How Religion Deals with Sin

No Civilization can long flourish without Religion.  Without Religion fortifying Morality, while people would still insist they knew the difference between right and wrong, as so many atheists today claim, they would simply find it convenient, time and time again, to violate Rightness, by cheating, or lying, or even stealing.  That is, when they knew they would not get caught.   This is a bigger problem for Atheists then they would choose to admit, for, after all, 5 minutes after they decide that there is no rational reason to believe in God, they would decide the same about Morality.   We can see the best example of this in the Moral Behaviors coming from Societies that had been longest steeped in Atheist and Materialist Doctrines, the Countries of the Former Soviet Union, now the homes and sources of the most ruthless Criminal Enterprises and Capitalist Corporations in the World.  You know, it is not impossible that they could take over the World, as it is difficult to imagine how they could possibly be stopped, given the West’s sad lack of commitment and effectiveness when it comes to fighting crime and business corruption.  

So it would take a strong and convincing Religious Indoctrination in order to raise up a People who not only believe in Morality, but would consistently act Morally, ignoring every convenient moment when they could benefit by some sly and secret sin.  

You would think such things would be obvious to those who deal with moral theology, the people who “think up” Religions, but apparently it isn’t.  Some Religions deal with Sin almost as badly as do the Atheists.  For instance, Protestant Christianity, based almost entirely on the Doctrines of Paul, whom I really consider to be the Anti-Christ.  From Paul, and paul’s apologists, we have the doctrine of Original Sin, that is, that people are by nature sinful and can do nothing with their own free will to change that and behave Morally.  Furthermore, Paul assigns the purpose of Christianity to be all wrapped up in forgiving Sins and distributing a Free Salvation.  Behavior is addressed only to dismiss its importance.  For instance, Paul describes the Sins of Jacob and goes on to conclude that God loved Jacob just fine despite all that unpleasantness.   This brings us to the Doctrine of Election and Predestination, where God simply loves some Souls while holding others as reprobate, for reasons only apparent to God Himself and having nothing to do with Moral Behavior or Righteousness.  What kind of Civilization could possibly run on such a set of dark and cynical doctrines?  Well, ours, for the last 400 years, but we can see what we are coming to with all of that.  

Yes, Catholicism started from this core of Paulist Error, but as the centuries progressed, certain Saints and Apparitions appeared and worked to introduce Corrections into Catholic Doctrine and Practice.  The Catholicism that was alive at the time of the Golden Age of Catholicism in Europe had largely forgotten Paul, except in certain pockets of Church Corruption where the Anti-Christ, that is, Paul, was still remembered and cherished.  We can see this in the complaints of Martin Luther, that famous first Protestant who nailed his challenges to the Church Door, the biggest one of which was that the Church no longer taught the doctrines of Paul.  It just shows what an idiot Martin Luther was in particular, and the Protestant Churches in general, that they considered that A ‘problem’.  

So, yes, the Protestants would teach Paul.  They did have a bit of a problem at first, since Paul was not Christ, and certain references in the Bible itself go toward minimizing Paul and holding him in suspicion.  So the Doctrine of holding the entire Bible as all equally being the Inspired “Word of God” was propounded.  In this way the Words of Paul could be allowed the same weight as the Words of Jesus Christ Himself.  But in practice the words of Jesus slipped into oblivion, and only the Words of Paul were ever quoted.   

All this has given us what we have today, which is Predatory Protestantism and Greed-as-a-Virtue Capitalism.  Many people would argue that it was all in fact a good thing.  Well, yes, the Protestants did need to abandon all Moral Concerns in order to murder all the Priests, Monks and Nuns that stood in their way from confiscating all Church Property in Captured Protestant Europe.  This “Free” Property, combined with the freeing up of so many resources, from having murdered so many Catholics, did bring about a kind of economic ‘boom’, for the survivors.  The opening up of America, an accident of History, did not hurt either.  But, in any case, it is really not an argument for Thievery that in many cases the Thieves do economically better than the people they victimize.  The problem goes toward Sustainability.  First the Thieves steal from innocent Victims, and then from each other, until they all turn on each other and it all collapses in a fiery and dismal End of Civilization, as we see swiftly approaching us today.    

