The Benefits of Sin - Can We All Agree on Them?

It was last year - in May to be exact- that a long time atheist friend and my dear sister-in-law,  Krimhilde (see photo) got together with wifey and myself to discuss religious issues, and in particular whether atheism had any 'commonality' points with a spiritual teaching such as Eckanckar.

Among the topics which came up were: 1) "original sin" and 2) sin in general.

On the first we all concurred, there is no such thing as "original sin" since infants can't enter the world with any such millstones. Original sin is merely a confection of theological idiots who take the "Adam & Eve" story literally. Humans are evolved apes and thus their behavior is totally explicable in terms of our Simian past and tri-partite brains composed of both more recent structures (e.g. neocortex) and more ancient ones (paleo-cortex, reticular formation).

The generic topic of sin overall, including the "seven deadly sins" was rife with much more debate, with Rick and I tending to the view that they didn't exist, period, and the word was simply invented to make humans ashamed of their animal selves, or their instincts - which yes, could sometimes go into overdrive. Krimhilde and wifey, meanwhile, leaned to a more moderated stance that 'sin' could indeed exist and cited mass murder, rape as examples. The atheist contingent, however, preferred to see those examples as aberrations or deviations. We disdained the term "sin" as too fraught with religious overtones.


In reality, “Sin” is predicated on an exaggerated importance of humans in the universe. Thus, it elevates (albeit in a perverse way) the importance of humans in an otherwise meaningless cosmos. With “sin” the overly self-important and morally smug, self-righteous human has at least the potential of offending his deity – thereby getting its attention – as opposed to being relegated to the status of a cosmic “roach” (which any advanced alien sentience would regard us). "Sin" is thus an attention getter to a Big Cosmic Daddy.

“Sin” then is a catch all term for any localized and reactive behavior, e.g. at the personal, individual level. In the strict religious idiom, “Sin” impinges on and affects the deity that so many believe in...so if a deity doesn't exist there can be no sin. Take away the deity, and the whole sin fetish, obsession loses its allure and quickly becomes redundant. How can there be “sin” if there is no deity to offend or to notice “sin”? To tote up all the little “black marks” in its “book of future judgment”.

Thus, we eventually agreed on the rational stance that "Sin" is a macguffin invented by religions to keep humans in an inferior state as opposed to attaining mastery over their lives. Sin is also a ridiculous concept. As Rick put it, how can a finite tiny flesh being "offend" a supposed infinite Being? it's totally ludicrous. If such a Being existed one could no more offend it than an ant could offend a human ten billion times its size by attacking the human's boot with his antenna!


Now, it appears that there may be actual benefits to "sin"! According to a new book, 'The Science of Sin' , by experimental psychologist Simon Laham, there are definite benefits that can accrue from ....well...for lack of a better term: Sin. In his book, he thereby shows how indulging in each of the "seven deadly sins" can be advantageous. (None other than Pope Gregory the Great popularized the seven deadlies in the 6th century.)

Laham's research discloses that these 'sins' and likely others, are much more complex and less simple than humans like to believe. (A point I've often made in arguing for an ethics based on scientific Materialism instead of bibles and canon laws).

Ramping up the ante much further are the essays in the book, 'In Defense of Sin', edited by John Portmann.  Thus, we find stirring contributions under the chapter headers: 'In Defense of Idolatry'( One), 'In Defense of Lying'(Six), 'In Defense of Adultery'(Five), and 'In Defense of Lust' (Twelve). 

In Chapter Twelve for example, John Portmann, the contributing author first describes St. Augustine's problems with lust as related in his 'Confessions'.  Make no mistake here that this saint was over the top in his opposition to the flesh and its sinful ways. Much of this is derived from the fact that Augustine was originally a Manichean. The ancient Manicheans (founder Mani, b. 219 BCE) absolutely believed that the human was essentially a spark of deistic light locked within a body of flesh fashioned by 'Satan'. Of course, semen was the satanic fluid that kept the cycles of evil going.

