Admitting You're a Sinner

[Banned]

What's that about goblins and things that go bump in the night, again?  The devil....psh, don't get me started on that infantile phobia. Shame isn't directly about survival, it's about status and image, and the damage you can do to ether. Some of us are just genuinely decent people - rather than trash human beings..... who feel bad when we think we've done something that would cause others to rightly look at us askew - even if no one will ever find out. We don't need to terrify our children, or ourselves, with stories of gremlins to effect that.

Status and image is partly about survival, you know that.
So we don't want to tread on anyone's toes because it will ruin our reputation?
Fair enough, we all do it.

What you are basically saying is that our relationships are on the horizontal and not the vertical, to each other, but not to an imaginary person in the sky.

Then whatever happens here, is only ever relevant to what or whom?
The majority, the closet group, the individual?
Do we really have a reference point, which isn't yet another repetition of failed history?

[The Grand Nudger]

Status and image is partly about survival, you know that.
So we don't want to tread on anyone's toes because it will ruin our reputation?
Fair enough, we all do it.

That sounds like a christian motivation to me.  I don't tread on anyones toes because it makes me feel like an asshole, lol. It's still true that this shame has a hefty component of not wanting others to see you for the asshole you are, and so trying to avoid asshole shit.

You do you, rack up them points.  

What you are basically saying is that our relationships are on the horizontal and not the vertical, to each other, but not to an imaginary person in the sky.

The christian tells me that this is what I'm saying?  Are you even qualified to speak for yourself? Yes..ofc that's what I'm saying, lol. What else is there to interpersonal relationships than..you know..those persons?

Then whatever happens here, is only ever relevant to what or whom?
The majority, the closet group, the individual?
Do we really have a reference point, which isn't yet another repetition of failed history?

Do you really want to hurt me...do you really want to make me cry.....

[Martian Mermaid]

My impression of it is that you always have sinned, and always will. Which is true, as it is impossible to perfect and moral forever. But that's just the thing, it's impossible to be perfect. Everyone makes mistakes, that doesn't mean we are bad. If we do the best we can we are not bad. But...best at what? What defines morality? Is there even such thing as good or bad, or just whatever you and me think is good or bad?
I don't think there is concrete good or bad in the first place. But I do not believe there is a creator or a purpose. Theists think there is a creator, and usually a purpose. I suppose straying from that purpose is "bad", but even if that were true, all you can do is the best you can. Therefore you can't be a bad person.
But telling you that you are creates loyalty. You want to repent, so the church can tell you to do better. So they can tell you how to be better. So they can tell you what to do.
From what I have seen, this often means meeting with church leaders to discuss your connection or loyalty to God. This way they keep tabs on your deepest thoughts.

[Succubus]

Admitting you're a sinner is generally only a problem for narcissists.

They hate to think that they are prone to make mistakes, which they make more often than anyone else.

The comments on this thread suggest that Atheism is the perfect religion for narcissists.

This post suggests you have a limited understanding of narcism and a very limited understanding of atheism.

[The Grand Nudger]

@MM
Or you can just give the shaman some money and skip the charade.

He'll cast an intercessionary spell over a holy knucklebone for you.

[vulcanlogician]

I don't think the passage is about repentance in the sense of the action preceding the asking of forgiveness and the acceptance of salvation. Rather it seems to be about understanding the reality you are in (we fall so short of God's holiness) after a serious contemplation and discovery of knowledge that takes time and therefore not available to the new Christian. 

I see what you mean. Either by a cheap understanding of it, or its being tossed around in a frivolous manner, I tend to refer to repentance as more superficial than the process you describe. I get it. It's a fundamental change in a person and is perhaps initiated by admission of one's faults, but as a whole encompasses much more.

The church could have no one in it and the whore would still be sweating. 

Perhaps a segment of "modern American Evangelicals". That group is quite large and contains many people with a Christ-like attitude and perspective. 

My guess would be that "Christ-like" is the exception, not the rule, but I'm going off personal experience and my own limited powers of observation. Those who truly strive to meet the ideal, however, endeavour to do something quite admirable.

I think it is describing a change in perspective not in beliefs. Heaven and hell are still core doctrines of Christianity.

Yeah. I think you're right there. A denial of Heaven/Hell was never expressed, simply a change in attitude about their ultimate significance.

