A psychological approch to how religion works

[Faith No More]

guilt, conviction and repentance have little to nothing to do with delusion. They are basic human responces to experiential stimuli. What causes the guilt/conviction or the reasons behind the repentance can be based in delusional concepts or real concepts. That's dependant on what you term "real". For instance : Would you feel guilty killing a kid? Of course, would you ask for fogiveness from the parents and seek restitution and attempt to justify your actions? That has nothing to do with any kind of delusion. Emotions and intellect are not mutually exclusive, but one can overide the other when it's overemphasized.

As far as a Chrisitan perspective on pitting an ideal self versus a real self, it's not exclusive to religion, nor is it always detrimental. Don't olympians have an ideal performance they're aspiring to? The fact that most religions hold that ideal self as an absolute value just means you don't have to continuously move the bar. Failure to attain an ideal doesn't depress the average individual, nor does it in most Christians I know. It lends no power to becoming overly emotional about failure to attain then the contrast between ideal/real self being opposites you're describing. In fact seeing that the bar is at a constant level (absolute value) it's easier , IMO, to keep it in focus for betterment of one's self. It's dogmatic in Christianity that you can't attain the goal, but it's never been about attaing it. It's about the struggle of betterment and an ideal. That ideal is absolute and a far better test than a finite bar set by human intellect. The struggle can get cumbersome at times, as can any self-imposed goal, but most religions have that built in hope thing called salvation for encouragement.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

It's true. Guilt, conviction and repentance have little to nothing to do with the delusion. The delusion is what you have to do about the guilt. Christianity teaches that the only way to save yourself from the guilt of sin is through Jesus. Almost everyone experiences guilt and Christianity tries to command people how to repent which is how it controls people. If Christianity is the only way to salvation then I have to do whatever I think it wants me to do. It empowers this message by telling everyone they are dirty little sinners so we must seek salvation.

[Gregoriouse]

guilt, conviction and repentance have little to nothing to do with delusion. They are basic human responces to experiential stimuli. What causes the guilt/conviction or the reasons behind the repentance can be based in delusional concepts or real concepts. That's dependant on what you term "real". For instance : Would you feel guilty killing a kid? Of course, would you ask for fogiveness from the parents and seek restitution and attempt to justify your actions? That has nothing to do with any kind of delusion. Emotions and intellect are not mutually exclusive, but one can overide the other when it's overemphasized.

As far as a Chrisitan perspective on pitting an ideal self versus a real self, it's not exclusive to religion, nor is it always detrimental. Don't olympians have an ideal performance they're aspiring to? The fact that most religions hold that ideal self as an absolute value just means you don't have to continuously move the bar. Failure to attain an ideal doesn't depress the average individual, nor does it in most Christians I know. It lends no power to becoming overly emotional about failure to attain then the contrast between ideal/real self being opposites you're describing. In fact seeing that the bar is at a constant level (absolute value) it's easier , IMO, to keep it in focus for betterment of one's self. It's dogmatic in Christianity that you can't attain the goal, but it's never been about attaing it. It's about the struggle of betterment and an ideal. That ideal is absolute and a far better test than a finite bar set by human intellect. The struggle can get cumbersome at times, as can any self-imposed goal, but most religions have that built in hope thing called salvation for encouragement.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

If a delusion/deluded belief system caused you to have guilt and conviction, then that delusion has everything to do with guilt and conviction. Guilt and conviction can happen without religion (very good point btw. There are other augments were some believer regard nonbeliever as not having any way to have moral guide because they don’t use a bible to tell them what they can and can’t do.). However say you haven’t killed a child, or even done anything wrong for that matter, by this delusion there is the belief that no matter what you’re a wretch/sinner. On top of this imagine what the idea does to self-image, no matter what you do you’re a sinner. This belief is a psychologically damaging trap. Of course I’d feel bad if I killed a child but with the belief in original sin you don’t even have to commit an act to have the guilt.

“ideal self versus a real self”

Versus implies conflict. Its contrast not conflict.

“Failure to attain an ideal doesn't depress the average individual, nor does it in most Christians I know.”

There isn’t any way of knowing off hand if a person is depressed or not; and attitude is a poor predictor of thought. 1 in 10 adults in the United States is affected by depression. Because you don’t think a person is depressed doesn’t mean they aren’t. My point is that this idea can work in this way and very destructively so.

“In fact seeing that the bar is at a constant level (absolute value) it's easier , IMO, to keep it in focus for betterment of one's self.”

This doesn’t matter with original sin because it doesn’t matter how much you try. The belief is that you fail either way.

“It's dogmatic in Christianity that you can't attain the goal, but it's never been about attaing it.”

So it’s ok to sin? I mean you don’t have to try to attain your ideal self? Actually technically you don’t. However that would result in helplessness to improve yourself and helplessness in attaining you’re ideal self. That would only worsen the situation.

“It's about the struggle of betterment and an ideal.”