Birth was the manifestation or culmination of the evil when the devilish flesh finally sprouted. Hence, enabling birth, was in effect tantamount to multiplying the total of diabolically imprisoned 'sparks' in the world. Since there was never any assurance these sparks could be liberated, it was paramount that the diabolical flesh be prevented from reproducing itself.

Interestingly, when Augustine converted to Christianity in 387 CE, the only Manichean tenet he ditched was the contraception. He retained all the other flesh/pleasure =demonic connotations and interjected them into his various teaching including his 'letters'. (For more on this, see the excellent monograph 'Eunuchs For the Kingdom of Heaven' by Ute Ranke-Heinemann, Doubleday, 1990). 

Augustine's Manichean teachings (after his conversion) held that any sexual pleasure whatsoever was diabolical in origin. However, it could be countenanced IF a baby was the end product. Otherwise, the offending parties were trafficking with demons. (He cites at one point, for "proof", the demon Asmodeus, who slew seven men in 7 beds with seven women, but not when they were sitting at a table.)

Augustine's harsh and sterile dogmas also probably spurred the Church Father Origen (of Adamantius) to cut off his own sexual organs - because he was unable to control them. Since each 'stimulus' enabled a particular demon to gain a foothold, it was better to get rid of them entirely.


In regard to Augustine's up tight views on sexual sins, Portmann writes (p. 223):

"Missing from Augustine is the idea that lust completes us (however temporarily), fills us with a vivid sense of being alive, propels us along the way to self-fulfillment...Lust like the playfulness of children or the treasures of the Louvre, lights up a rainy day."

The author also makes a good case for enhancing creativity before listing (including with reasons) all those things we think qualify as "sex" but which really aren't, including: Phone sex(lack of touching so can't be sex), ogling porno photos or videos (voyeurism, but not sex, doesn't make the touching or intimacy cut), flirting is not sex.

He also (rightly) rips into masturbation as sinful (p. 229) since it is based on a phantasm engineered by the early Church Fathers: to wit that each sperm is a "homunculus" or "little man" - hence then each and every sperm had to be protected - extended the same rights - as the big man in whom it lived. Thus, spilling it was a no-no (often confused with Onanism ....which was actually a different category of "sin" since it was an offense against the Hebrew law of succession. In this, the nearest male relative of the deceased husband is obligated to fertilize the wife. If he refused, and spilled his seed, he was guilty of onanism. This is different from the early Catholic view that each seelding is a little man with life of his own. (This position didn't change until after better optical resolution in microscopes was achieved and individual sperm could be as similar to single celled flagellate creatures.)

Once the actual sperm could be observed, as well as photographed, the Church's antiquated position was dispelled, and there was no more reason to oppose masturbation other than on an irrational basis. (Thus, the Church had to come up with its absurd "natural law" doctrine, which holds no weight since the RCs insisted at one time that slavery was justified under natural law).

Of course, it's much more difficult getting rid of the cultural, societal baggage which - if we could - might reduce teen pregnancies immensely. Again, a major benefit accuring from a once maligned "sin". (If we could only get teen males to see it as a useful release mechanism as opposed to a "loser's" option!)

But the point of the above is to show and highlight how irrational the whole concept of sin is. For those whose interest is piqued, I suggest getting the two books cited.

Is The Catholic Church Certifiably Insane....or Simply Immoral?

This is an apt question after RC Cardinal Timothy Dolan recently got on his pseudo-moral high horse and insinuated that if his Church were coerced into abiding by the contraceptive provisions under Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, his Church might have to resort to pulling back on assisting the poor via their assorted charities. Okay, so let me see if I've got this straight, and paraphrase Dolan: "If the government forces the Church to provide lawful benefits to NON-Catholic employees, we may have to respond by cutting all services to the poor including meals and housing to the homeless, health care to impoverished kids and meals, assistance for the elderly and disabled."

Sorry, Timmy, but that's the response I'd expect from a psychopath. All this over the provision of a law that says nothing on how the Church must deal with its own members, only the Protestants, Jews, agnostics or atheists that may be working at its institutions, e.g. schools, universities, hospitals etc. What is it that these ideologues don't grasp?

