DEFINE. YOUR. TERMS.
They think of legal/illegal, FEELS good/bad in the context of chemical reward/punishment.
9/10 modernist people cannot understand something as FEELING good and BEING bad.
They think they can talk their way around absolutes, like convincing a parent to let you binge on candy.
Whataboutism in morality
actually there is now an even more modern approach to “wrongdoing” that you are leaving out. You describe modern sins/wrongs as legally defined, but that is not really true any more: people define them “situationally”, based on moral relativism, not legally. So a wrong in our post-modern world is defined by hurting someone’s feelings (which happens based on their interpretation of the so-called wrongdoer’s acts/words) so wrongs have become entirely subjective. Legal definitions of wrongdoing are actually better than these subjective definitions, since the latter are open to gross abuse. So using your schema, there are 3, not 2, ways of defining wrongs: acts against God’s plan; acts against known laws or standards; and acts that may be neither but someone subjectively interprets them as hurtful…
no absolutes, arbitrary, subjective, nonsense, egocentric tat, ideological dross