Admitting You're a Sinner

[SteveII]

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.

I can't see us finding any common ground here. You may as well be telling me I have to do voodoo rituals to remove the curse of Sapphire Witch. Divine justice or essential holiness mean about as much to me as the Hindu concepts of samsara or siddhi mean to you. To me these concepts are utterly divorced from morality. I genuinely care about morality, but IMO morality has nothing to do with the things you've described.

On the doctrine of sin, there will be no common ground. IMO, there is no such thing as sin in a naturalistic worldview. Only subjective morality linked to harm and social contract. The Christian worldview anchors morality with God. These philosophies are worlds apart. 

Why is it that when I read the Sermon on the Mount I hear a profoundly moral message (that seems to be the core of what Christ represents) while Christians seem to hear a bunch of rules that they don't need to take seriously because they are too busy fussing over blood rituals and concepts of Divine justice?

Leo Tolstoy thought that all the dogmas and rituals of institutional Christianity were a sham, an evasion of one's true moral duties as described in the Sermon. I like Tolstoy's take on this, and I thought I might use it to find common ground with Christians. But alas, no. Blood rituals and divine justice it is...

No, teaching morality is not the core message of Christ. It was that we are in need of salvation and the separation from God (as a result of our sin) can be overcome. Morality is a secondary goal as well as a byproduct of a changed life. In fact, in Matthew 5:20 and following (where the sermon on the mount is) Jesus points out that the OT Law can't hardly be followed let along the expansion of morality he lays out in vs 22, 28, 32, 34, 39 and 44. Only inviting God to work in your life is going to get you close to truly 'moral'. Back to my comment just above, the need for salvation sets the Christian worldview well apart from anything developed with a naturalistic one. 

Regarding "blood ritual" The animal sacrifice did not take away sin (see Hebrews 10 - especially verse 4). It was a temporary device to show the seriousness of the gulf between sin and being holy until such time as a lasting atonement could be made. Nothing created could satisfy the justice attribute of an eternal God and bridge the gap to holy so God humbled himself in the person of Jesus and made a sacrifice of eternal substance with eternal significance for all time (past, present and future).

My goal in replying was not to convince you of the Christian position, it was so you understand it better. A discussion requires understanding the other side.