Greed, lust, sloth, etc may be the initial way to answer the question of what sin is. And to be sure, these are real things. Looking at Wall Street might show evidence of greed. The fact that the porn industry is booming might be evidence to suggest sexual lust is in high gear. Look at how much time is wasted by people on blogs and facebook (click here to see all my firends and read my status updates ;-)) and perhaps it could be said sloth is infecting us...and let's throw in some hypocisy...just for full disclosure on my part.
I do not contest these as sin. But maybe I do a little bit. What if greed and sloth and lust etc are not so much sin itself, but rather they are outcomes of sin? What if sin is more like a web of influences? What if sin is an ubiquitous, but nuanced, network of forces which work against humans being fully human? Could it be that when we try not being greedy or selfish we are still not getting at the source? Could it be that in trying to be good by not being bad as defined by what I am calling the outcomes of sin, that we remain fully vulnerable to fall into another part of the network of forces which is sin?
Furthermore, what if the power of this de-humanizing network of forces I am referring to as sin is difficult to detect or avoid? What if it is everywhere you ahve been or will go? What if this network of forces is "The Matrix" in a sense - a simulacra of life meant to provide a minimally acceptable experience of life which would for the most part suffice most people, but systematically de-humanize people, degrading their free will, their capacity to give and receive love, and slowly separate people from their ability to know and be known?
Is this is sin, then I need rescue more than I ever believed I ever did.
If this perspective more closely approximated the truth of sin, I wonder what the implications would be for defining morality. How would this more nuanced and mystrious view of sin influence how people lived and treated each other?