Maybe a better take entails examining the claims of the Church's archaic apologists. This also includes why artificial contraception is such a big deal to this Church.

Perhaps we need to begin with a bit of history. The ancient Manicheans (founder Mani, b. 219 BCE) absolutely were against ANY form of birth. They believed that the human was essentially a spark of deistic light locked within a body fashioned by 'Satan'.   Hence, enabling birth, was in effect tantamount to multiplying the total of diabolically imprisoned 'sparks' in the world. Since there was never any assurance these sparks could be liberated, it was paramount that the diabolical flesh be prevented from reproducing itself.  Thus, contraception became a regular practice and most often via coitus interruptus. (Those diabolical sparks that were conceived had to be carefully trained and disciplined lest the Satanic flesh break out).
Females figured into this, and came to be regarded as 'vessels of the Devil' - since it was within their wombs that the devilish flesh sprouted.

St. Augustine, the early Church Father, was originally a Manichean, and like his peers, practiced contraception. While he converted to Christianity in 387 CE, however, the only Manichean tenet he ditched was contraception. He retained all the other flesh/pleasure =demonic connotations and interjected them into his various teaching including his 'letters'. (For more on this, see the excellent monograph 'Eunuchs For the Kingdom of Heaven' by Ute Ranke-Heinemann, Doubleday, 1990).  Most scholars, like Ranke-Heinemann (and also Elaine Pagels, the Harvard-based author of 'Adam, Eve and The Serpent') believe Augustine's stance altered owing to a passage in the bible to do with Onan "spilling his seed".

As Augustine himself writes:

"It is impermissible and shameful to practice intercourse with one's wife while preventing the conception of children. This is what Onan did, the son of Judah, and that is why God killed him". ('The Adulterous Relations', II, 12).

In fact, this false interpetation of the Onan passage is also what is probably responsible for engendering the masturbation bogey- which has also incepted vast frothings at the mouth from Catholic clerics (who seemed to have no froth left when the priest pederasty was disclosed some years ago) . Anyway, from then, "spilling seed" was equated to "onanism" and onanism to masturbation as well as artificial contraception (which is still called "mutual masturbation" by many RC ethicists today).

In reality, Onan's sin was neither a form of contraception (coitus interruptus) or masturbation but rather an offense against the Hebrew law of succession, wherein the nearest male relative of the deceased husband is obligated to fertilize the wife. He refused, spilled his seed, and was therefore guilty.  But it evidently turned out to be a convenient peg on which the Church could hang its anti-sexual crusades (unless its own priests were engaged in child molestations.)

Fast forward now to the early 20th century and the arrival of a meme that insinuated itself not only into western society and nations, but the Catholic Church. This was spelled out by author Leslie Dewart in his chapter Casti Connubii and the Development of Dogma (pp. 178-79) in Contraception and Holiness: The Catholic Predicament  (1965, Fontana Books, UK). This referred to a "social morality in which a social premium was put upon the repression of genital activity".

In many ways, western society at the time deemed it critical that they control their citizens' gonads, since as those gonads were chained down, so also were the owners' minds. How truly genuine a free thinker could one be, after all, if his or her most private parts were put under lock and key by either the state or the Church?

In the U.S. the seed of sexual-genital repression was probably sown as early as 1873 via the infamous Comstock laws, e.g.

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/laws/a/comstock_law.htm

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws

But little known, or seldom mentioned today, is that these laws not only targeted "obscene" literature but also all contraceptive devices and any and all educational material explaining their use. It was exactly these archaic Comstock laws that Margaret Sanger confronted when trying to widen the availability of contraception for the poor women she beheld being ground under.

The RC Church's role emerged coincidental with Sanger's editorial oversight of The Birth Control Review (1917- 1938) and in the encylical Casti Connubii issued by Pope Pius XI on December 30,  1930, viz.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

More specifically, this was a pre-meditated response to the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church which had approved birth control in limited circumstances.