***
It's definitely been interesting going over this with you. You are an honest debater. Had I realized this earlier I might not have adopted such a pedantic posture at the outset.   My mind has actually been changed on the issue, although just by an increment. I can see how there might be transformative value in the process of admitting that one is a sinner. When done carefully and introspectively, such an admission could lead to dissolution of unhealthy egoism. However, if one is going to undertake such an endeavour, I would counsel them to do it meditatively, alone, and not under the supervision of some slimy religious authority.

Even as such an activity could be put to good use, it is subject to misuse (and dare I say ab-use) when facilitated by a person with confused or misguided motives. By your own admission, many Christians are not sincere in their convictions. All it takes is one sanctimonious fool with a head full of dogma to cause lasting psychological damage to another if they are influential during that person's moment of vulnerability.

Also, consider this. Some people, while not morally perfect, might really and truly need to gain in self-esteem before any other kind of growth (including moral growth) is possible. The dogmatic hand is often heavy and doltish. The problem with imposing the ABCs of Christianity as a one-size-fits-all solution, is that it fails to recognize that what is necessary for moral growth varies from person to person. Some people are egotistical assholes who never fault themselves for anything. Others come from abusive backgrounds where they are made to assume blame for the faults of others. Long story short, it's yet another thing that makes a secular approach seem more sensible to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, that's where I'm at.  I' fairly pragmatic in where I source my life changing wisdom..there just isn't anything in christianity for me to cannibalize.

[Catholic_Lady]

I interpret Original Sin as the fact that none of us are perfectly good. Basically we all have the tendency to sin, and we all will if given the chance. It started with the first humans and will continue throughout all of humanity. That's how it was explained to me in school anyway.

The more literal approach of "inheritance" and "being responsible for Adam and Eve eating a forbiden apple" is quite old school these days.

By what authority are you given leave to reinterpret church dogma?

What exactly am I reinterpreting? This is what I was taught in my Catholic school and Catholic upbringing.

Some of the more old school folks take the literal approach to Original Sin - that Adam and Eve ate an apple and we literally inherited their sin genetically. And that's fine too.

Doesn't matter whether you take the literal approach or not, the take away point is that as human beings we all have an inherent tendency to sin, aka original sin.

[The Valkyrie]

Well, that's a load.

Mistakes are nothing to do with morality.

As for the last sentence, it becomes even clearer that you're not qualified to speak on our behalf.

If mistakes have nothing to do with morality, then it is no big deal to admit them, is it?
In fact, if there is nothing wrong with making a mistake, then why even bother apologizing?
If you have to apologize for something which isn't fundamentally immoral, then you are in the company of petty narcissists.
So then would atheists only feel comfortable admitting amoral mistakes?
Because they want to fit in with the petty narcissists which rule their world?

---

Gee, two christians, two diametrically opposed positions - and ofc the possibility that you're both wrong and talking straight out of your pious asses?

Decisions, decisions.

I zoned out the jesus fanfic.

---

---

Did not I tell you that Satan has incubated himself in the religions of the world?
Then you would expect contradictions and confusion, and expect that such nonsense is blamed on the Bible, the very book which they are supposed be be true to.

---

Guilt is the internal compass.

Shame is social disapproval.

Well said.

Where does guilt come from?
Isn't it a basic fear of survival?

Sense.  You make none.

[Banned]

My impression of it is that you always have sinned, and always will. Which is true, as it is impossible to perfect and moral forever. But that's just the thing, it's impossible to be perfect. Everyone makes mistakes, that doesn't mean we are bad. If we do the best we can we are not bad. But...best at what? What defines morality? Is there even such thing as good or bad, or just whatever you and me think is good or bad?
I don't think there is concrete good or bad in the first place. But I don't believe there is a creator or a purpose. Theists think there is a creator, and usually a purpose. I suppose straying from that purpose is "bad", but even if that were true, all you can do is the best you can. Therefore you can't be a bad person.
But telling you that you are creates loyalty. You want to repent, so the church can tell you to do better. So they can tell you how to be better. So they can tell you what to do.
From what I have seen, this often means meeting with church leaders to discuss your connection or loyalty to God. This way they keep tabs on your deepest thoughts.

You've got as many questions as I have.
And it makes perfect sense what you are saying, and you also seem very balanced.

---

Admitting you're a sinner is generally only a problem for narcissists.

They hate to think that they are prone to make mistakes, which they make more often than anyone else.

The comments on this thread suggest that Atheism is the perfect religion for narcissists.

This post suggests you have a limited understanding of narcism and a very limited understanding of atheism.

True.
What I should have said is that sin is narcissism, and who hasn't got some of that?