I’ve noticed a new word in Christendom.
It replaces that icky, ugly word, “sin”.
The new word is ‘broken’.
Man! I’d like to use this new word!
‘Broken’ is way more appealing than ‘sinful’.
‘Sin’ makes me feel guilty.
‘Broken’ makes me feel bad…
…but it’s not my fault.
Sinful is a deliberate act of rebellion.
Brokenness is victimhood.
Circumstances beyond my control have caused me harm.
I’m broken.
Like a vase dropped on the floor.
Shattered by life’s cruelty.
Man! I’d like to believe that!
I’d like to believe the lyrics of this song.
“‘Cause I am a sinner
If it’s not one thing it’s another
Caught up in words
Tangled in lies
But You are a Savior
And You take brokenness aside
And make it beautiful
Beautiful”
Tragically, I can’t buy this.
I can’t find a Biblical instance where ‘sin’ is made into something beautiful.
Sin is always portrayed as something that God cannot abide.
A stain that is removed.
Sin isn’t remade into artwork.
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! – (2 Co 5:17)
Neither does Scripture use the word ‘broken’ in place of ‘sin’.
Because the words aren’t interchangeable.
It only works one direction…
“For all are broken and fall short of God’s glory.”
“We are slaves to our brokenness.”
“While we were yet broken, Christ died for us.”
It doesn’t work the other…
“My tooth sinned when I bit into an apple.”
“The soda machine took my money because it was sinful.”
“Grandma fell and sinned her hip.”
I’m probably making too much out of this.
I tend to do that.
Then again…
I’m always eager to dodge the consequences of my bad behavior.
When I’m broken, I get pity.
When I’m sinful, I get wrath.
If I could, I’d even go so far as to blame God for sin itself!
So I’m not going to use ‘broken’ instead of ‘sin’.
And I’m not going to refer to sin as beautiful.
“As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.”
67 Responses
I just saw this on someone comment thread on Noseybook, and thought of this thread.
“When the guy doing the saving made the thing he’s saving you from, that’s not a gift. That’s blackmail.”
Think about that, John.
Oh, and mrs.mc – I’m not sure where you got the idea that I left the church b/c I felt ‘blinded and manipulated’. . . I have nothing but good things to say about the people in my former church family (and some who ARE my family). I just don’t believe any of the fiction anymore (you know, because it isn’t true?). Period.
I’m sure you know what people say about assuming.
It thought about it. I’m guessing it came from JZ. This is the kind of stuff he writes books about.
So let’s think through this together…
Do you think people should be punished for moral failings?
That’s it – deflect! 🙂
No, not from JZ. I actually read it on Nate Phelps’ site. Blackmail, John – by promoting such nonsense you are willing victim.
Do you think people should be punished for moral failings?
I don’t think it’s a “good thing” to say about your friends and family that they believe a fairy tale. You basically think they’re stupid.
Real nice. :/
So, do you think people should be punished for moral failings?
John,
I’m all for choosing – and emulating – role models. I have been privy to much information about Tildeb (from the comments on his own blog and others’) and I encourage you to pick him!
Oh, and if I said this on HIS blog, I’d be a sycophant – on yours, it’s a sincere suggestion. 🙂
(Speaking of suggestions, I took Jeff’s)
This is fantastic! Please tell Tildeb that I didn’t put you up to saying this!
Sooooo funny! I keep giggling.
I thought she made a fabulous lackey even BEFORE that comment…
…which brings me to my next profile picture suggestion.
http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6379795.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Minion.jpg
Carmen,
It’s interesting how you deny cause and effect. If you sin, then this….
Is this how you experience the world? Also, just because you use someone’s first name repeatedly Carmen, it doesn’t make your points any better Carmen.
BTW, great thought John. I really think you hit it out of the park with this John.
Well, gee Jeff – thanks for that bit of wisdom! Gets my busy day off to a great start, eh? 😉
I honestly didn’t expect to hear from the atheist tribe on this post. It surprised me that they offer so many words on a subject about which they have nothing to say.
Well OBVIOUSLY the Atheists have to weigh in. The world needs to hear their dogmatic non-dogma!
It’s not hard. “Think for yourself.”
And, if your thinking process leads you to God, then you did it wrong. (So try thinking for yourself again.)
“And if your thinking leads you to God, then you did it wrong.”
Favorite. Quote. So. Far.
