Paradigm Aspect Links
Arp & Galileo
Bicameral Mind Paradigm
Electric Universe Theory
Jesus as Paradigm
Many Worlds Paradigm
Paradigm of Evil
Paradigm of Solipsism
The Third Story
The Universe as Organism
What Went Wrong
Site Section Links
Aspects of Jesus
5 Gospels of Canon
Misc Ancient Myth Material
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Book Critiques Links
Misc Biology Links
Poetry & Fun Material
PDF Download Files
Lecture & Video Links
Spiritual Products online store
Charlie Chaplin once won third prize in a Charlie Chaplin look
Paradigm of Sin
What if the Original Being's
problem is that mankind has chosen to
believe that His character is less than ideal, less than we would really like it to be? Humans
tend to view God, and all religions teach views of God, as being the
quintessential egotist, a ruler rather than a server, a law giver rather
than a bringer of freedom, a demander rather than a
lover, a controller and the inevitable winner in a power struggle, he
who must be obeyed, ad nauseam. They project incredibly negative or
evil facets of character upon him. For Christianity some of these negatives
culminate in distorted or slanted translations of the gospels, the inclusion
of writings inspired by the concepts of sinful men as being the word of God, and
horrible doctrines such as a second death or literal fires burning human beings
throughout eternity, etc, which cover up the wonderful message and promises of
Jesus and negate their fulfillment.
Sin and Sinning
Foundational to the proper theology is the
definition and usage of sin that Jesus gave to us. The word that Jesus used which is
translated sin is the Greek word αμαρτια
and ηαμαρτια. These words
intrinsically mean " a missing of the mark", and were used primarily to
indicate a lack of understanding. Thayers Greek-English Lexicon has: 1.
an error of the understanding.
primarily applied these words of sin to the difference between man's conception
of the Supreme Being's character and goodness and its true reality, so that
his definition of the noun SIN in reference to God would be the difference between the reality of the Creator's character and men's
demeaning conception of that reality. Sin is also used to refer to
some underlying condition which causes a person to miss the mark when he
is sincerely trying to hit it, so he also applied it to any religious or
worldly process or situation that tends to increase the difference.
The traditional concepts of God's character absolutely preclude a
decent relationship. God, as portrayed by the J-person, has no interest
in being the great controller in the sky, the "Lord", the one who is
above all, the oxymoronic "benevolent dictator", the lawgiver, the final
judge, the one being served, the center of attention, the one who can
outvote everyone else, etc., again ad nauseam. In contrast, he offers to us peership, equality, just like I do for MY son, yet we are so
psychologically sick that we think even thinking like this is the
ultimate sin. Outrageous.
J would also define SINNING as any process or aspect
of volition that magnifies or reinforces an incorrect or negative
perception and conception of a person, more especially the Creator.
Sinning is not transgressing the law or losing the relationship. Sinning is using
our power to choose what to believe to magnify or reinforce wrong,
negative concepts and conclusions about God which prevent us from having
imminent immortality and impede our destiny. Or it is more often NOT
using our power of volition to reject such evil producing concepts. See John 15.
Therefore, the proper understanding of sin is one of
if not the most important of all in our theological thinking. No valid
theology can get off the ground unless this concept of sin is
incorporated at the very beginning.
Paradigm Problems in New Testament Translation
has long been known that the highest level secular Greek scholars laugh
with derision and scorn at the way the New Testament is translated. Besides a
limited, "inbred" and misinformed lexicon, one of the biggest
problems of translation is Bible idolatry. "Bibliolatry" brings the unwarranted assumption that the Bible is
consistent in its teachings, doctrines, dogmas and theology, and that
the Bible is its own best commentary on other passages. Most of the rest of the
problems are introduced because of the traditional but false paradigm of
god long held by the OT and the world's major religions.
bad is it? Here is one instance of the translation being 180 degrees
wrong in literally every New Testament translation out there. The problem appears
in John 8:11, where Jesus ostensibly says, "I don't blame you either,
go, and sin no more".
Foundation For Different Translation
Jesus came to change our concept of god and our paradigm, not to "pay
some ransom price" or to "balance the books" or to satisfy some larger
than god justice system. He was frustrated when Philip came and asked
him to "show us the father, and we will be satisfied", and responded,
"Have I been with you so long, and you still do not understand me,
Philip? He who has seen [understood and experienced] me has seen the
father. HOW can you say, 'Show us the father'?"
