Home > Religion > Sin Responsibly

Sin Responsibly


“Religion seems more suited for purposes of comfort rather than practicality.”

Xenocrates

Every religious pundit has their own justification for not comitting sin. The justifications will sometimes agree, but most of the times it is a war of who’s more righteous than the other. What amuses me is that most of the times, the idiots fail to realise that sin is as much a part of human nature as sex. You’re not human if you don’t sin and sinning is inextricably inevitable. It’s like they expect people to become super men and women by subscribing to some religious philosophy. No matter how much I believe I can fly, jumping off a cliff will still cause me to paint the rocks below me all different shades of red.

Religious philosophy if anything only makes people more aware of the fact that they’re human. The danger in these systems is that they create so much pressure on people to adhere to these standards, that people tend to forget that we’re all bad guys by default (hence why we needed Jesus in the first place). It is human nature to be evil – that’s why we often describe pleasurable things as being “decadent” and “sinful” – as if pleasure in an of itself is a bad thing. If sin is pleasurable (a = b) and God designed human beings to enjoy pleasure (b = c), then just like how a = c, God designed humans to sin! Isn’t that just… wonderfully liberating?

Inhuman Belief Systems

Every religion on earth seems to be rife with creating a “best practice” for human behaviour through a warped system of belief which completely outstretches human capacity. I suspect the point of all of this is to cause humans to aspire to something greater than what they currently are, thus producing less destructive behaviour. In this regard, it seems to make sense (as a psychological trick anyway) – even though behaviour modification through social development tends to achieve the same thing. But nevermind… 

Instead we have a plethora of belief systems trying desperately to fashion a philosophical way of life through metaphysical aspiration. But is it really necessary? Whatever happend to plain old common sense? There are lots of educated, non-religious people in the world who don’t exhibit destructive behaviour. Concordantly, there are lots of educated religious people who are constantly caught up in scandals or heinous crime. Interestingly enough, those who refuse to do any better focus on these people’s failures, because it makes them feel better about their own rotten lives. Do you see the dichotomy here? So I ask the question: What’s the point of religious zealots harping on the sinful nature of their peers? I’ll tell you:

Holier Than Thou, Better Than Thou

Every religious zealot, whether they be Muslims, Christians or some other sect, tends to wear their righteousness on their sleeves. There is a reason why they do this: It is because they are constantly troubled by their own inadequacy. People who are conspicuously righteous have the most sins to hide. They know that they suck and they know they suck BIG time. In fact, religious zealots are actually very insecure people who are using religion to comfort themselves. That’s when religion becomes a mask for their own insecurities. This explains why when they feel that sudden boost of self confidence after joining a group of other insecure people like themselves, they are compelled spread their nauseating tripe to other self-sufficient people who never needed religion for these purposes in the first place.

This is not to say that religion is unnecessary. Rather, it is being abused and its purpose becomes delineated. When they run into other people who are “less righteous” than themselves, they are either inclined to highlight the fact that their own lives once had those inadequacies (using that as a launch pad for “showing them a better way“), or more commonly (as is the case where the other poor bastard is a member of the faith) will seek to find some flaw in their methodology that would make them seem less upright. Both of these tactics are engineered for one thing and one thing only: To make them feel better about themselves.

Sure, they’ll tell you that “I am just looking out for the well being of my brother/sister“. Well people who work in the Red Cross don’t try to help people in emergency situations by illuminating the fact that they’re better than that person. Religious zealots spend so much time accentuating your own failures (or by contrast, informing you of their successes) that they often forget that you’re supposed to be someone in need in the first place. The most annoying of the lot are those christian circles that insist more on preaching than doing. Spreading religious truth should come in the same spirit as volunteerism; You do it because of a genuine desire to help – not to satiate your desire to feel “fuzzy” inside.

Social Segregation in Church! 

Then there’s the second type of “holier-than-thous” which uses the church group as a social delimiter. Too often you’ll go to churches where you see a bunch of people from various social classes grouping off into their respective circles. This insinuates two things right off the bat:

  1. Religion does little more than create social groups for people who consider themselves too psychologically or socially detached from other groups in society.
  2. The same principles which permeate society with respect to social groups from a secular standpoint, also permeate religious circles to the same extent.

Those people who run to churches with the intent of developing a social life because they currently have none should therefore be cognisant that they’re effectively exchanging one bag of rocks for another. People in these religious circles are not exempt from showing their true colours after the final blessing has been uttered. The bottom line is that many religious pundits effectively use churches for the same reason that sinners use night clubs.

