Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.
From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine's statement: "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin" (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here. As to the sin of Adam we have not to examine the circumstances in which it was committed nor make the exegesis of the third chapter of Genesis.
Theodorus of Mopsuestia opened this controversy by denying that the sin of Adam was the origin of death. (See the "Excerpta Theodori", by Marius Mercator; cf. Smith, "A Dictionary of Christian Biography", IV, 942.) Celestius, a friend of Pelagius, was the first in the West to hold these propositions, borrowed from Theodorus: "Adam was to die in every hypothesis, whether he sinned or did not sin. His sin injured himself only and not the human race" (Mercator, "Liber Subnotationem", preface). This, the first position held by the Pelagians, was also the first point condemned at Carthage (Denzinger, "Enchiridion", no 101-old no. 65). Against this fundamental error Catholics cited especially Romans 5:12, where Adam is shown as transmitting death with sin.
After some time the Pelagians admitted the transmission of death — this being more easily understood as we see that parents transmit to their children hereditary diseases — but they still violently attacked the transmission of sin (St. Augustine, "Contra duas epist. Pelag.", IV, iv, 6). And when St. Paul speaks of the transmission of sin they understood by this the transmission of death. This was their second position, condemned by the Council of Orange [Denz., n. 175 (145)], and again later on with the first by the Council of Trent [Sess. V, can. ii; Denz., n. 789 (671)]. To take the word sin to mean death was an evident falsification of the text, so the Pelagians soon abandoned the interpretation and admitted that Adam caused sin in us. They did not, however, understand by sin the hereditary stain contracted at our birth, but the sin that adults commit in imitation of Adam. This was their third position, to which is opposed the definition of Trent that sin is transmitted to all by generation (propagatione), not by imitation [Denz., n. 790 (672)]. Moreover, in the following canon are cited the words of the Council of Carthage, in which there is question of a sin contracted by generation and effaced by generation [Denz., n. 102 (66)].
The leaders of the Reformation admitted the dogma of original sin, but at present there are many Protestants imbued with Socinian doctrines whose theory is a revival of Pelagianism.
The classical text is Romans 5:12 sqq. In the preceding part the apostle treats of justification by Jesus Christ, and to put in evidence the fact of His being the one Saviour, he contrasts with this Divine Head of mankind the human head who caused its ruin. The question of original sin, therefore, comes in only incidentally. St. Paul supposes the idea that the faithful have of it from his oral instructions, and he speaks of it to make them understand the work of Redemption. This explains the brevity of the development and the obscurity of some verses.
We shall now show what, in the text, is opposed to the three Pelagian positions:
(1) The sin of Adam has injured the human race at least in the sense that it has introduced death — "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men". Here there is question of physical death. First, the literal meaning of the word ought to be presumed unless there be some reason to the contrary. Second, there is an allusion in this verse to a passage in the Book of Wisdom in which, as may be seen from the context, there is question of physical death. Wisdom 2:24: "But by the envy of the devil death came into the world". Cf. Genesis 2:17; 3:3, 19; and another parallel passage in St. Paul himself, 1 Corinthians 15:21: "For by a man came death and by a man the resurrection of the dead". Here there can be question only of physical death, since it is opposed to corporal resurrection, which is the subject of the whole chapter.
(2) Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e., all men] were made sinners" (Romans 5:19). How then could the Pelagians, and at a later period Zwingli, say that St. Paul speaks only of the transmission of physical death? If according to them we must read death where the Apostle wrote sin, we should also read that the disobedience of Adam has made us mortal where the Apostle writes that it has made us sinners. But the word sinner has never meant mortal, nor has sin ever meant death. Also in verse 12, which corresponds to verse 19, we see that by one man two things have been brought on all men, sin and death, the one being the consequence of the other and therefore not identical with it.
