A psychological approch to how religion works

[tackattack]

---

Religions still seem immature to me.



[quote='DoubtVsFaith' pid='117884' dateline='1297798476']
It's halfway to full responsibility. You admit you've done wrong, but you nevertheless can just be forgiven again and again if you do the same in future. It has present moment responsibility but it lacks future responsibility.

---

immature in what way? Related to the spanse of what?
It is full responsibility. You admit to doing wrong, ackowledge it was your shoice to do that wrong, seek to compense the situation with equanimity, then you repent (turn away from) to hopefully not do those actions any more and it's all done on a community level which supports group accountability as well. It also encourages us to introspect and question others on their actions; two more parts in the equation of social and individual responsibility

---

Repentance is a great way to actually promote personally accountability in an individual

I've heard other Christians say something similar to this. But I still don't understand how repentance promotes personal responsibility... If you 'sin,' no matter how bad the sin, you can always repent to a higher power and He'll forgive you, a universal get-out-of-jail-free card. You don't really have to be accountable, because you get to turn over your responsibility to God.

I suppose there are people who also do the right thing, and try to rectify their wrongs. But that doesn't require confessing them to any deity. It is other people you have wronged, and it is these other people who will decide whether or not to forgive you.

---

And in lieu of no available person to repent to? What about if the only wrong came from policing your own thoughts by your own morals? Repentance does not relieve any responsibility. Repentance frees from the conviction of guilt to assist the healing process. As a Christian we are held not only to the laws of the land , but to a law imposed by God both of which squarely place responsibility (either for punishment or eternal judgement) on the individual.

---

It's true. Guilt, conviction and repentance have little to nothing to do with the delusion. The delusion is what you have to do about the guilt. Christianity teaches that the only way to save yourself from the guilt of sin is through Jesus. Almost everyone experiences guilt and Christianity tries to command people how to repent which is how it controls people. If Christianity is the only way to salvation then I have to do whatever I think it wants me to do. It empowers this message by telling everyone they are dirty little sinners so we must seek salvation.

---

Chritianity doesn't teach " only way to save yourself from the guilt of sin is through Jesus"
It teaches the only way to salvation is Jesus. Within Soteriology, salvation and the concept of conviction of sin (what I believe you're referring to as guilt) are 2 separate entities. I've never been called a "dirty sinner" merely a sinner. From a Christian ideology we're all sinners which create a sense of unity. Think about it like this, the best person you know and the worst person you know still have some work to better themselves, and both have their flaws. And the average person sits somewhere in the middle, unless you're manic. Your own personal guilt is part of your own personal walk with God and anyone who "commands you" to do anything isn't practicing the common Christian dogma of not condemning your fellow man and the ideals behind a personal walk with Christ.

---

1 If a delusion/deluded belief system caused you to have guilt and conviction, then that delusion has everything to do with guilt and conviction. Guilt and conviction can happen without religion (very good point btw. There are other augments were some believer regard nonbeliever as not having any way to have moral guide because they don’t use a bible to tell them what they can and can’t do.). However say you haven’t killed a child, or even done anything wrong for that matter, by this delusion there is the belief that no matter what you’re a wretch/sinner. On top of this imagine what the idea does to self-image, no matter what you do you’re a sinner. This belief is a psychologically damaging trap. Of course I’d feel bad if I killed a child but with the belief in original sin you don’t even have to commit an act to have the guilt.

“ideal self versus a real self”

Versus implies conflict. Its contrast not conflict.

“Failure to attain an ideal doesn't depress the average individual, nor does it in most Christians I know.”

2 There isn’t any way of knowing off hand if a person is depressed or not; and attitude is a poor predictor of thought. 1 in 10 adults in the United States is affected by depression. Because you don’t think a person is depressed doesn’t mean they aren’t. My point is that this idea can work in this way and very destructively so.

“In fact seeing that the bar is at a constant level (absolute value) it's easier , IMO, to keep it in focus for betterment of one's self.”

3 This doesn’t matter with original sin because it doesn’t matter how much you try. The belief is that you fail either way.

“It's dogmatic in Christianity that you can't attain the goal, but it's never been about attaing it.”

4 So it’s ok to sin? I mean you don’t have to try to attain your ideal self? Actually technically you don’t. However that would result in helplessness to improve yourself and helplessness in attaining you’re ideal self. That would only worsen the situation.

“It's about the struggle of betterment and an ideal.”

5 I thought you said it’s not about attaining it? your sending a mixed message. You saying it’s not about attaining it but it’s about (the struggle and hope) to attain it. On top of that that would mean struggling and hoping to attain the unattainable (sinless perfection). Hence frustration.

and btw I for got to site Carl Rogers theory of self as my source of this psychological principle. http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/rogers.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rogers

---

Numbered for easier reference

1-What you seem to really be arguing against is the rationality of the underlying ideology here. Are you saying Christianity is false, fanciful or based on deception? While it may be irrational I don’t feel that it falls into any of the delusional categories I listed. Perhaps illusory, but I digress. It’s no more of a motivation, IMO, than someone with an irrational ideology of … arachnophobia. In fact I find it far less emotionally motivating than a phobia based in materialism. I agree that it’s a psychological mechanism, but I think you’re overemphasizing the damage due to personal ideology. I’ll use your example.. Both of us kill a child. Both of us feel guilty and know it’s wrong by whatever standards. The emotional arousal, and subsequent, damage from constantly processing guilt during the cognitive appraisal process is far more damaging, IMO, than actually dealing and confronting the issue. The fact that the standard Christianity also applies to the thoughts behind actions just means it more of an encompassing standard to live by, and shouldn’t be offhandedly rejected due to it’s complexity.

2-OK depression exists. OK depression is destructive. The point I was making was you still haven’t convinced me that Christianity encourages depression.

3,4,5- My intent was not to obfuscate the point. Within the realm of soteriology There is a common Christian (but specific to Christianity) belief that one is saved by Grace, meaning that the work of getting saved is out of the hands of the individual. There is also another doctrine (not universal but common) called sanctification. It’s the continuous process of refining the human character to a superior standard. These are inextricably tied together. It’s a process and a struggle against our sinful nature and its end is glorification. Therefore perfection is attainable and sinfulness is not wanted, but it’s a continual process for purification and refinement. If you’re interested in reading more here is a good article [link]http://bible.org/seriespage/soteriology-salvation[/link]. People struggle for unattainable things all the time. Does that mean it’s fruitless to hope and dream? Does that mean our lives are constantly filled with frustration because of it? If we were all perfect and didn’t hope for better, why would we even want evolution? Struggle and perseverance is what makes life living rather than existing, IMO. I’m not saying you can’t be content with who you are and feel whole, that’s a good and healthy thing; but to think you have nowhere to go but down, to me , is the really depressing thought. I think you’re just making into a much bigger deal then it is and exaggerating the damage done, due to your disagreement with the rationality of Christianity. Logically an ideology based on extraneous standards is far more preferable to an ideology based on internal subconscious mechanisms.