Admitting You're a Sinner

[John V]

OP concerned sin, and sin does involve justice.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not in the slightest.  Sin is only concerned with divine taboo.  Whether or not any of the sin scheme is just is another question entirely. Sometimes sin(and redemption) aligns with ethics, sometimes it doesn't. Coincidental in either case.

Not exactly alot of justice to be had in stringing up a jew for the innumerable crimes of others. The whole point of that is that justice is abrogated by vicarious redemption. You will not get what you deserve. You will get what grace provides.

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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. 

That's a pretty concise summary.  Starts strong, struggles at the middle, but you pull it back together by the end. 

[SteveII]

The whole sin concept makes little sense to me. I can obviously agree we all do good and bad and neutral things in our life On any bell-curve there will be variants between all-good to all-bad actions and most of us live in the curve, not at the extremes.

I am less likely to do bad things, as I am older and have learnt how my behaviour impacts on all around me. Yet, I can still be mistaken in my interactions and make poor choices.

God seems exempt fro our daily grind to try to do the best we can. An omniscient being should be able to be a positive influence at any point and should present a congruent moral reality; we don't see that in holy books or reality.

Psychopaths and sociopaths, great moral teachers and educators have always existed. Gods don't seem to solve the problem. Primate and social animal evolution does though.

I find sin very confusing, and the idea that we are all evil and have no moral compass is demonstrably false.

Christians do not think "that we are all evil and have no moral compass". That's a straw man argument. In fact it's the opposite. There is an entire natural theology argument that starts with the premise that everyone believes in moral truths. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU&t=9s

[The Grand Nudger]

In christian theology, we have a moral compass, we're just incapable of uniformly following it.  This, at least, provides similarities between religious taboo and spiritual "contamination" as fallen creatures and actual ethical systems.

Moral realists also assert that human beings are predictably incapable of doing the right thing all the time, even when they know what the right thing is.  They simply don't refer to ghostly pollution as an explanation for why that is or killing some jew as the solution to the problem....because neither of those things has anything to do with realist ethics.

Theres no fact of sin, no fact of a fallen nature, and no fact of vicarious redemption by christ or any other, nor..if there were..would it matter to any system of ethical realism. "Sin" is just a term for what's on gods shitlist. Redemption...for getting off that shitlist. Full stop.

Ultimately, religious morality -based- upon "sin" or "grounded in god" is notable for being a failed attempt at moral realism...that devolved into a pointless discussion of the subjective mores of everyone's pet fairy.

[JackRussell]

The whole sin concept makes little sense to me. I can obviously agree we all do good and bad and neutral things in our life On any bell-curve there will be variants between all-good to all-bad actions and most of us live in the curve, not at the extremes.

I am less likely to do bad things, as I am older and have learnt how my behaviour impacts on all around me. Yet, I can still be mistaken in my interactions and make poor choices.

God seems exempt fro our daily grind to try to do the best we can. An omniscient being should be able to be a positive influence at any point and should present a congruent moral reality; we don't see that in holy books or reality.

Psychopaths and sociopaths, great moral teachers and educators have always existed. Gods don't seem to solve the problem. Primate and social animal evolution does though.

I find sin very confusing, and the idea that we are all evil and have no moral compass is demonstrably false.

Christians do not think "that we are all evil and have no moral compass". That's a straw man argument. In fact it's the opposite. There is an entire natural theology argument that starts with the premise that everyone believes in moral truths. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU&t=9s

That's fine Steve, and I accept than many Christians are on board with you. But, anecdotally I have met Christians that say they have no moral compass unless corrected by the atoning blood of Christ.

I wasn't trying to present a straw-man, but it is difficult for those of us outside to recognise what is true to your beliefs when their is little homogeny.

My main problem is that sin is an inconsistent idea, whilst evolutionary behaviour and aberrant behaviours can be explained naturally, albeit imperfectly.

Sin is a religious construct to me. Actions are available to moral interpretation without any God required.

[Whateverist]

.. 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.

Wow, you really think the actual harm we do one another is secondary to "cosmic consequences"? Oh yeah, you mean pie in the sky afterlife rewards vs dum-te-dum-dum hell.

