*
Sin induces guilt, and guilt craves therapy.
The physical problem is the guilt, but the metaphysical problem is sin.
*
Guilt can be induced in the absence of sin, guilt can be amplified to manipulate.
And therapy for guilt can be split off from sin - guilt can be removed by psychotherapy, which can be individual or social, and consists in denying the sin, or the reality of sin-as-such.
And therapy for guilt can be pharmacological (drugs - prescribed or not, such as alcohol).
And therapy for guilt can be to distract from guilt and displace it with another emotion (the mass media approach to therapy).
*
Do any of these affect the reality of sin? No - they affect the awareness of sin as a possibility and a state, they affect the awareness of sin as an emotion.
It is as if pain was abolished but not the pathological causes of pain - a person might be torn and mutilated or feverish and prostrated, but feel no pain and deny the reality of pathology.
Deny the need for a cure, reject even an effective cure if offered.
*
But this would be a delusion, a denial of reality - the denial of pathology being itself a pathology.
But how if the reality of reality was denied?
How if single, objective, eternal truth was regarded as a nonsense concept?
How if what someone felt (here and now) was all that was regarded as valid - and reality, pathology and sin were alike discredited as meaningless (indeed manipulative) concepts...
*
Once somebody was in that situation, once a society was in that situation - how could they ever get out from it - I mean escape logically, by argument?
*
Why would such a person, such a society, be interested by a savior, when they feel they have nothing to be saved-from except bad feelings induced by the idea that they might need saving?
*
