Admitting You're a Sinner

[The Grand Nudger]

As I already said, "Sin is whatever you say it means and to as many people whom are dumb enough to listen to you".

-and I can't imagine anyone who would be dumb enough to listen to you, when you share your opinion on sin.

Where did you get that shit: from the clergy?  You know their all totally whack right?

That may be, but that doesn't prevent a person from identifying and accurately communicating what it is they are talking about.  Many absurd things, at least, have an internal logic.  As an example;

A person who believes that aliens routinely visit this planet might also believe that the government is engaged in a massive cover up.  This could account for the relative lack of concrete evidence of alien visitations - chiefly in that as soon as some saucer hits the dirt it gets swarmed by un-marked helicopters and teams in hazmats suits scrubbing the area and whisking the craft off to an undisclosed black site.  This is an absurd belief, it's entirely untrue..but's internally consistent and very specific. Aliens, helicopters, black sites, ergo cover-up.   

So, too..is the notion of religious taboo or sin and it's attendant apparatus.  If there -were- a sin setting entity or force and it -did- have a shitlist and it -could- effect retribution upon transgressors then it -would- be an issue of grave concern.  To say that the entirety of normative religious beliefs fundamentally hinges upon this idea is to understate the reality of the matter.  Not only is it foundational..religious narratives serve no other purpose but as an exposition on that internally logical..if ultimately absurd, belief.  They are morality plays in which taboo subs in for ethics.  They are parables which seek to expand upon the consequence of taboo and how a person may, if they commit taboo, discharge their responsibility for the offense of having done so.  

Yes, they sometimes present an origin story, but this is a just so story.  A trivial prelude to the meat of the narrative..generally put forward only as it relates to the authority of the taboo setting force or entity and mans relationship to it.  Magic book..for example..gets the entirety of the history of the universe up to the fall of man out of the way breathleesly, in no more than a few paragraphs, sparse of any specific detail that might provide a compelling and true account of our origins.  It only exists to set the stage for the first disagreement between man and the divine. To assert that there is sin, that we are sinful, and that because of this there will be consequences.

They may even reference something overtly absurd as a way, by metaphor, of establishing the theological truth which the narrative is meant to convey.  These, we commonly call "miracles".  Jumping forward in magic book to one of the most illustrative examples...consider the loaves and the fishes.  Are we to believe that this is a news report from galillean shorefront...wherein a magic man made the absurd a reality, splitting a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish to the point where it could feed a multiude?  Or is this..instead, an exposition of the ability of magic mans theology to satisfy many with very little?  Of being a redemptive chalice which is not only running over...but which cannot be drained no matter how many drink from it?  

It may be apropos of nothing, in reality, but it is an exploration of the notion that the offer being made is for everyone, and is unlimited.   That no matter how many people cleanse themselves of the responsibility of their taboos there will always be some left for the next guy.  That the story, as told...and even as a belief is absurd is not, in any way, a criticism of it's internal logic, and so..saying "yeah, but those priests who wrote that shit were batshit crazy" is true, but wholly unimportant when discussing the meaning of the beliefs or narrative.  Batshit crazy clergy wrote the entirety of magic book, so what..it still says what it says, it still has an intelligible meaning.

But tell me more about lefties and how you're great a reading greek and that this makes you, somehow, an authority...compared to some -other- nutter...or in fact an authority over all other nutters who..in two thousand years, have never been so inconsistent or downright stupid as to imply or state that sin is a non-entity, rather than central to the new testament narrative. You could float, and I could accept...that it doesn;t mean much to you and your nutter beliefs...but you do not have the ability to excise it from the narrative by fiat of having banished it from whatever passes for a mind with you.