Jump to content

Is It Immoral To Promote The Doctrine Of "sin"?


Jake49
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just looking at this... Can it be argued that it is immoral to promote the doctrine of Sin?I am in some discussions recently where a card keeps getting played... the card of, "You have no right to talk about other peoples beliefs! Other people have a right to have an opinion you know! Other people have a right to be free to believe what they want!"(I have zero issue with freedom to believe what we want etc... my issue is focused on specific beliefs... and when I take issue with certain things, I am told, "You have a problem with peoples freedom to have a faith!")

 

My focus is on obvious things like homophobia, bigotry, promoting damaging, harmful beliefs (e.g. "using condoms is sinful") and preventing scientific research etc...I'm also focused on the less obvious (to most) harmful and sick doctrines and beliefs... When I look at the doctrine of "Sin"... Sinful nature... my intuition/gut instinct tells me there's a strong case to support the argument that promoting doctrines of Sinful nature (as well as heaven and hell and other doctrines) is immoral...Basically, I don't want to be told that I have no right to talk about other peoples beliefs (and I do apply tolerance, patience... I'm not being outright rude.... although that is what I get called, rude, arrogant... just because I ask for REASON... "It's my faith that homosexuality is a sin"... "You have to respect my faith"....No, I don't. I respect people freedom to have a faith... however, it is a fallacy as though that is the same as respecting WHAT someones beliefs are....

 

Don't eat that kind of meat? Fine... Want to pray twice a day? fine... don't want to work on that day of the week? fine...Want to even TALK about sin? What Jesus did? heaven and hell?..... Not ok... these things are so insulting and immoral... it is emotional and psychological child abuse to indoctrinate this into children.. it is manipulative and sick... "You are a bag of filth, so detestable that without turning to THIS God, you will writhe in agony for eternity in hell, where something like you belongs"...

 

I don't actively PUSH this view of sick doctrines.... however, when someone presents an opposing argument to my position... (especially Christian friends on facebook and forums lol)... I WILL present my views and give reason for them... and if that offends someone, that is not my problem.. and for me to be accused of not respecting someones beliefs is BS.Ok... I'm ranting... What I'm saying is... I try and be respectful and I don't have some anti-Christianity foundational bias.... I'm open to hearing views, I just require REASON behind it! not "because the bible says so"... or "because it's my faith... if you have any criticism, then you are against my freedom to have a faith!"... straw man crap..The reason why it's seen as arrogant, is because there's few things more arrogant than religious doctrine.. so arrogance is perceived through a position of arrogance... or projected or something...Anyone shed some more light on all this stuff?this is a cool vid

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not only immoral but it's psychologically damaging to say the least. It feeds off of the low self esteem many people suffer from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel there are some ideas that are wrong, damage people, and don't deserve respect. The idea of "original sin" is one of them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel there are some ideas that are wrong, damage people, and don't deserve respect. The idea of "original sin" is one of them.

 

Very true. We are all born with the capability of doing "good", as well as doing "wrong". Christians will not say that the good that comes from them comes from themselves - that comes from God. They say that all that we are capable of is doing wrong, outside of God. One of the Scriptures I've heard batted around quite a bit is "all our righteousness is a filthy rags". IMO, the doctrine of "original sin" is one of the very worst ideas that a person can indoctrinate themselves/ their kids in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Original sin or sin in general is a toxic doctrine because it makes people feel bad about themselves for no good reason. It attacks self-esteem.

Telling someone they 'need Jesus' is a toxic doctrine because it can make people think they cannot handle their own lives. It attacks self-esteem.

Xianity is toxic because it usurps a person's self governing authority with that of an imaginary being controlled by someone else (pastor for example).

Xianity is toxic because it makes people unsure of their own thought processes.

Xianity is toxic because it establishes, in all seriousness that there is a separate being inside you called Jesus that knows better than you how to live your life.

 

 

But I digress.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sin is not a good doctrine for morality. There is no actual thought put into defining something as sin, just following the edicts of a god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The doctrine of sin is a poor standard for morality and the acceptance of it is no guarantee for moral behavior. I find it faulty for two reasons:

 

a.) It erases the concept of moral vs. immoral and replaces it with sinful vs. not-sinful. Thoughts and behaviors that otherwise have no ill effect (or even a tangible one) on those around us, such as noticing a person's attractiveness, can be easily classified as sinful while behaviors that are demonstrably wrong, such as murder, can just as easily be characterized as not-sinful as per God's edict or express personal preference - and we are of course expected to take the claimant at their word that they possess an exclusive understanding of the will of God. It's a form of moral subversion to get people to feel guilty about that which they should not, and to convince people to perform acts that they ordinarily would think of as bad or wrong. It effectively rewrites morality to reflect both a larger agenda and rules of decorum that are in direct conflict with human nature. The very existence of the doctrine itself is evidence of its diversion from what we think of as ethics and morality; if "sinful" were synonymous with "morally reprehensible" and "not-sinful" synonymous with "morally upstanding," there would be no need for the term "sin" in the first place. The fact that it exists suggests that it serves only to clarify, contradict, or even refute rational moral standards, implying that God's morality is in fact different than what we ourselves can observe.

