It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sin-Tax - The Semantics of the Smitten

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
No disclaimer on this one, because it really applies to anyone and everyone who is currently alive and who knows the definition of the word "Sin"..

Most people have SOME concept of what it means, but this knowledge usually does not contribute towards influencing their behavior and "preventing Sinning" so what is REALLY being talked about when we think about "Sin"..?

To Explain the title: I have always been a big fan of Homonyms (words that sound the same, but with different meanings depending on context) and the Syntax (Sin-Tax) of language (and thought) has a LOT to do with how we judge ourselves and the nature of the relationship we have with the Universe (or at least the aspect of that relationship that is affected by conscious thought..) and Semantics is equally important because how we phrase something, can actually communicate an opposite or tangent intention, if we are careless with our words and "confuse the map, for the territory.."

Sin is usually used to describe an act which is frowned upon by God or punished with an eternity in Hell (unless one repents their sins..) but is this REALLY what is being described in the source material?? (the old and new testaments, and/or the Koran)

It seems that repentance is what is really is important here, and not necessarily the act (because no matter the severity, the general Christian consensus is that any sin can be forgiven..) so really this is a matter of semantics rather than attaining the position of some sort of "perfect decision maker"...

Or I suppose you can say the goal IS in fact to become a "perfect decision maker" in the way that you define yourself as such, in deciding to have faith in your own decisions..
And yes, I know most Christians would frown at the idea of "trusting yourself" because that seems like i'm implying that this notion is in opposition to "trusting God" but perhaps my REAL heretical assertion is that both ideas are one and the same, because I see "Yourself" and "God" as two sides of the same coin..

I'm not going to quote the bible (one thing that usually discourages me from certain threads..) but I would like to hear from anyone who can show me where Jesus was saying anything from what I have asserted above..
When you consider yourself "a sinner", you then make a very REAL decision that you deserve to be in Hell, and.. there you are. You begin to see Hell in more and more places, you feel that your "sinfulness" is more and more obvious and offensive to those around you, you sabotage yourself because you don't consider yourself deserving of success..

You see, Moses and Jesus weren't threatening us on God's behalf, but rather pointing out common mistakes in keeping a balance between our innate need to preserve and appease "the self" and our innate yearning to better the world around us and appease "God"..
I think that most people eventually become aware that you can literally decide to play any role that you decide to play confidently, and this includes both Sinner and Saint..
(while simultaneously including neither because both "states" of being are extremes and unattainable in a "pure" way)

We are NOT born with the predisposition to be EITHER Sinner OR Saint, but can be both or neither at-will, when one can maintain awareness of this flexibility and focus on the true nature of "the Self" (not your body or brain or memories, but your Consciousness itself..)

I suppose my point is that ultimately "The Judgment" that is often spoken of, is in fact an internal self-judgment which is much more brutal and authoritative than any "daddy-God" could ever be.. Heaven AND Hell are very much present during life, the "7 deadly sins" are merely areas of the self to keep in balance and harmony (notice how there are also usually 7 chakras in eastern systems..) and not "laws" which result in external-punishment when "broken" (although there is plenty of internal-punishment to be had for those who insist on ignoring these areas of The Self..)

What do you think people? Am I saying anything that isn't said by Christ or any teacher..?




posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   
As far as I was taught the word "sin" means "To miss the mark." In other words a person can sin against themselves, a person can sin against a societal standard or a person can sin against any gods decrees.

It isn't something a person is, it's what they do or don't do based on some set of predetermined standards.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


I agree that this is one way (and probably one of the better ways) to define Sin, but my point is still that the "missing of the mark" is defined by You and nobody else..
There are plenty of awful people out there that basically have everyone in their life trying to tell them that their actions are affecting others in an unwelcome way, but until that person chooses to accept and adopt (or at least empathize with) their definition of "missing the mark", the individual simply doesn't see it as Sin, and hence does NOT endure "the wrath of God" as someone who continues to "miss the mark" as a form of self-sabotage and becomes and more and miserable until they "hit rock-bottom"..

The same is true for certain nurturing and generous people who truly do all they can to "do right by others" but unless they confidently assert to themselves that they are justified in their actions and worthy of happiness, they will still hear the accusations of "Sin" at least in terms of "sinful thoughts", and this too is not something which is very useful or productive.

To be "righteous" is to be able to trust that you "make the mark" every time, despite appearances..



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by HyphenSt1
 


To be totally honest, your rant sounds like 4 parts Jordan Maxwell to 1 part Robert Anton Wilson.
For every 1 part that made sense, to me, you had 4 parts of rambling-rhetorical-incoherent-nothingness, exactly like the rhetoric that Maxwell actually thinks impresses people-
Sin-Tax the symantics of syntax.

