Subject: THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST

From: "Bernard O'Loughlin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 01:57:24 +1100

THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST

BECAUSE OF ITS VILENESS, TORTURE SEX IS THE GREATEST CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY
IMAGINABLE.  BUT IT ISN'T THE UNFORGIVABLE SIN.  IT JUST FEELS LIKE IT
AFTERWARDS. 

SUMMARY:  (i) The Biblical evidence for torture sex being the sin against
the Holy Ghost is zilch. The sin is mentioned, but NOWHERE defined. (ii) The
association turns basically on an interpretation by some within the Catholic
Church, which has been enshrined in canon law. Canon law is fallible; it can
and does change. And this interpretation is misguided, as many clergy within
the Catholic Church would concede if presented with the following case.
(iii) Consider a hitman who takes such great chances for a potential
torture-sex victim that he ends up becoming a victim himself. Wouldn't God
love such enormous courage? Wouldn't He be more concerned with what was in
the heart than with what was on the history sheet? Hitmen can find
salvation, and so can you, without necessarily showing such extreme courage.
(iv) For once, BE somebody for the Universe, and not just a brainwashed,
scar(r)ed, nasty little bunny rabbit. 

1.  WHAT IS THE AUTHORITY FOR THE "SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST"? 
2.  IS TORTURE SEX THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST? 
3.  SO WHAT IS THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST? 
4.  WOULD THE LORD OF CHAOS BE INTERESTED? 
5.  ACHIEVING FORGIVENESS. 
6.  CAN INNOCENCE BE REGAINED? 
7.  THE AUTHOR'S STARTING AND FINISHING POINTS. 
 
1.  WHAT IS THE AUTHORITY FOR THE "SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST"? 
	The sin against the Holy Ghost (the "unforgivable sin") is mentioned only
in passing in the three "synoptic" Gospels (Matthew 12:32, Mark 3:29 and
Luke 12:10). (Synoptic, "with the one view", because all three Gospels came
from basically the same sources.) It occupies only a verse in each case.
John doesn't write about it at all. In other words, in the prime authorities
of the New Testament, the Gospels, the discussion of the sin against the
Holy Ghost is hardly central. (Check it out for yourself: http://
www.gospelcom.net/ bible) 
	Is the sin against the Holy Ghost (called "blasphemy" in the King James
Version) defined? No, it is not. So HOW did torture sex come to be thought
of as the sin against the Holy Ghost? 
 
