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?

 


IS IT MOCKERY OF GOOD TO DO IT WITHOUT REPENTING SIN FIRST? SINNERS BANNED FROM DOING GOOD?

The Catholic Church says that sinners can do good works while refusing to say sorry to God. It is like telling God you will do good works when it pleases you and that right and wrong or what he wants does not count. Even the Bible agrees that such works are trying to take God for a fool (James 3:10,11). The Catholic Church then is after money and power and is feeding off our hypocrisy to get them. It only cares about its own agenda and is disguising that agenda as Godís. Instead of righteousness it preaches a gospel that tries to cover manure heaps with snow and pretend there is no manure there. The holier you become as a Catholic the more crafty and deceptive you are.
 
Venial sin is sin that is not a complete rebellion and break from God. Its serious but not that serious while mortal sin is hatred for God and total separation from him and is very very serious and takes you to everlasting torment in Hell. This idea comes from the Catholic Church. Protestants following the Bible reject it as nonsense holding that all sin is opposition to God and complete disdain for his laws.

It seems you cannot be condemned for saving a life because you do it in a state of sin especially if the sin is very minor. You could say though that it is not the good work that is the sin but the sin is a separate matter - how you try to use the work to declare that what is good is up to you and not God. So you insult God because the work is good and you have put it in the dung. The bigger the sins you carry or the bigger you want them to be then the bigger the insult to the good work.
 
To do good and refuse to sanctify that good and make it real good by casting all sin, even if it is only all venial sin you have got, out of your heart would be a mortal sin and casting ridicule when that good is major. For example, it is a mortal sin to ridicule a person for saving a life. When you internally and in your heart ridicule your own saving a life or something that ridicule must be a mortal sin. You would desecrate the act and seek the praise it will bring you. That means when you save a life, it is only the mocking and the evil of stealing praise that you want to do. You are saving the life as a means not an end. It becomes like a side effect! By doing a big good work while having any kind of unrepented sin is mocking that work. Itís a mortal sin in the sense that it could be such a tremendously special thing to do and you refuse to let it be. The bigger the unrepented sin you desecrate your good work with the worse the desecration.
 
Anybody could have to do a big good work. You have to be ready by repenting of venial sin as soon as it is committed. This is in case you will have a big good work to do. So not repenting and preparing properly for the possibility of the big good work would be a mortal sin.
 
If you refuse to do something easy and reasonable in order to save others from death with the right attitude then how seriously is the willingness to mock the act in your heart? It is still hugely evil to mock such good results and the saving of the lives.
 
So if you have a sin and donít want to repent does that mean you ought not to do the big good work? If you have to save a life and you are in sin what happens? Is it better to save the life while adhering to the sin? Or is it better not to save the life for by doing it in sin you only desecrate the act? Would the evil you adhere to forbid you to do the good work?
 
The answer is that it is evil how you mess all over the good work so sacrilegiously but refraining from doing the good work with the intention of honouring it would also be a sacrilege. Either way you are trying to mock good. A good intention whether you do or don't is impossible. Clearly the doctrine is not concerned so much about human life but about what virtue means. It is about hypocritical religious goodness. No truly good person believes there is a problem with saving life in sin even if he concludes you should do it. He concludes that it is like a necessary evil under the circumstances!
 
Let us put that aside for the sake of argument. What if saving a life when you hold sin in your heart is forbidden?
 
Will God will order you to save a life even if your attitude grossly desecrates the good deed? No for he controls life and death but he supposedly has no control over how you choose evil. Belief in God then legitimises religious extremism. Even if it does not look extremist it still values it.
 
Even if God orders you to save the life regardless of your vile attitude what is happening is he is weighing the value of life against the value of doing things with a respectful attitude to goodness. A question is being raised, "Should I refrain from doing good just because I will do it without a good holy motive and to honour it?" That such a question will come up in such a grave matter implies a bigger concern for God and virtue than life! That alone is evil in the non-religious and humanitarian sense.

Religion says sin is not bad for it hurts people it is bad for it offends God and is defiance of his law. So though hurting people can be a sin it is not the hurting that is bad but the disobedience. Dentists have to hurt people. So for religion it does not follow that the life should necessarily be saved. Religion sees sacrifice as better than happiness. The atheist who painfully sacrifices his last moment to give away his last whiskey that he would enjoy so much to a stranger is regarded as doing good and considered better than he would have been if he had taken it himself.
 
Religion sees no problem with God hurting a person in order to make them more patient even though the pain may be worse than any benefit in improving the person. So if you want to do a good work and you donít want to give up your sin, it is better to refrain from it because you are mocking good. You are also making yourself feel good about the work you have done though it has been laced with sin and looks good. You are making yourself blind to the evil of sin. In such a case, it would not be a further sin to refrain from helping. The Church says that blindness and being attracted to your own evil is worse than any evil even somebodyís death. Then, the more good you do in a state of sin the worse the blasphemy is.
 
Again if virtue only matters and not people this is not necessarily correct as we have seen. Also, the repenting is still considered more important than the life. They agree then after all that if you are in sin you cannot desecrate good works by doing them.
 
But some would say that if you repented and then saved the person there would be no problem. You might say an action is not really good even if it helps others if you do it in contempt for virtue and do it to try and offend God by creating a goodness in defiance of his. Let us ask, "You didnít open up the door of your heart to love and cleanness. It is a sin to do good then for the motive is not really good. You are showing more concern for good results than good motives whereas if motives do not come first then there is no point in talking about right and wrong. But surely even then it is a new sin not to save the person?" It is not a case of having to choose between two sins. You have to reject both.
 
Jesus said God comes first so if you have to let somebody die to prevent yourself separating further from God you have to do it. For Christianity, people exist for God and not God for people and their welfare doesnít matter in itself. Even if God commands concern for others the importance of peopleís welfare is still being devalued.
 
Venial sin in Catholicism is serious sin that does not cut you off from God such as a white lie. Mortal sin is serious sin, such as homosexuality, that does cut you off. The venial sinner should not do good and the less good done the better. God tells us we must never ever sin and that if saving a life would be a sin for us through conscience or circumstance then it should not be done. So God would prefer you refraining from a good action than carrying it out to profane it. It is endlessly worse if it is a mortal sinner and not a venial sinner.
 
Do not forget that in Christian teaching nobody wants to give God all the love he deserves and he gets only imperfect love from us so we all are sinners and never totally holy. That has huge implications for the authenticity of our good works.
 
The Church says that when Jesus accused the Pharisees of committing a sin that will never be forgiven that he meant that they would never repent of it being too stubborn. Jesus condemned their self-righteousness. He spoke of a Pharisee who thanked God for helping him to be so good and said that the Pharisee was bad in the eyes of God. Clearly doing good works when you are a sinner turns you into that kind of do-gooder hypocrite. So the good works are dangerous. You are better off being very very bad in the obvious way. The message is being very bad but not obviously is more dangerous than being obviously very bad.