Is this because symantics will allow you to under stand as you see-man-tick?
Truly, it is much easier to understand all this stuff if you know the nuts and bolts of the thing, but if not, then screw it, let's just make up something that sounds like it makes sense and hopefully people will be too stupid or apathetic to call us on it.


That is what I just read in your post.
But I gave you star and flag for the effort.

And because you actually had 1 part Robert Anton Wilson.
edit on 25/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 



Honestly, it is much easier to understand all this stuff if you know the nuts and bolts of the thing, but if not, then screw it, let's just make up some stuff that sounds like it makes sense and hopefully people will be too stupid or apathetic to call us on it.


firstly..
I have no clue who Jordan Maxwell is, and I am not attempted to be "seen" as
I could understand this sort of dismissal of what I said were I claiming to "proclaim the truth" or be selling a book but as we find ourselves on the internet in the religion forum i don't think your dismissal is exactly justified..
If the language i am using is what makes my statements "incoherent", then i would welcome suggestions for alternatives to clean it up, but otherwise these are the words I've got to attempt at communicating what i am experiencing and at no point in ANYTHING that I write, am i TRULY interested in "converting" people to "my point of view" because that is something that is always changing, nor am i interested in being any sort of "leader"..

secondly..
do you understand the nuts and bolts? saying "it's much easier to understand when you know the nuts and bolts" is the equivalent to saying "everything is easy, once you know how.." and really doesn't contribute anything in the way of criticizing WHAT i said, rather than just kinda implying that i don't know what i'm talking about (which i DON'T claim that i do "know" anything really and I actually openly admit that i use ATS in a very selfish way.. to learn and discuss, rather than preach..)

thirdly..

Is this because symantics will allow you to under stand as you see-man-tick?

I actually think that this is a great way of reading into it, and further demonstrates my original point. Semantics and Syntax are fundamental parts of communication with the Self and everything around You and to refine one's understanding and use of words, is to refine what is considered "Sinful" and worthy of invoking "Smiting", and what i am asking is, was this perhaps what was being discussed by Jesus and Moses (and elsewhere) instead of these RULES which, when broken, essentially buy you a ticket to a negative after-life (without repentance)

anyhow, despite any immediate dismissal on your part, i do respect the point-of-view and response, and do indeed draw inspiration from RAW, although I never base my thinking upon any one person's ideas.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by HyphenSt1
 


Firstly-
Relax mate.

Secondly-
Nobody is playing for their life here at ATS.
Heck. Nobody here is playing for so much as a trophy.

Thirdly-
You posted a subjective rant. Naturally, I countered this with a subjective rant about your subjective rant.

Finally-
Have a good day. We are discussing reality by employing rhetorical ontology.
Everybody's on a different trip man.
Somewhere along the line personal perspective with its inherent confirmation bias is bound to cause an information jam.

Cheers.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Simplest explanation. Sin is the things you do wrong that are contrary to God's divine laws. Take King David for example. After he committed adultery with Bathsheba and got her pregnant, David set Uriah up to be murdered when his ploy to get him drunk enough to sleep with his wife failed. David confessed his sin before God, and though he did wrong Bathsheba and Uriah both, ultimately he wronged God first and foremost.

The thing about sin, it doesn't just destroy you, it destroys your children too.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


reality checks are fine, and i am obviously okay with a subjective rant..
but i'm actually interested in discussing what i'm attempting to discuss, and instead of just throwing around some names, making some assertions, and calling it a day.. I'm attempting to throw questions out there into a net of complete strangers, who are here because they are on the "fringes" of society in at least the realm of thought..

You say you admire Robert Anton Wilson.. I don't think he ever took anything he was putting out there rhetorically, TOO seriously, but i also wouldn't call writing around 30 books was "just chilling out" either..

i mean, to be honest, i work at a job where most of the time i'm at my job, where i have 14 hours to kill and a house to myself.. i tend to go on ATS on occasion and i have time to spare WHILE i'm working.. so i'm sorry if my writing is lengthy..

-just as you said, everyone is on their own trip-

and here's my trip: The problem I've always had with text, is that it is very difficult to detect or communicate tone -besides using tedious underlines and italics - so i think that short "drive-by" posts really don't offer much when they are a subjective rant,responding to a thread by accusing it of being a subjective rant.. within that subjective rant..

