Christians are Less Trusting than Other People

[Heyo]

Fixed it. Thanks for the correction.

I'm usually not such a grammar nazi but I was really at a loss at what you wanted to say.

 

[Heyo]

My two cents: the positive idea of man, divorced from history, is naive

Yes, it is naïve, but even when it is naïve, it is still more useful than a negative idea of man. An informed positive idea of man is even better.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So to point to how we are born as evidence or proof of original sin is deeply problematic.

Tragically and unfortunately that doesn't even dust the damage the original sin garbage can do to a child. Someone told they are inherently sinful, dirty, and deserving and worthy of hellfire amd damnation throughout their childhood and into their teens, things like confidence and self esteem often are slow and difficult to come by in adulthood (I haven't researched dreams, but Inoften use to have vivid nightmares of going to hell, amd cpuld feel the fiee burning my flesh and the mental anguish of being separatedfrom god).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, it is naïve, but even when it is naïve, it is still more useful than a negative idea of man. An informed positive idea of man is even better.

That. I'd rather try to at least give people a chance and hear them out and be thought of as naive than be a arse about it amd shun people before i even know who they are as a person. Such as, "atheist" mattered when I was a Christian. They were bad, bery misguided people. Now I just can't be buggered to give a crap about it.

 

[Glaurung]

But those who put much weight on sin, see people as generally bad and dangerous until proven otherwise. I will use "Christian" as a stand-in for that position throughout this OP.

It's not that people are bad and dangerous, but the recognition that people are far from innately virtuous.

The Humanists idea of man is in opposition to that dogma. A Humanist sees people as generally good and trustworthy until proven otherwise (and even then as having an innate dignity).

The idea that human beings have innate dignity is itself a development of Christian doctrine. Do you think Aristotle and Plato, who believed slavery to be an institution of natural law, had any concept of innate human dignity? For pre-Christian antiquity, the bulk of humanity exists only to benefit those who by nature are fit to command.

The idea that people have innate dignity is far from some self evident truth that only a Christian would be perverse enough to deny. It is the exact opposite. The humanist is in debt to Christian doctrine here.

Another facet of the idea of man in Christian vs. Humanist vision is the power and responsibility of people. (Thanks to @Harel13 for reminding of this and finally motivating me to write this OP.) In the Christian diction man is powerless against the will of god and nearly powerless against temptation. In the Humanists mind man is responsible and capable to forge his own fate.

The moral law would be null and void if we were powerless against temptation.

There is not a single person to whom God denies sufficient grace to become righteous in His eyes. Yes, the virtue which God commands is tough and arduous but we are assured of divine help if we but fully trust in the divine will. We thus have a deep responsibility for our lives because this is the one and only life where we have the opportunity to acquire merit by the virtues. (Merit which sticks with us for eternity).

I'm less interested in debating which position is more right but more interested in debating which position is more useful.
Isn't it more psychologically sane to tell people and especially children that they have power and responsibility and to assume the same about others?

The trouble is that your understanding of what Christianity claims about human nature is a caricature. The doctrine of total depravity (the doctrine that humans beings are are utterly incapable of good) is not a "Christian" doctrine. It is a Protestant doctrine based upon sixteenth century interpretations of Saint Paul.