Quote:
Originally Posted by cylon  And vice versa. Somewhere in-between the extreme fundamentalists (using the same bible) and the liberal christians (using the same bible) are the general attitudes and interpretations that lead to this pervasive sense of "christian guilt". |
Yes, I think that's a good point. I guess the difference is that the liberals tend to see our human 'guilt' rather as one judges the actions of a child, and this metaphor is very strong in Christ's teachings. The fall did not cause God to curse us literally and permanently, it represents the time when we gained self-consciousness and thus the ability to lie, cheat, steal and feel shame and guilt. Guilt isn't always a bad thing: ok, it can be used oppressively, but it also adds to our human responsibility to each other. Without our feeling guilty we would just be beasts, that's the point of the story of the fall.
Then there's the matter of perhaps the single most important point of Christianity - God became man in order to suffer and die as a man and thus
wash our sins away. Like I say, I'm not an expert, but I take it to mean that sin is still real - i.e. we still do things that we should feel bad about, but we aren't going to hell over them anymore (traditionally: but only if we fess up in time). Modern Christianity is a religion of mercy and forgiveness. I hardly think that a religion that teaches us to turn the other cheek has a God who damns people to eternal torment if they don't get it right - first time, second time, as many times as they need perhaps. The Christian God turns as many cheeks as are needed until we come to the fold, in a similar way that in Hinduism it doesn't matter how long you sin and waste lives, eventually, in your own time, you come to God.
But sure, these are just particular takes on Christianity that I am emphasising, and I think your point is valid that Christianity has caused a lot of unnecessary guilt and the oppressive use of guilt.