Religious guilt

[Anal Scurvy]

Taken from Capalert's scoring of Passions of the Christ:

Even I, one who has seen in film every imaginable gore, shuddered in shame (shame for my sins that put Jesus in this situation)

Succinctly, why the hell is he feeling shameful? He is not two thousand years old. He does not believe in reincarnation. He is in no way connected to the events of Jesus' death, his ancestors are.

I mean, I know faith leads to a distinctive style of logical thought, but these facts seem hard to ignore.

[Aldebaran]

Christians believe that every human that was ever born or that shall ever be born is guilty of the necessity for Jesus needed to die.
They believe God created Himself a son who had to die because humans are sinners.

If you follow that illogical reasoning (that is: To me talking as Muslim it is completely illogical and heretical to accuse God of such injustice and cruelty) it comes down to this idea: Christians do not believe God would be able to forgive sins of humans, without having created himself a son with the goal that this son should be tortured to death "because of the sins of the humans".

If you then follow the reasoning that Jesus=God, you must come to the conclusion that God needed to die Himself because otherwise God could not be brought to forgive the sins of humans.

Christians will argue of course against this interpretation saying that God = 3 persons in one and that only the "human side" of Jesus needed to be tortured to death.
This claim however doesn't resolve the question why Christians believe God wouldn't be able to forgive sins if this unjust cruelty - performed on what they say is God's own son - wouldn't have happened.

There are several reasons why the religion of my late mother didn't strike me as being a right way to glorify God, but this one is certainly one of the main causes.

Salaam. A

[Joe Random]

Originally Posted by Anal Scurvy

Succinctly, why the hell is he feeling shameful? He is not two thousand years old. He does not believe in reincarnation. He is in no way connected to the events of Jesus' death, his ancestors are.

The common Christian belief of "Jesus died for everyone's sins" is easily modified to read "Jesus died because of everyone's sins." I think that's where the guilt is coming from.

[Aldebaran]

In my opinion there is no difference between the two.

Jesus had to die "for" the sins of humans "because" of the sins of humans.


Salaam. A

[Beagle]

1. Serial killers never feel guilty.
2. Sociopaths never feel guilty.
3. Communist or Fascist dictators never feel guilty.
4. Con artists never feel guilty.
And so on...
OTOH, IMO, religious guilt must be turned into something positive. Jesus died not just to "forgive" our sins, allegedly, but the sins he suffered in the crucifixion story should produce enough guilt in the rest of us to not commit them in the first place. Jesus not only died for our sins but as a direct result of the sins of all those that existed at the time. They had the real guilt. We should try to learn from the whole story, not just some stupid movie that was designed to appeal to S&M fantasies and apparently fan the flames of anti-Semitism throughout the world (My guess: the seriously dangerous reactions in the US will be very small compared to the rest of the world).

The whole point is to love your neighbor, even if you can't convert him through peaceful communication. I've read the Bible, That, plus the Golden Rule, are the major useful themes. Oh, and if you are Christian: Jesus saves. Nowhere does Jesus say to the Jews: "Bring it On!"

I cannot imagine the Jesus of the Bible condoning any modern hatred against a group of people, whatever the group. Jesus even had a certain amount of respect for the Romans. If there was ever a successful, but brutal by modern standards, government -- it was the Romans. Their polytheism was enforced with an iron fist for centuries. Well, not exactly, they combined religions and such... That's too much Roman history for one post.

[Aldebaran]

Originally Posted by Beagle

(My guess: the seriously dangerous reactions in the US will be very small compared to the rest of the world).

My guess is that you have no idea of how unique the US attitude towards movies and actors and everything related is.
People in the rest of the world where such a movie can be released because there is some interest in it, generally don't tend to take movies as "reality" and generally don't tend to idealize/adore/make such a noise about actors and generally don't give movies and actors as much attention as a certain amount of US'ers do.

Thus if any "anti-semitism" would occure and from which one could say it was provoked by this stupid movie, it is 10000 times more likely to occure in the USA then anywhere else.

Salaam. A

[Beagle]

I've proven to be about 100% correct in recent months as compared to the name-callers that always label me conservative, warmonger, bloodthirsty, imperialist, or a liberal.