Another way xtianity warps morality is the honus it puts on them to be morally exceptional, as if morality should be an all consuming pursuit of the highest scores possible. That's no way for people to live. Rather than lift people up, that makes them less than they could be. Of course, the fact that getting 'saved' is said to come from grace rather than acts and the ready availability of death bed confessions pretty much guarantees that the prisons will be stocked with at least their share of malcontents. It is pretty apparent that the avoidance of cruelty and indifference in and of it self doesn't play a very big role in the lives xtians lead; how we treat each other is just for score keeping for the sake of "cosmic consequences" for your lot.

---

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. 

Beautiful.

[SteveII]

Christians do not think "that we are all evil and have no moral compass". That's a straw man argument. In fact it's the opposite. There is an entire natural theology argument that starts with the premise that everyone believes in moral truths. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU&t=9s

That's fine Steve, and I accept than many Christians are on board with you. But, anecdotally I have met Christians that say they have no moral compass unless corrected by the atoning blood of Christ.

I wasn't trying to present a straw-man, but it is difficult for those of us outside to recognise what is true to your beliefs when their is little homogeny.

My main problem is that sin is an inconsistent idea, whilst evolutionary behaviour and aberrant behaviours can be explained naturally, albeit imperfectly.

Sin is a religious construct to me. Actions are available to moral interpretation without any God required.

I would agree that sin is a religious term describing a religious concept within a religious worldview. If you do not adhere to that worldview, generally speaking, there is no sense describing behavior with such terms. However, there is nothing logically wrong with me calling your (or anyone's) moral shortcomings 'sin'. Most atheists will bristle at such a thing. However, it is entirely consistent that I would interpret any human's actions through the lens of my worldview. The complaint at this point is that Christian's 'judge' others but what is really happening is that Christians are using a different measuring stick coupled with a foundational belief in the spiritual effects of sin. Like I said before: worlds apart. 

It is necessary to understand these doctrines or atheists and Christians will just keep talking past each other.

---

.. 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.

Wow, you really think the actual harm we do one another is secondary to "cosmic consequences"?  Oh yeah, you mean pie in the sky afterlife rewards vs dum-te-dum-dum hell.  

Another way xtianity warps morality is the honus it puts on them to be morally exceptional, as if morality should be an all consuming pursuit of the highest scores possible.  That's no way for people to live.  Rather than lift people up, that makes them less than they could be.  Of course, the fact that getting 'saved' is said to come from grace rather than acts and the ready availability of death bed confessions pretty much guarantees that the prisons will be stocked with at least their share of malcontents.  It is pretty apparent that the avoidance of cruelty and indifference in and of it self doesn't play a very big role in the lives xtians lead; how we treat each other is just for score keeping for the sake of "cosmic consequences" for your lot.

Thank you for being Exhibit A in my point above.

[Whateverist]

You should probably define the issues before you declare one methodology to be superior to another.

(EDIT: DELETED WHAT I HAD BEFORE)

What needs to be defined? I am mystified here. Look, you can't bring back the dead, so the only way for a murderer to improve is to try to behave morally in the future. That's my position.

But when you do it the Christian way, not only do the murderers stop murdering but every one of his victims is resurrected .. in a special place you can't see, provided they had groveled the way the lord likes in life.

---

Wow, you really think the actual harm we do one another is secondary to "cosmic consequences"?  Oh yeah, you mean pie in the sky afterlife rewards vs dum-te-dum-dum hell.  

Another way xtianity warps morality is the honus it puts on them to be morally exceptional, as if morality should be an all consuming pursuit of the highest scores possible.  That's no way for people to live.  Rather than lift people up, that makes them less than they could be.  Of course, the fact that getting 'saved' is said to come from grace rather than acts and the ready availability of death bed confessions pretty much guarantees that the prisons will be stocked with at least their share of malcontents.  It is pretty apparent that the avoidance of cruelty and indifference in and of it self doesn't play a very big role in the lives xtians lead; how we treat each other is just for score keeping for the sake of "cosmic consequences" for your lot.

Thank you for being Exhibit A in my point above.

No, thank you. I am here to serve! And look, I got another A. Bet that gets me into that special place we can't see.