The Marketing of Religions
Published on March 19, 2005 By Larry Kuperman In Religion
Every religion has to deal with the issue of Sin (upper-case letter intentional) and Repentance, the recovery, if you will, from Sin to a State of Grace. How each religion deals with it effects how that religion will be received and the degree to which it will be accepted. To me, that is marketing.

Every religion has it's "Do's and Don't's." Do go to church on Friday/Saturday/Sunday. Don't kill your neighbor (at least not if he happens to be of the same religion as you, anyway.) If you fail to conform to these Laws or Commandments, you have committed a Sin. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines sin as "Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, "De malo", 8:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law." See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm Further "When the intelligent creature, knowing God and His law, deliberately refuses to obey, moral evil results."

So there are certain conditions to Sin. You must know that you are doing a "bad thing" and then go ahead and do it anyway. Thats a pretty good definition and is consistent with the thinking of the Sanhedrin in ancient Israel. It lets me avoid any discussion of "accidental sin." No Oedipus Rex "But I didn't know she was my mother" excuses here. There is both intention and action.

Just as an aside, and I will discuss this further in future blogs, a lot of morality boils down to the ability to delay gratification. Rape versus courtship, work versus theft, etc. But back to the topic.

Now sooner or later, everyone sins. We have the Seven Deadly Sins (http://deadlysins.com/sins/index.htm) and Gandhi's version of them. See http://deadlysins.com/features/gandhi.htm and this is really worth reading. We have Sins of Commission and Sins of Omission. Judaism lists 613 Mitzvot, see http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm. Have you failed to write a scroll of the Torah yourself as commanded in Deuteronomy 31:19? Uh oh!

When thinking about Sin, remember the words of Mae West, who said "Remember that there are no withholding taxes on the wages of sin."

Okay, so sooner or later we all Sin. No what? If religions throughout all the sinners, there would be no one left. I think that we can all agree with that. Jesus is quoted as saying “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” And no one qualified. So if we all Sin, then there must be a process of redemption. Again turning to the Catholic Encyclopedia, we find "The word redemption is the Latin Vulgate rendering of Hebrew kopher and Greek lytron which, in the Old Testament means generally a ransom-price." So a price must be paid.

Typically the process of Redemption went something like this: You must recognize (at least privately, but sometime publicly) that you did wrong, you must ask forgiveness of the wronged party (or their next of kin, depending on the sin) and then you must pay a price. Ah, paying the price! Now theres the rub!

In early religions, you had to pay a price to the one that you wronged or their family. If you refused, you risked not only having them angry at you, but the religious community as well. Stoning, exile, holy war...you name it could happen to you. If your Sin was bad enough...well, you don't hear much about Sodom and Gomorrah these days. We talking pillars of fire, plagues of frogs, you know all that Old Testament stuff.

But lets face it, this isn't easy and it doesn't sell well. Particularly if the Sinner is rich and powerful. I mean the Catholic Church started objecting to Henry the Eighth's murdering ways and pretty soon he started his own church. That is not good for business....I mean religion.

Besides that, who knows if the Sinner actually paid the penance price? What if it was far away, like in the next village or something? The easiest thing would be to have the Sinner give the money to the Church, who could then keep records. Of course, there would be a small "use fee" but this is Sin and Redemption that we are talking about! Souls are at stake here!

So we have the concept of Indulgences coming up in the Middle Ages. For a good discussion, see http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/INDULGE.HTM "he whole concept of an indulgence is based on the medieval Catholic doctrine that sinners must not only repent of sins that they've committed, they must also confess these sins and pay some sort of retribution." "Here's the logic: since the expiation of sin involves temporal punishment and this temporal punishment involves the doing of good works, why not substitute someone else's good works for the good works you're required to do? Why not pay someone else to do the good works demanded of you as temporal punishment?"

Ahh! Religion meet Capitalism, Capitalism meet Religion. By the 16th Century, you could not only pay for the Sins that you had committed, you could pay for the ones that you were (inevitably) GOING to commit. Pre-paid Sin! If only they had Sin Calling Cards!

It made perfect sense, especially for the Church. After all, the money for the Sistine Chapel had to come from somewhere. (And yes, it did come in part from Indulgences.) But then along came dour Martin Luther to spoil things. In his 95 Theses, Martin Luther said "indulgences are most pernicious because they induce complacency and thereby imperil salvation". Spoilsport. See http://www.pbs.org/empires/martinluther/about_driv.html

After his followers sacked Rome in 1527, an act that may have resulted in as many as 45,000 deaths, Rome was somewhat less conspicuous in selling Indulgences. But how would the Protestants deal with the issue of Sin and Redemption? Lets look at Evangelical Christianity. You can still gain Redemption, in part at least, through donations to the Church. Just ask any TV Evangelist. But there is the added course of "Accepting Jesus Christ into your heart." In which case, all Sins can be redeemed. You haven't actually paid a price (at least not a monetary one) or been commanded to do good (and often onerous) deeds. The bar, as it were, has been lowered.