It is in this way that
Jesus came to solve the sin problem. Of course he always reflected truly
the character of god, and thus "sinning" stopped in his presence. There
was no reinforcement of wrong concepts when he was around. When he came,
he even pushed the limits of respect for our freedom by cleaning out the temple's dreadful business of merchandizing the
forgiveness of God. This business was
promulgating and reinforcing the message that a displeased god was
placated by the purchase and waste of a sacrifice acquired under
religious extortion at an exorbitant price. Even the forbearance of
Jesus couldn't abide this!
Jesus wanted open minded followers, He invited many to leave their petty
and poor lives behind them and to come and follow him. If he had had his
way, all would have followed and listened to him and entered the
Kingship. He did not even send
Judas away, and he also invited that most unlikely candidate, the rich
young ruler, to come and follow him. He sought out the Samaritan woman
at the well, and if she had followed his instructions, she and her lover
would have been privileged to have had special and private
discourse with him, which discourse would have opened the gates of the
"kingship of the heavens" or empowerment.
The Koine Greek verb, which means "to pass, to move toward or away in
relation to", can be translated in English as either "come" or "go"
depending on the intent of the speaker.
If sin is having a
bereft or barren concept of God, then where should Mary have gone away
from Jesus to get it enlightened? To the then current religious leaders
and experts? To the Pharisees? No! Thus, in the light of the 3
foundation points above, the most reasonable translation should be,
"come, and sin no more."
One of the worst,
most evil mistranslations done by New Testament translators of
Christendom is the one in John 20:23. Given that the definition of sin
is having a wrong concept or understanding of God, the proper
translation should be: "If you dismiss any sins [wrong concepts], let
them be dismissed. If you have retained any sins [wrong concepts], let
them be retained." Jesus is NOT authorizing us or any so called priests
to forgive the sins or misdeeds of others. Rather he is at the end of
his ministry, his all out effort to cleanse our thinking of dreadfully
wrong concepts of God, and now can do more. This is his benediction, his
coming to terms with the fact that the disciples and followers had
retained a great deal of misunderstanding in their thinking. He is
addressing this regrettable result, and Mankind has paid a heavy price
for their carelessness, dullness, intellectual irresponsibility and
In the context of the
Thoreau quote above, our foibles, weaknesses, peccadilloes, misdeeds,
bad habits, failures, wounded ego problems, vices, etc., are just the
branches, not the root. These are the factors that Jesus was referring
to when he told the ailing man, "My son, your sins are continually being
Some would have you
believe that God can read our minds and that He is displeased when we
even think nefarious thoughts, unbidden though they may come. Others
that we displease heaven when we eat between meals, or make love on the
Sabbath. Bottom line implication? The human race is insane for believing
such nonsense as it does about the creator, the unfallen realm and what
they care about, and what the real answer is.
The issue should be clear. The creator either made
us to be obsequious servants, servile "pets" and/or inferior underlings,
directed and demanded to submit to his will (which would be considered
imposing in lieu of his power and potential anger) and/or be afraid, told
what to do and what not to do, and destined to have most of what we want
as long as it does not encroach upon his superiority and will; OR he
designed us to be his equals, truly free moral agents made to follow the
desires of our own hearts, with freedom and sovereignty, destined to have our every
intrinsic desire and need
fulfilled, with no one telling us what to do "or else".
Even in the biblical garden of Eden account
with its "tree of knowledge of good and evil", it can be seen
that Adam and Eve did
by eating the fruit thereof. In this allegorical account we do not need to see the "tree of knowledge
good and evil" as a test but see it as a mechanism to bring the father and
mother of the human race to a spiritual maturation choice-point. The
whole concept of a creator testing his creatures to see if they measure
up is illogical and
anathema to the human soul, essentially unacceptable.
In the allegory we may also see that God deliberately set up a
situation of tension by first giving the whole world to Adam and then
taking back one aspect of it, the "tree", and then telling his
who were made by his intention to have everything they desire, that they
can't have something they may want. "God" told them that they should not
eat the "fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil", then had the
"Serpent" tell them that the fruit would make them Godlike, which was
really their true and worthy destiny.