(3) Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality. The explanation of the Pelagians differs from that of St. Paul. According to them the child who receives mortality at his birth receives sin from Adam only at a later period when he knows the sin of the first man and is inclined to imitate it. The causality of Adam as regards mortality would, therefore, be completely different from his causality as regards sin. Moreover, this supposed influence of the bad example of Adam is almost chimerical; even the faithful when they sin do not sin on account of Adam's bad example, a fortiori infidels who are completely ignorant of the history of the first man. And yet all men are, by the influence of Adam, sinners and condemned (Romans 5:18, 19). The influence of Adam cannot, therefore, be the influence of his bad example which we imitate (Augustine, "Contra julian.", VI, xxiv, 75).
On this account, several recent Protestants have thus modified the Pelagian explanation: "Even without being aware of it all men imitate Adam inasmuch as they merit death as the punishment of their own sins just as Adam merited it as the punishment for his sin." This is going farther and farther from the text of St. Paul. Adam would be no more than the term of a comparison, he would no longer have any influence or causality as regards original sin or death. Moreover, the Apostle did not affirm that all men, in imitation of Adam, are mortal on account of their actual sins; since children who die before coming to the use of reason have never committed such sins; but he expressly affirms the contrary in the fourteenth verse: "But death reigned", not only over those who imitated Adam, but "even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam." Adam's sin, therefore, is the sole cause of death for the entire human race. Moreover, we can discern no natural connexion between any sin and death. In order that a determined sin entail death there is need of a positive law, but before the Law of Moses there was no positive law of God appointing death as a punishment except the law given to Adam (Genesis 2:17). It is, therefore, his disobedience only that could have merited and brought it into the world (Romans 5:13, 14).
These Protestant writers lay much stress on the last words of the twelfth verse. We know that several of the Latin Fathers understood the words "in whom all have sinned", to mean, all have sinned in Adam. This interpretation would be an extra proof of the thesis of original sin, but it is not necessary. Modern exegesis, as well as the Greek Fathers, prefer to translate "and so death passed upon all men because all have sinned". We accept this second translation which shows us death as an effect of sin. But of what sin? "The personal sins of each one", answer our adversaries, "this is the natural sense of the words 'all have sinned.'" It would be the natural sense if the context was not absolutely opposed to it. The words "all have sinned" of the twelfth verse, which are obscure on account of their brevity, are thus developed in the nineteenth verse: "for as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners." There is no question here of personal sins, differing in species and number, committed by each one during his life, but of one first sin which was enough to transmit equally to all men a state of sin and the title of sinners. Similarly in the twelfth verse the words "all have sinned" must mean, "all have participated in the sin of Adam", "all have contracted its stain". This interpretation too removes the seeming contradiction between the twelfth verse, "all have sinned", and the fourteenth, "who have not sinned", for in the former there is question of original sin, in the latter of personal sin. Those who say that in both cases there is question of personal sin are unable to reconcile these two verses.
On account of a superficial resemblance between the doctrine of original sin and the Manichaean theory of our nature being evil, the Pelagians accused the Catholics and St. Augustine of Manichaeism. For the accusation and its answer see "Contra duas epist. Pelag.", I, II, 4; V, 10; III, IX, 25; IV, III. In our own times this charge has been reiterated by several critics and historians of dogma who have been influenced by the fact that before his conversion St. Augustine was a Manichaean. They do not identify Manichaeism with the doctrine of original sin, but they say that St. Augustine, with the remains of his former Manichaean prejudices, created the doctrine of original sin unknown before his time.