2.  IS TORTURE SEX THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST? 
	For the few mega-warped medieval "Christians" into torture sex, who felt
themselves to be beyond redemption, the association between the famous
passage of Paul about the body as the "temple of the Holy Ghost" (1
Corinthians 6) and the sin against the Holy Ghost was obvious. Mightn't the
sin against the Holy Ghost possibly be...torture sex? 
	Later, some senior people in the Catholic Church, aware of the warped ones,
erroneously thought that it might be too. After all, it was the vilest of
sins. Their quite fallible misinterpretation persists, especially for those
on whom it was imprinted in a state of semi-hysterical gullibility. 
	Now, of course, even if an association between the sin against the Holy
Ghost and the body as the temple of the Holy Ghost might be plausible, that
does not suggest torture sex in the slightest. In fact, reading the rest of
the cited chapters, it might well be concluded with equal logic that, among
other things, being an active gay was the sin against the Holy Ghost. Other
passages of Scripture which might be cited as evidence are even more
distantly related.  
	The Biblical evidence that torture sex is the sin against the Holy Ghost is
anything but compelling. It all turns on the internal "canon law" of the
Catholic Church, which was purely reactive in this case. And Catholic canon
laws are like ordinary laws: they might be enforceable, with certain
"church" penalties, but equally they might be changed tomorrow. Canon law
can and does change. It is not an immutable summary of God's eternal truths. 
	The shallowness of the canon law interpretation in this instance is shown
by consideration of a simple, but true, example. An expert hitman came to
love a potential torture-sex victim as a friend. In attempting to protect
him, the hitman became, almost inevitably, a victim himself. He knew what he
had done in his life, he well knew what the likely penalties for defending
his friend were, but he went ahead anyway.  
	Who would dare suggest that God would reject such a one? Jesus said (of a
simple death): 
		"Greater love hath no man than this, 
		 that a man lay down his life for his friends"	(John 15:13) 
and also: 
		"Inasmuch as ye have done it [for] one of the least of these my
		 brethren, ye have done it [for] me"		(Matthew 25:40). 
The hitman's love and nearly unbelievable courage would have saved him,
baptised him in blood. Nothing he could have been made to do or say in his
last earthly moments could, because of its forced nature, conceivably have
lessened his beauty before God. Indeed, his last free words, facing a horror
beyond natural human description, were to request that no blood be
splattered upon his jumper ("sweater"). It had been given to him by the
friend and, although grubby from overuse on the run, symbolised their
friendship. More importantly, the story of his final courage started to get
around - as he knew it would - and helped protect his friend further. At a
time when most would turn to jelly, with thoughts only of what was to come,
he kept his cool enough to do the single most useful thing within his power
to save another. That shows where his soul was at. 
	So, even though the hitman had engaged in torture sex most of his life
(apparently willingly), he had not committed the unforgivable sin. Even if
that story were not true (and I hate that it is real, although I rejoice in
his heroism and eternal reward), it certainly COULD be. There are people in
this world with such enormous generosity of spirit, even amongst those who
would normally hide self-hatred behind plausible bravado. And, just as the
robber who hung on the cross beside Jesus, they will enjoy paradise (Luke
23:39-43). Only one negative case is needed to prove the point: torture sex
is not the sin against the Holy Ghost.

3.  SO WHAT IS THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST? 
	If Matthew, Mark and Luke didn't bother to define the sin against the Holy
Ghost, some plausible hypotheses for that are: 
	(a) it isn't important in general (hard to believe, since it denies
		salvation), 
	(b) it is so uncommon that it's hardly worth talking about (well,
		perhaps then...), 
	(c) they couldn't write an essay well enough to pass a first year
		Medicine exam (even with Dads who were Doctors), and 
	(d) the readers/listeners for whom they were writing would have
		known straight away what they were talking about. 
The last alternative seems the most likely to me. Their readers/listeners
KNEW what "blasphemy" (the sin) against the Holy Ghost was. And, indeed,
tautological though it might be, it is pretty obvious. 
	Quite simply, the sin against the Holy Ghost is refusing to believe in the
love of God. The Holy Ghost is the spirit of God, the spirit of love, in the
Godhead. "Blasphemy" against the Holy Ghost is denying the possibility of
God's forgiveness. If you don't want it, you can't have it.  
	The readers/listeners for whom they were writing, in the Palestine of the
1st Century AD, would have been very familiar with the Holy Ghost ("the
comforter" in John) as the spirit of love. But would anyone seriously
suggest that there and at that time torture sex was common? Maybe a badly
beaten camel, or a bit of shit-maker in the well, perhaps even the odd
"Murder of the Innocents", but widespread torture sex? Do me a favour! 
	The reality of the sin against the Holy Ghost, however, is not just the
simple denial of God's love once. By its very nature, hopelessness feeds
upon itself. Feeling divorced forever from Universal forgiveness leads
inexorably to an inward spiral of self-hatred and the perpetuation of
self-hating action. Eternal hope is cut off more and more. Unbroken, the
process will complete itself. 
	Where Catholic canon law gets close to the mark is that torture sex is the
most psychologically detrimental sin imaginable (barring the S. against the
H.G.). Accordingly, torture sex is likely to lead to the (real) sin against
the Holy Ghost more than anything else. But do you see the distinction?
Torture sex ISN'T the sin against the Holy Ghost itself, it's just the most
likely to give rise to the feelings that become the sin against the Holy
Ghost. It can be forgiven, but not if hopelessness takes over to the point
where the vision is clouded forever.  
 
