A psychological approch to how religion works

[tackattack]

---

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?

So it's about the need to be accountable, to repent, to someone or something outside of yourself, whether that be another person or God. If the 'wrong' you commit in your thoughts has harmed no other actual person, then you must still repent to an external deity.

Repentance does not relieve any responsibility. Repentance frees from the conviction of guilt to assist the healing process.

Why not just be accountable to ourselves? Surely, if you feel guilty, unloading that feeling through repentance to the divine is not the only option.

Most people's thought processes probably go something like this: 'That thing I did (or thought) made me feel guilty. This painful feeling (perhaps accompanied by empathy if you harmed someone else) inhibits me from doing that again, and motivates me to correct the harm I've done.' Usually, anyway. We're all human, certainly not perfect. But saying we're 'sinners' is not helpful. Of COURSE we're not perfect. Evolved creatures never are, and never will be.

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.

But surely you don't follow all the laws imposed by God that have been recorded throughout the centuries. Your own sense of morality is what determines which laws you follow. Also, it's hard to see how the responsibility is all yours, your choices are rather constrained. You are a sinner from the start, your only option is to repent, if you don't you'll be punished eternally.

The idea of original sin is an unpleasant one, but I think the psychological damage it can do really depends on how it is indoctrinated, and how early in the child's life it's introduced. A child who is read a nice story about Adam and Eve by a loving mother will have an altogether different experience from a child raised in a 'fire and brimstone' type family whose parents think people are 'dirty little sinners.'

---

1- Repentance to a higher power is not a replacement for personal accountability, it’s in addition to. I also thing you’re getting way too hung up on an overly misused connotation of the word sinner. Let me give you my “inside perspective”.
My guilt = comes from something I’ve done or thought about doing
If the conviction of the guilt is strong enough it creates an emotional response that requires action for relief.
Reparations need to be made if there are outside parties that are affected.
Personal accountability or “owning up” to your part needs to be made (external and internal accountability)
It just so happens we also believe that there is a further judge other than ourselves that will judge us eternally. It either exists or doesn’t (no one can really know, but for me it’s indicative and therefore likely. We (as an addendum) add another layer of repentance and accountability on top of the corporeal one. It does not detract from any of the previous steps.
2- No I don’t follow all of the laws prescribed to God ever recorded. I use my own personal morality, the urging of the Holy Spirit and Jesus’ teaching about the root or core of the laws of Moses. The responsibility is all mine though. The teaching you’re referring to seem heavily influenced by Calvinism, which I believe is a minority view in Christendom at this juncture of history. I agree with your point that without a belief in free will, overemphasis of a person’s worthlessness as a sinner could be fairly detrimental to their mental health. Indoctrination is an important aspect. But that’s why it’s always good to questions your ideologies. I’d be careful not to reject part of ideology solely for presentations sake though, which admittedly quite a few atheists I’ve met have.

---

The idea of original sin is an unpleasant one, but I think the psychological damage it can do really depends on how it is indoctrinated, and how early in the child's life it's introduced. A child who is read a nice story about Adam and Eve by a loving mother will have an altogether different experience from a child raised in a 'fire and brimstone' type family whose parents think people are 'dirty little sinners.'

It's always puzzled me how Christians can tell their beautiful, innocent little children that they are "dirty little sinners".

I think it's disgusting doctrine to teach that we're all born sinners. An affront to humanity, in fact.

---

You and me both

---

“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”

I know I’m responding to another persons comment but I just wanted to give my input. The thing is you admit and repent but that doesn’t say anything about doing anything about it. if you can convince yourself that you are forgiven for what you do then what would you have to change? For that matter if you can do the whole presses to yourself (which in religion you can) then there isn’t any action being taken at all. Worse if you assume the god will take care of things then you can end up neglecting to take action.
As far as immature frankly it’s a lot like the idea of santa clause only for adults. A few parallels:

God -Santa

Jesus – Rudolf (both persecuted)

Angles – elves

Twelve disciples – twelve reign dear

Heaven - Presents

Hell – no presents

Both Always watching you to see if you’re doing good or bad

It’s odd how we assume “well kids will grow out of it when they mature” and yet Christian believes in a lot of ways is a lot like that.

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.”

Teaching and or believing a false belief is a delusion. Delusion is defined as false belief. As far as a phobia what’s were the belief of eternal damnation comes it (arachnophobia as irrational at least has more credibility given that we know spiders exist.).

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.”

Actually your using of my example is actually you using your example because in the last post I used the example that you initially used. The issue of having to kill a child isn’t so much as relevant (something I was pointing out before although this time more bluntly) because with original sin you don’t have to commit the act to have the guilt. Original sin is the belief that you are a sinner by nature. Flat out. It doesn’t matter what you did or didn’t do at the end of the day you are still a sinner by this belief. (Should it be possible possible) say you live a sinless day and you have this belief. You still believe you’re a sinner that day and still have the guilt.

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

I never said Christianity particularly does. My point is that a strong and deep belief in original sin can potentially be very dangerous. It’s a belief the is found in Christianity. Some Christians don’t believe in it as strongly as others. To say that I am saying this about Christianity and not particularly original sin is to put my statement in a different context. Nor did I say anything about encouraging. My point is that this idea can cause it, should a person believe in it deeply enough.

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.

