"You are bad and you should feel bad about it" - a core Christian belief?

Great Debates
61

Jesus, the sinless one, dying for everyone’s sins is no different substantially than the ages old throwing the virgin into the volcano to appease the gods. Just a different twist since the virgin here is male. Also same concept as the scapegoat—the beast of burden loaded with things and sent off to die on the desert on behalf of all the people and their “sins.”

If one were, for the sake of argument, to consider the story of creation from Genesis to be metaphorical rather than literal, as many Christians in fact do, then there was no literal Adam and Eve, no literal talking snake, literal apple, no literal bite of the apple from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and hence no actual literal “original sin.” If there were no original sin, then there would certainly be KK need for a saviour to free humankind from original sin by dying on a cross (and ressurecting). There really would be no need for JC at all if Adam and Eve were not real. I don’t know why more people don’t figure out this part of Christian mythology.

Also, sin itself means to break religious laws. So it would appear atheists are sinless.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

62

Well, why do you think there are people fervently trying to disprove evolution and pushing creationism.

63

Yeah, I don’t think it makes sense to say that love is the only core Christian belief (though I do believe that Christianity without love isn’t really Christianity). But arguably it’s the only core Christian moral belief or injunction, in the sense that all sin and/or immorality is somehow a failure to love.

64

All religions have some form of this. It’s how the religion manipulates its adherents: you’re bad, the only way you can be saved is through us, so stay under our thumb and keep donating and spending time doing the things we tell you to do, etc.

65

Well, two substantial differences are that (according to Christianity) (1) Jesus was a willing sacrifice, and (2) Jesus was in some sense God.

But you’re right that it’s a similar concept, and I freely admit that I don’t understand how it “works” that Jesus’s death somehow “cures” people’s sin. If I understand correctly there are different explanations of how it does so (i.e. theories of the Atonement), no one of which is universally accepted by all Christians.

The story of Adam and Eve purports to explain why we have original sin, but it’s not necessary to the belief that we have it. We can see for ourselves that human beings are fundamentally messed up somehow.
[QUOTE=G. K. Chesterton]
Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. … they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do.
[/QUOTE]

Only if you accept that definition of sin, and accept that “religious” means not applying to atheists. But if sin is “missing the mark,” or failure to love, or a sort of disease or disorder or addiction, or some of the other definitions proposed in this thread, an atheist can certainly be sinful.

66

Only the abrahamic religions have the ‘you’re bad’ meme, as far as I know.
But certainly most, if not all, religions have a priesthood without whom there can be no contact with the gods.

67

It has been indicated that Mainline Protestants are the liberal Christians (to a point) and they share with the Catholics and Orthodox that the Bible need not and even should not be read literally. So therefore while there is a belief in original sin, seeing Genesis 2 as factual is getting more and more rare (I don’t run into many mainliners who believe it).

The idea that we deserve punishment, so Jesus took the wrath on Himself ("substitutionary atonement) is a fairly recent thing as well… around the 1500s, IIRC. A lot of folks that I run with don’t believe in it. Personally I’m a fan of “Christus Victor” (Christ died in order to defeat the hold of sin and death upon humanity) and Girardian “Mimetic” (Christ died in order to be the ‘final scapegoat’ and have us identify with the victim) Atonement theologies.

Anyways, we believe humanity is sinful, but, sin is, as in the Lutheran Confessions “the self-centered failure to trust God”. Basically we all do bad selfish shit. That does not leave us when we ‘repent’ of our sins. Because as Martin Luther says, we are simultaneously saint and sinner (or sinners who are forgiven). So no one is actually better than anyone else. And Jesus’s death was to free us from sin’s debilitating effect upon us. I’ve never, ever heard a sermon in an ELCA Church indicating that we deserve punishment (that is not our view of who God is) - people would riot.

68

it makes sense as the core christian belief because the Christ said so; allow me to quote. . .again. . .

and

mc

69

Thanks. I think this gives me a clearer picture of how varied the Christian views on sin actually are.

70

As mentioned, the Hebrew word for sin is to miss the mark. If a Jew sins, he is supposed to make up for it in some way. Christians received redemption through Christ. The meaning of sin is different to the two religions.

71

This matches my experience in another mainline denomination (in my case, Episcopal/Anglican). Substitutionary atonement is still popular, but by no means universal, and its flaws are widely recognized. And I don’t know that I’ve ever met an Anglican who takes the story of Adam and Eve literally.

72

I think the title could technically be correct, but it is phrased in a way that implies a lot. The word “bad” implies a lot of things that Christianity as a whole doesn’t agree with. We are “children of God,” and “made in his image.” We have self-worth.

A better phrasing is “we are all flawed, and have done bad things, and we should feel bad about having done those bad things.” And, even there, that’s just step one. Step 2 is “However, if you repent of those bad things and try not to do them, then you do not need to continue feeling that guilt. The guilt is only there to keep you from doing the bad things.”