In all seriousness, I’m starting to see why many Christians aren’t great thinkers.
Carmen was a church elder, huh? In a position to teach?
I’d love to hear one of her old Sunday School lessons… “Now kids. There’s a Big Bearded Man in the sky who Oggity Boggity-ed each of you with magic powers!”
*Snort*
I’d leave the church, too.
She was bothered by the word ‘aspect’ too. Atheism has no aspects…
Atheism has no aspects….
…is this coherent?
…seriously…I’m trying to understand how one can insist that his/her worldview has no aspects…
Atheism has no aspects…
…she left twenty years of church leadership…
…for something that has NO ASPECTS!
After reading/studying/ and LOGICALLY THINKING she embraced a philosophy with no aspects!
…then tells me that I’ve been duped.
I totally understand not wanting to be led around by some Mega Church personality who does all the thinking for every one.
Really.
I get it.
But the fact that she traded following an egoistical pastor for following Tildeb and JZ is fascinating.
It FEELS more “free” than church did, apparently. But she’s not doing any more critical thought than most of the sheep in the pews.
I’m sad that Carmen felt blinded and manipulated by her church peers.
But I’m even more sad that her solution was to accept manipulation by a different group of blind people.
* she shakes her head at the fiction being conjured up by the daughter and daddy *
I’m saying I AGREE with your decision to leave the church you were a leader in, Carmen.
I understand.
I would have left, too.
Interesting point. I never actually used “broken” with “sin” synonymously. I usually acquainted brokenness with dying to self.
Whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder. – Matt. 21:44
But your thought is definitely a good one. It bears remembering the difference so we don’t make excuses for something we should repent of and forsake.
The church has been steadily softening the idea of sin for decades. We tolerate sin now because ‘nobody’s perfect’. Broken is a much softer term than ‘heathen’ or ‘pagan’.
My sin is why Jesus died. I can’t imagine what part of my selfish rebellion can be remade into something beautiful. The beautiful part of Christianity is that my sin is gone and forgotten.
Amen.
Excuses, excuses.
“I’m only human”.
“I made a mistake”.
No. We choose to act in rebellion against a righteous God. SIN. It is ugly and will not be excused by Him.
Own it. Repent of it or pay the price for the choice.
“Repent of it or pay the price for the choice.” Hogwash.
And you’re lucky I wasn’t in a bad mood or there would have been a few extra adjectives.
I am not intimidated by threats of vulgarity. Your ability to be crass is just that, an ability to be crass. Have at it.
i do not respond to vulgarity. Play by yourself.
Well, that’s just hilarious!! It’s fine for you to toss out threats like, “Roast in hell, sinner!” (or words to that effect) but I can’t say hogwash?? TOO FUNNY!!
Oh, and ‘fanci’ – thank you for highlighting and reinforcing Tildeb’s first comment.
How about, “I’m not broken OR sinful – I’m human; I make mistakes”.
You think too much, John.
One has to be born broken in order to explain the sinful nature, Carmen. And a sinful nature must be ‘overcome’ only by being ‘born again’ into a life of submission to a divine Dear Leader, you see. And then one can think of one’s self as a humble servant humbling fighting against a shared sin, and by doing so be a decent person, but always ready and willing to become that hard soldier for God, fighting evil and tossing those who do evil into the fires of hell, and – of course – shining brightly in their righteousness.
I seriously don’t the difference (other than the name of the Dear Leader) between this and the justification presented in the Posen speeches by Himmler to his SS troops busy exterminating Jews and needing a bit of a pep talk about the righteousness of their hard task:
“Most of you know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when 500 lie there, or if 1,000 lie there. To have gone through this, and at the same time, apart from exceptions caused by human weaknesses, to have remained decent, that has made us hard. This is a chapter of glory in our history which has never been written, and which never shall be written.”
It seems the Dear Leader makes a pretty big difference, huh?
Who’s your leader, Tildeb?
Does it matter? Not to the victims. From the latest incarnation, just ask the Yazidis.
Think long and hard on your pious opinion here, MrsMcMommy; your reasoning is how totalitarian states are born and fed… by supposed righteousness.
Who is my leader? I am. And my henchmen are reason that respects, and is informed by, compelling evidence. You should try it out for a change.
You’re your own Dear Leader?
Fabulous.
#heil
I admire the way you donated the word ‘dear’ to my response to your question about how is my leader. You’re good at that misrepresentation.