I wish I could better defend Modern Catholicism, and while some of the Religious Orders are Moral Exemplars, the corrupt old Bishops are still as thoroughly paulist as their Protestant Colleagues, for instance, forgiving themselves over and over again for the worst instances of sexual misconduct and materialistic self-aggrandizing, and, from looking at their photos, of gluttony.  And even when the Church does speak on Morality, it is almost exclusively in terms of sexuality.  So caught up in the nasty and prurient that they forget there are such a things as a Social Morality.  And even then their Sexual Morality is utterly confused.  For instance, while it is disgusting and immoral for people who are not married “in the church”, as they say, to have sex, if they are married in the church, then all that grunting and humping becomes a virtual Religion Sacrament, oh, and just so long as nobody uses a condom or takes a pill.  Yes, it is okay to use thermometers and calendars to avoid pregnancy, because these methods are flawed enough to be ignored by Religious Moral Philosophy.  So the Church has decided that Carnality and the Pleasures of the Flesh are a good thing, as long as all that Stooping and Grunting is done in the Church, so to speak.  It reminds me of the Sacred Prostitutes in the Temples of Babylon – religion getting in the Sex Business is probably never a good idea.  

In reality, the role of Religion in regards to Sexuality should be to discourage too much excessive carnality, and to emphasize that people are generally happier the less they are obsessed with sex.  Then there are the considerations of Over Population, where we can see the benefits of encouraging Monastic Institutions that encourage life-long celibacy, and not looking too closely at how these ‘celibates’ pretend to accomplish such a physical impossibility.   Religion’s stance on Sexuality should always aim at the utmost discretion, ignoring it whenever at all possible.  

Islam has the same tunnel-vision focus on Sexual Morality.  They’ll kill a teenage girl for having had sex, while she was being forcefully raped you understand, and somehow it never puzzles them that they make sex a bigger sin then murder.  I am not sure as to Islamic Doctrine, but it would seem that they believe that Men have no control over their Sexual Conduct but assign all moral responsibility to those who Tempt and Seduce these poor helpless men, and so it is always the girls that get the blame.  So there really is not the same idea of Rape in Islam as in the West.  They can say the girl showed too much ankle and that whatever followed was largely inevitable.  Yes, in an isolated Society one could see that such a notion could be advanced and held as the truth, as long as all the men consistently acted in conformance to such low moral expectations, but with all the Western Influences crashing in upon them, they must be aware, from all the Movies and TV, that Western men are quite often confronted by women who are almost completely nude, and while it might capture their momentary interest, in most cases the men stay controlled and even polite.  Yes, not all, but certainly most.  We still have plenty of raping celebrity athletes to worry about, but thankfully they are in the minority, so to speak.   Now, if Western Men, that is most of them, can forebear acting like sexually depraved mad dogs, then why can’t Islamic Men see that they should expect the same of themselves and dismiss their ancient and tired belief in their own sexual helplessness.    

Oh, moving on, perhaps the biggest obstacle to a Religion dealing well with Morality is that Religions can hardly rise up in the Real World, overcoming enemies and dealing with practically impossible problems, without committing acts that would be huge moral embarrassments, and used in the Future as examples of why it would be Right to do Wrong.  For instance, Jesus got angry at a tree and blasted it, and then went to town and started flipping over shop stalls and flogging the merchants.  These are real problems for anybody who claims that Jesus was the Perfect Son of God, the Messiah.  Actually, this is why I think Jesus resigned from being the Messiah.  You know when Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane asked God to take the Cup from Him, well, most people think this means that Jesus was asking to be spared the Crucifixion, but what actually happed was Jesus was upset with Himself for his moral failures and asked God to let him resign, to give up being the Messiah.  And God consented, immediately withdrawing all of the Angelic Protections that had guarded him and kept him safe up until then.  He was dead within the day… well, almost dead.   The Romans took bribes to cut Jesus down early (it really takes days to kill people by Crucifixion… death is be dehydration and starvation) and history records Jesus moving onto Damascus and then points East.  He was identified by the scars on his palms.  

Jewish Tradition is loaded with any number of embarrassing moral faux pas.  For instance, Jacob was obviously Pre-Moral, a barbarian in the Age of Barbarism, not much better and not much worse than anybody else of his Time, but not fit to be a Moral Example in any Era much since the Rise of Zoroastrianism, the World’s first Moral Religion, about 3000 years ago. 