It is not true that the doctrine of original sin does not appear in the works of the pre-Augustinian Fathers. On the contrary, their testimony is found in special works on the subject. Nor can it be said, as Harnack maintains, that St. Augustine himself acknowledges the absence of this doctrine in the writings of the Fathers. St. Augustine invokes the testimony of eleven Fathers, Greek as well as Latin (Contra Jul., II, x, 33). Baseless also is the assertion that before St. Augustine this doctrine was unknown to the Jews and to the Christians; as we have already shown, it was taught by St. Paul. It is found in the fourth Book of Esdras, a work written by a Jew in the first century after Christ and widely read by the Christians. This book represents Adam as the author of the fall of the human race (vii, 48), as having transmitted to all his posterity the permanent infirmity, the malignity, the bad seed of sin (iii, 21, 22; iv, 30). Protestants themselves admit the doctrine of original sin in this book and others of the same period (see Sanday, "The International Critical Commentary: Romans", 134, 137; Hastings, "A Dictionary of the Bible", I, 841). It is therefore impossible to make St. Augustine, who is of a much later date, the inventor of original sin.
That this doctrine existed in Christian tradition before St. Augustine's time is shown by the practice of the Church in the baptism of children. The Pelagians held that baptism was given to children, not to remit their sin, but to make them better, to give them supernatural life, to make them adoptive sons of God, and heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven (see St. Augustine, Of Sin and Merit I.18). The Catholics answered by citing the Nicene Creed, "Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum". They reproached the Pelagians with introducing two baptisms, one for adults to remit sins, the other for children with no such purpose. Catholics argued, too, from the ceremonies of baptism, which suppose the child to be under the power of evil, i.e., exorcisms, abjuration of Satan made by the sponsor in the name of the child [Augustine, loc. cit., xxxiv, 63; Denz., n. 140 (96)].
We do not pretend to prove the existence of original sin by arguments from reason only. St. Thomas makes use of a philosophical proof which proves the existence rather of some kind of decadence than of sin, and he considers his proof as probable only, satis probabiliter probari potest (Contra Gent., IV, lii). Many Protestants and Jansenists and some Catholics hold the doctrine of original sin to be necessary in philosophy, and the only means of solving the problem of the existence of evil. This is exaggerated and impossible to prove. It suffices to show that human reason has no serious objection against this doctrine which is founded on Revelation. The objections of Rationalists usually spring from a false concept of our dogma. They attack either the transmission of a sin or the idea of an injury inflicted on his race by the first man, of a decadence of the human race. Here we shall answer only the second category of objections, the others will be considered under a later head (VII).
(1) The law of progress is opposed to the hypothesis of a decadence. Yes, if the progress was necessarily continuous, but history proves the contrary. The line representing progress has its ups and downs, there are periods of decadence and of retrogression, and such was the period, Revelation tells us, that followed the first sin. The human race, however, began to rise again little by little, for neither intelligence nor free will had been destroyed by original sin and, consequently, there still remained the possibility of material progress, whilst in the spiritual order God did not abandon man, to whom He had promised redemption. This theory of decadence has no connexion with our Revelation. The Bible, on the contrary, shows us even spiritual progress in the people it treats of: the vocation of Abraham, the law of Moses, the mission of the Prophets, the coming of the Messias, a revelation which becomes clearer and clearer, ending in the Gospel, its diffusion amongst all nations, its fruits of holiness, and the progress of the Church.
(2) It is unjust, says another objection, that from the sin of one man should result the decadence of the whole human race. This would have weight if we took this decadence in the same sense that Luther took it, i.e. human reason incapable of understanding even moral truths, free will destroyed, the very substance of man changed into evil.
But according to Catholic theology man has not lost his natural faculties: by the sin of Adam he has been deprived only of the Divine gifts to which his nature had no strict right, the complete mastery of his passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace, the vision of God in the next life. The Creator, whose gifts were not due to the human race, had the right to bestow them on such conditions as He wished and to make their conservation depend on the fidelity of the head of the family. A prince can confer a hereditary dignity on condition that the recipient remains loyal, and that, in case of his rebelling, this dignity shall be taken from him and, in consequence, from his descendants. It is not, however, intelligible that the prince, on account of a fault committed by a father, should order the hands and feet of all the descendants of the guilty man to be cut off immediately after their birth. This comparison represents the doctrine of Luther which we in no way defend. The doctrine of the Church supposes no sensible or afflictive punishment in the next world for children who die with nothing but original sin on their souls, but only the privation of the sight of God [Denz., n. 1526 (1389)].
