Spirit Is Negated = S I N.

[M Kirkpatrick]

I have always found the word sin and sinner as being repugnant and certainly not part of what I feel is reality.
In my seventy odd years of living in this "vale of tears" and surviving life threatening crisis, have been made aware through
the experiences, and through insights gained, that the word sin as is meant by religion is not aligned to the reality of what
is real. To me the word sin means that our inner spirit is negated, and because of this, we incur illness and disease.
These illnesses and suffering do NOT COME from any God though, the suffering and illness comes as a direct result of
our ignorance of who we truly are. Because we are out of alignment with natural law, we then pay the price of this
ignorance. To me the word LIFE stands for Living Intelligent Focused Energy, that is what we truly are living intelligent
focused energy, and as science and in particular quantum science tells us that energy cannot be destroyed, only converted
therefore energy is ubiquitous, and we are all one hundred per cent energy, therefore we all our ubiquitous as well.
Everything in the physical world is made out of atoms, atoms are made out of energy,and energy is made out of consciousness.

Warmest regards Michael.

[M Kirkpatrick]

Only a being that was full of themselves with a huge ego and self importance, could actually promote the idea of being "born in sin" and imagining an absolute being they called
God or Yahweh or that I AM That I AM, thinking that this Absolute being had some special interest in what we were doing on a atom of a planet among countless billions or
even trillions of other planets, the whole idea is totally absurd and ridiculous. The main motive for this teaching was to keep power within the religious hierarchy, and invoke
fear among the ignorant masses. They elected themselves as the "mouthpiece or spokesperson" for the God of their belief. The word sin to me actually means, Spirit Is Negated
SIN. When we negate spirit, which is actually negating who you really are,you invite all manner of dis-ease and illness into your life. Quite simply because you are not aligned to natural and universal law, and thereby suffer the consequences.
Regards Michael.

[M Kirkpatrick]

It is written in the Bible that "except ye be born again, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" and the disciples did not understand this phrase, saying master, how can we
enter the womb twice? For all those who have had a deep and profound spiritual experience, the answer to this question is very simple, you are reborn into a new level of
spiritual consciousness, meaning that you are conscious of the reality of our spirituality, through the personal experience you went through, and resulted in your awakening
to the fact that you were a divine soul, having what could be called a "human experience"! The question to my mind then arises, are these then "twice born" souls classed as
being reborn in sin, as they were in there first birth? (according to the doctrine of the religion) If so then they are twice cursed, and wasted their effort of selfless service and humility!
Warmest regards Michael.

[little-self]

Whatever is against the principles of morality is sin! Sin word is not only the invention of religion, but the projection of the sub-religions.
This word (sin) does not find a mention in the philosophical texts of ancient times, this word is amiss but in recent history of mankind, during which wars were fought in the name of religion, this word suddenly found a prominent place in the religious texts of warring groups. The urgent need was, and still is, of putting fear in the hearts of the adherents. Fear and hatred were used as a tool in the form of sin, to have complete control on not only over their people but also over the people of opposing forces.
With the might of the mind, a ruler may have sway over the bodies of his subjects but not over the spirit (will). The power of sin can break the will of people simply by submitting it (will) before a superior will! That superior 'will' belong to the word God: Not Reality, only to God, because for scholars, intellectuals or state rulers, Reality- concept is rational and God aspects is a myth! According to them, Reality concept is beyond the ken of ordinary people, so a myth of a God is erected around a specially created personality, with an aura of super-natural powers, and a cult of superstitions.
Sin has become part and parcel of religious rigmarole. So it can't be ignored that lightly

Religion is Truth of Reality (God) and Religion's nature is love. So also God's nature, in case His existence is accepted as Reality not as a myth, should also be love.
The difference between moral and right act is based on the element of religion and the sense of righteousness, which again are governed by the conscience (moral values) and human values. When the element of religion is applied on human values, they become moral values, though in nature, both are one and the same thing, but when we talk of moral and immoral acts, a new word is coined to assess their fruits. And that word is - Sin!
But in reality 'sins' are the errors one commits in life. There are no sins but only errors.

[M Kirkpatrick]

Many thanks brother for your wise and thoughtful words, indeed the word sin is a construct by the would be rulers of man, to keep him cowering in the shadows.

Warmest regards Michael.

[M Kirkpatrick]

There are no sins, only errors, I totally agree with your words here brother little self. Errors are many, and alas virtues are few, that is certainly my experience of living this
life. Spirit is negated by either our ignorance of it even being present within us, of by wilful choosing the opposite, and thereby negating the spirit, which to me is the basic
meaning to that word sin=spirit is negated.
When i was much younger, I was searching for God, until after a long while it dawned on me that God was not lost, and needing to be searched for, rather it was me that was
lost.
On recognising this realisation it further dawned on me that what i had been searching for, for years, was actually residing within me, closer than my hands and feet, in fact it was in my heart and in every cell of my body.
Warmest regards Michael.

[M Kirkpatrick]

Is not life a series of awakenings? Many of us seem to sleepwalk through our lives, never fully awakening, never realising who we really are, who am I? We can ask, will the
answer present itself to us? How long must we live before we see the infinite wisdom of a looming crisis? Instead of cursing the crisis, better we fall to our knees and give thanks.
Blessings become us, when we can accept our ignorance, before that day arises ego is king wearing a brass crown.


Warmest regards Michael.