This is why Secular Humanism will never become mainstream. We don't have Sin with a capital "S." And there is no "Redemption" with a capital "R." If you err, and we all do, you are expected to do something hard. Like fix your mistake. And no one, outside yourself, can grant you forgiveness.

Bad marketing.

Comments
on Mar 22, 2005
open the book of romans, or mark..
thanks
y.
on Mar 23, 2005
So a price must be paid

Oh, it was, for we were not redeemed with corruptable things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

You can still gain Redemption, in part at least, through donations to the Church. Just ask any TV Evangelist.

Larry the best advise that one can give you is don't be careful of the TV Evangelist, and quit reading all those other books and get into The Book...... The Word of God!

God Bless
preacherman
on Mar 24, 2005
"You can still gain Redemption, in part at least, through donations to the Church. Just ask any TV Evangelist. "


I'm hoping that was sarcasm, but with our JU inquisition, who knows...

*****


Anyway, I think the most heinous problem with indulgences was the Catholic idea of Purgatory. Given that, not only could you buy indulgences for yourself, you could buy them for your dad who just died and liked the ladies, or liquor, or whatever.

It got so bad that priests would sell indulgences at funerals. I think that was the straw that broke the camel's back for Luther. That, and the fact that the Church offered indulgences ahead of time for those heading off to war, basically forgiving sins before they were committed.

My personal opinion is that sins are functional rules, not esoteric ideals. At the root of almost every Biblical sin there is a fairly obvious reason not to do it. In almost every case, God doesn't have to punish you, the sin itself does in some way.

I think where we get the real idea of "lost", is when people get so enamoured with sin that they don't even realize their lives are horrific because of it. Like drug users that look in the mirror and don't see their cadaverous selves, or perverts that can't have a normal relationship without perversion.

In the end, I have to believe God set aside certain acts as "sin" because He loved us, and didn't want us to face the results of those acts. As to our punishment in the hearafter, that is up to God, and concerning myself with it for a moment would be a moment that I could be improving myself here. The temporal results, though, are pretty obvious to me every time I screw up.

In the end, I think apocolypse doomsayers, and hellfire condemnation distracts people from their task at hand. Jesus didn't say "The Kindom of God is after you die! Live in Fear!", he said "The Kingdom of God is at hand."

That means to me that instead of spending our time counting our sins and worrying about hell, we should be doing His good work. Every minute we spend selfishly worrying about where our souls are headed is a minute we could have devoted to those we love and those in need.

There are a lot of people who live buried to their backsides in scripture, and travel only from home to church in fear of sin. To me, there is nothing more definitively selfish.
on Apr 12, 2005
It is interesting to see that you managed to miss the whole truth about what Jesus Christ did and who He is. It is not by any deed or payment by the human race...which is flawed and commit sin...that sin is redeemed but only by the one time sacrifice of Jesus Christ come in the flesh, tempted in all ways as we are and yet did not sin. Even Pilate declared that he could find no flaw in the man (Jesus), and washed his hands of the crucifixion sentence. We can not be redeemed/paid for by money or the blood of animals, but by the sacrifice that Christ made for us and it was seen as acceptable by God because He raised Jesus from the dead. Yes, it is by faith that I believe. The Torrah/Old Testament supports the New. The prophecies spoke of a Messiah that would deliver the people of God. Jesus not only fulfilled prophecy, but made a living relationship with God the Father possible for all people, of all nations...Jew and Gentile were now considered the same.
Redemption does not give us the ok to sin. As you have mentioned in your article that sin is knowing what is wrong and doing it anyway. The fact is that while we deal with the world and its corruption we will always find sin. True grace comes from God...the unmerited gift that can not be repaid. That is what God gives to us. Not because of anything we have done to deserve it, but because He loves us.
A love that was willing to die in our place. That is Divine love. There was no other way...the consequence of sin is death. Christ died my death so that I may live. God hates sin. His wrath will be poured out on sin. He loves people though...make no mistake! He's not out to catch anyone doing wrong...instead He's the merciful Father calling to Him His lost sheep, and waiting for us to humble ourselves before Him who is perfect and confessing our shortcomings to Him with a heart willing to repent. We are told of no other name through which we can be saved but by the name of Jesus Christ, Son of God.
on Apr 12, 2005
Rape versus courtship


that's a pretty poor example of undeferred gratification; rapists are to suitors what serial killers who butcher their victims are to surgeons.

unless you're intending to deal with it in a future installment--and i don't see any indication to that effect--you've apparently skipped over or forgot to include the purported root cause of man's need for redemption: so-called original sin. (much more surprisingly, so have the learned preacherman and denise.) in your case, perhaps because it isn't an element of judaism? (although i think it must be in some respect; even if it isn't, that hasnt prevented you in past essays from providing a full and fair account of those principles that are unique to other theologies.)

other than that...another truly excellent overview of the subject.
on Apr 12, 2005
Kingbee, thanks.