4.  WOULD THE LORD OF CHAOS BE INTERESTED? 
	Does Homer like donuts? What kind of Satan would want souls foist upon him?
Surely the real Lord of Chaos would want people to choose him freely:
raunchy chaos over pusillanimous order, that sort of thing. But on the
rebound? Even Satan wants you to get it right about the sin against the Holy
Ghost. Choose the Lord of Chaos, by all means, but CHOOSE. And choice
requires freedom. Know that you haven't committed the sin against the Holy
Ghost...yet. 
	However, if you think about it, the Lord of Chaos would hate torture sex as
much as God does. Since when is rotten, vile, ghastly, fucked-up,
hypocritical and unnatural ORDER equivalent to the pure chaos of "evil"? Is
Satan a hypocrite? Would he want such vile, hypocritical, followers? Such a
fucked-up response to fucked-up medieval Christianity couldn't possibly
describe the Lord of the Universe that I would want to serve. It would be as
false to suggest that that was Satanism as it would be to put forward that
the sale of indulgences was Christianity. Further, if Satan were to have a
motto, it would surely be "give the cunts hell". Guess who the cunts are?
Instead of being rewarded, those who continue to advocate such patently
false Satanism will, if there are levels to hell, go straight to the bottom
for eternity. They are traitors to God and Satan alike.
 
5.  ACHIEVING FORGIVENESS. 
	Even if torture sex isn't the sin against the Holy Ghost, it is vile beyond
belief and the nastiest of sins. You may have been forced into it. You may
have been brainwashed into thinking that it was nothing much. Even if you
don't bear full responsibility for the vileness, though, it is likely that
you will feel the need for forgiveness. The association between MY sexual
pleasure and SOMEONE ELSE'S agony is too sick (too, too, sick) to avoid all
personal consequences. It is natural to feel irretrievably dirty after such
hideous and hateful unnaturalness, no matter what the pseudo-justifications
offered by the tutor-cunts. Sometimes the heart knows what the head denies. 
	In a technical spiritual sense, simply asking for forgiveness may be what
actually achieves it. However, practically, forgiveness is not achieved,
either spiritually or psychologically, by FAITH alone, but also by WORKS.
"Wow, I am forgiven!" is not good enough by itself, soon running out of
currency unless acted upon. As people are, so shall they act. Faith without
works is fruitless, just as works without faith are empty. You need to DO
something. 
	Work, fight, in every way open to you against what the Universe hates.
(Because of brainwashing, there are probably more ways open to you than you
realise.) Doing "nice" things, by joining Rotary for instance, is not the
way to go, except as a "cover" or as a temporary relief from spiritual
directness. (Actions which of themselves might be laudable can, in the face
of such treason, be reprehensible. Too, too, comfortable for words.) Direct
action against the source of the rottenness itself is required, even if that
might have to be covert much of the time. Don't put bandaids on the cancer -
there are lots of people prepared to do that. Do everything within your
power to kill the cancer.
	Does that mean that you have to show as much courage as the hitman in order
to be forgiven? No, it doesn't. An appropriate analogy is that of
canonisation - the making of a saint - within the Catholic Church.
Canonisation means that the Church is CERTAIN that a particular person is in
heaven. Lots of other people also make it, though, even if the Church on
earth isn't certain of it. Similarly, great courage may create a certainty
of reward, but lesser courage may be just as effective in reaching the
desired goal. 
	Do what you can, what you REALLY can. That means taking reasonable chances.
It may seem that all the power, overwhelming power, is on the other side,
but that power has limits. You have the Universe on your side, and
ultimately it's the truth that counts as the source of power. Using your
brains, you can subvert the rotten system and start achieving forgiveness.
	At the least, talk about how forgiveness is possible and can be earned to
your friends who are in a similar quandary. There is no need to be one of
those who apparently believe that nothing can be done, so one should enjoy
it as much as possible, even if always terrified of death. Nor is there a
need to be one of the more despicable, but piteous, hypocrites who
apparently believe that there isn't even a problem, even if always terrified
of death. Give your friends the chance to get off the merry-go-round of
self-hatred, often masked and often clothed in "religion". Then, they might
knowingly exercise the option to become real Christians, real Muslims, real
Satanists or real anything-elses. They will love you as much as they are
relieved, even if new responsibilities are introduced. 
 
