On Sexual Sins and Sins in general
--------------------------------------------------------
To understand what a Sin is, we need to Understand what Gods will is. Between Old Testament and New Testament the one thing all
Christians have to agree on is that the 'reality' of what Sin implies has shifted. In my understanding we have the 10 Commandments
and all the other Rules as 'Rules' - and the defiance of those were Sin.
As of the new Testament we can thereby rather resort to common sense; And the basis of this is the apparent pointlessness as much
as the eventual counterproductivity of those. This means we can 'bend' the rules - or, as we so do - like, crossing a red Light if
nobody is watching.
So Jesus said - in a somehow controversial position - that not a 'iota' will go missing from the Law. And we can dig this. I can,
however. The rules that God stands above everything is simple - its science - and the other parts - damn straight as well. So, not
killing, ... not stealing - all that.
But yea - aren't those the things? We can get back to it, and then find exceptions anyhow. Like, which nation ever that did go to
war, had internally not some Law that would prohibit murder?
(If you have that Law, how can you have a Military? -> extra)
In the New Testament and the Book of Mormon we however basically deal with 'redeeming' concepts; Mostly - and the most commonly known
phrase would be something along the lines of "Jesus is Forgiveness". But if you take it to the Doctrine, then Baptism is a requirement.
The point is pretty simple: If you ever come to 'hear' of Christ, there is some way this information travelled to you. If you then
believe in Christ, you believe from where that word has come. And so you will get baptized. Thats - the Theory.
In practice we're dealing with issues of defiance. That is also called 'Apostasy' - or so the absence of 'that clear' A to B simplicity.
Or so - the Roman Catholic Church is nothing like what is intended - yet it imposes as 'the main body' - and so anyone who hears of
the word ... where to go? To say: He is inherantly deceived. Be there now one true place to go or not. Not knowing where to go is the
problem!
A few words on sectism: The Mormons aren't united either. One thing that destinguishes the larger Mormon offshoots from the main church
is that they still use the Palmyra version. So - in that, right away - it is easy to impose that somewhere, somewhen, a decision was
made that others heavily disagreed with; ... and that made things break apart.
The Seventh Day Adventists have emerged around the same time as the Mormons. Their own story is one of a group of believers who had
calculated the coming of Christ, but it didn't happen - and somehow someone figured out the mistake; And don't ask me the details. What
matters more is that there are things that they know. So, when it gets to Bible Prophecy - you can even put the Mormon stuff right next
to the SDA stuff and it'd perfectly ... fit into each other. The Book of Mormon is ... we might say ... kindof 'dull' when it gets to
certain points and we may question - dadada ... take it for what it is.
While SDAs are however perfectly Anti Catholic, Mormons are 'softened' - and practically, I take it, just don't mean to exclude
'catholics' per se. Now - the SDA way of thinking, in my oppinion, would also add a lot of life to the Mormon way of going - or 'spice'
- lets put it that way. Certain mistakes, thereby, I mean would "Auto Correct" - and in their union, first of all, the Saturday/Sunday
question must be answered.
SDAs however have to drop their "the Sabbath is the Seal" type of attitude. Or maybe not. But to a certain extent for sure.
So - of course: As 'causes of disagreement' lead to segmentation, ... the 'fixing of things' ... "ironically" would make things more
whole again.
It stands to suggest that this whole Mormon/SDA thing is ... put in place specifically, ... as part of the plan. The Mormon SDA
'volumes' would I believe however be 'Bible+BoM' and 'D&C ++' separately. If we take all the Mormon Churches together - there
are the teachings of the presidents next to EGW, all there to be redacted. Also - in light on 'the unity of the trinity' - it should
be settled once and for all that the father is the son but the son is not the father. (The meaning is the word, but the word is just
a word). So is the Father the Spirit, but the Spirit not the Father. Spirit and Son are equal, in that the Son is of the Spirit, yet
therefore not the Spirit.
It wouldn't seem easy, but someone had to do it.
So are there things that yet need to be culturally established when it gets to practical talk over the consequences of the right
baptism; To say then furthermore stuff about sin - but I take it that God does not betray us and the overall conclusion should be
respectively positive. What I'm concerned of is then more in part of Clarity or Enlightened Socialism.
Or - Clarity Enlightened Socialism?
So - lets thereto first of all, I feel it were good, establish this - and say it is a school of thought dedicate towards evolving
socialistic ideals to a practical extent to fit into our otherwise capitalistic system. We could for instance start experimenting
with 'guided trade organization' - saying: What have we and how can we increase its efficiency? Education perhaps.
Clarity Enlightened then goes on to say: We try to give priority to people with certified clarity - coupled to Education - and from
learning their strengths and weaknesses - on and on - we evolve.
Sin now came in as anything in defiance of this Enlightened Harmony - and is ... well enough: A Sin against the Holy Ghost/Spirit,
in that ... well ... (Holy Spirit or Ghost?: Spirit to say "the Spirit" as to say 'Father, Son and Spirit' - where 'Ghost' is to
say as much as 'Son' - an appearance of the Father through the Spirit. Its the Spirit in that Sense, that the Father acts directly
through the Spirit instead of using 'the Word' (HIS body in the 'physical ID' sense)) ... and in that sense its both: Sin against
the Holy Ghost and Spirit. Ghost when accounting for Gods benevolence; And Spirit when accounting for the physical materia - the
social integrity of the whole - as substance - constituted by the Spirit.
