Bethberry,
I think you've hit the nail on the hand when you draw attention to the connotations of the word "sin". It's possible to have a simple definition of sin that only mentions the commission of illegal or immoral actions. But even if we lay aside questions of depravity or deliberate intention, there is another thorny question involved. Most definitions of "sin" have a religious underpining and are inextricably tied to the concept of God.
Here are some definitions:
Quote:
answer.com: A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
Theology.
Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.
Columbia Uni. Press: sin, in religion, unethical act. The term implies disobedience to a personal God, as in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and is not used so often in systems such as Buddhism where there is no personal divinity.
Britannica: Wrongdoing, particularly the breaking of moral or religious rules. In the Hebrew scriptures, sin is viewed as a hatred of God or defiance of his commandments. The New Testament regards sinfulness as the inherent state of humanity, which Jesus came into the world to heal. Christian theologians divide sin into actual and original sin. Actual sin, consisting of evil acts, words, and deeds, is in turn divided into mortal sin, in which the perpetrator deliberately turns away from God, and venial sin, a less serious transgression committed without full awareness of wrongdoing.
|
If we accept definitions like these, then we've got a problem that is much bigger than Frodo. Since sin requires disobedience to or estrangement from God and/or disobedience to the known will of God, I don't see how Frodo or any other man of the Third or Fourth Age could possibly sin. There was such a huge gulf between Eru and his created world. How can you hate God or reject his will when you don't even know him or his commandments?
God's commandments may be etched in men's hearts as moral law, but men of Arda had little sense of where those commandments were coming from. It would be possible for a Valar or a Maier to sin, or perhaps even a being like an Elf or Balrog who had once lived in the Blessed Lands and had more of an idea who Eru was. But how can we hold men of Middle-earth accountable in terms of deliberate sin when knowledge of God was so limited to them? Men knew more about the Dark Lord and his minions than they did about Eru or the Vala. This isn't surprising since the former regularly showed their faces in the world, while the latter had almost wholly withdrawn by the beginning of the Third Age. Men and women of Arda could actively fight for evil or good, transgress or uphold the innate moral code, or display character flaws, but they could not sin in the way we use that word, even a lowlife like Wormtongue.
Just consider this discussion in terms of Frodo. The closest that Frodo came to knowing "God" was seeing the light reflected in the eyes of the Elves or having deep discussions with Gandalf. Most hobbits and men wouldn't even have known that much. When Frodo saw the men of Gondor stand at the table and turn to face Numenor and the West in the manner of a blessing (Eru isn't even mentioned, mind you!), he felt ashamed for his lack of knowledge. How could God hold man accountable for that which he doesn't know? As to what happened to Frodo in the Blessed Lands, whether his understanding and knowledge increased, that is a story that we can only guess at.
P.S. If someone wants to hold my feet to the fire and insist I use the term, I'd prefer the Catholic concept of 'venial sin'.