Sin is not dependent on morality.

Since sin is a spiritual sickness, it is essentially related to the self and its dialectical status. Sin in the most basic sense arises out of the despair in the self, and consciousness of this sin comes only though awareness of the eternal and spiritual aspect of the self. Scriptually speaking, the Old Testament Jews were only vaguely aware of sin and was not formally introduced until the life of Jesus. The knights of the Jewish faith, the Pharisees, were exalted through the Old Testament conception of sin but was scorned under Christ.

For sin was just this: the breaking of the law. A complex system of social and legal rules were established to punish those who sinned, and those who kept the law were in the sight of God considered upright and perfect. For adam and eve, the sin was not found in listening to the Devil or even having the intention of eating the fruit, but when they physically ate of the fruit (thereby transgressing God's law). Now, as a set of moral constructs that form a lawful society this external conception of sin is both adequate and effective, but it did not correclty describe this spiritual sickness called sin.

Jesus did not come to overthrow this morality, but to internalize the notion of sin based on how it affects and controls our self (spirit). Through a series of ethical fine-tunings in the jewish law (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 43-44) Christ had shown that sin is not related to the external act of breaking God's law but the spiritual condiiton that acts in defiance to the reality of God (whether conscious or ignorant of the existence of God). Sin becomes not dependent on morality (morality defined in the narrow sense of external action). This, however, does not exclude morality from sin but gives morality a significant part in constituting sin. As Jesus quipped, "by their fruits ye shall know them" (matthew 7:20). Thus the definition of sin found in the last post:

"before God, or with the conception of God, in despair not wanting to be oneself, or wanting in despair to be oneself"

is entirely consistent with the idea that Christianity is an existential communication, since the self expresses itself existentially. For example, sexual lust will often lead to sexual immorality, blood lust will often lead to violence, greed will often lead to theft or exploitation, and even if it dosen't such things are a vice to the self. A self that is in despair will most likely produce these vices, and a self that is affirmed will imitate Christ through existential selflessness. The expression of the self is existential by nature, and in this sense morality is closely married to sin but neither are dependent on the other.

Sin not being dependent on morality gives us the ability to "have our cake and eat it too", meaning we can explain both internal and external despair, and also morality can be given unlimited signifiance within the notion of sin. However, if sin is then taken to be dependent on morality the self is ignored in despair. The self is ignored out of the lack of their being sinfulness within the despair of the self before God, and thus salvation from real sin never occurs since the self is always in despair (even when 'saved' from moral sin).

I believe it important for sin and morality to have separation in the technical sense, but as has been elaborated on earlier the existential shows what we actually are spiritually. Nevertheless, the diagnosis of humanity's spiritual sickness is not moral in essence. It is related to the self and the self's relationship with God, which, quite paradoxically, is expressed existentially (but not existential in nature).