[@LokiLeo789] Didn't I once go on a tangent regarding what sin is, properly speaking? It's not so much the thing we call a 'sin' itself which makes 'sins' bad (i.e. killing someone on it's own isn't really a sin, it's just an action which may or may not be viewed as immoral).
What makes a sin a sin is the intention to disobey a higher being (i.e. God, a god, a higher being of some kind which has ultimate authority). Sin is merely the intentional disobedience of the command of said higher being.

So, if a higher being tells you that eating burgers is prohibited, and you go and eat a burger despite knowing of that command, then you have sinned. If you eat a burger by accident, or are not aware of the command, then you cannot be said to have sinned (though your culture or whatever may view eating burgers as immoral or encouraged or whatnot.) It seems like a straightforward and rather uncomplicated understanding of sin, especially since the term is so heavily connoted with religion in general (we don't hear people arguing that murder is sinful so much nowadays, it's more the 'immorality' of it that is highlighted, and morality is very much a relativistic construct, man-made but most likely influenced by religion in most, if not all, cases).

[quote=Kho Paraphrasing Abelard Ages Ago]If you read Peter Abelard's [i]Ethics[/i], where the nature of sin is discussed, you'll find therein a very convincing definition of sin, that is: a sin is where one consents to doing something which they know is wrong, or which they know God disapproves of, and in so consenting they are in fact showing contempt to God. It is this consent and contempt which is the true sin, and not the action itself. Thus, where one commits adultery, it is not the act of sleeping with another man's wife which is the sin, but the mental consent to doing what God disapproves of, and thus the contempt of God shown by such consent. Where one commits adultery and such consent does not exist, and thus no contempt, one cannot be said to have sinned. [/quote]