Some people would probably formulate the notion of original sin as "everyone is inclined to evil" or "everyone is prone to evil" or "everyone is vulnerable to committing evil" or "everyone is broken" or "everyone needs help against evil" rather than "everyone 'is' evil".
Views on how Atonement works are at the very core of the doctrinal differences between Christian denominations. Painting with very rough strokes, the general agreement is that without Jesus' sacrifice and the Faith, humans would be doomed to stay in sin and never be reconciled with God.
Traditionally, Christ is the savior (rescuer) from all kinds of life's ills, not only from the much-ballyhooed (in Protestant circles) fate of dying a jackass.
I could ask you the same. Ideas like “love thy neighbour” don’t feel very “everybody is evil” to me.
I recognize that there are Christian doom cults that think everyone is evil but I’m surprised by how plainly you call that a “core belief”. It does not fit in any way the (moderate protestant) way I was raised, and it doesn’t match the beliefs of my catholic friends either. Every devout Christian I know (though I know only a few) is an optimist about humanity.
Raised Catholic through confirmation. Long time atheist, although I attend my wife's evangelical protestant church. So admittedly an outsider's view on all of this.
> Ideas like “love thy neighbour” don’t feel very “everybody is evil” to me.
I don't know why those would be incompatible. People can be evil, but you can love them all the same.
> I’m surprised by how plainly you call that a “core belief”.
Really? Sin and the need for Jesus's salvation are universal through the branches of Christianity I've experienced. They use different terms for it—Catholicism talks about "original sin", protestants talk about "mankind's sin nature". I know nothing about Orthodox Christianity, but I would expect them to fit in there somewhere. Catholics and Protestants argue about salvation through faith or salvation through works, but they both see it as something desirable.
There are lots of branches of Christianity, and so I don't have a full picture, but I've never heard of one that didn't share this belief, and I'm not sure I'd understand what their faith is all about at that point. But if you've got some info, I'm happy to learn more. I kinda hate to quote Wikipedia here, but it mirrors my understanding:
> Christian ethics, also known as moral theology, is a multi-faceted ethical system. It is a virtue ethic, which focuses on building moral character, and a deontological ethic which emphasizes duty. It also incorporates natural law ethics, which is built on the belief that it is the very nature of humans – created in the image of God and capable of morality, cooperation, rationality, discernment and so on – that informs how life should be lived, and that awareness of sin does not require special revelation.
> awareness of sin does not require special revelation.
The link you provided highlights the word "Hamartiology" which I just learned is the study of sin. I've never heard of this study before but I have studied some Buddhist teachings. Buddhists teach that when you steady your attention on a mental object, that object grows (for example gratitude). To me, it follows that studying sin leads to increased sin.
I think many modern Christians understand this and, therefore, sin is no longer such a central tenant to the faith.
Thanks for the explanation. I guess our mismatch is that you think sin and evil are the same thing and I think they’re very far apart. To me, stealing a cookie from mom when she’s not watching is sinful but not evil. Murdering people is evil but I don’t think that’s what your average Christian refers to when talking about sin.
I know, it was flkenosad who posted the message that I originally responded to.
> you think sin and evil are the same thing and I think they’re very far apart
Well, I am an outsider, so it's not so much what I believe, it's my understanding of what Christian theology teaches. And my understanding might be wrong! Catholics have "mortal sin" vs. "venial sin", for instance, but I'm not sure that's the same distinction.
