Imminent FulfillmentImmortality,  Safety, Empowerment, Equality, KnowledgeUnity, Society

Should not intelligent, reasonable men of good will be able to agree on all things that matter?

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to
  one who is striking at the root."
- Henry David Thoreau
Site Sections, Subject List, Article Synopses and other features

Paradigm Aspect Links

Arp & Galileo
Bicameral Mind Paradigm
Catastrophe Paradigm
Catastrophe Paradigm Lockout
Creator Paradigm
Electric Universe Theory
Gospel Paradigm
Holographic Universe
Holographic World
Human Destiny
Jesus as Paradigm
Love Paradigm
Many Worlds Paradigm
New Paradigm
Paradigm List
Paradigm Lockout
Paradigm of Evil
Paradigm Shift
Paradigm of Solipsism
Paradigm Speculation
Philosophy Paradigm
Reincarnation Paradigm
Sin Paradigm
The Paradigm Conspiracy
The Third Story
The Universe as Organism
Turkey-Day Paradigm
What-If Paradigm

Introduction Material
Introduction Articles
Word Definitions
Human Condition

Christianity Material
Bible/Canon Issues
Christendom Analyzed

Jesus Material
Jesus' Teachings
Aspects of Jesus
5 Gospels Canon

Philosophy Material
Academic Education
Paradigm Material
Philosophers of Note
Philosophical Issues
Philosophy Metaphysics
Psychological Issues
Religious Miscellaneous
Sociological Material
Theological Basics
Theological Issues
Theological Misc

Theological Skeptical

Cosmology, Creation,
Geophysical Material

Cosmology Material
Creation Issues
Geophysical Material

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Chronology Revision
Golden Age Themes
History Revision
Misc Ancient Myth Material
Modern Mythology Material
Psycho-Catastrophe Articles
Saturn-Jupiter Material
Saturnian Reconstruction
Symbol Development
Venus-Mars Material
1994 Velikovsky Symposium

Miscellaneous Material
Book Critiques Links
Misc Biology Links
Misc Issues/Conclusions
Poetry & Fun Material
PDF Download Files
Lecture & Video Links
Site Features Links
Site article checklist
Spiritual Products online store

Charlie Chaplin once won third prize in a Charlie Chaplin look alike contest.

Paradigm of Sin
Updated: 06/09/2021

The Problem

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 any 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 especially the 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.
     Jesus 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

It 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.

How 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".

The Foundation For Different Translation

1) 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!

2) 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 primal creative empowerment.

3) 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" or "pass", 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 spiritual apathy.

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 dismissed."

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.

Original Sin

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 NOT sin by eating the fruit thereof. In this allegorical account we do not need to see the "tree of knowledge of 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 children, 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 corporately as 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 conflated!

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 GOOD! The only ULTIMATE 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 is finished!"

Home   Site Sections   Article Map   Contact   Store   Contributions   Survey