Who Convinces Whom of Sin ?

Somebody started to write something with a similar title as this hub, and what was written, and said, including comments, got me to thinking.

In a nutshell, the writer doesn't believe there is such a thing as sin, and what the "religious" world calls sin, to that writer is simply a mistake, something that happened as a result of somebody's misjudging certain circumstances.

Self-proclaimed atheists and agnostics and "free thinkers" in this site, even some of an obviously "liberal Christian views" (and I may be wrong there) were quick to jump into the bandwagon and lavish this blogger with "encouragement" and kudos and offer similar views and criticisms (actually bashing) of those who hold the view that sin is.

Initially, my reaction was defensive, and to insist that sin is, and in fact did so in my comment.

But then I got to thinking things over after a while, of things that happened in my own personal life with those who have presumed to lord it over God's heritage, my own short and quick journey into Marxism, and my experiences in "religion" so-called, and thought to myself:

But really I can hardly blame them. That was the way I thought of sin, myself, had it not been for the grace of God.

How can you blame people who obviously have no understanding of what this thing called sin is, or even if offered an explanation will still cling on to what they hold as their views because they regard themselves "highly intelligent" (which they are, of a truth) people who adhere to the principles of cause and effect and are widely read and have studied history and sociology and cultures and their relations to religion and spirituality and have come to the same conclusion as Marx that "religion is an opiate by which the ruling class keeps the exploited class under subjection" ? (Not verbatim, but to that effect).

How can you blame them, when you have on record the history of the Roman Catholic church and its "the cross or the sword" past during those times when its friars and priests, its cardinals and archbishops, were as much a presence and a power to reckon with as the Spanish conquistadores' armies and navies, who forced entire populations of natives to "become" Christians by mass baptisms, after the example of Empreror Constantine ?

In my own country, "they" came with their crosses and their armies, their cannons and their muskets subduing thousands of my countrymen, until for hundreds of years they ruled using hellfire and brimstone, religion and saints, to make sure my countrymen did not join the rising ranks of rebels and patriots ?

I do not know what Karl Marx saw in his own observations that led him to conclude that God is not, the soul is not, heaven is not, and hell is not, and that religion is simply superstitious cock and bull that is used to keep workers under control, but I can make a guess, albeit I hope an educated one.

It would be the fact that in his times and maybe even now, where the rich and elite gather, where these party, you will find the friars with their flowing robes and glittering rings and their well-rounded, well-shaved, smooth pates, proferring their hands as the rich and the ruling class took it and curtsied and kissed that shining, large, gold and red ring in the hopes of gaining the favor of God and then both heading for the long table with its wines and sumptuous feasts of food, while the masses lined up for bread outside and starved and froze to death, and workers were underpaid and overemployed by their religious masters who were inside the banquet halls, stuffing their already gorged, protruding bellies, making it all the more incongruent with their thin legs and sagging butts ? (I wonder how their mistresses could stand the sight of their naked bodies ?).
(to be continued.....hey, gotta earn a living, too)