Satan teaches people how to live, and God solves the problems. Christ becomes a janitor for satan making his system work.

Religions are failing to create morality in society. For example, most women who have abortions are pressured into it by other persons, and then they regret it later. It isn't the law that is the problem with abortions; it is the failures of religion.

There are a lot of things wrong in human relations which religions do not address. But religions are supposed to be dealing with that subject, because the entire purpose of material existence is to overcome sin. (The Purpose of Material Life)

The worst problem in organized religions is that they construct theologies, which can only be corruptions. The constructs are analogous to competing with God in creating trees and trying to do it in a factory, since humans cannot control evolution.

All theologians subjectivize (or de-objectivize) the origins of reality making themselves, their figureheads and God sources of reality. It's like trying to pour the universe through a funnel, and their heads are the funnel. Sin conditions them to do that, because it puts subjectivity in conflict with objective reality. Since sin does that, it is a prevalent standard outside religion also, except that science has been creating a general understanding of what objective reality is.

Subjectivizing religion through theology is analogous to saying that before you drive a car across a bridge, you must repent, because God holds the bridge up, and it will collapse if you don't repent first. Repenting, of course, means joining some organization and making a donation.

Theologians are clueless of God's purposes. They assume that religion has the purpose of producing some divine gimickry such as "Keys to Heaven" or "atonement." They cannot understand the objectivity of existence, where worship and ritual create real psychological effects, and morality pertains to the standard by which people do everything.

Morality is the point here. It is not theologically taught as the standard of human interactions but as an attempt to please God by responding to his whims.

The real characteristics of morality are not determined by the relationships between like-minded persons but by relationships between opponents. Christ focused on that area describing morality in terms of how people relate to their enemies rather than their friends. One reason why is because enemies are often not the culprits; they are often innocent victims. Another reason why is because morality is universal; it cannot change for enemies, even if they are culprits. In other words, it is a sin to sin against satan.

Which brings an important point to the front. Sin is not something that can be put on a list; it is anything that is detrimental to someone else.

Examples of bishops not knowing right-from-wrong is in their handling of sex abuse cases, where they do more to promote the problems than solve them. The Catholic Church is being bankrupted by the consequence. Another example is in their squashing of opponents, who tend to be traditionalists, when churches are being converted to social halls, or sex education is being promoted in schools. They use lies, trickery and degradation to subdue their opponents. If bishops cannot learn morality, what is religion doing for anyone esle?

Moral problems are most visible in communication, because it is the first response to all problems. People are supposed to be objective, not only in what they say but in why, where and how they say it. Objectivity includes relating to enemies and friends by the same standards, as Christ taught. But doing so is unheard of in the world. Motives are advanced through selective standards. Nothing in organized religion corrrects that problem.

Objective reality is the medium which sorts out problems and creates life. But religious authorities are not teaching that.

Subconsciously, sin creates a hate for truth and reason. Life cannot be sustained under those conditions. Attempting to create truth and reason is viewed as a threat to religion, because it does not come from authorities. It is a violation of the rules of Catholicism to propagate reason on morality outside the Magisterium.

The official view in Catholicism is that the "Magisterium" must be the source of the religion, because it is God's work, and any other moralizing is a threat to it. So anything conservatives say is supposed to be God's work, and all else is a threat to it. Authorities and conservatives eliminate all opposing realities by saying it is not the Magisterium.

One problem with the Magisterium concept, along with other types of authoritarianism, is the assumption that there is a truth which exists, and the true believers adhere to it and purify it.

That concept is mindless. No one can produce a perfect truth, or even a totally adequate truth, or arbitrate it for someone else. People can only work towards it through increased knowledge and evidence.

Truth is the communicated representation of unified reality, which is approximately the same thing as objective reality. Communication requires reality in two locations: source and receiving point. Even if it exists at a source, it doesn't automatically get to a receiving point. Even if one person or a piece of paper has perfect truth, it doesn't automatically jump into another person's mind.

How does truth get into someone's mind? Through everything humans can produce for communication, reason and study. Therefore, there can be no lines around truth. And therefore, magisterium does not exist beyond a contrivance.

