I'm not even sure I understand the Judeo-Christian concept of "sin", other than an action that is against your nature, and which distances you from God. As such, it seems to be extremely subjective, though (which in a way is rational and good). Going against our nature, however, implies we understand our nature fully, which a psychologist might tell you is near impossible. To further complicate the matter, we are every changing and evolving -thus, our nature changes. Second, if we <<are>> god(s) (if God is <<everything>> and <<all>>, it follows that we are "bits of God"), it would seem impossible for ANYTHING to ever bring us away from God, making it therefore impossible to sin, at least according to the definition above. Furthermore, I've never fully understood why Jesus' death was necessary or even "good". The better angle of the story I've heard is that without dying, he could have not resurrected; and his resurrection showed humanity that death can be conquered and overcome. However, this was already clear from the resurrection of Lazarus, and could have been shown through the resurrection of other people who died (people die all the time). Anyway, the whole "dying for your sins" rhetoric makes little to no sense to me as it seems to serve no reasonable practical purpose. On another note, Harvard scholars have put forth alternative theories based on historical evidence that Jesus was simply a zealous jew, a rebel against the Roman Empire, who was crucified by the romans because of his insurgent zeal (this makes sense, from a historical point of view).