With that said, it is impossible to not encounter at least once, “christians” who disassociate themselves from other people in the same congregation for social / class reasons – and then use religion as a basis for their separation. It happens all too often to be ignored. Those who are unmarried go to church until they hook up. Others forge business alliances or at the very least, try to develop a crew of friends for hanging-out purposes. Those have become the focus of the modern church. The religion part of it is just a backdrop for making what they’re doing seem comfortable to their consciences. It’s like a giant costume party where everybody uses christianity as a theme for their costume and behavioural expectations. Now all I have to do to fit in, is to go get my Judas costume stitched up.

Needless to say, this is just a farce that seeks to celebrate the social circles of the defacto membership, all while using the illusion of righteousness to insinuate judicious superiority over anyone else that doesn’t fit in.

Embrace your inner sinner

Every religious zealot has forgotten the key element of human nature: We Sin – and there’s nothing we can do to change that. You can’t get around it because we’re hard-wired that way. Perhaps God designed human beings as sinners by default such that when they opt not to sin (although technically, people don’t choose to do anything) we embrace a higher level of enlightenment. Even when we manage through hard work to attain such a lofty state of mind, the bottomline will always be that humans sin. We sin in words thoughts and indeed in deed. In fact, in writing this diatribe, I’m sinning right now. Yay, me.

The reality of the situation is that most of us who choose not to sin are only trading the act of sin for the thought of sin – in which case you’ve sinned anyway. Still, the thought is considered less evil than the act, simply because we can’t read each other’s mind. Philosophically, this is inadequate, since sin in thought or deed is still sin. God doesn’t seem to make a differentiation either way. So what’s the point of only conceiving of sin and not doing it? Well that’s exactly the point.

This is where the hypocrisy in religious zealously is simultaneously exposed and made absurd: Anybody who claims a certain degree of righteousness has already committed all of the said acts expunged by their declaration innocence. Just because they never got the opportunity to follow through with the deed, (which I can assure you is the only reason why they’re still virgins) doesn’t mean that they’re any more righteous than those who have. But because we can’t prove it without gaining Professor X’s powers, they can hide behind their statements since there’s no way to prove their guilt one way or another.

Some would say that the best way to beat temptation is to submit. But that’s like saying that the best way to win a war is to surrender. I posit another method:

The best way to beat temptation is to avoid being tempted.

There is no cure for temptation, because sin is a natural part of human nature. We sin because we’re human and we’re human because we sin. Therefore, it is with this premise in mind that we have to be cognisant of one thing and one thing only:

When you sin, sin responsibly.

Notice I said ‘when‘, and not ‘if‘. When you’re going to commit sin, at least do it in such a way that you minimize impact and always make plans to make amends. So, in the final analysis, you can either:

  • Pray really, really hard so that God will zap you with will power

OR

  • Use a condom

You can always try to resist, but by the time you’ve become tempted, you’ve already committed the act in thought anyway. So the only way to avoid committing sin is to avoid temptation. However, at the end of the day, you will commit some sin. So there’s no point in getting your panties in a bunch everytime you are tempted. If God didn’t want people to sin, He would never have cast the devil out of heaven to torment us on earth. Humans aren’t smart enough to outsmart the Devil either way. This more than anything points to the inextricable inevitability of sin. 

Ofcourse, if all of this is too much pressure, just rest assured that God explicitly designed people to sin, and then created Jesus as the ultimate excuse to continue doing so. Therefore, enjoy yourself! Because what many religious hypocrites fail to tell you, is that even if you lived a completely righteous life, there are still some sins that you’ll regret you never got the chance to try. If God intended for people to be completely righteous, He would have never provided for us a way of redemption. God so loved the world that He gave us the desire to sin and the desire to repent. If that’s not awesome, I don’t know what is.

Advertisements
Categories: Religion Tags: , ,
  1. Brandon Malave
    December 28, 2009 at 6:56 pm

    Too bad I found this blog while you were in China, I doubt I will keep the dialogue going in two months.

  2. Brandon Malave
    December 28, 2009 at 6:55 pm

    Doesn’t sinning also include urges such as rape, incest, murder, lying, stealing, etc. Depending on ones psychological state, these urges bring pleasure when fulfilled. This post seems vague on what it means to sin responsibly since the post seems only geared towards pre-marital sex.

    And if God designed us with the capacity to sin, isn’t the capacity to battle against these urges present also? Similar to what Paul was talking about in the battle of urges, the animal of man vs the spiritual aspect of man.

    I could be wrong, I do actually prefer it your way.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s