First of all, greetings to all the RRS. This thread was derived from the discussion titled "I want to debate with a catholic" because this topic is very important and deserves a special discussion. I hope catholics can argue against this little essay in order to look for a more complete opinion about the problem.

To follow the rules of the christian religion is to live with a double moral. Although this not implies atheist cannot have a similar problem due cultural issues, the situation of a religious person is to have rules that denies the humanity of the believer. Some aspects are most related with the wrath, the self-defense in social situations which could be so hard or not, the relationships between men and women and even the human psychology. For instance, the catholic doctrine teaches is a sin to feel or express wrath. Thus, if you get angry with a relative, co-worker or friend, you are simply a sinner. Following the same logic, is a sin if you try to stop "bullying" at your high school or abuses from your boss, because you must look for just to do the right without harm anyone. In third place the complicated relationships between men and women make all the people sinners. You cannot watch a woman feeling sexual attraction toward her because is a sin according to the bible. In addition if you have pre-marital sex with your girlfriend -even if she does not get pregnant-you are a sinner. And if you get divorced and you get another couple -no matter if you are responsible with your children-you are a sinner too. Finally, you cannot recognize your own abilities because everything comes from god. And if you try to say "I did it by my own" you are a sinner because the pride in you is a sin toward god. Nonetheless the catholics are part of a non religious world in which non-religious situations are impossible to stop. So how can the catholics deal with their religious duties as most as possible? The answer: a hybrid symbol of a man-god.

Catholic religion is based in the figure of Jesus-Christ, a character who is man and god at the same time. The situation seems to be logical if you are a believer. Watching deeply this argument from outside can help to understand the contradictions stated before, as well as the double moral of the catholic priests. In the early history of the christianity, Jesus was a rabbi who taught how to live with a right moral besides of taking care mostly of the poors and humbles. After his death the first christians had the necessity to demonstrate he was god and then created all the stories presented in the gospels. As these stories where transmited first as folk-tales, undoubtely they were utterly changed at the moment they were written. So, people started to believe he was god according to his good actions. How to prove he actually was it? First the scripture claims jesus was the son of David, via Joseph, his adoptive father. But if he was his adoptive father, jesus cannot claim to be the son of david because there are no links by blood. Then this argument would only be a metaphor. On the other hand, if he actually was the son of Joseph, he was linked by blood to king david, but then he is not coming from the heavens. In consequence, analyzing this argument in this way demonstrates jesus was just a human being. 

But where is the problem of the double moral starting from a hybrid symbol? The Catholic Church will use this "doubled-faced situation" in order to justify their actions. Let's remember their mistakes during the middle ages. They assured this human life was just a hard process which will end with a prize in the heavens. So, it was justified the pope and the bishops could torture with hunger and violence the people -who wasn't well educated because to know it was a sin because just God was the only one who could know- giving them the promise to stay better out of this world. If you asked "why?" in that epoch, they surely would say: "because is God's will". Then, the human bad actions were justified throughout a spiritual argument, which is not scientifically proved.

Nowdays the situation is similar with the argument most of believers say: we do not follow men, we follow God. How can they say this if the vehicle to follow god is a visible agent because god is inmaterial? Easy: if they join the divinity on the priests' humanity, they cannot explain how a blessed man can make mistakes -just think in the kids abused by the priests- if he possesses the divinity of god. The solution to this contradiction is to separate the man and the god in order to avoid the reality. Hence the hybrid symbol in which the church was founded gives to all their members to play once with a face, once with another. And if we return to the examples about the behavior of a believer, they can say: "oh well, I had pre-marital sex with my girl, yeah, is a sin. But I can confess my sins after doing it and it will be ok". So if the doctrine is asking to its followers to do the things it teaches why to play a doubled-faced game? Once again is easy: their ideology starts from the hybrid character of jesus christ.

It is possible to find these contradictions not only in the christianity. The attitudes of Zeus, the most important Greek god show us the same hybrid behavior, as well as all the gods and goddesses of the Greek mythology. They are gods but act with a natural human behavior. Thus, the ancient Greek Empire justified the wars and the problems within their governments and governors. Another example could be found in the myth of King Arthur. He was born as a bastard but regardless his condition he was able to take the sword Excalibur and turn into the ruler of Camelot. This situation is against the idea of the pure and blue blood of the English Royalty. How could a man descending from a royal father and a popular mother become a king? Once again, the hybrid would justifiy the battles within the English Royalty.

In conclusion, to follow the catholic doctrine is to be exposed to have a double moral. From one side, you can be just a human but a sinner, and for the other you can be just a believer but not a human. And if you blend both you play in each of the sides whenever you feel convinience according to the situation. Is it right to follow a religion which those characteristics? I do not think so.