The sin skin: preputial rehabilitation and guilt
The comparative sexual freedoms weakened and split Christianity. The intact genital state of Christians undermined their faith. Their religion compensated for this by forcing the doctrine of the Original Sin. Christians were additionally indoctrinated with sinful nature and theologically burdened with congenital guilt. Some Christian sects assuaged the guilt by mitigating the Original Sin dogma demonstrating in this way the degradation of the religious morality in naturals. Unlike the practice of pedocircumcision, the policy of the Original Sin proved to be unable to save theocracy.
The sinful nature became a central theme to Christianity. Quite confusingly, however, the original culprit of the religious disobedience – the prepuce – could no longer be blamed for immorality because Christianity left it intact.
Owners of the erotic toy, however, may become self-sufficient. Accessibility of self-gratification jeopardized monotheism. Christianity needed to repress sexuality in order to compensate for the independence from faith that they may enjoy. It developed the Original Sin doctrine which is an anti-sex religious ideology. In essence, it puts the fear of sexuality into believers by theorizing that it is intrinsically evil.
The complex anti-sex Christian philosophy made the concept of man’s sinful nature lose concreteness.Moral befell somewhat abstract and usurped reasoning. Sins and virtues diversified, refined and spread all-around. Rehabilitation of the foreskin complicated anti-sex Christian philosophy.
The reintegration of the prepuce has led to Christianity’s ambiguous attitude towards sex-related issues especially evident in concepts such as Immaculate Conception of religious figures or in abstruse sexual habits recommended to believers. The ambiguity of sexuality-related concepts allowed the existence of alternative opinions and eventually split Christianity into numerous sects.
Christianity revitalized the prepuce and changed the standard of inordinate pleasure and sin. The vague definition of the Original Sin puts the fear of God in Christians and indoctrinates them with a general inborn guilt. The concept of the Original Sin is to great degree a concept of Preputial Guilt. Christians must be persuaded and cowed not to carry pleasure too far.
Whatever the differences between different branches of Christianity they have one thing in common: suppressed sexuality. Christians of all flows associate sin with sexuality. They view on sex as a more or less sinful practice except in the case of reproduction in which they closely resemble Jews. Christianity has charged sexual activity with irrational guilt of ancestral sin. No matter how righteous a Christian is he is conceived by sin: he is originally vicious and unclean. In other words, he has a foreskin and the potential to use it. The Original Sin pertains to the original skin.
Circumcision of the Mind: The Original Sin neurosis
Obedience to God was once granted by the artificial piety and father-fearing that circumcision causes. When Christianity abolished circumcision it needed a substitute for the suppression of sexuality. And it introduced the vague concept of the Original Sin. The concept has various interpretations but mainly it implants sexual guilt. The most popular of them refers to the collective guilt, absence of holiness, ancestral sin, distortion of the nature of man, physical and spiritual death eventually inherited from the moment of conception. And, of course, all of them result from disobedience to God.
The spiritual death is described as the loss of “the grace of God, which quickened the soul with the higher and spiritual life”. This defines the Original Sin as low spirituality or calm careless happiness. Notice that the virtue of the soul is associated with a restless state that relates to the uneasiness and insecurity that pedocircumcision causes. Correspondingly, the ‘higher spiritual life’ of the quickened soul bears close similarity to the neurotic compensations of the Circumcision complex. The grace of God that intensifies the soul and may be an ancient description of the Circumcision complex.
Whatever the local interpretation of sinful nature may be, its main component is unrestrained sexuality. Abrahamics consider sexual activity unholy and despiritualizing. Holiness is most of all lack of lust. Godliness is redirection of desires toward God, a sublimation of sexual love into love of god.
Availability of foreskin rendered sexual compensations in the hereafter redundant. Accessibility of masturbation drained Christian paradise of sexual lures. As a result Christian love is quite abstract, universal or spiritual as opposed to sex-lust. The sexual guilt imposed upon Christians is the “circumcision of the heart” of which apostle Paul speaks.
Unprofessionally speaking, the spiritual death is understood as an ungodly carnal gladness or simply as disinterest in God. The phrase says that indulgence in pleasure distracts from God and causes spiritual degradation. Sex-lust is first in the list of the sinful sensual gratifications so spiritual death envisages the risks of the uncircumcised state. Original Sin concept is the invisible scalpel of Christianity with which it suppresses sexuality and circumcises the mind.
The vagueness of the Original Sin concept makes it frightening – no one gets out innocent, it implies. And no one exactly knows why. The Original Sin neurosis is a direct continuation of the anti-sex agenda of Abrahamic religions but is mainly enforced by psychological means. It is a surrogate of the Circumcision complex and circumcision neuroses in the absence of pedocircumcision.
Misanthropic altruism or dependent free will
The Original Sin insinuates that God loves man but hates his pleasures. However, Abrahamics’ God promises certain pleasures in the afterlife to His righteous followers. So He hates man’s pleasure only in this life. God’s misanthropy, however, is compensated by the short life with which He endows humans. So in the end perhaps He is an altruist. The free will serves to stop willing, freedom serves to accept confinement and God’s punishment is concern. These nonsenses may be only political manipulations. Obviously the Abrahamic God loves man’s obedience in the first place.
Like Judaism and Islam Christianity is sexually repressive and bans homosexuality and masturbation. But it also damns polygamy, promiscuity and even sexual fantasies. The choice of sexual partner is suggested to be made only once. Christianity sacrificed pedocircumcision but emphasized mental inhibitions of sexuality.
Like the other Abrahamic religions Christianity controls by suppressing sexuality and redirecting the sexual impulse toward religious affairs. But it uses spiritual instead of surgical circumcision. Its bloodless method is less satisfactory.
Intact genitalia and the pleasure that the prepuce supplies to its owners is a potential source of disobedience and Christianity implanted guilt in order to restrict self-gratification and to consolidate the ranks of believers. The anti-sex propaganda, however, is less effective in sublimating the sexual impulse than the surgical removal of erogenous sensitivity. Unlike circumcision, the Original Sin doctrine proved to be unable to save theocracy.
The mental effects of pedocircumcision have made it the cornerstone of religious intolerance. Relinquishment of pedocircumcision is the first unavoidable step towards the union of religions. The next is equalization of sexually suppressive practices. A full sexual liberation is to eventually do away with religion.
- The words “heart” and “mind” occur as synonyms in the quotes regarding circumcision. → Back