Magisterium is defined as teaching authority. To assume that there has to be authority to teach anything is extremely mindless. Certainly, there must be authority over organizations including religions, but absolutizing it and extending it to universal things like truth is perverse.

To try to draw a line around a perfect, or even imperfect, truth is ignorance about the purpose and standards that humans are supposed to have in life. People are supposed to be determining what reality is and how to relate to it. The concept of Magisterium assumes that there is no purpose in life, because most of life is uninfluenced by the Magisterium. The counter argument would be that all of life should be influenced by the Magisterium. But that position is saying that a few theological whims can direct all of life. It is arrogance and irresponsibility.

The bliss of ignorance says that people are supposed to get moral truth from the Magisterium and apply it to create morality in their lives. The two questions are whether the moral truth is in the magisterium and how it would be applied.

Consider the question of whether moral truth is in the Magisterium. Are not the Ten Commandments supposed to serve that purpose? Maybe they needed to be expanded a little. How much expansion is the right amount? The fact is that the whole universe is the size that truth must be, not some paper in the church archives.

Consider what Christ taught. He was crucified for breaking the Ten Commandments through blasphemy. The Ten Commandments were not enough. So he taught how to relate morality to all of life.

If Church authorities are supposed to create morality for everyone, then morality is an entity that can be passed around. How does the morality get from church authority to the rest of life? There is a mindless assumption that morality can be created through phrases, advice, theology, paper or whatever church authorities produce. That assumption is extreme ignorance about what morality is and how it is produced.

No paper can describe all that needs to be known about morality. Therefore, people need to know how to make decisions about morality by relating it to everything in life. Christ taught a process of how to make those decisions. Actually, he called it a path. A path controls the process. He didn't call it a piece of paper.

Do you suppose that applying reason to a subject has anything to do with the path that saves? Is applying reason to a subject inside the magisterium or outside of it?

The magisterium is supposed to produce perfect and infallible moral truth. The concept of purifying reality is mindless. What would purified reality be? Would it be separated from all other reality? How could it be purified if it were not separated from impure reality? How pure would it be if it were separated from all other realities?

What human minds do is acquire knowledge through applications of reason. Knowledge increases incrementally by building one element upon another. Correct reality gradually replaces incorrect reality. Thereby, knowledge evolves, as all realities evolve. Truth evolves, technology evolves, biology evolves, social institutions and standards evolve.

If purified reality could be conceptualized at all, it would be a hypothetical end point, not anything in past tense. Pretending that there is a purified reality someplace defies the process of how reality is handled.

One could say that Christ produced perfect truth. That concept creates an acceptable figure of speech, because the source material is extremely useful and reliable. But notice what he taught; it is a process or path. He taught the most rock solid basics of the subject, using examples and parables to clarify unlike anything else in existence. And then he said in essence, "Find this wherever you look in life."

The thing that makes Christ's words a representation of perfect truth is that they are a representation of objective realities and laws found in life. The results are supposed to be integrated into life, not separated from it.

And even then, no one can entirely agree upon the meaning of what Christ taught. The ability to extract the "perfect truth" depends upon the mental condition of the person viewing it. Guess where the mental condition comes from. It comes from a path; and the essence of the path is poverty. If a magisterium were producing a perfect truth, the product would be found at the bottom of society rather than the gold vaults.

It is for this reason that truth comes from the bottom of society rather than the top. The reason why Christ was from Nazareth rather than Jerusalem, and why he walked in sandals with the nobodies, is because truth could only originate from the bottom of society, not the top. The truth of Christ's words is a lot more perfect at the bottom of society than at the top.

Mindless persons assume that they produce fact, while everyone else produces opinions. Their facts are unquestionable, because they come from authorities; and everyone else's opinions must be discarded, because they cannot be proven. Thereby, authority rules through fact over opinion.

In other words, one of the main reasons why religion fails to improve human standards is because there is no concept of how to properly handle reality or truth. Christ said a lot about it, but sin repells the truth.

Another major problem which religions do not directly correct is the effects of subconscious forces which create sin. Those forces are only overcome through poverty or its related effects.