Unlike you, I am a fully autonomous moral agent responsible for my actions, and willing to be held to account for my actions.
Is there a difference?
Like the complicit SS ‘soldiers of righteousness’ armed by the righteous orders of their superior and willing to submit to them – no matter how horrendous the effect they may produce in real life, in real suffering of real people – you are an equivalent moral child passing responsibility on to your Dear Leader and His orders for you to follow.
It’s hard growing up. Sometimes it’s uncomfortable.
Oh, I didn’t realize you were the only one allowed to tag on the word “dear” when it suits you.
Sorry. :/
I’ll just let you go back to making the world a better place by setting Christians straight on their blogs.
#MoralAgent #ThanksTildeb #SoSmartandMoral #NotBroken
You don’t know the difference between this and Himmler’s speeches, yet you speak with complete confidence. I’m gonna give you five points for boldness!
As a courtesy, let me offer this:
Your contribution to this discussion is not on topic. Your worldview is too narrow to allow you to converse about sin. You’re certainly welcome to keep talking but I don’t know what kind of response you expect from me (if any).
John, if you cannot see the parallels between Tildeb’s ‘Dear Leader’ and your own, you’re willfully blind. Wait a minute. . .
Help me out, Carmen, who is my Dear Leader?
An imaginary being. Your invisible friend, John. The one who commands, “Love me or ELSE” (as per fanci’s comment above) The Son of Man you referenced in your quote – you know, the one that will throw people in the fiery furnace – in your imagination, that is.
Nah. Not even close.
You’re describing a cartoon character. My theology is much deeper than that.
Cartoon character, fairy godfather, mythical being. ..whatever. Bottom line?
Imaginary.
Right. Your described Dear Leader is imaginary.
You’ve created a caricature and assigned it to me.
I imagine you believe this makes a point.
Oh, I understand the difference just fine: it’s the similarity in subject (rather than the difference in object) that reveals the problem of submission to some version of someone else’s ‘righteousness’. You assume your god is good and so any directions attributed to it must be righteous (say, the genocidal slaughter of the Canaanites) and that because you possess a sinful nature.in need of redemption then submitting your moral character to such direction is only right and proper. You should question that very deeply and very seriously because you’re neither broken nor sinful by nature but a work in progress. You are what you make of yourself in moral terms and if you commit harm against others in the name of pious righteousness then you’re moral character is no different in principle than any willing dupe of any totalitarian regime. And that similarity should scare you.
We can agree that I am a work in progress. The question is, what am I progressing toward? If there is nothing broken or sinful in me, why are you scolding me for ‘pious righteousness’?
I continue to be confused by your hostility toward totalitarianism. Should I be suspicious when someone says, “Who is my leader? I am. And my henchmen are reason that respects, and is informed by, compelling evidence”
Isn’t this a person I should look to for leadership? People need role models. Wouldn’t I be better off if I made such a person my Dear Leader?
John, the only progress worth incrementally achieving is wisdom. Without that goal, then you cannot live (in the Enlightenment sense) a good life, cannot understand, appreciate, and accept your allotment of suffering, of loss, of death. This willingness to attain wisdom is all part of growing up, of why you have to leave Eden, a necessary step for achieving autonomous, moral, and responsible adulthood.
Wisdom has to be earned and not borrowed from religious ideology, an ideology empty of knowledge, full of superstitious nonsense, that offers at best a facsimile of that which you must gain, namely, a spiritual insight about, and your rightful place in, the cosmos and everything it contains. Pious righteousness is synonymous with false certainty, a misplaced answer based on an vacuous explanation (gosdidit, godwantsit, forgod), shapes an identity that is actually hollow, and claims an ethical model that is really only on loan but never possessed. Your religious beliefs keep you from living an authentic wisdom-seeking life and replaces it with a manipulative, guilt-fueled, shame-based membership in a death cult. That’s not wise choice, John. In fact, it’s a tremendous waste of time if not potential… specifically, your potential.
Of course, I realize all of this is simply water off a duck’s back to you because you think you already have the right answer – a pious answer – and so you go forth and promote this magical thinking, this supernatural gibberish, to those who are most vulnerable to it. In this regard, you’re not even your own agent but a tool – a tool of wanting to spread the absurdity of blame-the-victim ideology called Christianity to gain recruits for Jesus.
Good grief.
