Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


ENTITLED TO ORIGINAL NEUTRALITY PERHAPS BUT NOT ORIGINAL SIN

ORIGINAL SIN AND RELIGION
 
The Genesis story says Adam and Eve listened to a miraculous revelation from a snake saying that if they ate of the tree they would be gods. Thus original sin is fundamentally about having false religion in your heart even if you are not a member of any formal religion that happens to be false. The miracle food of the tree worked an evil miracle. If Christendom is false religion then it is the servant of original sin not its curer.

Their sin was the first sin and we carry that sin in concord with them.  Even when we are babies.

A baby has just come into existence in the womb.  The Church says it has original sin even now.

If original sin is not a sin as in transgression then it is the absence of God.

If so then it cannot be forgiven and baptism does not intend to forgive it.  So why is baptism presented as forgiving?  It judges the baby as bad and needing forgiveness - there can be no doubt about that.  Actions speak louder than doctrines.

Some suspicious minds might that that as the Church claims the power to forgive sins and put you in sin (if you retain the sins of any - Jesus said) that baptism is a ploy for putting sin that needs forgiving in the baby and thus is the gateway to evil and idolatry and hidden if not blatant opposition to God.

The Church says that babies have done nothing to deserve grace from God so he is entitled to let them be born in original sin (question 711, Radio Replies, Vol 1). That shows what kind of feelings the priesthood has for babies. Without the grace nobody can be a friend of God’s. So God rejects the babies for no reason. This is the same God who has the hypocrisy to say we must accept the innocent and be kind to them. This tells us that if there is no God then we are free to let our babies starve to death or whatever for our own convenience. Because if God does it and is right to it would still be right for it to happen even if he did not exist for the principle would still be there. This is one of several examples in which the Church encourages atheists to be evil if they have abandoned the Church. It wants them to be bad in order to proclaim her superiority.
 
“God took from Adam’s posterity nothing whatever that was due to them: He merely reduced them to the level of what was due to them – instead of giving them (as He had planned) gratuitous gifts” (page 5, THE FALL AND ORIGINAL SIN, WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY III, WILLIAM MORAN DD, ST PATRICKS COLLEGE, MAYNOOTH).   The Church says that Adam was punished for his sin simply by losing the presence of God inside him which worked to make him holy. It says he had no right to this anyway and it was a gift. So when he sinned the gift was taken from him. This doctrine is pure evil because everybody has the right to be helped to have the advantage in trying to live a good life. God is worse than the sinner if he takes help from them. Even if we say that God could have done this to Adam justly for Adam rejected this help, God still had no right to put Adam’s offspring – ourselves – at a disadvantage of being born without his gift.
 
What makes the Church crueller is that it blames original and actual sin for death. Death is the result for anything evil has to be eliminated. So God makes the babies entitled to die by refusing to grant them sanctifying grace – sanctifying grace is the presence of God within you making you his and helping you to love him. Whatever the Church may say about them not deserving happiness in Heaven it cannot say that they deserve to suffer or die. These brutal doctrines are well covered up but they are real Catholic teachings.

The Church says the baby is not entitled to have God present within. But entitled is irrelevant. The baby can have God or not have him. Clearly the baby should have God for it is the kindest option. A man may not be entitled to a loaf of bread but it is clearly right to give it to him. To say he should not get it because he is not entitled is just cruel nonsense.

Perhaps a baby should be neutral neither with God or without God.  Original neutrality should be what is there not original sin if they are the only choices. But they are not.  Original grace, the presence of God in the baby, should be granted to the child from the first moment of his existence.