Islam suffers the worst from accidental bad examples.  Yes, if people would simply have given Mohamed his way with everything from the very start, then there would not have been such an extensive history of violence and moral relativity in the accidental history of Islam.  Then there is the History of Violence that follows throughout the Centuries for  Islam.  Everything Past is an example for Even More Violence.  Islamic Scholars have tried to deal with this, but for every single good Moral Scholar there are at least a thousand Ruthless Thugs who can use the Example of Violence to further their own self-interests.  Islamic Societies will always be inherently unstable as long as it remains so easy to call people to arms and violence for just about any reason at all.  And so it is for any Nation that has risen out of Violence and created a kind of cherished Justifiable Homicide from out of its History.  Every Modern wannabee Murderer wants to see himself as a Hero Revolutionary, like George Washington, and to think in terms where Mass Murder is called victory.  

It is difficult to imagine how a new major World Religion could form up without leaving some trail of unfortunate moral accidents that could be seen as bad examples for future generations.  Perhaps the best antidote for this is to insist that Nobody, not even the finest Saints or Religious Leaders can be seen as entirely Perfect, that is as Totally Inspired at every moment in their lives by the Hand and Voice of God, but that it will always be the case that Mistakes will Happen, and just because Jesus cursed a tree and slapped around a few store owners, does not mean we should go about and also do the same such things.  The unpleasantness of such behaviors should be obvious to anybody with a calm mind and a peaceful disposition.   These Religious ‘Bad’ Examples should be used to point out that almost anybody, when pushed too hard and too long can begin to unravel and be distraught, and that there are moments in History that nobody ever wished for and everybody would rather have avoided, but which must be dealt with anyway, and while these things aren’t good, and should never be seen as good, the best that can be hoped for is that these repugnant moral violations prevent the occurrence of events that would have been far more worse.  For example, guaranteeing sick people against their will so that entire Societies aren’t wiped out by a Plague.  But, still, it is a philosophically bothersome to ever open up the door the least crack for Moral Relativism.  Using immoral deeds at first for the most desperate last resorts starts the way to using immoral deeds for mere matters of convenience.  In many ways the Best Thing would be to hold all Moral Infractions as Unforgiveable, and simply do away with any hint of “the ends should ever justify the means”. 

But how could such a Strict Philosophy of Religion thrive in the same World where people do sometimes reluctantly make moral mistakes, and are pushed by overwhelming circumstances into crossing certain moral boundaries?  Well, like the Catholic Church and their institution of the Confessional, we could insist, that while no Sin can ever be Forgiven, they can be dealt with and eventually left behind. 

It was part of Paulist Doctrine that Sin would somehow permanently stain the spirit and soul.  He needed this perspective in order to make such a big deal of Forgiveness and Salvation.  But, really, psychologically, we do not see truly permanent stains and eternal scars.  What do they say?  “Time heals all”.  With regret and remorse, and with the appropriate moral guidance, people can redirect their lives and begin to live new lives and someday look back upon their misdeeds in a kind of wonder that they were ever able to do such sad or horrible deeds.  

This is the idea of Purgatory, that sinners given enough time and the right circumstances can be ‘purged’ of their sinfulness. 

This reminds me of my Dream in which two heavenly scholars taught me of the two kinds of Sin:  Red Sin and Black Sin.   Red Sin is conditional upon the needs and urges of Bodily Existence.  Souls may develop the bad habits of Red Sin – lust and gluttony, or stealing for food, etc, but with death and the dropping off of the body, the soul has little trouble getting beyond the Red Sins and achieving a real Spiritual Purity.  But the Black Sins are worse and more corrupting – hating and victimizing other souls, and having overbearing pride.  Such sins don’t just belong to the body but would follow the Soul even into the afterlife and persist until they are dealt with.   

In this Life or the Next can a Mean and Nasty Person ever change for the better and become a candidate for Spiritual Purity?   Well, it puts me in mind of Charles Dickins “A Christmas Carol”, the story of the redemption of mean and selfish old Ebenezer Scrooge.  Apparently Dickens felt that people could undergo moral transformations.  And nowadays we have Anger Management Programs and Positive Psychology Workshops, all premised on the idea that people can be transformed in both their behaviors and their more basic modes and outlooks. 

This is what Religion really needs to focus on – making people better people.