And to show you how insidious the religious ideology actually is, here you are a clever guy falling for the oldest trick in the book: remaining an ethical child and wishing real problems and challenges away by appeals to an invisible father figure and being told this is virtuous, this is a righteous path. this is wise… this servile, mewling capitulation to a divine Dear Leader who will miraculously grant you a real life after this one is done. And you’ve bought it, lock, stock, and barrel, thinking up is really just another kind of down, black is just another kind of white, and defending this ridiculous po-mo thinking by witticisms and humor when challenged. That’s fine for a blog, but try thinking when away from it.
It’s not my job to lead anyone. Each of us needs to leave Eden if we want to grow up and be an independent adult of this world . But I think reality deserves enough respect for people to navigate it honestly and with intellectual integrity rather than go along with the deluded who pretend that their belief that dancing causes the rain should be regarded by the rest of us with respect and go along with the charade… if we wish to be righteous idiots and not just common, everyday idiots. That’s why I pointed out the shared principle between the religious doctrine of righteousness (the core of Divine Command Theory and Dominionism) and the reality of totalitarianism; they’re the same thing, John. You’ve just bought into the advertising of the religious branding as if yours is the special righteousness (because it’s divine, you see) and not like that other morally bankrupt one all dressed up in spiffy black uniforms and polished jackboots.
The shocking similarity should be enough to get you to stop for a moment and step outside your religious indoctrination and really ponder what kind of principle you’re actually upholding when you preach the importance of the difference between brokenness and sin… in the same way you look upon Himmler justifying the killing of Jewish women and Jewish children and other ‘good’ Jews and not just the parasitic Jewish men; by painting the challenges of living as starting from a broken place and then activating sin by poor behaviour, you’re making the same kind of assumption about people as Himmler did about Jews (assuming Jewishness meant being inherently parasitic and in need of extermination).
Don’t let the objects of the principle dictate to you which is ‘right’ and which is ‘wrong’ (which Dear Leader is ‘righteous’ and which is the monster); rather, look to the principle being used to see if the driving assumptions – assuming a broken nature that produces sin, assuming a heritable parasitic nature that produces Jews – are first an accurate depiction of reality. There’s the first step to gaining some handy wisdom: why principled critical thinking matters because so much descends and is deduced from how (and not what) we think.
If you were to collect your writings (maybe gather them up after they roll off this duck’s back) into a book, would you recommend people read them? If so, doesn’t that imply that you also think “you already have the right answer”? We both think we’re right.
Wisdom is indeed a worthwhile pursuit. You are no doubt aware that the Bible is a staunch advocate for the acquisition of wisdom. The careful student considers the source of any knowledge offered.
You seem to suggest that in my quest for wisdom I would do well to exchange Christianity for Tildebianism. If I am to become your disciple, how do I determine whether you, Dear Leader, are ‘righteous’ or ‘the monster’?
“I would do well to exchange Christianity for Tildebianism.”
Now that made me swear. Jesus, John – that’s exactly what he DIDN’T say! Are you really confused or is are you being your usual deliberately obtuse self? Ack!!
Didn’t you just suggest that I pick Tildeb as my source of knowledge and influence? That he become my ‘role model’?
Are you just being your usual obliviously obtuse self? Ack!!
I read Tildeb’s last comment as a persuasive argument. His logical, insightful premise is that a person needs to think for themselves. The way I understand him is that all of us need be mindful of listening to/following one person – that is totalitarianism (of course, there’s more to it than that but you catch my drift – as I was hoping you’d catch his). For me, wisdom (and I’m searching for it, too!) is to be attained from a variety of sources/people. The fact that you’ve got your sights fixed on one invisible, unprovable – and in all probability completely contrived – ‘source’ indicates that you’ve abandoned the ability to critically think. (imo)
Of course I think Tildeb is an excellent (cyber) role model – in a long list of same!
“For me, wisdom…is to be attained from a variety of sources/people”
…as long as those sources are atheists.
How did I know you were going to say that, John? 😉 You would be wrong, though. You’ve forgotten a key aspect about me – until about four years ago, I was a member of a church. (I was on four committees and had been an Elder for about twenty years) It will come as no surprise to you that there are people who still attend that church (friends and family) who have long been mentors of mine. In fact, it’s fair to say that most of the people who’ve been mentors of mine have been people of ‘faith’. You know why? They are good people, and they would be without any god. They are just plain good, kind, humble people who care about others and do their best to contribute to society in many ways, not just through church membership/attendance.