[M Kirkpatrick]

The biggest S.I N. (spirit is negated) that can ever befall mankind is his ignorance of who he/she really is, billions of us are born, live our lives, and then die, without ever
knowing who they really were, all they ever identified with was their name rank and serial number, or where they were born, what college they went to, and what job or
profession they were employed in, not a single word about who they really were! All of us who do not know or understand out true Divine identity, that of all being immortal
Divine souls, spirit incarnate,we are all sinners! Not in any religious sense, or biblical sense, or being condemned by the doctrine of Christianity, rather we are sinners in the real
sense of unknowingly and therefore ignorantly, negating the reality of who we really are, that of a Divine soul experiencing what is called human life.
Warmest regards Michael.

[MANICHAEAN]

Perhaps its my Catholic upbringing, but I find that there has been throughout history too much confusing emphasis on the concept of sin.

Choose to be optimistic, it feels better.

Human history is a history not only of the disappointments, disillusionment's, and the lies, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, and kindness, and it’s what we choose to emphasize in this history which will determine our lives.

The danger lies in that if we see only the worst, it has the potential to destroy our capacity to do something.

If we remember those times and places, and there are so many, where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of a different direction.

And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future.

We are runny out of time anyway!

To live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is in itself a victory.

[Pompey Bum]

Choose to be optimistic, it feels better.


If feeling better were the criterion for virtue, it would be a pretty hedonistic life. For me, that's not a persuasive argument.


Human history is a history not only of the disappointments, disillusionment's, and the lies, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, and kindness, and it’s what we choose to emphasize in this history which will determine our lives.


It will till the incendiary bombs start to fall. Then other people's choices factor in. I mean, you are right that human beings have the potential for compassion, sacrifice, courage, and kindness (thank God). But it's hard to argue that history is anything but a slaughterhouse. Finding the good in ourselves and others (or even just searching for it) is not the same as pretending that people are other than they have consistently shown themselves to be. The monster is part of us, too. I wish it were otherwise.


The danger lies in that if we see only the worst, it has the potential to destroy our capacity to do something.


And what if we don't ONLY see the worst? Isn't seeking the best and recognizing the worst a more honest and less dangerous approach? That is not a rhetorical question.

[MANICHAEAN]

Dear Pompey

As a part time practicing individual of a sybaritic disposition, I’m your blinkered fundamentalist.

When not working, I indulge in hedonism.

But it is not the brand as portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in “The Wolf of Wall Street” where his extreme wealth allows him to indulge his insatiable hunger for all things pleasurable. This kind of behaviour is to me debauchery rather than hedonism.

No I go more for the Epicurus brand based not on a life of untamed appetites, but on moderate pleasures like; 5 star hotels in exotic climes, king sized beds with fresh linen sheets, champagne with breakfast, combined with a respect for others. No criterion there either way on virtue or sin.


Also likewise, I’m not engaging in a rhetorical argument. The rhetorician would deceive his neighbours, the sentimentalist himself.

It’s this whole sin and virtue thing. When does one start getting concerned on the distinction or extent of this? Perhaps as a child undergoing religious instruction at school, getting a call to the priesthood, or as one’s demise approaches? I cannot sit apprehensively on the edge of a chair in the house of Life with the feeling that I have never taken off my overcoat.

“And what if we don't ONLY see the worst? Isn't seeking the best and recognizing the worst a more honest and less dangerous approach?”

It depends; perhaps a bit like trying to find humour in the Book of Job. Did you by any chance get to see the interview with Dennis Potter as he approached the end with a terminal illness? Certain words stuck with me;

“Things are both trivial than they ever were, and more important than they ever were, and the difference between the trivial and the important doesn’t seem to matter. But the nowness of everything is absolutely wonderous.”

Best regards
M.

[M Kirkpatrick]

So nice the two of you could join me on this lonely old thread. keep it going for me , as I am off to Turkey in an hour, so must dash.



warmest regards Michael.

[Pompey Bum]

Ah, what's gone wrong with the LitNet quote function? Truly these are the end times...

In any case, M., what you describe is Epicureanism rather than hedonism. One exults happiness and abhors suffering and the other seeks pleasure no matter whom it hurts. Neither is especially wed to optimism. I consider myself an ethical pessimist, but frankly I am overjoyed that two men of such different temperament as you and I can not only be friends but also devout Christians in our own way. The nice thing about pessimism is that one is more often overjoyed by life than disappointed.

My point above (not to belabor it) was that we do not change the profound human potential for evil by looking the other way. It seems to me that seeking the good in ourselves and others, but not kidding ourselves about what we may find, is the more honest and responsible course (and by far the safer). But I said that. Dh

Mr Kirkpatrick (or, if I may, Captain Kirk :) ):

You say you reject the traditional concept of sin, but later you say that sin is error. That confused me because my understanding was that Christian ecclesiology (in any case) has traditionally defined sin is error. I have some trouble with that position, by the way. Many churches use it to mean deviance from orthodox doctrine (that is, sin = thinking for one's self). I reject that, although I have a more pessimistic view of human nature than you seem to have. But that's not a big deal. It just means that we disagree on the issue and perhaps have an opportunity to learn from one another's perspective.

[Pompey Bum]

So nice the two of you could join me on this lonely old thread. keep it going for me , as I am off to Turkey in an hour, so must dash.



Enjoy the taffy.