***Its all the better to realize that one is not a sinner, and hence, there is nothing to be saved from except our own illusions and ignorance***

How is it better to consider yourself not a sinner, bob?

Isn't that embracing ignorance? Can you honestly say you've never hurt someone else? Never disappointed anyone? Never took advantage of something? You always played fair? You never lie, even to yourself?

What you say is the easy way out...but does nothing for answering the human condition; and even if you are self-contained and lack nothing spiritually -- how then bob, through your own efforts, do you protect yourself from illusions and ignorance? The illusions, by definition, you could never detect -- and the ignorance, you would never be aware of.

Your statement implies that a belief in sin, and by inference, a belief in a Creator who has His stand on sin, is of mixed parts illusion and ignorance.

Dubious is the value of a rescue that turns its back on a foundation of morality, and paves the way for anarchy. For sin is tied directly into notions of right and wrong -- for this you have a conscience...and either you deny that you have a conscience, or you are at a loss to explain the origins of such a thing.

A non-sin universe would have no need of a conscience, in fact, the self-sacrifice that a conscience sometimes evokes, is quite counter-survival. And without a God, survival of the fittest is the only rational 'belief' system. Under such a system, there is no point in evolution in which a conscience would arise. There is no point of origin for a conscience except from outside the human, using standards foreign to the 'natural' every-man-for-himself human.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into your statement, and you do believe in a god...But what kind of god is it, that's capricious enough to accept good and evil as being equally valid? That's no God of Absolutes -- that's merely a human with power.

So perhaps sin is an illusion, and along with it, a God who declares what constitutes sin...Then what exactly had that kind of power to spread an illusion of such power and scope? What thing of what abilities could engineer such an enduring and pernicious concept, maintaining and reinforcing it down through history?

And if it's ignorance -- then what is the counterbalancing knowledge? If you believe that sin is not a real factor, then what is the reality that explains the human condition? I don't think you are also pretending to think that there is nothing wrong with the world.

Or is all that is wrong in the world, to be laid at the feet of those with 'religion'? Anthropological studies should give you a hint there.

What knowledge will save us from the notion of sin? Simple gainsaying? Just say no to sin? What are you replacing a moral compass with?

Is it self-determinism, and follow your heart? How do you know your heart is True? Many examples of human monsters who were just following the dictates of their own heart show that to be bogus. Consensus of opinion? We vote on right and wrong? Mob mentality should show you the fallacy of that one.

Believe me or not, but if sin was just a matter of illusion and ignorance, the concept, as hated as it is, would have dropped from human history long ago. Human nature left to itself is selfish to the core, and infant-like would seek only its satisfaction of desire, and would never have invented, let alone endured, the concept of sin. Nobody in their natural state wants to be told when they do wrong, or told to control their passions and lusts, or to think of others rather than themselves. Without God, the concept of sin would have been a notion that would never have been tolerated; and would have been relegated to the rare fringe elements of masochists and self-mutilators.

I know that you wish that there was no such thing as sin, (because the ramifications of that involve personal internal changes and choices) but to weakly put it off to illusion and ignorance, should show you that you haven't examined honestly the implications of your argument. You have invented a short-cut answer that quiets any real thought on the subject, a bandaid approach that keeps you not only from examining the original problem concept of sin; but also keeps you from critiquing the tools that you use to handle the problem.