Not surprisingly, many of my mentors are in the Education field and I would have no way of knowing whether they are religious or not. . . they are just fine, upstanding, respectable people whom I admire.
You went from two decades in church leadership to atheism. That’s astounding!
What aspect of atheism was so compelling that you tossed away all those years of theology?
“What aspect of atheism was so compelling. . . ” John, you astound me. There are no ‘aspects’ to atheism. Atheism is the disbelief in god(s). Period. That’s it. Which is the conclusion I came to after reading/studying/logically thinking. It doesn’t make any kind of sense, which I realized after a good, long think about it. It’s a MAN-made, Bronze/Iron age story and it assuages many people’s fear of death. It’s simply untrue and you are participating in spreading falsehoods – which I could not do any longer, in good conscience. As I keep suggesting to you, do some research and then apply critical thinking.
You’ve been duped (as I was and countless others) – it’s just that simple.
That’s not just John’s but many sophisticated theologians rebuke to those who sincerely try to teach believers to be more critical and less trusting of their borrowed beliefs: pretend the motivation for taking the time and making the effort of a comprehensive explanation is all about self-aggrandizement. John’s comment is not about any kind of legitimate rebuttal; he’s got nothing. So, like any half decent religious apologist, he diverts, diverts, diverts. And few accusations divert better than a personal attack (what’s tildeb’s motivation? to replace god!) so that, when one responds in kind, one is immediately charged with ad hominem and it’s then cherry picked to be shown as if an example of atheist militancy and supposed hatred of believers.
In other words, this is standard apologetic procedure John’s using… yet another borrowed and tedious subset form of denialism. Next thing you know, he’ll accuse me of being boring. After that, he’ll pretend he has no idea what I’m talking about. It’s all so predictable.
Apparently you’re not talking directly to me anymore. I’d like to intrude upon your conversation.
If you’re not wanting me to agree with you then why are you posting? If the goal is not to persuade me to your way of thinking, why do you keep insisting that I shed my superstitious nonsense?
I’m not the one in denial. I’m aware that abandoning one dogma means embracing another. Whether or not your motivation is ‘to replace God’ is irrelevant. You HAVE replaced God with your own sensibilities. How am I ‘diverting’?
Can you explain how I can know that Tildebianism is morally superior to Christianity or not?
Irony is not your strong suit, is it?
No, it’s not. Critical thinking prevents me from flinging statements into conversations without considering their consequences.
The gold star for ironic constructs goes to you!
Earlier you were encouraging me to think more! Now I’m thinking too much.
The soundest position for an atheist on the subject of sin is: “No comment.”
“The soundest position for an atheist on the subject of sin is: “No comment.””
Is that advice, John? 🙂 In other words, “close your mouth”. Why is that, John? Because you cannot stand to hear the sensible things atheists suggest? Not causing cognitive dissonance is it, John?
And yes, you think about that ‘sin’ foolishness too much. As Tildeb says, it causes you to reek of self-righteous superiority.
Plus, it doesn’t work. Do you really need an atheist to tell you that you are NOT broken and NOT sinful? As I’ve suggested to you many times, think about that. You are human, John. Just like the rest of us. Human and learning by our mistakes.
No, Carmen. There isn’t a bit of cognitive dissonance on my end.
The dude who killed all those people in Orlando, is he NOT broken and NOT sinful too? Is he just a human like you and me?
He certainly had problems; some people do John. Again, nothing to do with sin – it had more to do with being psychologically disturbed.
I see.
So you wouldn’t consider a ‘psychologically disturbed’ person to be broken?
If you want to think about what was wrong with his brain as broken, I guess so. Again, it has nothing to do with what you call sin.
Ok.
That’s why I said the atheist position should be ‘no comment’.
Amen. It’s along the lines of “alcohol is a disease and homosexuality is genetic.” Man does everything he can to distance himself from his son.
Doesn’t sin cause brokenness? And what about Isaiah 61:3 that talks about beauty from ashes? Isn’t that a verse that talks about grieving? And aren’t we supposed to grieve our sin? Doesn’t joy come in the morning? Like, should I come to your comedy show crying because I’ve sinned and should be in perpetual grief? Also, who ate your Cheerios this morning?
A thousand AMENS!!!