How do natural law conceptions of sin and legalistic definitions of crime differ? Natural rights or unlienable rights derive from natural law. What are unalienable rights?

Name
Course
Tutor
Date
How do natural law conception of sin and legalistic definition of crime differ?
To be able to differentiate the two terms we need to understand what each means. Natural law conception of sin a rule of morals and behaviors established by God to human relations to abide by. Natural laws are basically founded according to the will of Creator and are alongside with its principles and divine revelation. Essentially, natural law conception of sin is based on the moral belief systems mostly in churches and what Christian belief to be a sin. Legalistic definition of crime is viewed as a deviant behavior which violates the individual rights. Paul Tappan also defines it as an intentional act which violates the criminal law which committed without justification and termed as a felony by the state. These rights include the natural rights also known as unalienable rights which are God-given and every human being is equally created meaning every individual is entitled to these rights no matter rich or poor which include liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness.
The difference between natural law conception of sin and legalistic definition of crime basically on morals. Crime is the violation of individual rights while God establishes natural laws and whoever defiles natural law commits a sin. Thus sin is the violation of Gods morals which aid in the divine revelation which is taught in churches. Crimes are committed by individuals who do not adhere to common laws of a nation.

Thus no law of a nation which is legal if it violates the natural laws founded by God. The other difference between the two terms is based on the punishment if an individual commit either sin or crime. A person found guilty of a crime is sentences in imprisonment while an individual who sins can be excommunicated from the church or society (Bielefeldt and Heiner, 95).
Work cited
Bielefeldt, Heiner. “western” versus “Islamic” Human Rights Conception? A Critique of Cultural Essentialism in the discussion on Human Rights.” Political theory, 28.1 (2000): 90-121