6.  CAN INNOCENCE BE REGAINED? 
	Unfortunately, no: innocence once lost can't be regained. It's a one-way
process. It is possible, however, to (re)learn its near relative
"naturalness", our dignity as natural animals (who could never be into
torture sex). It is possible to free oneself to some extent from the false
ways of an unnatural society.
	Going along with "naturalness" can be a unique and inestimable sort of
"certainty-happiness". All that is required is that you respond without
self-deception to the greatest nastiness in your life (and that it
inevitably is, if rarely considered let alone acknowledged). That
"certainty-happiness" will give you great strength and comfort, even if you
can't possibly avoid having to give way to duress again. Bide your time,
plot and plan your response, a response suited to your talents. If it is
your way to serve, kill the main perpetrators. None of them is your friend.
None of them is a "nice person". None of them is worthy of deference. All
are the vilest of continuing, voluntary, murderers, traitors and criminals
against humanity. The law as it is supposed to be would freely sanction such
justifiable homicide. The Universe would love you. Just make sure that, to
avoid retribution, you die in the act. 
 
7.  THE AUTHOR'S STARTING AND FINISHING POINTS 
	Why am I interested in the sin against the Holy Ghost? Because the two
people I've most loved - Phil, the hitman, and, because of him, Robbie -
were both "caught" in torture sex, although I didn't know that from the
beginning. Somehow, they were strong enough to understand that if another,
natural, "animal" could really love them, then real love and forgiveness in
the Universe were possible. They understood intuitively, if unusually, that
the standard definition of the sin against the Holy Ghost was just wrong.
The hardest thing is to forgive oneself. I wanted to help in that process in
their honour.
	As this is being transmitted, I am in the process of "shuffling off this
mortal coil", of joining "les justes". I was in danger already, and the
publication of this would, if I were not to act first, seal my earthly fate
with certainty. The martyrs would not demand pointless suffering. A
protracted, agonising, death is neither mandatory nor inevitable. What
matters is that one's death should count. (Are you listening, suicide
bombers?) Witness enough is here in my little bit for Phil and Robbie, for
you, against the greatest vileness in the history of the world. 
	I hope that my "parvum opus" provides some of you with the thought-data and
the courage to be even a tiny bit unwise in the face of that
oh-so-socially-acceptable treason. You know, if most people of quality in
the world were prepared to take a chance of 1 in 10, or even 1 in 100, their
actions, along with the actions of some prepared to waive their right to a
long life, would see history reversed. The human race could free itself
forever from the systematic, institutionalised, hypocrisy and foulness which
infect every level, and affect every aspect, of societies around the world. 
	How could you expect to live in tune with the Universe, and die with
equanimity, if you never did anything about such inhuman (and unsatanic)
rottenness? That point explains really why there are so few people in the
world who are genuinely, naturally, at-home with themselves, and why so many
claw to hang on to their miserable little lives. It's tough being a nasty
little bunny rabbit. 
	Don't just warm yourself by the fire. Throw on some wood, and watch the
cunts scatter. Translate, linguists! Republish freely, anonymously,
cyber(un)holy! May the sun be always in your face, and the wind always at
your back. ALLAHU AKBAR! 
 
__________________________________________

	Bernard J. O'Loughlin, Ph.D., Psychologist 
	Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, The World, The Galaxy, The Universe 
 
The views expressed in this document are mine alone, although the sources
are many - the product of years of poaching with gratitude. NO-ONE ELSE knew
of its contents, or of my intention to publish it, beforehand. Indeed, a lot
of subterfuge has been used over the last year to achieve that.  
 
This article has been posted at the same time to dozens of mailing lists.
*bows out* 
__________________________________________