I guess you might be right in the sense that there is rampant anti-Semitism in France, Belgium, Denmark, etc. -- but most of that is based on the Palestinian issue or comparisons between Sharon and Hitler. Maybe the Christian element will not make much difference. It's like pouring gasoline on a fire that is already burning dynamite for fuel.

[Aldebaran]

Originally Posted by Beagle

I guess you might be right in the sense that there is rampant anti-Semitism in France, Belgium, Denmark, etc. -- but most of that is based on the Palestinian issue or comparisons between Sharon and Hitler. Maybe the Christian element will not make much difference. It's like pouring gasoline on a fire that is already burning dynamite for fuel.

I don't see any "rampant" anti-Semitism in Belgium.
I don't see it in France.
I don't know about Denmark since I don't come there.

I also don't see "comparisons" made between Sharon and Hitler but I can tell you that there is some underlying tendency to see reasons to start making them. (The fault for this is not with Hitler andnot with the people.)
I also hear people make comments like: the Zionists learned a lot from the Nazis. These comments come from people that aren't Muslim. Many of them even not religious. They are people who follow all of this and ask themselves the ovbious quesitons.

There is also an underlying tendency for people to see enough reason to start making comparisons between the communist wall/fence that separated Germany and the wall Sharon and his government are planting in the Palestinian territories.
The same for making comparisons between the Sharon government and the former South African Apartheid.

But if you think an idiotic movie about the Passion shall have any influence on the life and way of reasoning of people living in these nations, then I think you live in a strange dream. Movies - and actors/director/whatever related- don't have the same impact on people like they seem to have on a lot of citizens in the USA.
A movie is just entertainment. Not a life shaping/idea forming brainwashing.


Salaam. A

[Anal Scurvy]

Originally Posted by Aldebaran

But if you think an idiotic movie about the Passion shall have any influence on the life and way of reasoning of people living in these nations, then I think you live in a strange dream. Movies - and actors/director/whatever related- don't have the same impact on people like they seem to have on a lot of citizens in the USA.
A movie is just entertainment. Not a life shaping/idea forming brainwashing.

A movie a few decades ago, perhaps a Martin Scorsese movie, perhaps even The Last Temptation of Christ, led to people in a specific foreign country setting theatres on fire.

Theatres in Greece were torn up pretty well when Disney's Hercules came out. Not on the same level as the other movie, but, hey, nationalism is powerful, too.

[Anal Scurvy]

As for my OP, I'd love it if a few Christians who feel obligated shame would chime in. Aldebaran's theory doesn't jive with the Christians I've met who have felt this way because they never really seemed to put enough thought into their reasons to require numbers.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I basically agree with [/b]Aldebaran's[/b] first post. A lot of Christians feel that their sins are the reason the crucifixion was necessary. Aldebaran was also right about the logical contradictions raised by Christian salvation theology. I've never personally heard a satisfatory explanation for why God required a sacrifice to stop him from torturing people in Hell, what the average person does that's so terrible that the deserve to go to Hell, why God couldn't just forgive everybody by snapping his fingers, what it means to say the Jesus was the "son" of God and a number of other problems which seem to me to be merely artifacts of a more archaic worldview that Christianity is now stuck with and must find more and more abstract apologia to keep from appearing ridiculous.

It also seems to me that there is a streak of masochism in some Christians. Christian messaged boards are rife with self-flagellation and self-abasing monologues about how "worthless" we are, what "irredemable sinners" we are, "how little we deserve Christ's sacrifice," etc. I don't know where that comes from. It's an attitude that doesn't speak to me. I do not accept that humans are inherently evil or that we don't deserve salvation.

I guess if you are cursed with some sort of self-loathing pathology then blaming yourself for a 2000 year old murder is somehow gratifying. The Christian buzz on the Gibson movie (as well as Gibson's own defense against charges of Jew-baiting) it that "we are all responsible" for the crucifixion. Whaterver turns your crank, I guess, but just FYI, I'm not responsible. I had nothing to do with it and I categorically reject any suggestion that I need to feel either guilt or gratitude.

If Christianity was smart, it would jettison all this "Jesus died for you sins" nonsense and focus on what Jesus actually taught which was that salvation is achieved through love.

