Guilt trip fallacy?

Many Christians believe Jesus died for our sins. However, by saying to someone your bad, sinful, wreckless behavior/lifestyle is what killed Jesus, would this be accurate or considered a guilt trip?

The purpose of Christ’s death on the cross according to Catholic Doctrine was primarily to forgive Original Sin (i.e., the eating of ‘Forbidden Fruit’ by Adam & Eve) which had since become an inherited stain on mankind over the millennia. From The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

615 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous."443 By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities".444 Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.”445

There is also the strong implication that Christ’s Death on the cross additionally made possible the forgiveness of so-called Actual Sins, which people commit (i.e., uninherited sin).

Religious scholars have long debated the issue of consistency of an all-loving God with the seemingly required death of his only son, and numerous spins on the theology & rationale have arisen. However, theological interpretations often conflict with doctrine; to the best of my knowledge the above remains the official Church doctrine. (Non-Catholic Christian denominations undoubtedly have their own views.)

I think the larger point is that it is ‘easy pickings’ to find questions of both fact and logical consistency within Religious belief and doctrine. The ‘Holy Trinity’ stands as a classic example of this within Christianity. Believers find these inconsistencies incidental to the spiritual values offered and their personal, positive life-changing experiences.

Back to your question, per the above mainstay role of Original Sin in necessitating Christ’s Death per Church doctrine, in my view it would be inaccurate to assert that contemporary “...bad, sinful, reckless behavior/lifestyle is what killed Jesus” and thus any reverence to a resulting “guilt trip” would be equally irrelevant.

by saying to someone your bad, sinful, wreckless behavior/lifestyle is what killed Jesus, would this be accurate...

This is a statement of faith equal to "Jesus died for our sins" or "Allah is the one true God." Believers in the specific dogma would say they are accurate, others would not. As unfalsifiable claims , their accuracy cannot be known.

...or considered a guilt trip?

Guilt trip is defined as "an experience of feeling guilty about something, especially when such guilt is excessive, self-indulgent, or unfounded."

Yes, this is clearly a guilt trip because it is "an experience of feeling guilty about something." If one accepts Christian dogma or not, would depend on if he or she felt this was "excessive," "self-indulgent," or "unfounded."

The purpose of Christ’s death on the cross according to Catholic Doctrine ...

This is called an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy (Person A infers that Person/Group B is an authority on subject, there was is being said is true).

It has no more truth or logic to it than:
"My neighbor Bob says that the purpose of Juan's being nailed to a cross is..."
"Scientologists worldwide agree that the purpose of Jesus's life is..."
"While some believe that Zeus was a myth, a growing group of Catholic theologians just outside of Rome now believe Zeus was the father of Joseph..."

There is also the strong implication that...

This is called an Appeal to Popularity logical fallacy (Person A says that most people believe X... therefore X is probably true, because there's a strong implication to its truth).

Addressing Bo's Comments:

“This is a statement of faith equal to "Jesus died for our sins" or "Allah is the one true God." Believers in the specific dogma would say they are accurate, others would not. As unfalsifiable claims, their accuracy cannot be known.”

To clarify, my response addressed the narrower issue of whether an internal inconsistency/ logical fallacy exists between the stated teachings of The (Catholic) Church (i.e., per its official Doctrine) and the OP’s key statement: “…by saying to someone your bad, sinful, reckless behavior/lifestyle is what killed Jesus, would this be accurate or considered a guilt trip?”

Per my response, OP’s quoted statement is indeed inaccurate and likely fallacious (probably a non- sequitur) when related to Church Doctrine, again, given the predominant causal role of forgiving Original Sin (as contrasted with Actual Sin) in necessitating Christ’s death.

“..If one accepts Christian dogma or not, would depend on if he or she felt this was "excessive," "self-indulgent," or "unfounded."

Disagree somewhat on this. For a Believer ascribing to Church Doctrine, there should be no guilt resulting from this fallacious statement. (Note: it is given, if a ‘Believer’ does not subscribe to official Church Doctrine, possible reactions run the gamut.)

“Yes, this is clearly a guilt trip because it is “an experience of feeling guilty about something, especially when such guilt is excessive, self-indulgent, or unfounded."

I think while one might examining the statement-author’s possible intention of ‘Instilling a Guilt Trip’ there is no evidence that an experience of guilt SHOULD be forthcoming, per above. Alternately, the statement-author may simply be misinformed about the de minimis role of Actual Sin in necessitating Christ’s Death.

For a non-Believer the key statement seems irrelevant, except perhaps to disparage or torment Believers.

I would like to distinguish between statements of belief, and logical arguments used to justify belief. I may believe Jesus is God, or Jesus Christ died for our sins, without committing a fallacy. But if you describe reasons to believe in a logical manner, or ask question or answer the questions in a logical argument that Jesus is God, or justify logically reasons to believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins, then depending on your assumptions for these arguments, you may be committing fallacies.

I would like to distinguish between statements of belief, and logical arguments used to justify belief... (etc)

I was struggling to say what Frank Doonan says here. Thank you for this clarity.

Beliefs—religious and otherwise—are opinions, and nothing more. They're views, convictions, ways of thinking that by their very definition and nature do not have to be backed by logic and reason. It is because they are beliefs . Not provable facts. Further, it helps to realize that virtually all human beings hold beliefs (often lots of them). To stay in the OP's original arena, even an atheist ("I believe nothing happens after we die.") has a belief that can be held as strongly as the most fervent Believer of any religion ("I'm positive that XYZ occurs after we die."). But in both cases, you can't apply logic and reason.

So, stating that we can't rationally apply logic and reason and logical fallacies to beliefs isn't a criticism of the belief . It's simply acknowledging the critical distinction between a belief, and a logical statement.

"Beliefs—religious and otherwise—are opinions, and nothing more."
I'm pretty sure Bo might object to this reasoning. Why? It's fallacious reasoning because you cannot know what everyone believes, therefore you cannot know that there isn't someone who believes something that may eventually be proven true. Proving something is true does not change the beginning nature of that truth. Did helium rise before it was proven to be true that it did? I remember a silent movie made by someone circa1901 (est). It was about shooting people off the earth and hitting or landing on the moon. Were there people who believed humans would once land on the moon when there were others who believed it was impossible? Who knows? It seems logical to say that within the set of all beliefs there can possibly be facts yet to be proven. OK no more pot for me. It's medicinally prescribed for boredom, promise.

@skipps777

Whether or not a belief is ‘true’ at the time of believing or later proves to be untrue is irrelevant to whether it is logically fallacious. The statement “I believe the moon is made of green cheese” while conspicuously untrue is not of itself logically fallacious. The statement “The moon is round (cheese shaped) and sometimes greenish in appearance, and thus is made of green cheese” IS logically fallacious (a non sequitur).