Without going into arguments about which being, the
first or the serpent, was truly God or whether they both were—remember
it's an allegory—, "God" knew that Eve would eat the fruit of the tree;
otherwise Adam and Eve would have had to live forever with the constant
reminder—or memory if such tree were
removed—that God was holding
back from them, and something that they innately wanted. God also knew
that Adam was made to be completely in love with his woman and would
DECIDE to share her fate and destiny and eat the fruit. So far, no harm,
no foul. Sin entered the realm of human experience when, Adam and Eve,
perceiving there was a problem, ran away from God instead of running to
him when he came to fellowship with them. In the face of the tension
between his own will and what "God" demanded", Adam sinned when he chose
to believe that God would not countenance his facing God and saying,
"Father, we desired knowledge and we just did what you told us not to do, and we
now wonder if
something is actually wrong. If it is, what is your solution to this dilemma?"
In my understanding of the allegory, had they this attitude, the
response would have been, "My son, you did good. Welcome to adult
Godhood." Instead in
essence they chose to be underlings and afraid, not children Gods.
Children should never be afraid of their father, and mature Gods are not afraid of anybody or anything.
A major Sin is failing to understand that the Creator's
purpose and design is to create us to be equals
Aspects of Sin
Sin is choosing to believe God is not
100% good, or not believing that god is as good to us personally by our
definition of good as he really is. Sin is choosing to believe that God
can be the problem instead of the solution. Sin is wrestling with the
issue of whether we are any good in God's eyes, instead of having the
guts to stand up and wrestle with whether or not God is any good for us.
Sin is insisting that God is that oxymoron, a benevolent dictator ruling
by law; or believing that God is a lawgiver enacting rules, limiting
free will, backed up by punishment and violence. Sin is insisting that
we must submit to God's will and obey God even when it conflicts with
our own will and desires.
Sin is failing to understand that God's purpose and
design is to create us to be equal with Jesus as individuals and
qualitatively equal with the United Serving
Entity. Sin is thinking God wants us to serve Him instead of His
wanting to serve us or thinking that God demands to be Numero Uno in our
affections. Sin is thinking that God has vigorously, jealously guarded his power and
superior position, and will do so throughout all eternity. Sin is projecting upon God
some mysterious dimensions of psyche, intelligence, or capability that transcend
unfallen humanity. Sin is
being afraid, when it should be unacceptable to live in a universe under
fear. Even Patrick Henry understood this when he said, "Give me liberty
or give me death!"
It is often said that Jesus has saved us from our sins.
Without the proper definition and understanding of what both salvation and
sin are, this is a stupefying and shallow sentiment. What is usually meant
is that through some mystical transaction Jesus has saved us in or with our
sins. NO! Given the proper definition, Jesus came to eliminate our Sin by
giving a universe shaking demonstration of what the Creator is really like,
but we must see, understand and believe this to be "saved" now or later.
There will be no "salvation" without the elimination of Sin, because Sin
inevitably generates evil and misery. The universe can never function in
harmony as long as there is Sin amongst its citizens. Christians are just in
major denial concerning this issue!
Morality and Ethics
The correct understanding of sin, alongside our
training and overall cultural conditioning, has a very great and
ultimate effect upon our morality and ethics. This concept along with
the presentation of Godliness given by the J person will work to correct
and overcome whatever unsavory aspects of our psyche we find we have
accumulated in ourselves.
In his conversations about ethics, Jesus
usually only scorned the then current ethics of the Jews, and seldom if
ever talked directly about morality. Ethics and morality should not be
It should be self-evident
that life fulfillment should define and determine morality, not some written code of
morality determining what happens in life. This literally means that
whatever is ethical and sustains and/or enhances life for all concerned is moral. This
means that in this world no specific rules can be absolutely valid. The
most immoral thing that can be done is to impose rules of morality upon
humans that God created to live freely by their will and their own
free-flowing feelings and emotions. To do so suggests a treatment more
appropriate for machines than for children of God.
When all is said and done, we all—including any conceivable God—want the same thing, WE WANT TO FEEL
defensible purpose of life is to increase morale. Whatever ultimately
increases morale without violating human ethics IS moral!
So, we should be able to consider the possibility that
we are suffering from a race-wide psychological problem caused by buying
into a fundamentally wrong concept of God, a wrong paradigm or
an "old wineskin" if you will. Within this false paradigm we are all programmed
for failure with defeating sentiments. We are going to wait a long time
if we are waiting for God to initiate any further rapprochement. Jesus
laid it all on the line for that already, and his last words were, "It