Insisting on a particular theological belief simply turns salvation into a guessing game. Guess which invisible pixie is the real one and you get to go to Heaven. Guess wrong and you fry (or maybe you're just "separated from God," whatever that means). If belief in Jesus as a Savior was really so crucial to salvation then God could have at least had the decency to give us some proof that such is the case.

[Loopydude]

The way it works in Christianity is to say that we've been out of God's graces since Adam ate the Apple. This was The Fall, and humanity was cast out of the garden, both spiritually and physically, and this changed us. Original Sin was born of Adam's folly, and passed down to all of us through him (Romans 5;12). God loves mankind and cares for mankind, but mankind is tainted with Original Sin, and irredeemable without divine intervention. In some respects Original Sin behaves a bit like a congenital disease, passed on to each child from the father. It also seems to behave a bit like a veneral disease, in that Mary needed to be a virgin.

But God finally took pity on humankind and gave us his only Son: By His grace, Mary was born of immaculate conception, a miracle that left her free of the taint of Original Sin. Without a father, Jesus was born of Virgin Birth. Hence, he was without stain or flaw, perfectly human, and perfectly divine. This new Adam gave up His own life freely, and begged His Father to forgive us our sins, and allow us back into His Kingdom. This God granted, in recognition of the sacrifice of the Christ, on this condition: That we recognize Jesus as the Christ, our Saviour, and pray to him for forgiveness for our sins, as a member of His Church, and a believer in His new Covenant with us.

Without this belief, and without partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ to cleanse us of our sins (and, in the case of Catholics, confession, penance, and absolution is added in too), as an act of renewal of our faith on the Sabbath, we are damned. Without Christ, we are lost. It is only through Him that we may find salvation, and no deed we could do, no thing we could say, no thought we could have, would save us without Christ. We are wretches, not worthy of God's love. But through Christ's sacrifice, his death on the Cross for the forgiveness of our sins, his divine intercession, we may again enter into the Kingdom and new life.

That's everything, in a nutshell. Christians feel guilty because the don't deserve what Jesus did for them. And Jesus is so perfect, so lovely, so righteous, glorious, and pure, that His passion and death on the cross is like a heavy weight on the conscience. WE killed him, this God made flesh, yet He died for US.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Loopydude

The way it works in Christianity is to say that we've been out of God's graces since Adam ate the Apple. This was The Fall, and humanity was cast out of the garden, both spiritually and physically, and this changed us. Original Sin was born of Adam's folly, and passed down to all of us through him (Romans 5;12).

What does it mean to say that sin has been "passed down from Adam?" Is sin genetic? Are we born bad? If so, how is that our fault?

Also, what do you really mean by "Adam eating the apple?" Surely you are aware that Adam did not exist. How did we inherit sin from a fictional character?" If you are implying some more symbolic meaning to your Adam story, what is it?

One more thing, "Original Sin" is not a universal Christian doctrine. That phrase does not appear in the Bible and the concept is a tradition of the Catholic Church adopted by some Protestants but there are denominations which have never acknowledged it, notably Eastern Orthodox. The notion the concept is also non-existent in Judaism, so it's not something that Jesus would have known about or recognized as valid. Just FYI.

God loves mankind and cares for mankind, but mankind is tainted with Original Sin, and irredeemable without divine intervention. In some respects Original Sin behaves a bit like a congenital disease, passed on to each child from the father. It also seems to behave a bit like a veneral disease, in that Mary needed to be a virgin.

Please explain this in more detail. How do we "inherit" sin? How is it our fault if we do?

Why aren't we "redeemable," and why can't God just snap his fingers if such a thing is necessary? What's the point of a human sacrifice? God is only saving us from himself, after all. If he doesn't want to fry people for nothing he doe doesn't have to. No sacrifice is necessary.
But God finally took pity on humankind and gave us his only Son: By His grace, Mary was born of immaculate conception, a miracle that left her free of the taint of Original Sin.[/quote]
Cite? That's not in the Bible.

Without a father, Jesus was born of Virgin Birth. Hence, he was without stain or flaw, perfectly human, and perfectly divine.

So it sounds like you really do think that sin is somehow genetic. How is that our fault? Who did we inherit it from since "Adam" is a completely mythical character?

Whatever happened to free will, btw. Do we not have the ability to choose to be good?

This new Adam gave up His own life freely, and begged His Father to forgive us our sins, and allow us back into His Kingdom.

