"Isn't That Insulting To People"

One of my Hindu students at the private school I work at took issue with something I said the other day. I had been emphasizing the line I've long said was so vital from the account of Jesus' suffering and death, where Jesus turns to the women of Jerusalem and says "weep not for me, but for yourselves." I've long thought that this was one of those lines that just had cosmic significance. There are certain passages and moments in the Bible that come to one as directly the Word of God. I do not think the Bible is the Word of God, but I do think it contains the Words of God, and this is an example of that.

He said that Jesus' words and my attending message that it is humanity that has the problem, that sinful humanity should weep that it needs a savior to die for it, is rather disrespectful to humanity as a whole. He asked how I could be so down on people. It is an excellent question, that shows the young man has thought deeply about what I said.

I believe in sin. I believe that sin is a horror and a terror. I am not very positive about human nature. Yes, I am down on people. I don't see how one can fail to be down on humanity when one is aware of human history. A person may be transcendent, amazing and incredible but people as a whole are nasty, brutish, prone to groupthink, and just downright rotten. GK Chesterton once said that sin nature or original sin, was the only doctrine in Christianity that was empirically verifiable. I don't know if I'd go that far, but I see what he means, and I can't see how anyone can FAIL to see what he means.

A lot of this may be projection. I see within myself a terrible darkness that I have to fight against constantly, but I don't think it is mostly projection. I think that a survey of history makes clear what I am talking about. In the end, I understand my Hindu friend's discomfort. Certainly eastern philosophies like Hinduism and Buddhism have a hard time with original sin, given the fact that they rely on processes they consider to be simple and knowable as routes to escape from the evils that they perceive the world to be dominated by.

I remain deeply influenced by Reinhold Niebuhr. His defense of original sin strikes me as extraordinarily powerful. I take his arguments against enlightenment-based religions like Hinduism and Buddhism to be definitive. I see great values in these ways of life, and I have learned so much from both religions, but especially Hinduism. They have great insights, including some that Christians lack and could use. But I believe they misdiagnose the basic human problem, and so fail to come up with an adequate solution. Jesus Christ only makes sense as Lord and Savior once the problem of sin is understood from the point of view that most Christians understand it from. I think that the arguments for the problem make sense, and so I take Jesus Christ as a solution to also make sense. But I understand why many would not see it the way I do. I believe, I see it this way, you do not. That is just the consequence of dealing with an issue that is ultimately beyond scientific certainty.