With this we get to a different degree of Sins, anyhow. Here now any act of defying clarity were an act of defiance unto the whole.
But more to the point: Sin matters not. Within Unification Sin ends up as an abstract; And basically it comes down to the potential
amount of changes an individual can accomplish. So on the path of steady self-improvement, there are priorities settled by God between
Him and the individual - and any change that moves on to be good is good. This is one way to think about Forgiveness.
Another 'safe to say' argument on behalf of the freedom the New Covenant brings is the implication that rules don't matter where they
don't matter. That means that in theory, if we could have a system simply based on mechanisms, we wouldn't need any law anymore. So
when assuming that nobody has a need to become criminal.
On a quick note we might think of 'aided suicide' as an argument to underline this statement; But ... when and when not to kill ...
is then still a deeper question. So there is the debate that as we have life elonguating techniques - we may have to consider when it
is appropriate or not appropriate to use them. On the good end we had the 'off chance' of some 'last second' life saving plot twist;
... and yea - ... . We can however dig the defensibility of the argument; Likewisely we can also soften up towards being 'anti
self-defense'. We can say that all Sin is still a Sin ultimately - as also the cermon of the mount puts it: A sin of heart is as a
sin of flesh. So we're all doomed and shit - just for merely existing. And what we are doomed by is just our own philosophy. At that
point. It is an exaggeration of what is philosophically implied - and what stands against it is our practical sense.
But as for sinning in my heart? Does it make me more likely to kill if I don't withdraw myself from thinking about it? Is that what
it says?
No - sayeth my understanding. To solve these struggles you however have to question yourself. What is it that you're getting into?
What are the premises? - err. Its ... not to sound easy! Oppositional to what some might come to believe, ... there is no saying about
whether or not your own self will be a cakewalk when it comes to challenging - and that isn't all there is that. But there is an easy
mode of course.
So I can say that if I dream of killing my beloved because I'm turned on by it - I ... do it in my heart ... - but yet I exist in the
understanding that in reality I would find her to be too precious for me to be doing anything like that. It would take a lot from there
to there - and if in my dream I have the satisfaction I want or even need, then I can be glad that once I open up my eyes she is
still there. That, if she were there to begin with.
An excuse? Well, no - an example! The thing is that "what 'it' meant" is that it was an exaggeration - and if we "come to the word" we
may see that. But with what is in my heart I may end up sympathizing with stuff that I shouldn't.
So, what is adultery?
Adultery is a thing that affects individuals in an indirect way. Or once sense of love and romancing when based on dedication cherishes
Loyalty, ... thus constituting into betrayal once the other end doesn't cherish the same. But it is really herein. If the other were not
cherishing the same, it would be down to 'respect' - which equates into 'pretending' wherefore the relationship were 'inherantly flawed'
... from the get go.
So - God is a genious; And by that I mean - when God thought about what to do, in terms of His plan of salvation, he got to the point of
the Old Testament - and there was free to shape it a certain way. This implies that the 10 Commandments and the rest do as such make it
to our modern day understanding; Where now the common sense perspective is established; And these Commandments end up being something
such as "Social Commentary" by God.
Here God, in an over-simplified term is anti-Gay, Mysogenistic and Racist. Hmm. Can this be? I wonder.
What I can derive from this however is that there at all terms is something such as a 'social standard/norm' - while throughout history
the Israelite/Jewish tradition/norm had changed. From Judges to Kings to Exile to Pharisees/Rabbi. And by that I mean - either way, its
safe to say that when it gets to that, to what 'that' is to be for us, its totally up to us.
So do the 10 commandments and co not really get into that. They just stand there - expecting us to somehow align, if we so want. That
some people associate Tai Chi to Satanism is a weird offshoot of that kind of logic though.
Well - there are now things though. Respecting someone elses marriage/bride/husband/spouse is one of those things. It is one of those
things that 'determine' our common sense as we grow up. It sets up limits - where we say "its bad" - to disrespect someone elses privacy.
We can call that 'light norms' - and that includes stuff like 'not to randomly punch people in the face'.
Imagine that were where the commandments went. Including directions for every legal case ever.
Headline: "Man turns around and accidentally hits someone in the face and creates a Universal philosophical and political catastrophy".
philosophical/spiritual; catastrophy/dilemma
"World burns in consequence".
Thats why cursing was invented. Just to say: "Shit happens!".
(Well, I don't know if that was really the case.)
But yea, cursing can also be considered a Sin if we said that there has to be some 'social standard' - a general code of conduct of some
sorts - that maintains some sense of civilizedness. "We can see it works/helps". On an interesting sidenote: If nobody were to curse,
the obstruction of curse words were the new cursing; And new obstructions would have to be invented. "Its inevitable!". And so the
real cursing really consists of nasty words! They so have that inherant power of defiling a verbal atmosphere.
... ! Comedy? Verbal Atmosphere?
Similarly can Grafiti be both: Wanted and Unwanted. Sometimes you just want to have a neat - perhaps white - surface; But other times
it can't get much uglier than stale grey. And sometimes ... things aren't meant to stay clean forever.
[2017.08.07|10:07]