fairly and stay in favour with his gods and bring prosperity. That takes a whole lot more than just military might or clever strategy: that means you have to 'man up' to the job. (That's also what it meant to the Judeans in the OT, why the prophets kept upbraiding their kings for laxity.)
But then, not everyone's a king, yet everyone is capable of sin, of error, and incompetence, hubris, ill intention, transgression - everyone can fail at something : hamartano "go wrong".
.

but not all by himself: he has to earn the trust and loyalty of his generals and troops; he has to treat people fairly and stay in favour with his gods and bring prosperity. — Vera Mont

Just like Agamemnon. By no means do I disagree with you; indeed I suspect much Greek virtue did not originate with them. That is, it is not that simple - and never was. But the plain fact is that there is an evolution of ethics/morality - evolution not quite the right word - and it is no small mistake to suppose that they then felt, thought, and reasoned as we now, especially if we make the related error of thinking that we sit at the apex of ethical/moral development that pointed at us all along. Evidence of these conclusions abounding in ancient literature, and still present in literature not-so-ancient. What do you imagine "miss-the-mark" means?

If God wills that one of his creatures commit a sin, then that creature must do so — Vera Mont

Some theists will object that it is impossible, as sin is that which is against god's will.

What do you imagine "miss-the-mark" means? — tim wood

Aim incorrectly, possibly at the wrong target; lose sight of the essentials - the phrase is capable of some complexity. In religious societies, getting it right, or hitting the mark, would necessarily include mindfulness of the deity's or deities' requirements. A Mesoamerican ruler would need to pierce his own tongue or whatever body part, to win favour with his gods. So, religious ritual and observance was a very large part of successful kingship.
You still don't see an American president or candidate failing to mention God in a speech, or asking for God's blessing on his nation.

Some theists will object that it is impossible, as sin is that which is against god's will. — Lionino

Yes, they love their vicious circles. I especially like when they excoriate the American natives' practice of human sacrifice, without the slightest twinge of irony.

I especially like when they excoriate the American natives' practice of human sacrifice — Vera Mont

I am not aware of any American natives doing human sacrifices today. I went to Argentina just last year and people's bodily autonomy seemed to be respected overall. But I heard it happens sometimes in Haiti, so they may have a point.

I am not aware of any American natives doing human sacrifices today. — Lionino

It happened 500 years ago, so what? It's still held up as a good excuse for Christian nations to invade and colonize the Americas.

I think we went through that colonisation thing before, including the Church's role in fighting slavery. But all my ancestors come from the Europes, so you may ask an indian instead.

But all my ancestors come from the Europes, so you may ask an indian instead. — Lionino

I'm not asking; just musing on the different/similar belief systems of empires: Inca, Roman, British, Mughal, Songhai...