Hoping and dreaming is ok if you can be realist about it and have a dream that is reasonably achievable. That’s why you want to set your ideal self at a reasonable level. By doing this you can minimize the frustration. If you’re ideal self is set too high then dreaming and hoping can have an extremely negative effect on you. Striving for things is a big part of what keeps people going. If they strive without having any results of any kind it’s going to build more frustration. Because I’m saying that this is how original sin effects self theory doesn’t mean that every person’s real self and ideal are set inadequately. Original sin is a belief that that makes the real and ideal self, unrealistic and by a wide margin. If you don’t believe in original sin your real and ideal self doesn’t have original sin making them unrealistic. To be frank I don’t think you understand what self theory is very well.

Logically an ideology based on extraneous standards is far more preferable to an ideology based on internal subconscious mechanisms.

Because you prefer something doesn’t mean it’s good for you. As well because you prefer it doesn’t mean it is preferred my others. I think you logic is rather arguable. Should people to do something because they prefer it, even though it’s not good for them? If that was logical a person’s choice to kill themselves would be acceptable. That’s why I don’t think original sin is acceptable.

---

All comments and thoughts are welcome; I don’t think DvF will get in a tizzy over it.
1-

Biblical repentance consists of two mental assertions and understandings, which if genuine, always manifest themselves in two outward ways. These mental assertions also correspond to their outward manifestations. If one has a true sense of guilt (A), that will result in the outward hatred of sin (A'). If one has an understanding of God's mercy in Christ (B), that will result in a lifelong endeavor to be more like Christ (B').
A - a true sense of one's own guilt and sinfulness,
B - an understanding of God's mercy in Christ,
A' - results in an actual hatred of sin[2] and turning from it to God,[3]
B' - results in a persistent endeavor after a holy life in a walking with God in the way of his commandments.
True repentance is characterized by a consciousness of guilt (Psalm 51:4, 9), of pollution (Psalm 51:5, 7, 10), and of helplessness (Psalm 51:11; 109:21, 22). It sees the person in the moral condition that God has always seen them. But repentance is not just a sense of sin, but also an understanding of mercy, without which there can be no true repentance (Psalms 51:1; 130:4).

(borrowed from theopedia)
You’re not just eschewing all action and letting God do everything, nor does that preclude any of the personal responsibility. I think I answered your first part with my response to Only Natural.
The fact you’re asserting that in Christianity (you generalized it to religion) you can accomplish the entire process of redemption and forgiveness yourself shows a flawed view of Christianity. One of the dogmatic pillars of Christianity is a mindset that we can accomplish nothing on our own. I will admit that the mindset that God will set things right is a harmful one and that a lot of Christians I know use that as an excuse for inaction. That is not a Biblically supported principle and something I reinforce in my lessons as does every teacher and preacher I’ve met.
While your rudimentary comparison was humorous, I find it unenlightening.
1.5- Yes delusion is a false belief. I wasn’t aware that there was any falsifiable evidence in God? It’s an assumption based on faith. Faith grounded in a healthy perception of reality, and personal experience, not only in materialism. I feel that furthering this part of the conversation though would detract from the original point and perhaps is best saved for another topic (not that it hasn’t already been discussed). What exactly is delusional about believing there is a God? It would be irrational for me to ignore personal experience wouldn’t it?
1.6- Your understanding of “Original Sin” seems to be lacking from my perspective. For instance I believe in original sin, but feel no guilt because of it. I am a sinner by nature, but I don’t feel bad because someone else ate an apple or anything (Which is what your argument implies if not says flat out). However, I am reminded by my constant struggle with my animalistic and selfish nature that I have a lot of growing to reach what I see as my potential. Perhaps the part that your theory lacks is that the Holy Spirit convicts (makes feel guilty) in the now, not for what you’ve done, but what you’re doing. It keeps no records of wrongs.
2. True you never specified Christianity. I see your point that a strong belief in a flawed view of original sin with none of the other supporting biblical doctrines, by itself, is probably far more than “potentially” dangerous. Similarly people who feel too strongly that fire is dangerous, will never experience the joy of roasting marshmallows. Everything in context, but generally humanity is not notoriously good at that.
2.5- It’s very true my understanding of self-theory is flawed. Perhaps if you could be more specific (are you talking about self-determination, self-esteem, self-concept, self-verification, Carl Rogers’ theory of self, etc.) and point out my errors it would be more productive rather than unspecified generalities. I do understand your point about the distancing of the ideal and real self. Let me outline something along those lines and you can comment on it.
a-Christian X believes only in original sin
b-This causes a widening between the ideal self and his perceived real self
c-this causes cognitive dissonance
d-to resolve this he either
d1: disbelieves all God based ideologies and becomes atheist
d2: continues to suffer psychological damage due to the dissonance
d3: further researches biblical principle for a better understanding of Grace
2.6- Christianity actually supports an ideal self that is attainable. It is completed in a dogma commonly referred to as Saved by Grace. It does tend to breed a lazier version of Christianity when relied upon for more than spiritual salvation, which is actually quite common.
3- So you feel original sin is unacceptable because people have the potential to do what they prefer whether it’s good for them or not? I disagree with collective or ancestral guilt. If people attach original sin to a sense of collective guilt that’s their prerogative. I just see biblical support indicative that there is no collective sin (2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 3:23-26, Is.25:7-8; 1Cor.15:26; 15:54-57; Heb.2:14) Perhaps you should read up on Harmartiology. Here’s a link