This is a difficult point and many systems have been invented to explain it: it will suffice to give the theological explanation now commonly received. Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is "the death of the soul", it is the privation of sanctifying grace.
The Council of Trent, although it did not make this solution obligatory by a definition, regarded it with favour and authorized its use (cf. Pallavicini, "Istoria del Concilio di Trento", vii-ix). Original sin is described not only as the death of the soul (Sess. V, can. ii), but as a "privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception" (Sess. VI, cap. iii). But the Council calls "justice" what we call sanctifying grace (Sess. VI), and as each child should have had personally his own justice so now after the fall he suffers his own privation of justice.
We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin". This principle is developed by St. Anselm: "the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect" (De conceptu virginali, xxvi). In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam's fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:
(1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.
(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).
(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this, that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.
"There can be no sin that is not voluntary, the learned and the ignorant admit this evident truth", writes St. Augustine (De vera relig., xiv, 27). The Church has condemned the opposite solution given by Baius [prop. xlvi, xlvii, in Denz., n. 1046 (926)]. Original sin is not an act but, as already explained, a state, a permanent privation, and this can be voluntary indirectly — just as a drunken man is deprived of his reason and incapable of using his liberty, yet it is by his free fault that he is in this state and hence his drunkenness, his privation of reason is voluntary and can be imputed to him.
But how can original sin be even indirectly voluntary for a child that has never used its personal free will? Certain Protestants hold that a child on coming to the use of reason will consent to its original sin; but in reality no one ever thought of giving this consent. Besides, even before the use of reason, sin is already in the soul, according to the data of Tradition regarding the baptism of children and the sin contracted by generation. Some theosophists and spiritists admit the pre-existence of souls that have sinned in a former life which they now forget; but apart from the absurdity of this metempsychosis, it contradicts the doctrine of original sin, it substitutes a number of particular sins for the one sin of a common father transmitting sin and death to all (cf. Romans 5:12 sqq.). The whole Christian religion, says St. Augustine, may be summed up in the intervention of two men, the one to ruin us, the other to save us (Of Sin and Merit I.24). The right solution is to be sought in the free will of Adam in his sin, and this free will was ours: "we were all in Adam", says St. Ambrose, cited by St. Augustine (Opus imperf., IV, civ). St. Basil attributes to us the act of the first man: "Because we did not fast (when Adam ate the forbidden fruit) we have been turned out of the garden of Paradise" (Hom. i de jejun., iv). Earlier still is the testimony of St. Irenæus; "In the person of the first Adam we offend God, disobeying His precept" (Haeres., V, xvi, 3).
St. Thomas thus explains this moral unity of our will with the will of Adam.
"An individual can be considered either as an individual or as part of a whole, a member of a society . . . . Considered in the second way an act can be his although he has not done it himself, nor has it been done by his free will but by the rest of the society or by its head, the nation being considered as doing what the prince does. For a society is considered as a single man of whom the individuals are the different members (St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 12). Thus the multitude of men who receive their human nature from Adam is to be considered as a single community or rather as a single body . . . . If the man, whose privation of original justice is due to Adam, is considered as a private person, this privation is not his 'fault', for a fault is essentially voluntary. If, however, we consider him as a member of the family of Adam, as if all men were only one man, then his privation partakes of the nature of sin on account of its voluntary origin, which is the actual sin of Adam" (De Malo, iv, 1).
It is this law of solidarity, admitted by common sentiment, which attributes to children a part of the shame resulting from the father's crime. It is not a personal crime, objected the Pelagians. "No", answered St. Augustine, " but it is paternal crime" (Op. imperf., I, cxlviii). Being a distinct person I am not strictly responsible for the crime of another; the act is not mine. Yet, as a member of the human family, I am supposed to have acted with its head who represented it with regard to the conservation or the loss of grace. I am, therefore, responsible for my privation of grace, taking responsibility in the largest sense of the word. This, however, is enough to make the state of privation of grace in a certain degree voluntary, and, therefore, "without absurdity it may be said to be voluntary" (St. Augustine, "Retract.", I, xiii).