..yanno..?

cuz i sure as hell don't hahaha



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by HyphenSt1
 


Wilson does indeed write ad infinitum about some pretty far out stuff, but all this stuff is firmly grounded in science.
Like Korzybski's work in developing the Theory of General Semantics and the work of BF Skinner in his development of Operant Conditioning for the Behaviorist branch of Psychology, all that these examples discussed at length by Wilson do is simply show us the mechanism by which we learn and repeat behaviors.
Granted General Semantics, and Neurolinguistic Programming if it is ever truly validated, are more heavily affected by the cognitive changing of a behavior, rather than conditioning behavioral change, they all three show us the ubiquitous mechanisms by which manipulation of outer or inner stimulus can change behavior.

I am gonna keep it real with you mate. I have read a lot of Wilson and the like (Leary, McKenna, Ali, Aleister Crowley, if you know Wilson then you know this list...), and I have to say, your comment on sin-tax and syntax vaguely relates to Korzybski's Theory of General Semantics.
Your approach actually reminds me a lot of this video by Jordan Maxwell. He is such a snake oil salesman.
Watch the video and you will see why I made that comment. Listen to how he manipulates words. He starts talking big time smack at the 2:45 mark.

His approach and your approach are very similar.
Unfortunately, neither Maxwell's nor your premise sounds much like Korzybsky, maybe a mix of Korzybski's General Semantics and Neurolinguistic Programming, but not General Semantics.



Let me read your OP again and I will give it a better chance.
I admit that the comparison that I made of you to Maxwell really turned me off, and that was my mistake.

Watch Jordan Maxwell though. Watch how he uses nonsense to manipulate verbal symbols, words...
Words that are personally defined and individual in response.

Snake Oil Salesman.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by HyphenSt1
 


I gotta go back to my original conclusion.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Usually someone will take an idea when they make a thread and either have a position on this idea (for or against) or make a unique and insightful observation about this idea.
I am still gonna insist on comparing the OP to a Maxwell rant.
But only if he was in the middle of a 3 day manic episode with no sleep.

Settle down and hit a target son.
You are obviously an intelligent person. You know how to use syntax properly and your spelling isn't atrocious.
I just don't see either a core argument or an individual perspective being expressed effectively.
At the very least propose a premise to your thread that is effective enough to elicit a particular type of response or line of responses.
Because the only thing that was at all proposed to the reader in the OP was-


What do you think people?


I have been telling you what I thought this entire time.
You just don't like what you hear.
If you weren't prepared to hear what people were thinking about then you should never ask to be told.

Lesson learned.

But I do think that the next question should have been a sign to abandon thread.
I suppose that I am not the sharpest tool in the shed-


Am I saying anything that isn't said by Christ or any teacher..?


Now I know that I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but are you actually asking a rhetorical question that compares you to Christ or any teacher?
If i misunderstood you then apologies, but if I didn't and you really believe this and were honestly comparing your rant that I have yet to find a point, and yourself, to Christ or any teacher, then I must tell you-
I never would have thought that those so similar to the Son of God...

That you all would be such poor communicators.

edit on 26/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.



posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 



Most people have SOME concept of what it means (sin), but this knowledge usually does not contribute towards influencing their behavior and "preventing Sinning" so what is REALLY being talked about when we think about "Sin"..?


That was my first question to the reader.


It seems that repentance is what is really is important here, and not necessarily the act (because no matter the severity, the general Christian consensus is that any sin can be forgiven..) so really this is a matter of semantics rather than attaining the position of some sort of "perfect decision maker"...


This was my first observation.


When you consider yourself "a sinner", you then make a very REAL decision that you deserve to be in Hell, and.. there you are. You begin to see Hell in more and more places, you feel that your "sinfulness" is more and more obvious and offensive to those around you, you sabotage yourself because you don't consider yourself deserving of success..


This was my definition for the process that is actually being described when someone considers themselves to have sinned and the apparent effect.


You see, Moses and Jesus weren't threatening us on God's behalf, but rather than pointing out common mistakes in keeping a balance between our innate need to preserve and appease "the self" and our innate yearning to better the world around us and appease "God"..


my attempt to offer my translation of what is being communicated in the Bible.. I would say this would count as a somewhat controversial point to some folks..


We are NOT born with the predisposition to be EITHER Sinner OR Saint, but can be both or neither at-will, when one can maintain awareness of this flexibility and focus on the true nature of "the Self" (not your body or brain or memories, but your Consciousness itself..)


Another point i was making..
This could be seen as related to many points made in Wilson's book Quantum Psychology, and is basically the same idea that "you have two heads" and when one realizes this, transcendence is possible.