 

b.) It's a little insulting. Not in a devastating way, but Christ do I remember all the guilt I had during my teenage years. Beyond destroying confidence in decision-making abilities, trust in one's instincts and convictions, and self-esteem, it teaches one to believe they are inherently flawed and in need of salvation/repair. I don't think it's the healthiest way to go through life. Moreover, it's undeniably exploitative in that it not only instills in one the notion of needing salvation but also requires that this salvation be attained through pre-approved channels. Church, confession, papal authority, ritual, sacraments, and most importantly, professed membership survive as legitimate institutions because and only because of the doctrine of sin. If we weren't scared half to death of our own nature and mortality, we wouldn't have nearly as much need for religions that promote a doctrine contradicting the former and assuring us that the latter is avoidable.

 

Jake49, I hear you on your frustration, and I don't think you're being unnecessarily provocative by speaking up when someone flippantly or uninvitedly makes a comment regarding the sinful (read: irreparably flawed) nature of ALL humans. It's one thing to drone on and on about how Jesus does great things for one's life, but to include everyone in the picture of one's worldview inevitably draws disagreement, and Christians are not exempt from a polite refutation of their generalizing views. If we go into a room of Christians and loudly comment that all Christians are misled fools, some will predictably take issue with the stereotype and speak up. Now, if we go into a room of people and comment that all humans are inherently flawed with an inevitable predisposition towards evil, some will likewise take issue and seek to correct the mischaracterization.

 

When someone justifies Christianity and their adherence to it by saying, "Well, we're all sinners..." or "We'd all be in hell but for the grace of Jesus Christ," my favorite response is "Speak for yourself, Jack."

 

When someone asks what we think about the doctrine of sin, we can say that if it is to be used as a standard of measurement, the doctrine of sin is then undeniably sinful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indoctrinating children is a necessity. How many rational adults would buy the whole jesus/sin/salvation tripe if they had never heard of it before? It's why they argue so hard-because MAMA said it was true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody talks about what is "Moral"...Define morality please somebody.

 

 

 

 




    1. mor·al/ˈmôrəl/
       
       
      Adjective: Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. Noun: A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience. Synonyms:
      adjective. ethical - ethic - virtuous
      noun. morality - morals - ethics - morale - lesson
       

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dictionary gives a western humanist definition of moral, whereas the Christian definition of "moral" lies more with obedience and submission to the word of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone has the right to believe what they want (though I would quibble with their ability). No one has the right not to be laughed at for believing something stupid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm loving all the words... I knew the word toxic already... and never used it in these contexts... TOXIC.... it's perfect to describe the subtle, manipulative, half-truth nature of so much Christian doctrine that seeps its way into the subconscious and shackles a persons true and authentic self. Enjoyed reading everything.. want to keep reading.

 

Everyone has the right to believe what they want (though I would quibble with their ability). No one has the right not to be laughed at for believing something stupid.

 

Yes this is something I've recently come across so much... especially as I'm discovering more fallacies in discussion where I realise, "Wait... I'm NOT the one being arrogant here! why am I being made to feel that I am!!".... And that is to echo something of the nature you just said, that people are free to have whatever views they want... great! be free!..... but when those views are being pushed, or they are clearly harmful and damaging (obvious e.g. to most being something like the "North American Man/Boy Love Association" who push for abolishing the age of consent laws so they can have relationships with children)... So people are free to have views that CAN be respected!........ AND the views themselves do NOT demand or automatically deserve respect in the same way... they must have reason... there should be no 'taboo' about critically thinking about and debating the views themselves, especially when there is reasonable concern for harm and damage to others.

 

"You have no right to talk about my views like this!".... "you have no right to question my belief concerning Man/Boy love!"... "How dare you present an argument that opposes my beliefs! stem cells have souls and that's the end of it!"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm loving all the words... I knew the word toxic already... and never used it in these contexts... TOXIC.... it's perfect to describe the subtle, manipulative, half-truth nature of so much Christian doctrine that seeps its way into the subconscious and shackles a persons true and authentic self. Enjoyed reading everything.. want to keep reading.

 

Everyone has the right to believe what they want (though I would quibble with their ability). No one has the right not to be laughed at for believing something stupid.

 

Yes this is something I've recently come across so much... especially as I'm discovering more fallacies in discussion where I realise, "Wait... I'm NOT the one being arrogant here! why am I being made to feel that I am!!".... And that is to echo something of the nature you just said, that people are free to have whatever views they want... great! be free!..... but when those views are being pushed, or they are clearly harmful and damaging (obvious e.g. to most being something like the "North American Man/Boy Love Association" who push for abolishing the age of consent laws so they can have relationships with children)... So people are free to have views that CAN be respected!........ AND the views themselves do NOT demand or automatically deserve respect in the same way... they must have reason... there should be no 'taboo' about critically thinking about and debating the views themselves, especially when there is reasonable concern for harm and damage to others.

 

"You have no right to talk about my views like this!".... "you have no right to question my belief concerning Man/Boy love!"... "How dare you present an argument that opposes my beliefs! stem cells have souls and that's the end of it!"...

 

Someone somewhere said "No idea should be above scrutiny."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.