I thought you said it’s not about attaining it? your sending a mixed message. You saying it’s not about attaining it but it’s about (the struggle and hope) to attain it. On top of that that would mean struggling and hoping to attain the unattainable (sinless perfection). Hence frustration.

and btw I for got to site Carl Rogers theory of self as my source of this psychological principle. http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/rogers.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rogers

[tackattack]

---

Religions still seem immature to me.



[quote='DoubtVsFaith' pid='117884' dateline='1297798476']
It's halfway to full responsibility. You admit you've done wrong, but you nevertheless can just be forgiven again and again if you do the same in future. It has present moment responsibility but it lacks future responsibility.

---

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

---

Repentance is a great way to actually promote personally accountability in an individual

I've heard other Christians say something similar to this. But I still don't understand how repentance promotes personal responsibility... If you 'sin,' no matter how bad the sin, you can always repent to a higher power and He'll forgive you, a universal get-out-of-jail-free card. You don't really have to be accountable, because you get to turn over your responsibility to God.

I suppose there are people who also do the right thing, and try to rectify their wrongs. But that doesn't require confessing them to any deity. It is other people you have wronged, and it is these other people who will decide whether or not to forgive you.

---

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

---

It's true. Guilt, conviction and repentance have little to nothing to do with the delusion. The delusion is what you have to do about the guilt. Christianity teaches that the only way to save yourself from the guilt of sin is through Jesus. Almost everyone experiences guilt and Christianity tries to command people how to repent which is how it controls people. If Christianity is the only way to salvation then I have to do whatever I think it wants me to do. It empowers this message by telling everyone they are dirty little sinners so we must seek salvation.

---

Chritianity doesn't teach " only way to save yourself from the guilt of sin is through Jesus"
It teaches the only way to salvation is Jesus. Within Soteriology, salvation and the concept of conviction of sin (what I believe you're referring to as guilt) are 2 separate entities. I've never been called a "dirty sinner" merely a sinner. From a Christian ideology we're all sinners which create a sense of unity. Think about it like this, the best person you know and the worst person you know still have some work to better themselves, and both have their flaws. And the average person sits somewhere in the middle, unless you're manic. Your own personal guilt is part of your own personal walk with God and anyone who "commands you" to do anything isn't practicing the common Christian dogma of not condemning your fellow man and the ideals behind a personal walk with Christ.

---

1 If a delusion/deluded belief system caused you to have guilt and conviction, then that delusion has everything to do with guilt and conviction. Guilt and conviction can happen without religion (very good point btw. There are other augments were some believer regard nonbeliever as not having any way to have moral guide because they don’t use a bible to tell them what they can and can’t do.). However say you haven’t killed a child, or even done anything wrong for that matter, by this delusion there is the belief that no matter what you’re a wretch/sinner. On top of this imagine what the idea does to self-image, no matter what you do you’re a sinner. This belief is a psychologically damaging trap. Of course I’d feel bad if I killed a child but with the belief in original sin you don’t even have to commit an act to have the guilt.

“ideal self versus a real self”

Versus implies conflict. Its contrast not conflict.

“Failure to attain an ideal doesn't depress the average individual, nor does it in most Christians I know.”

2 There isn’t any way of knowing off hand if a person is depressed or not; and attitude is a poor predictor of thought. 1 in 10 adults in the United States is affected by depression. Because you don’t think a person is depressed doesn’t mean they aren’t. My point is that this idea can work in this way and very destructively so.

“In fact seeing that the bar is at a constant level (absolute value) it's easier , IMO, to keep it in focus for betterment of one's self.”

3 This doesn’t matter with original sin because it doesn’t matter how much you try. The belief is that you fail either way.

“It's dogmatic in Christianity that you can't attain the goal, but it's never been about attaing it.”

4 So it’s ok to sin? I mean you don’t have to try to attain your ideal self? Actually technically you don’t. However that would result in helplessness to improve yourself and helplessness in attaining you’re ideal self. That would only worsen the situation.

“It's about the struggle of betterment and an ideal.”

5 I thought you said it’s not about attaining it? your sending a mixed message. You saying it’s not about attaining it but it’s about (the struggle and hope) to attain it. On top of that that would mean struggling and hoping to attain the unattainable (sinless perfection). Hence frustration.

and btw I for got to site Carl Rogers theory of self as my source of this psychological principle. http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/rogers.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rogers

---

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. 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.

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

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

[OnlyNatural]

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.'

[ozgoat]

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.

[Gregoriouse]

“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.

[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

[OnlyNatural]

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.

The word 'sinner' doesn't particularly bother me, it's just the idea behind it. Maybe you have a different definition of it than I do, 'one who sins or does wrong, transgresses (according to God), and has not repented yet.'

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)

Yep, pretty much what I said, that's the experience of most people when they feel guilty.

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.