Thus the principal difficulties of non-believers against the transmission of sin are answered.
"Free will is essentially incommunicable." Physically, yes; morally, no; the will of the father being considered as that of his children.
"It is unjust to make us responsible for an act committed before our birth." Strictly responsible, yes; responsible in a wide sense of the word, no; the crime of a father brands his yet unborn children with shame, and entails upon them a share of his own responsibility.
"Your dogma makes us strictly responsible for the fault of Adam." That is a misconception of our doctrine. Our dogma does not attribute to the children of Adam any properly so-called responsibility for the act of their father, nor do we say that original sin is voluntary in the strict sense of the word. It is true that, considered as "a moral deformity", "a separation from God", as "the death of the soul", original sin is a real sin which deprives the soul of sanctifying grace. It has the same claim to be a sin as has habitual sin, which is the state in which an adult is placed by a grave and personal fault, the "stain" which St. Thomas defines as "the privation of grace" (I-II:109:7; III:87:2, ad 3), and it is from this point of view that baptism, putting an end to the privation of grace, "takes away all that is really and properly sin", for concupiscence which remains "is not really and properly sin", although its transmission was equally voluntary (Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v.). Considered precisely as voluntary, original sin is only the shadow of sin properly so-called. According to St. Thomas (In II Sent., dist. xxv, Q. i, a. 2, ad 2um), it is not called sin in the same sense, but only in an analogous sense.
Several theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, neglecting the importance of the privation of grace in the explanation of original sin, and explaining it only by the participation we are supposed to have in the act of Adam, exaggerate this participation. They exaggerate the idea of voluntary in original sin, thinking that it is the only way to explain how it is a sin properly so-called. Their opinion, differing from that of St. Thomas, gave rise to uncalled-for and insoluble difficulties. At present it is altogether abandoned.
This is uninvited meddling on my part - but it is intended to be constructive rather than destructive. The theory is that the hypothetical Sirian/Atlantean/Babylonian/Egyptian/Grecian/Roman Catholic Church has been ruled by the so-called 'Whore of Babylon' (African/Reptilian/Hybrid-Hermaphrodite Queen of Heaven and God of This World?) for many thousands of years - with Reincarnational Michael/Adam/Horus/Moses/Multiple-Pharoah/Jesus/Michelangelo/????? being the Deposed Persona Non Grata, Original and Unpardonable Sinner - horrifically hanging on crosses in thousands of churches throughout the world. I seek a changing of the guard - while positively-reinforcing the best of the past - and moving boldly into the future with a Minimalist Solar System Theocracy/Democracy based solidly on Responsibility, the Teachings of Jesus, and the U.S. Constitution. The Architecture of the Churches, Cathedrals, and State-Houses harmonizes with the Sacred Classical Music. This is quite the tangled-web I am weaving. The assumption is that The New World Order = The Old World Order = The Kingdom of God = The Roman Catholic Church. And that this has existed for thousands of years - rather than being something which the Patriots and Protestants have to battle to keep from being implemented - and that the Anti-Christ (or In Place of Christ) has ruled the world for thousands of years. Do I sound like a religious nut? Well I Am!!!!! But I am not a Human-Woman Hating, Bigoted, Chauvanist, Patriarchal-Pig. I think women are superior to men - which is why I think there should be a Woman Pope. Once again, all of this is merely unsubstantiated speculation on a small and isolated website - which should be taken with a sea of salt. Imagine debating someone like this! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9qAqwIW704&feature=related Or how about having a theological discussion with someone like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_1old1orj0&feature=related I need to stop, drop, and roll a joint...
lindabaker wrote:I so so agree with the idea of letting go of the crucified bloody specter. My daughter had never seen a catholic crucifix before she was 12 or so. We walked into a hispanic church school and the body on the cross was at least three times life sized, with blood dripping, and the body was almost naked. My daughter almost fainted and she said it was porn. Then, she said, why do these women want to trust men who wear dresses? Twelve she was.