In so many words, what Pius XI sought to do was issue a comprehensive definition of "Holy Christian Marriage" that amounted to a pseudo-rational reinforcement of atavistic attitudes of fear, hatred and contempt for human sexuality that had long lay smoldering in the Manichean recesses of the Church's primitive collective mind. As Ute Ranke -Heinemann notes, these were foursquare mounted for control of the body in any and all its sexual expressions since it was believed this was the most straightforward way to control minds. (As indeed it is because, again, if one is prevented or inhibited from manipulating his or her own sexual organs then the ultimate test for individual autonomy has failed. One may believe himself to be an "individualist" but in fact he's merely a eunuch or appendage for his church's or society's dictates, and he's certainly no free thinker. Sexologist Betty Dodson has correctly insisted the first litmus test of a true free thinker- whether male or female-  is the ability to masturbate.)

So, the original declaration for refusing to be "part of the mainstream" was issued in 1930. According to Catholic Theologian Janet Smith, of Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit "the Church has long been pressured to change its position but has never accepted it".

She goes on to claim ('Faithful in Birth Control', The Denver Post, May 20, p. 1B)  that there is no shortage of statistics showing that contemporary views and modern contraceptives have created a messy society in which sex has been cheapened and family devalued. She also has the nerve to add:

"We are drenched in contraceptives in this country yet 42% of babies are born out of wedlock. More than half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by 45 and 3 in 10 women at current rates will have an abortion:"

So what is she trying to insinuate here? That contraceptives or the acceptability of them created the out of wedlock babies? If this is so, then why don't the Dutch,  for example, have an even greater out of wedlock teen birth problem than the U.S. - since Dutch teens in their Sex ed classes are actually issued condoms from the age of 12-13?  In fact, it must be something else! Because yes, while there is the widespread psychological acceptance of contraceptive use there is not the accompanying educational mastery of their use.

Why not? Because most U.S. Sex ed classes have fallen prey to the knuckle-dragger 'just say no' - teach abstinence only idiocy instead of adopting the practical Dutch methods of Sex Ed which really do work in reducing teen births, as well as preventing STD transmission.  So, one wonders why Smith avoids citing those stats, as opposed to only the sex-ignorant American ones. Well, because like most apologists she has an agenda!

This also addresses Smith's other complaints (ibid) that "Six out of 10 teens are sexually active and we have an epidemic of sexually transmitted disease."

OF COURSE WE DO! Because these kids are not being taught how to use condoms etc. in their Sex ed classes like the Dutch kids are!!! What the hell does she expect?

In the same way, of course more than half of American women are likely to have unintended births, because again, they aren't properly taught contraceptive use! Indeed, assorted polls have shown numerous cases where women have actually skipped pills - either because of money issues or because they thought they didn't need to take them every day if they only have sex once a month (they do!). Then, despite having an economic situation which can ill afford another mouth to feed, their only recourse is ex post facto birth prevention, as in abortion. Hence, again explaining how it is that 1 in 3 women will have an abortion by age 45.

Yet, fewer than 1 in 20 Dutch women do. Why? Because they're taught from early what to do and how to truly ensure control over their bodies to the extent of preventing accidental births. The antediluvian RC Church on the other hand would be quite happy to have as many accidental births as possible - because they erroneously believe higher numbers confer power in the world.

In fact, all they're doing - in a world of receding resources- is engendering more destitution. To me, this is both immoral and insane! (One reason the late Arthur C. Clarke included Paul VI's later encyclical - Veritatis Splendor - supporting earlier anti-contraceptive stands, as a "crime against humanity"). As many sober minds have asked: WHY are we even having such a regressive debate in the year 2012? Why do we allow a band of temporally misplaced robed misfits to dictate their temporally backward mores to people that don't even belong to their Church? And why do we allow them to do so in the name of a god that has to be totally whacked if it's main concern is the sexual proclivities of a mammalian biped inhabiting one dust speck planet two thirds of the way out to one ordinary galaxy among billions?

Next: The Chuch's Non-method of Contraception.