Now, of course, I’ve completely left out the spiritual component, because you also basically did. Because the spiritual component is that the only reason we can repent is because of Jesus’s sacrifice, which releases us from the inherent result of those bad things we do. I also left out the message that, by repenting and turning away from those bad things, Jesus’s sacrifice will allow us to live forever.

But, honestly, as I get older, I think those spiritual parts, while important, are not as important right now as the non-spiritual parts. I don’t need everyone to be a Christian, but I think the world would be a much, much better place if everyone adopted the moral framework presented.

Instead, I see people either excusing bad things to alleviate guilt. Or just ignoring the past without trying to do better. Heck, both of these things are just as common in Christians, because they are human nature. I have to fight it, too.

I also think that, by and large, what the Bible describes as bad is a good start for what actually is bad. I think there’s the issue with homosexuality, which I continue to argue is a mistranslation. But, from a secular point, that’s not relevant. If that part is bad and contradictory to the good principles, throw it out. Throw out stuff that treats women and men differently, since the Bible says that God is no respecter of persons and that there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus.

But that’s getting off topic. My point is, while I could see how the title is technically correct, it’s presented in a way that implies things it shouldn’t, and leaves out things that are essential to understanding the Christian viewpoint.

If it were as awful as the title makes it sound, it wouldn’t have caught on in the first place. Even if you do think there are particulars that are awful, or disagree with the spirituality.

73

And many protestant denominations have a concept of the “priesthood of the believer” or “universal priesthood”, meaning that individuals have access to God without requiring another human mediator.

74

I cannot quite reconcile this. Say an atheist leads a fairly good life but has never been to any church of any sort, nor has any familiarity with any religious books. If he runs his store on a Saturday, has he sinned? Or on a Sunday, depending on which Sabbath you happen to see as holy (it’s originally Saturday, by the way—last day of the week on lost calendars). If he eats pork, has he sinned? If he eats beef, has he sinned? If he eats non-kosher meat, has he sinned? You see, sin must involve a choice to not follow the rules of a particular religion; but if you have no awareness of any religious rules to begin with, how on earth do you “miss the mark”? How is it possible to sin? It’s a little like saying a baby is born with original sin because a talking snake convinced Adam and Eve to eat an apple. Rubbish.

75

I think the issue might be that the context of the thread is Christian doctrine.

In other words, in a thread about the beloved BBC TV show All Creatures Great and Small, I might say, “My favorite moment was when Jim gave that cow a shot of calcium and it cured her almost immediately!”

You would certainly be speaking truthfully if you said, “First of all, there’s no such person as Jim. That was an actor named Christopher Timothy. And that cow wasn’t really suffering from milk fever, so he didn’t cure anything!”

Notwithstanding the truthfulness of your post, I believe it would be misplaced, because in that hypothetical thread, we’re discussing the world of the TV show.

Here in this thread, my sense is that the context is Christian doctrine. I’m unaware of the Christian sect that hold Jesus was a sinner or a blasphemer. So the thrust of your post seems to me to be, “I disagree with some of the core tenets of Christianity,” rather than “Here are the core tenets of Christianity.”

76

Jews believe that gentiles can be just fine, cool people if they obey the Noahide laws.

77

Did you act like a jerk to a family member for no reason? Did you turn away when asked to help the poor and needy, even though you had money to spend? Did you be silent when someone you knew made racist comments?

Now granted, these may be considered not living up to a religious rule, but I think our consciousness do inform us that some of this stuff just ain’t right. And hopefully we feel shitty about doing so. Also, granted, this is someone from the outside proclaiming that these self-interested actions are sinful and miss the mark (maybe the person doesn’t feel bad about being an ass), but so?

78

The responsibility to obey Jewish laws falls only on Jews. That’s what the term “chosen people” means. That we alone have this specific contract with god, and if you’re not a Jew you have no obligation to fulfill the requirements. You can do your own thing. This idea incorporates the Noahide laws, as mentioned.

79

I see your point – but the OP did say: “So, what’s your view? It would be great if, when replying, you let me know if you’re a Christian, and whether you belong to a particular denomination. I’d be interested to get a sense of if there’s a denominational split in how people answer. But I appreciate your reply, regardless.”

And so, with regard to an analogy to a TV show, it’s as if we’re in a weird situation where the OP is explicitly asking for replies from folks who believe that TV show is true and from those who think it’s fiction – and adding that, while it’d be great if we mentioned whether or not we believe it’s true, that’s not actually required.

Still, I doubt I’d have weighed in had kanicbird so much as slapped a quick “I think” in front of the flat statement that they were not shouting ‘crucify him’ because of his sin, and that they killed a sinless man who suffered instead of them: just something to make clear that kanicbird is – if you will – speaking in the context of personal opinion, rather than relaying a bland fact.

Is it asking so much, for Jews to get badmouthed with so small a caveat?

80

Thanks for the link, but it still begs the question: can you be found guilty of breaking a law that you had no knowledge of? Doesn’t “sin” require intention? If idolatry and craven images are a sin, why is there a crucifix with a Corpus Christi up front and centre in every Catholic Church in the word, for example?