Okay, so you add on an extra layer of accountability and repentance to a supreme being, for which there is no evidence (except for your own feelings, or that it makes sense to you personally). That just seems so unnecessary, to put your stock in something that may or may not exist, but we can never be sure. Might as well give your full attention to those other corporeal people around you who are most certainly affected by your actions.

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.

Well, you'd really have to cherry-pick the Bible and the teachings of Jesus/Moses to find guidance for a good moral compass that's acceptable in today's world. If you say the Holy Spirit is guiding you to follow the right teachings, that may just be your conscience, your personal sense of morality, the voice in your head that all of us have. Assuming there's a God leads to mislabeling a normal human phenomenon.

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 would hope it's a minority view, but somehow I still think there are lots of evangelists and fundies out there preaching hellfire and damnation for the sinful.

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.

So you're saying it's good to question an ideology but be careful not to reject part of it? (or if you do, do it honestly)

Honestly questioning your ideologies often leads to rejecting parts of them or rejecting the entire belief outright. With unsupported beliefs, it's almost inevitable that scrutinizing them makes you realize that it doesn't all add up. It's just that certain beliefs (like 'God exists') are not questioned, because apparently they don't need evidence, they just need faith.

[tackattack]

I mis-phrased that last one. What I meant to say was do not reject the entirety of a complex ideology because certain parts are rejected. Similar to the best lies have a bit of truth in them, or every cloud has a silver lining. Very few things are either all truth or all lie. Most people just mix and match what they see as relevant truth and apply it to their lives. That, IMO is why there's some many factions in Religion.

As far as a moral guide, You'd have to be cherry picking to find it amoral, IMO. A comprehensive OT and NT approach including: context, how they relate and multiple translation is indicative to me of a higher moral standard than society. It's common to many different denominations of Christianity I've experienced. You can take 30-50 OT verses on their own without any context or view outside the OT and see profuse immorality. Or you can take them in context and their fulfillment and how they're applied to Christianity from the NT and wind up with a very moral guide.

What you see as unnecessary I see as a natural progression, because I see personal experiences that cause me to believe God does exist. If you had those experiences you'd probably feel the same way. You haven't so you don't, that's OK. But just because you don't share those view doesn't mean it's irrational or unimportant and unnecessary to me. Nor does it show a lack of any personal accountability or societal responsibility.

[OnlyNatural]

I mis-phrased that last one. What I meant to say was do not reject the entirety of a complex ideology because certain parts are rejected. Similar to the best lies have a bit of truth in them, or every cloud has a silver lining. Very few things are either all truth or all lie. Most people just mix and match what they see as relevant truth and apply it to their lives. That, IMO is why there's some many factions in Religion.

As far as a moral guide, You'd have to be cherry picking to find it amoral, IMO.

It's certainly not amoral (without moral relevance), there are some very moral parts, and some very immoral parts.

I'm sure there are good moral truths in the Bible, but there's also a great deal of immoral stuff. But, just because some parts may be morally true and relevant, it says nothing about whether the God described, and his system of sin and salvation, actually exist. It's like saying there are great moral truths in Aesop's fables, but nobody believes the characters exist or that the stories literally took place.

A comprehensive OT and NT approach including: context, how they relate and multiple translation is indicative to me of a higher moral standard than society. It's common to many different denominations of Christianity I've experienced. You can take 30-50 OT verses on their own without any context or view outside the OT and see profuse immorality. Or you can take them in context and their fulfillment and how they're applied to Christianity from the NT and wind up with a very moral guide.

So we look at biblical proscriptions in their context (thousands of years ago, in the Middle East), and realize that in today's context, they should no longer apply, or should be changed?

IMO, there are some immoral passages and some good, moral ones, but the system as a whole is on the immoral side, if you really think about it. Those who see it as a moral guide are just following the good parts. Why wasn't a new prophet sent to tell us to change our interpretation of the Bible? We had to figure that out on our own, as a society. The entire Bible may have been perfectly relevant and moral in the society during which it was written, but not today. We must either keep reinterpreting and dropping parts of the Bible, or realize that it's actually the humans of modern society who are shaping the moral climate of today. How much longer will we chip away at God's word before we realize we don't need it anymore?

What you see as unnecessary I see as a natural progression, because I see personal experiences that cause me to believe God does exist. If you had those experiences you'd probably feel the same way. You haven't so you don't, that's OK. But just because you don't share those view doesn't mean it's irrational or unimportant and unnecessary to me. Nor does it show a lack of any personal accountability or societal responsibility.

I'm sure it feels important and necessary to you, and I'm sure you're rational in every other way. And I don't doubt your personal or societal responsibility. But this is what it always comes down to with religious belief, you feel that it's true, you've had personal experiences and interpret them in your own way, it makes sense to you. But subjective experiences do not necessarily represent objective reality, even if many people report similar experiences. A good example is the many reported cases of 'alien abduction,' but nobody really believes these people, despite their personal revelations. There are better explanations, like sleep paralysis. I think there are probably simpler explanations for religious phenomena, but the illusion that there must be 'something beyond' still persists.