I am NOT going to touch on Original Sin, since the concept of knowledge being sinful is completely foreign to my way of thinking. I would not even know where to begin on this.

Denise, remember that I am not the one that suggests paying for sins. That was Church doctrine for a long time. I think that we all sin and that we must go through an atonement process that consists, in large measure, of trying to "make it right" through deeds.

BakerStreet, my friend, when you said "That means to me that instead of spending our time counting our sins and worrying about hell, we should be doing His good work. Every minute we spend selfishly worrying about where our souls are headed is a minute we could have devoted to those we love and those in need" you summed up the guiding principle behind Secular Humanism.

Preacherman, as you know, I have read The Book. While I disagree with parts, you also know that I think that the moral message is close to universal and provides excellent guidance for all.

Pax.
on Apr 12, 2005
While I disagree with parts


Curious, what parts do you disagree with and why?

preacherman
on Apr 13, 2005
I can gladly explain the origin of sin if you are unfamiliar with history...the simplified version is this...Man disobeyed God and since then has continued to do so. The seed of sin has been passed through all mankind but for one. Jesus Christ. His Father is the one true God, born of a virgin and without sin. That is why Jesus is the only one who could pay the price of redemption for mankind. I do believe this to be true. Our finite minds have a hard time wrapping our brain around the how of this whole phenomenon...but God is God...you cant begin to explain the vastness of Him. If we could that would make Him a pretty small and undeserving Creator of the universe...don't you think?
My whole reason for responding is not to strike anyone's nerve, or debate my beliefs, but to share the truth so that others may experience the forgiveness of God...and be redeemed. There is only one way! Don't believe a lie. While you have breath in you it would be wise to search for truth and come to a conclusion on this matter...because eternity is a loooooong time! If you seek God He will make Himself known to you.
on Apr 13, 2005
The only part of any religious book I agree with is:

Let he/she that hath no sin cast the first stone.
on Apr 13, 2005
Actually, it isn't the gaining knowledge part that was the sin, it was the disobedience to the rule God made in regards to eating from that specific tree. It would be interesting to see what would have happened if Adam had asked God for the knowledge instead of choosing to break the only rule he was given. I don't want to give Adam a bad rap...if it were me in the garden there's a good chance it would've been me screwing up. The other thing that I've often pondered...what if Adam apologized and repented right then and there instead of stumbling over his words and blaming everyone else involved? God is forgiving and gracious.
I understand that our beleifs determine who we are and how we think. Some things in the bible are hard to come to terms with, but it is the word of God and God is truth. Plain and simple you either believe it in its entirety or not at all. It's the same as saying that Jesus was a good man, and taught good principles, but if you don't believe who He said He is there's no accountability...He would have to be insane, or a liar! He said that He is the Messiah, the Son of God.
As far as atonement for sin...there are definitely consequences for sin (Like the person who steals something and asks God for forgiveness...they should also apologize to the one they stole from and repay them. Or the person who kills someone and asks God for fogiveness...they need to apologize to the ones they've hurt, and pay their time in jail, or whatever the sentence is.) There is no escaping the consequences of our sin because God does not tolerate it...but the forgiveness is free. Scripture says that we are to forgive others, too. The Lord's prayer states..."forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us...". That's the only stipulation.
I don't know all of the doctrines flying around out there but I am aware that we have to be aware of false teachings. It's unfortunate that so much comes under the cover of "the church"...but, again, it comes back to the fact that we are dealing with humans and we are a flawed species!!! That is the whole source of this need for redemption!!!!! All in all, I hope that the replies have been insightful and informative. I am curious to know, Larry, what prompted you to write this article? I came by it quite by mistake, but have enjoyed reading what you have to say, and appreciate how you handled the site to allow for other's feedback. I have found it useful to ask God to open the eyes of my understanding and search my heart when I'm reading the bible. It was written to us as a manual for how to conduct our lives, and is one of the founding ways to persue a relationship with God. The really cool thing about it is that the Old Testament crossreferences with the New...but it is the Old Testament that we get to know the character of God. The New Testament promotes love...which is great...but without recognizing His Holiness, Graciousness, Mercy, among a long list of other atributes we really don't have the whole picture! I'm still just learning, but I am so excited to have truth revealed to me through scripture and have some sound direction that really works. Kay Arthur is a wonderful teacher. She is out of Tennessee and leads Precept bible studies that go so in depth and it is scripture that interprets scripture. She goes into the translations and transliterations of the original Greek and/or Hebrew words that sometimes trip people up when they are put into English. I would encourage you to look into one of her studies. I've done Genesis, and am almost through 1 Peter...and I wouldn't have gotten the wisdom or knowledge doing it by any other method. Well, 'nuff said. Have a wonderful day, and thanks again for opening up this forum!
on Apr 13, 2005
Let he/she that hath no sin cast the first stone


My experience has been, when one attempts to condone the ill will of unrepentent sin this is the most familiar verse of scripture that they quote.

They negelct to finish the story that Christ spoke to the woman that was taken in sin..... "Go and Sin no more"


preacherman