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?

 


ALL SIN IS PUTTING A THING BEFORE GOD SO VENIAL SIN AS IN A SMALL REJECTION IS IMPOSSIBLE

In Catholicism, a mortal sin is a decisive divorcing of God. A venial sin is a chipping at your relationship with him. Mortal is what adultery is to a marriage and venial is what being grumpy to the spouse is. The distinction contradicts the fact that if there is a God he is not like a human being. What applies in human relationships does not apply to him for he is not a member of society and does not have any psychological needs while we have.

FIRST GREATEST COMMANDMENT MORTALISES ALL SIN

Christianity claims to agree with God that we have to love him with all our power and love others just for his sake (Matthew 22:37). Strictly speaking, we are to love him alone and loving others really means loving him for he is present in everyone. Every sin is against the greatest commandment. It is declaring yourself independent of this commandment despite its greatness. Therefore every sin is grievously wrong. Every sin no matter how slight we think it is, has only the eternal punishment of Hell as itís due.

This is not emphasised for it undermines the reliability of the Churches and their leadership.

THE SIN OF PARTIAL CONSENT

The Church of Rome alleges that when you sin you consent to it either partly or fully. For a sin that tears you away from God and makes you fit only for being dumped in Hell forever you have to have full consent. If the consent is incomplete then the sin is venial.

If a person is blinded by lust and falls into bed with somebody elseís spouse that is a venial sin because the ignorance inflicted by the desire forced the person to freely choose to sin. The person forgot that adultery is a mortal sin and because of that he or she could not commit a mortal sin by committing adultery.


People follow religion for they hope it will have practical good consequences. With a doctrine like that you see how useless religion is.

The Church teaching that there is no serious evil in you if you have not fully consented to the sin no matter how terrible it is seems fine, it seems reasonable. And it seems to prove that venial sin does exist at least when there is partial consent. But that is merely because of our selfish prejudice and the lack of integrity that the Church likes to have ingrained in us. We sometimes like to pretend that our wrongdoing is not all our fault on the grounds that we did not have a complete understanding of what we were doing. We want to believe we sinned but not very much.

To sin at all you need to be aware that you are doing something that is against Godís way. Therefore to say that a person who cannot resist choosing to commit, say, adultery does not fully know what she or he is doing and therefore not committing a mortal sin is ludicrous for she or he knows all they need to know. If you know that much and can sin then you have enough freedom regardless of the other motives caused by weakness or whatever.

If you are overcome with passion and examine yourselves you will see that your consent to sin was just as good as any other.

Perhaps the will is partly forced to commit adultery by the intense lust?

Stupid question.

Anybody who is weak is weak because they want to be if there is a God to help. Weakness is no excuse or half-excuse especially in the matter of the graver sins.

If the person freely consents to mortal sin then it is a mortal sin for if it is not then the person had no free will at all. The person had enough freedom to sin. It is a contradiction to say that some part of free will can be outside a personís control.

So, the doctrine that mortal sin is impossible without perfect consent is incoherent and childish because there is always sufficient assent. If a person can sin venially without full control of the will then he or she can sin mortally too.

Why is it that we never hear of a person doing good works with imperfect consent? If the Church really believed in partway consent she would remove the things that make people do good though alleged weakness. She would have us dressed in long robes with paper bags on our heads before letting us do good. That would make sure we are not doing it largely for show. And she claims she is here for making us the best!

The doctrine that mortal sin is impossible without perfect consent is covering over the gravity of mortal sin. It is telling people that they are better than they truly are. It is treating their victims as nothing. Through the doctrine, many believers are able to virtually condone many child-murders. When they do that they are pronouncing their hatred on the little victims and even for the killer though he or she is preferred at the same time.

It is vital for Catholics to examine their minds so carefully that they will know if they granted full consent to any sin. The Church says she is concerned that they might smear themselves by accusing themselves of mortal sin in confession so she instructs them to be sure. But the only thing they could be sure of is that they did consent fully. They must know that the official teaching that partial consent proves venial sin exists is wrong for consent feels like consent and you cannot be sure of the partial. But the only thing they could be sure of is that they did consent fully. They must know that the official teaching on the matter does not prove that venial sin exists.

If experience tells you that you sinned but were not fully responsible then that is venial sin. But what about Christians who do not believe in venial sin? They are being accused of fraud, of denying on religious grounds what they see to exist by gazing into their own hearts. They are accused of deliberate fraud because if you are not totally to blame for your choice you would find out if you examine yourself. If Catholicism really believes in the partial consent doctrine then she stoops low by treating those people as sincere dedicated followers of Christ.

It is often hard to be sure if you have consented fully to something or not if the doctrine of the Catholic Church is correct. You need to go over every second to be sure. Memory fails us and can be contaminated. So what do you do? The mortal sinners would have to assume that they are not mortal sinners to be on the safe side. Would it not be the safe side to assume you have committed a mortal sin? No for the Church says that if you are not sure that a sin was fully intended by you to be mortal then you are right with God and he cannot hold it against you. The Church advises against seeing yourself as a mortal sin without need.

And we must realise that the doctrine accuses Christians who do not believe in venial sin of fraud, of denying on religious grounds what they see to exist by gazing into their own hearts because if you are not totally to blame for your choice you would find out if you examine yourself. If Catholicism really believes in it then she stoops low by treating those people as sincere dedicated followers of Christ.

If you think you should assume that you are a mortal sinner the situation is different but no better.

Most of the exceptionally damaging sins that happen are caused by strong desire. The Church says that even weaker desire could take away full use of the faculty of free will like when you are rushing. The partial sin doctrine hints that most of the people in jail should be out. The doctrine is a menace. The Church even lets people be jailed over the doctrine though it tells us she should not.

If you think you should assume that you are a mortal sinner the situation is different but no better.

It is common nowadays to insist that mortal sin is a rare occurrence because people are so weak and sin is partly caused by desire. Religious teachers might tell you that the more you want to commit what is seriously harmful the more venial it is if you commit it. That means it is better to kill a person who clearly intends to commit a mortal sin if it would be a venial sin for you to murder. Then it might not be a venial sin at all for it is averting a greater evil.

The Catholic doctrine of sin is messy and silly. Its an insult to people who want to live better lives. The Church lies for if all sin is seen as mortal then mortal sin starts to mean nothing to anybody. It is about religious social control. There is no concern for how bad and deceitful you are inside for going along with the Church.