Admitting You're a Sinner

[Whateverist]

Well if you believe you’re a bad person the shame and the guilt will make you more susceptible to the riders’ of the high horses suggestions on how to not be a piece of shit. It’s a psychological control tool essentially. Because if you’re so bad and flawed who are you to question what the church says?

At its core at least, that’s the dynamic.

No it is not healthy. For me at least it was a lot of fuel to the fire of my own issues with self esteem.

Personally I choose to put aside any emotional aspect of the situation and learn from my mistake after making it right with whomever I hurt.

This.  They deny you your self-esteem and the right to make amends via your own efforts, then chain you to the back of a pickup truck called "salvation" and take you for a drag.

Apparently they can offer you substantial relief from guilt just by making easy weekly payments to the Illuminati.

[The Valkyrie]

No point admitting I'm a sinner, as I don't recognise the word beyond the religious concept.

I do good things, I do bad things.

Shit happens.

[vulcanlogician]

I know what he means... I'm from the Appalachians.

Wait .. I thought you all only went for corn holing city folk passing through in canoes.  Which is it?

Sheep... city folk... we tend to just take advantage of whatever we have on hand... happy canoeing!

[vulcanlogician]

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.

The way I was raised is that EVERY human being ever born (except Jesus, of course, because there was no human father) is born evil.  Due to original sin.  Because of a human choice - original sin - , every human ever born deserves eternal punishment simply because they were born human and evil.  Every human soul is so despicably filthy that God cannot even look in its direction - unless that soul has been "washed clean".  And the only way a soul can be clean is by blood sacrifice - the special blood sacrifice of a God, who loved our hideous filthy selves so much that he chose to be tortured to death to shed that special blood.  (And earn humans a place in heaven.)  And ALL you have to do is tell God that you're a horrible sinner and accept his beneficent, wonderful, glorious, loving sacrifice!  Isn't it great?  Now you're not disgusting anymore!  Now you won't burn forever after you die!  And you have to keep praying, keep trying to live right and HOLY and separate from the evil world, keep "washing yourself" in the blood of the lamb.  

And I just accepted this as the glorious "good news".  Now it's . . . mind-boggling, it's absurd, it's ridiculous and illogical and nauseating.

And, of course, there WAS no "original sin".  No Adam and Eve.  And certainly no need for a blood sacrifice.

OMG, I hear you sister. I lived in South Carolina for a year and a half. I knew people there who would literally burn gays at the stake if the law allowed it. Try to keep sane in the Bible Belt.

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.

[Cyberman]

I'm pretty sure you can pull it so long as none of it gets on the ground.  God is a neat freak apparently.  So always perform facials over a towel or with some other sanctifying barrier to protect God's holy ground.

I remember trying to educate Sam about facials, but it just went over her head.

[John V]

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). 

This analogy doesn't work well.

First, you can lose weight, and that pretty much makes up for gaining the weight in the first place. Not necessarily so with sin. You can't un-murder someone.

Second, we know that some people can lose weight and keep it off. However, I've never met anyone who was capable of going without sin for the rest of their life.

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."

With regard to sin, their is just one method.

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." 

The secular approach exists on a continuum as well. There are plenty of people who will tell you you don't need to lose the weight at all - you're fine the way you are. And there are some who will tell you - directly or indirectly - that you're worthless unless you're thin and beautiful.

[vulcanlogician]

This analogy doesn't work well.
First, you can lose weight, and that pretty much makes up for gaining the weight in the first place. Not necessarily so with sin. You can't un-murder someone.
Second, we know that some people can lose weight and keep it off. However, I've never met anyone who was capable of going without sin for the rest of their life.

It works for it's intended purpose. Whether you have a weight problem or a murder problem, you need to address it. Being overweight is only used to represent a deficiency of some kind. It's use as an analogy doesn't apply in all regards.

It is not required that analogized items be analogous in every way.

Have you had your coffee yet?

With regard to sin, their is just one method.

Of course, blood sacrifice.

But with immorality, there are many ways to reform.

The secular approach exists on a continuum as well. There are plenty of people who will tell you you don't need to lose the weight at all - you're fine the way you are. And there are some who will tell you - directly or indirectly - that you're worthless unless you're thin and beautiful.

"The" secular approach? There is no one secular approach.
If you are obese, and people tell you you don't need to lose weight, they are either being polite, they don't care about you, or they are wrong. 
If someone tells you that you're worthless unless you're thin and beautiful they are a shallow asshole (and quite ignorant I might add-- Oscar Peterson was overweight and by some standards unattractive, but his music is a joy to listen to).

[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.

[vulcanlogician]

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.

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...

[John V]

It works for it's intended purpose. Whether you have a weight problem or a murder problem, you need to address it. Being overweight is only used to represent a deficiency of some kind. It's use as an analogy doesn't apply in all regards.

Do you agree that one can't make up for murder by simply not murdering anymore?