Tweek, I know your issues and torments run much deeper than what's posted in this thread, but since I posted it, I will use Dante's Inferno as an example of why we should be careful judging ourselves too harshly using the yardstick of moral absolutism. Also, I'm examining my own actions to see if they played any part in your upset. So at the risk of being completely off base, I will attempt to explain myself better and at least hopefully clear the air between you and I. Whether I need to or not, I feel I should do it.
You grew up in the Catholic Church, so I imagine you were indoctrinated with all kinds of similar thoughts, rules, and fear-based concepts as Dante lays out in his Divine Comedy, which I'm only familiar with in the abstract as it's been loosely assimilated into our culture.
There is of course much to fear from our own actions, but simple moral categorizations like Dante's Inferno, if taken beyond pure allegory and metaphor, can be damaging to the spirit. Same with many religious teachings. I don't know if it was Dante's intention, but this allegory he created ... in order to figuratively punish his political and social enemies ... has been taken as gospel by many, and has become the underpinning of many of our cultural conceptions of hell. But the workings of karma and punishment are fluid and organic, not rigidly organized like this conceptual drawing of hell with simple circles and "dos and do nots". The rational mind clings to such easy categorizations and mental maps, but it is illusion.
For example, "Sowers of Discord" in the 8th Circle. Sometimes sowing discord is the most beneficial thing a person can do for another. In Psychological counselling there is the term Cognitive Dissonance, which is a positive tool used to create discord in the mind of a patient with rigid and unhealthy beliefs that need uprooting. It is a way to drive a wedge between some of those tightly mortared beliefs, and chip away at the unsound structures of the mind that need to fall. The most righteous debater on the side of the most righteous cause will sow discord in the minds of the audience in order to win his point and destroy the strength of his opponent's argument. There are many examples of this that certainly shouldn't condemn anyone to "hell".
Also, Circle 2: Lustfulness. Without underlying sexual chemistry and attraction, many people would not be motivated to share life and love together and possibly procreate, thereby creating even more opportunities for love. Isolation would increase, and with it greed and gluttony for oneself alone. And what is lustful or incontinent for one man, may be a relative form of abstinence for another. One man may seek gratification only 3 days a week, but for him even at that level it is wasting too much of his precious energy still. Another may do that three times a day and still be insane with overflowing sexual energy that needs release (giant balls?).
There is no way to slap an easy judgment on another person with any of these moral themes. Is Edward Snowden a traitor who deserves the lowest circle of hell? Obviously the workings of karma are much more subtle, and I believe perfectly fair or else the universe would have no equilibrium, which I think it ultimately achieves. Dante or any of the religious pedagogues are just creating broad models of behavior and punishment - that maybe needed for teaching the masses, but ill-fitting for anyone who does their own moral reasoning and develops their own conscience. There is no real Dante's inferno, but there is a sort of reality in dreams and on the hard earth. And like you said in reference to car crash victims, that is hell enough. And heaven enough here too! I believe even greater realities exist, but we go with what we know.
I thought the Seinfeld episode was too much promoting man's giving in to easy gratification, but that's not to say there is an easy formula for abstinence to replace that show's lax one for incontinence. And it's a comedy after all! But one that was very influential, so I give my opinion and sow a little discord with the opposing argument. I loved the episode, but I like to play the devil's advocate when I feel there's a point to be made. And I think it's important for people to maintain a balance between sexual looseness and strictness. That is not a judgment on anyone else's balance because I don't know particular situations or really care, but only a judgment on a culturally significant television episode that I think can lead to too much of a feeling of ennui if followed to its somewhat nihilistic conclusion (and we all know how fucked nihilists can be from The Big Lebowski - another culturally significant comedy that's become more than just laughs).
I am not saying anyone in this thread treats Seinfeld so seriously, but I remember laughing at it, yet also having this same reaction when I saw it first in the 90s ... that it was a little too much in the camp of giving into meaningless pleasure. How many wives suffer from their husbands giving into easy pleasure? And how many men suffer from the listless consequences of over-gratification too? Yeah, that may be taking a sitcom too seriously, but television has become our teacher in many ways unconsciously.
So, how can we use simple rules to judge ourselves good or bad? We usually can't of course. And much torment is caused attempting to do so. So we each have to know ourselves and set internally consistent and beneficial rules that we make the center of our personal self-discipline, and then go out and make whatever positive difference we can in the world ... not burning too much energy on self-reproach except when it's needed to create a better system for ourselves and the greater society we serve.
Please don't be too hard on yourself! And don't let your torment ever be in vain, because that energy can be used to make your life more joyful. Too many cultural heroes have made a virtue out of torment. It's decrease and replacement with joy in ourselves and in our loved ones the true measure of our accomplishments, I believe. I hate the glorification of torment and pain, and it is prevalent in religion and many forms of art and literature.
I focused on Dante here only because it's been my theme today, but I'm sorry for all those people still shackled by ill-fitting religions that were designed with other generations and/or situations in mind, or designed for people who can't think for themselves. There are eternal truths found in the great religions, but also a good deal of endlessly complicated or overly simplified rules and regulations, that if force-fit only causes greater torment, misery, and true discord in this world.
OK. I got too serious, but sometimes I'm afraid my posts may hurt people too, so I clarify even at the risk of over-explaining and coming across patronizing and pedantic. Hopefully doesn't matter and I'll be excused... this thread is good because it tolerates all sorts of self-expression from the silly to the serious. And Tweek may be scratching his head wondering why he was the focus of this .. cause it's late at night and now I'm busy with self-reproach and some possibly crackpot empathizing!
Great... I'm following Ship who is about the polar opposite of me here taking too much too seriously.