He begged [i]himself?" Didn't he already know what he thought? If he wanted to forgive us, why did he have to beg himself? How can God change his mind anyway? I though he was omniscient. Didn't he already know that he wanted to forgive us before he created the univesre? Why go through the charade of being angry and then forgiving us? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

This God granted, in recognition of the sacrifice of the Christ, on this condition: That we recognize Jesus as the Christ, our Saviour, and pray to him for forgiveness for our sins, as a member of His Church, and a believer in His new Covenant with us.

Without this belief, and without partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ to cleanse us of our sins (and, in the case of Catholics, confession, penance, and absolution is added in too), as an act of renewal of our faith on the Sabbath, we are damned. Without Christ, we are lost. It is only through Him that we may find salvation, and no deed we could do, no thing we could say, no thought we could have, would save us without Christ.

If all this is true, then God is a thoroughly despicible, utter iredeemable, animalistic sadistic, evil monster. It turns salvation into a guessing game. It punishes good people for petty or non-existent sins. It completely throws all of Jesus' own teachings about love and forgiveness out the window. It is monumentally ineffective in that God has offered no evidence whatsoever that it's true, it ignores the vast majority of human beings who are or were raised with other beliefs or no beliefs. It's basically the equivalent of declaring that the only way to escape eternal torture is to guess what number God is thinking of between one and a million. There are thousands of religious myths in the world and they all have the exact same empirical support-- none. Please explain how it is possible to know that this irrational and sadistic mythology of yours should be given any more credence than Mbuti Pygmy beliefs about a benevolent God of the Forest. What evidence do you have that they don't have?

We are wretches, not worthy of God's love. But through Christ's sacrifice, his death on the Cross for the forgiveness of our sins, his divine intercession, we may again enter into the Kingdom and new lifeThat's everything, in a nutshell. Christians feel guilty because the don't deserve what Jesus did for them. And Jesus is so perfect, so lovely, so righteous, glorious, and pure, that His passion and death on the cross is like a heavy weight on the conscience. WE killed him, this God made flesh, yet He died for US.

Ahh, yes, here is that masochism I was talking about. Well speak for yourself, dude. I'm not a wretch and I'm totally worthy. As a matter of fact, if God is as you advertise him, I'm a way better person than he is.

I'll ask one more time; why did God need a sacrifice to save us from himself? What did God get out of torturing a guy to death?

[presidebt]

Originally Posted by Aldebaran

Christians believe that every human that was ever born or that shall ever be born is guilty of the necessity for Jesus needed to die.

I know that this isn't your opinion, Aldebaran, but I can't pass up an opportunity for an excellent quote:

"Jesus died for somebody's sins . . . but not mine." ~Patti
Smith

[Aldebaran]

Presidebt,

Muslims don't believe in something like "original sin" and don't believe in a "son of God" and don't believe in "Jesus saves" and "needed to die for my sins".

Muslims know that everyone is reponsible for his own good and his own wrong and own guilt for that.

So if Jesus needed to die for someone's sins, then certainly not for mine


I also support the remarks and questions posted by DTC of course. They are about the same questions that happen to make the life of my mother's priest a bit difficult when I brought them up.


Salaam. A

[Loopydude]

DTC:

I do not believe in, subscribe to, wish to promulgate, defend, comprehend, etc., any of what I wrote as an exegesis of Christian faith. That's just what I came to understand via my growing up in the Catholic faith and studying religion for four years.

Your guess on many of your points is as good as mine.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Loopydude

DTC:

I do not believe in, subscribe to, wish to promulgate, defend, comprehend, etc., any of what I wrote as an exegesis of Christian faith. That's just what I came to understand via my growing up in the Catholic faith and studying religion for four years.

Your guess on many of your points is as good as mine.

Ok, sorry. I thought you were serious.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Aldebaran was also right about the logical contradictions raised by Christian salvation theology.

Can any religion stand up to logical scrutiny?

If so, I guess we'd all be members of that religion.

[Dogface]

Originally Posted by Aldebaran

Christians believe that every human that was ever born or that shall ever be born is guilty of the necessity for Jesus needed to die.
They believe God created Himself a son who had to die because humans are sinners.