I suppose my point is that ultimately "The Judgment" that is often spoken of, is in fact an internal self-judgment which is much more brutal and authoritative than any "daddy-God" could ever be.. Heaven AND Hell are very much present during life, the "7 deadly sins" are merely areas of the self to keep in balance and harmony (notice how there are also usually 7 chakras in eastern systems..) and not "laws" which result in external-punishment when "broken" (although there is plenty of internal-punishment to be had for those who insist on ignoring these areas of The Self..)


i dunno.. i think that also counts as a "point" at least by my definition..


Am I saying anything that isn't said by Christ or any teacher..?


hahaha, did you read the words, or just what you wanted to read..?

Did I say any-thing, that isn't (present tense - Christ as a character in a book) being said by Christ or any other teacher (perhaps i did unintentionally imply that i was a TEACHER but, i don't think asking if my points were similar to that of Christ, implies that i am Christ, or asserting anything about ME..)

now to dissect your response



Wilson does indeed write ad infinitum about some pretty far out stuff, but all this stuff is firmly grounded in science.


I got introduced to Wilson's work through reading about Discordianism, reading Schrodinger's Cat, Illuminatus Chronicles, and evennnntually got to Quantum Psychology and the Cosmic Trigger series.. not to mention that he constantly talks about Ulysses and Finnegan's Wake..

So pardon me if i disagree, but RAW wrote about much that wasn't grounded in Science, nor was he against word-play or TESTING and discussing far-out theories that may be True, False, or Irrelevant and none of these states are guaranteed to be consistent.
(and considering this is the one thread I've posted in the RELIGION forum.. i wasn't really even attempting to bring science into my point, though i can also speak that "language"..)



Watch the video and you will see why I made that comment. Listen to how he manipulates words. He starts talking big time smack at the 2:45 mark.


yup.. and i see why I've never heard of this guy haha.

buuut.. what's it to do with me? I'm not making any points anywhere NEAR relevant to Currency and Birth-certificates, and uhhh.. while he does play with words ..in a very sloppy way.. I mean, am i supposed to condemn him for having his thoughts..?
I mean yeah.. The side of a river is called a bank.. the current(cy) flows from bank to bank, and they direct the current.. its kind of a pointless point to make, i agree, but it's not like i even feel it's worth my time to condemn charlatans..
Kinda like picking on the kids in special-ed



His approach and your approach are very similar.
Unfortunately, neither Maxwell's nor your premise sounds much like Korzybsky, maybe a mix of Korzybski's General Semantics and Neurolinguistic Programming, but not General Semantics.


Are our approaches ACTUALLY similar..? Seriously, besides using homonyms (which i do explain my reasons in the OP), i don't see the similarity..

First of all, look at my other threads, and you will see plenty of word-play in there, but some of it is relating to my point (and attempting to sum it up in an ATS thread-title..) and all of it can be taken tongue-in-cheek..
HOWEVER!
what i find humorous is that this thread title actually IS summing up my point, perhaps better than my post (at least judging from your response..)

Sin-Tax - the way in which the mindset of someone who considers themselves to have "Sinned" or conditioned to think of themselves as "A Sinner", is taxing to the rest of the individual's mental and spiritual resources.. I don't think that's selling "snake-oil" so much as it is just summing up my first point..

Semantics of the Smitten - Referencing the network of imprints in those people who smite themselves, along with being a little play on words in also referencing the opposite mindset (those who say "God is Love" and "smitten" being a word that can describe someone in-love)

Now..

why is it unfortunate that my premise isn't EXACTLY like Korzybsky or any of these other people who have come and gone..?
perhaps you were only open to reading what you already have thought and read, instead of something that perhaps EXPANDS upon those theories, instead of contradicting them..?

Like you said before.. no one is playing for their lives here and honestly I haven't really seen many "really organized threads" in this forum, so I don't know why i would be expected to really refine it..

Lastly, now that I've essentially translated my entire thread.. How about you respond to the points i made instead of responding to how i presented them..?




posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


P.S.:


I have been telling you what I thought this entire time.
You just don't like what you hear.
If you weren't prepared to hear what people were thinking about then you should never ask to be told.

Lesson learned.


actually i find entertainment in what i hear

because if i'm "gonna keep it real with you mate", you haven't really challenged me beyond criticizing my "presentation" haha..
..i am here to basically "shoot the breeze" but at the greatest depth possible.. if i have any frustration, it's just in the shallowness of our discussion thusfar..

I think you were actually telling me much more about how you "felt" rather than what you "thought" about what I was saying..
I do apologize if my steam-of-consciousness style of thread or response is unclear, but part of my participation here is also to test some personal theories on spontaneity itself and besides, I really don't take any of this too seriously..

I take the subject matter seriously in that I find it interesting and possibly profound, but i don't have anything to gain from "convincing someone successfully" nor would i have anything to convert them to, were that the case..



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join