Science Forums 2

[HydrogenBond]

Morally ambiguous is a good way to describe law of good and evil. The one size fits all mentality just doesn't work. But on the other hand, it has been used for such a long time, it is part of the human psyche.

In the old testament, many of the laws were more concerned with how the culture would treat its own members. Once another culture came into the equation, the rules were a little different if they were labelled enemy. For example if one was a Roman citizen, the law was in their favor and they could do legally, was not possible for others.

In the old testament time, the two sided coin had a better chance of balance, since the polarization due to law of good and evil, had an outlet for culture ,via the stacking of the deck. Most had to use the head of the coin, while those who stacked the deck would vent the tails for all. So the culture was able to reach sort of a steady state and not implode.

What Christ did was increase the potential of the polarization. The ideal of the head side of the law, went way beyond had been the way for so long. Killing did not just apply to the clan, but now killing had to extend to even enemies. This polarization by increasing the potential, caused the tail side of the coin to become darker. Christianity increased the potential within the law coin and required a more drastic tail side venting. The deck, was eventually stacked, within the church and monarchies.

It didn't start that way for the original Christians. They were not under law of commandments contained in ordinances, but under faith. This more natural state of human instinct, created an inner polarization for those who were still under the law. In other words, it was not natural for those still under law, but it could be copied increasing the polarization.

Let me give an example. Say we met a person who just instinctively eats right and remains always in good health. They are not affected by the latest fad, but do this naturally with exceptional results. Someone who is more part of the law of the latest fad, may copy this person exactly and deem this as the ideal way to eat for good health. They have an example as data, to support this conclusion. They see the healthy person eat white bread, in square slices. If this is good, then round slices ,or bread that is not white, will be seen as something evil or less than good. The natural person only eats this due to convenience, and could just as well eat other things, as part of a moderation diet. But the person under law, sets up a polarization law based on what they witnessed the person doing.

The early Christians had this charisma of natural human instinct. But it wasn't natural to those still under law, causing their inner polarization to gainpotential. After that original group died off, then the leaders were trying to maintain the good of the natural but with stricter laws. It is sort of like the person who sticks to the white bread, in square slice, diet, and now becomes the new spokeman. His polarization is extreme. What he now deems as necessary is needed for his own demons. But the more will power he uses, the less able he can vent. The venting may require others doing it for him. Now he is justified in punishing them. This may cause or even help them create more will power, but also more polarization.

One of the main persecuters of the original Christians was Saul. After he had a vision, he became converted and became Paul. He was very intelligent among the original early Chrisitians. He was invited to Rome to address the Senate, who were also very rational and intelligent. Actually, he was invited as a prisoner, and was summoned to amuse them. But he used this as an opportunity to teach the difference between faith and law. He got the Roman hair in a bunch, and Christianty was now a problem. He spoke from the heart and did what had to be done.

One of his quotes goes sort of like this; is the law sin, heaven's no, but sin taking opportunity through the commandment, produces sin of every kind. I would have not known about coverting, if the law did not say, thou shall not covert. But sin taking opportunity through the law, produces coverting of every kind. Before the law, there was no sin. But after the law, sin multiplied.

Let me give an example, say someone found a way to hack a computer. For the most part, very few would think of this angle. But to prevent it from spreading, we come up with a law against it. By teaching what not to do, we point out a new way to hack, that few would have thought on their own. So some will decide to try it and other to slightly modify this theme, since this angle is not forbidden yet. That may now need a new law, to show and tell what not to do. If the law didn't point it out, it may have stopped sooner. But with social tails needing a way to vent, the law points a fresh way to do this that has some legal flexibility.

Paul also said, "for until law, sin was in the world; but sin is not inputed where there is no law." Once you make a law, you create sin that didn't exist before the law was created. For example, the global warming religion is making it a sin to give off CO2. Now, under their new law, we are all sinners, because each breath we take, gives off CO2. Not too long ago, I was able to breath, but now I am sort of a sinner against the earth. Luckily, one can be granted forgiveness for this sin, by purchasing offsets. If one can not afford offsets, for forgiveness of sin, then one must perform a sacrifice. If one does not make a sacrifice or buy redemption, then you must feel guilty. If that doesn't work, the church will punish you. This sin is all based on faith that we need to repent, since the time of judgment is at hand. As long as they don't use the word religion, this religion is able to recruit aetheists. This template is very familar and has been used for thousands of years. The head of the law, creates tails and sin. The tails and sin produces fear. The fear now needs more law to reduce the fear.

Paul to the Romans, "But if I do the very thing, I do not wish to do, I agree with the law, confessing that it is good. So now, no longer am I the one who is doing it, but the sin which indwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good.

To do good by the law, creates a shadow of tails. The shadow can then drive one's behavior due to the fear associated with the law. The global warming zealots are trying to do good, by the laws of global warming, are getting less rational and using the more polititcal compulsion that is coming from the fear of global punishment due to this sin.

Lastly, "you have not recieved a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but have recieved a spirit of adoption as sons" Law versus natural.