If you are going to talk about Christianity as an entirety, please gain an understanding of it, first. The trait you mention is typical of Romano-Protestantism. It is not the soteriology of Eastern Orthodoxy. We do not believe in "inherited guilt". For Orthodoxy, the death of Christ is far less important than His resurection. By the Resurrection, humanity was given a pathway to immortality. Therefore, the rest of what you say is irrelevant to millions of Christians.

[Dogface]

Originally Posted by Loopydude

The way it works in Christianity is to say that we've been out of God's graces since Adam ate the Apple. This was The Fall, and humanity was cast out of the garden, both spiritually and physically, and this changed us. Original Sin was born of Adam's folly, and passed down to all of us through him (Romans 5;12). God loves mankind and cares for mankind, but mankind is tainted with Original Sin, and irredeemable without divine intervention. In some respects Original Sin behaves a bit like a congenital disease, passed on to each child from the father. It also seems to behave a bit like a veneral disease, in that Mary needed to be a virgin.

No, that is the way it works in Romano-Protestantism (Augustinian Christianity--Roman Catholicism, most Protestant groups, etc.) In Orthodox Christianity, there is no inherited guilt. What is inherited is a condition of mortality and frailty--but no inherited guilt. It is also not some sort of "venereal disease"--sex is not a means of transmission.

But God finally took pity on humankind and gave us his only Son: By His grace, Mary was born of immaculate conception, a miracle that left her free of the taint of Original Sin.

Roman Catholic doctrine, not believed by anyone else.

Without a father, Jesus was born of Virgin Birth. Hence, he was without stain or flaw, perfectly human, and perfectly divine. This new Adam gave up His own life freely, and begged His Father to forgive us our sins, and allow us back into His Kingdom. This God granted, in recognition of the sacrifice of the Christ, on this condition: That we recognize Jesus as the Christ, our Saviour, and pray to him for forgiveness for our sins, as a member of His Church, and a believer in His new Covenant with us.

Anselmic/Augustinian doctrine, not part of the Orthodox Church's teachings. Our teaching is that God condescended to take part in our condition specifically to exalt our condition. He did not need to be paid off in blood and death.

have, would save us without Christ. We are wretches, not worthy of God's love. But through Christ's sacrifice, his death on the Cross for the forgiveness of our sins, his divine intercession, we may again enter into the Kingdom and new life.

Again, the Orthdox Church differs from this distasteful doctrine. We are "undeserving wretches" only by comparison to absolute perfection. However, using that as a prideful excuse can be dangerous--"not horrible" can lead to "perfectly okay", which can lead to "better than you". However, wallowing in the "wretched" can actually lead to a form of pridefulness. It's a tricky path.

That's everything, in a nutshell. Christians feel guilty because the don't deserve what Jesus did for them. And Jesus is so perfect, so lovely, so righteous, glorious, and pure, that His passion and death on the cross is like a heavy weight on the conscience. WE killed him, this God made flesh, yet He died for US.

That doctrine is not the only possible Christian doctrine. Some Christians may feel personally guilty for the Crucifixion, but there is no need to. It's enough to worry about sins one has actually committed. Wait until one no longer lies, no longer is uncharitable, no longer is selfish, wait until one has become close to a saint before worrying about "cosmic sins". Heck, wait until one is at the point where one can be trusted to take out the garbage without being nagged by the Mrs.!

[Aldebaran]

Originally Posted by Dogface

The trait you mention is typical of Romano-Protestantism. It is not the soteriology of Eastern Orthodoxy. We do not believe in "inherited guilt". For Orthodoxy, the death of Christ is far less important than His resurection. By the Resurrection, humanity was given a pathway to immortality. Therefore, the rest of what you say is irrelevant to millions of Christians.

You are correct. I should have made a distinction.
I was a bit too much focussing on the belief of my late mother and of her relatives (Catholic), which was aimed at helping the OP gain some insight in the problem.

I like the Eastern Orthodox views a lot more since they make overall a lot more sense to me. Yet I didn't study the doctrine in depth = not much more then came on the desk during history courses. My comparitive study Islam/Christianity was in its interpretation focussed on the Latin/Catholic, since it was part of the curriculum on a Catholic university. (every student, no matter which department or studyfield, had "some" courses related to the Catholic religion in the curriculum. In the department Arabic and Islamic studies that was of course extended to a comparitive study).


Salaam. A