Admitting You're a Sinner

[SteveII]

However I'm interested, in your statement that you think it is harmful.  I don't understand why.  Would you see my doctor telling me, that I'm fat and need to lose weight as being harmful?  What if I also acknowledge that I am short and funny looking?  As I said, I think there is a wrong way to go about this, but it's not necessarily wrong.  It seems that one of the first steps for AA is to admit that you are an alcoholic and that you need help.  I think that the purpose is more akin to this, or my doctor telling me I'm fat, rather than bullying, or shaming.   Or at least it should be.

I see where you are coming from. My point in starting the thread was to get at the essence of what "sinner" means, and some theists have described as a process whereby you come to understand that "God loves you, warts and all. But also God also encourages self-reflection and self-improvement." WE kind of encapsulated this in his outsider interpretation of it.

Let's take a look at your doctor example. 

A doctor might say, "You are 30 pounds overweight. You ought to try to lose some weight. 30 pounds is about how much you need to shed. Here is a diet and exercise regiment that will work, but you may find others that work as well." I think this statement encapsulates my secular approach to morality (I am a moral objectivist, btw). 

Your and Steve's example kind of encapsulates a relationship to "the doctor" (a bit of allegory here): "Hey, RR, glad to see you, bud. Always a pleasure to have you in my office. Hey, I gotta tell you something: your fat! Lol! But it's okay, you're still one of my favorite patients. I have this one method for weight loss that I give my patients. Follow it. It works. Once you lose the weight, you'll be much better off."

So far so good. I prefer the secular doctor's approach to morality, but, hey, I'm an atheist. I can see value in the latter approach. The problem for me is that the religious approach exists on a continuum. On the one side of things are theists like you, Steve, and, CL... but there other ways to interpret the "doctor's orders"....

"Hey, RR, you are a worthless fatass! Right now, I see you as a disgusting, obese monstrosity of a human being. You are disgusting. Your dad is disgusting. Your dad's dad is disgusting... it runs in the family. And you inherited it. I'm not even going to think of you as a serious patient until you accept that you are a worthless fatass who needs my weight loss plan. You don't need to lose the weight for me to respect you as a patient, but you do accept that my weight loss plan is the one true weight loss plan of them all. Once you do that, you're in the clear. And, meh, follow it too if you feel like it." 

A bit of hyperbole there, but I think you know as well as I that my hyperbole fits some denominations/churches like a glove. And still yet there are theists who accept a slightly diluted version of the above approach to sin/morality. I think the last example is seriously fucked up, and it doesn't even emphasise morality. It emphasises acceptance of a doctrine that includes a morality plan. I think morality ought to be emphasized first and foremost. With some Christians (like the Quakers) it actually is. But these Christians are in the minority. Furthermore, as has been mentioned by others, such an approach can lead to self-esteem issues which may actually hinder moral growth. I can't tell you how many times my own self-esteem has helped me do the right thing. If I had one criticism of the doctrinal approach, it would be in those cases where it values dogma over morality.

Anyway, that's my (long winded) critique of how I think a doctor telling you you're fat can be bad   .

DrFuzzy's quote below also speaks on the matter if you're interested.

Admitting you are a sinner (which you have) has no consequence/effect other than to be the prerequisite step toward asking Jesus to become your Lord/Savior and asking for forgiveness with the end goal being having those same sins wiped clean. 

I respect this approach. My main problem is emphasis on doctrine over morality. If you're interested, I address this in detail in my response to Roadrunner above.

There are indeed quality of life issues and relationship issues (with God/doctor) with living a moral life (avoiding sin). But there is part of the doctrine of sin that is extremely important in understanding the whole thing--that of the underlying effect of sin to our overall condition. There is nothing we can do about the underlying effect of sin--or, in your metaphor, we can't go on a diet. Sin creates a barrier (because of God's essential holiness) and an obligation to satisfy (because of God's essential justice). The choice is to leave the barrier in place and pay for the consequences defined by God's justice OR accept that he has provided a method to remove each person's individual barrier and satisfy the justice. To be clear, absent outside help, there is nothing we are capable of doing that can remove the barrier and the only satisfaction of divine justice is our death. The only way both the barrier could removed and the satisfaction of justice could be accomplished is if God himself removed the barrier and satisfied the justice by paying for our sins prior to our death and imparting holiness on us in the process. 

You can't understand a Christian's perspective on morality without understanding this. So the real doctrine is not about 'our method/definition of morality is better because it's God's instructions from the Bible', it is about addressing and solving  the cosmic consequences of sin.