I see sin as misplacing. Now you may call it sin if you are a committed Christian otherwise it’s the name I give to everything that’s un-comfortable for the human being in different instances of his/her life.
There was always in the human history a quest for putting things “right” , in their places. The need for square, simple things is not a sign of weakness or God forbid, idiocy, but a sign of a healthy constitution.
Then if you want to find “normality” you look for (en)closures – the square, the box, the borders, the systems, the synthesis, the laws all come in handy. Almost inevitable, the laws of nature (again?) are pushing them through.
Freedom on the other hand has always been seen as ambiguous at best, two-sided option or even evil. At any rate it is mainly seen as opposing the rules, the square, the closing in. The Christian story of the falling angel who ended up the enemy of God tells us about his temptation to get out of the “square box” that being God’s servant forever and ever was and to try to be more than he was meant to be.
No surprises then if Christian high ranks for centuries saw the freedom of spirit as a danger to the believer and ultimately to the Church. That this freedom would have endangered their own comfortable privileges is another story.
This “later days” we are living in, the danger comes more and more from the growing sense of freedom not against Church’s rules and practices, and doctrines but outside them. As they say, the opposite of love is indifference not hate.
In this respect, from the Church’s point of view, being an agnostic or even atheist should be a more desirable place for a person than being entirely secular, hedonistic-oriented one.
The reality is somewhat different. The Church sees too often the opponents as enemies and tries hard to find friends among the fools. For the religious people the new forbidden fruit is the (yet) unreachable