Thank-you Linda. That was a classic comment! I think the Catholics have simply followed the orders of the one ruling the planet. I don't think the Pope, the Black Pope, and the College of Cardinals really run the church. They simply follow orders, and do the best they can, under the circumstances. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quAHxyD3KLc The church is sort of a Grim Business. If you have the time and courage - consider reading 1. 'The God's of Eden' - by William Bramley. 2. 'Rule by Secrecy' - by Jim Marrs. 3. 'Behold a Pale Horse' - by Bill Cooper. 4. 'The Great Controversy' - by Ellen White. 5. 'The Keys of This Blood' - by Malachi Martin. Then, rewatch the old 1994, 1995, 1996 Alex Collier videos. Finally, rewatch as many Jordan Maxwell videos as you can find. I don't necessarily endorse everything said in these books and videos - but the composite picture which emerges is quite startling - to say the least. I'm still in denial, regarding a lot of it. I can only take so much. Here's some comic relief. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BEZaPN8gUY What really troubles me, is whether the ruler of this world is just a renegade angel, or whether they are just following orders (or at least receiving authorization to make life miserable for humanity). My attempted responsibility regarding solar system governance - and regarding learning what's really going on in the universe - is really making me less responsible in day to day living. This is one reason why I am very wary about 'waking people up'. There's a right and a wrong way to do this sort of thing. Or perhaps there really is no right way to do this. Perhaps the present internet infowar is one of the better ways to do this. But it sure is an angry mess, isn't it?
What is my agenda? I'm sure that I have one - but I'm not sure exactly what it is. Everyone has an angle - right? People get used - don't they? Who's agenda do I support - whether I realize it, or not? I don't think I'm pure - but I'm not sure of the ways in which I might be corrupted. A lot of individuals and groups want a New World Order - but each group thinks THEY will be in charge of it. Probably ALL of these individuals and groups are being used, and are merely pawns. So how do I fit into all of this madness? I have repeatedly said that I don't even trust myself - and I don't particularly like myself. I KNOW that I am supernaturally attacked 24/7 - BIG TIME - but how many of these bastards are getting through to me - and are actually influencing me? So what should I do? I am committed to just keep doing what I'm doing - with no surprises. Perhaps I am trying to influence ALL individuals and factions - whether they are good or evil - human or otherwise. Who knows? The Shadow? The Shadow Government? I'm sure they know more about me than I'll EVER know about myself. I've been told that I am stepping on my own toes - and I don't doubt that. In a sense - I really don't care if I shoot myself down. I like the idea of focusing upon principles and concepts - which are ageless - and which are not identified with any particular individual. I continue to say that I don't know what the hell I'm doing - and I mean it. But what if I were a Reptilian Queen in Antiquity?! What if I have spoken with someone who REALLY was Cleopatra?? I need to stop - and smoke another joint! (Just kidding. I've never smoked anything in my life.) So what should I do? Shut-up? Drop-dead? Go to hell? Does anyone else have a suggestion? Perhaps doing what I'm presently doing is as good as it gets - and as good as it will ever get - for me. One more thing. I have a dream. I Dream of Jeannie (with a polka-dot bikini) - a really Phoxy Pleiadian Pussycat from Pleione. Sometimes I dream about two Babes from Hades (named Agony and Ecstasy). Perhaps I simply need to refine what I'm doing - and clean up my act. Just a thought. Oh No!!! Oh Yes!!! I'm sooo hurt and confused!!!
The following images really bother me. The topic 'earth2100' is supposed to be futuristic and idealistic - but look at the damn images! Are they trying to tell us something?
A lot of people object to the business and corporate aspects of the church. I don't. What I object to is corruption and the non-compassionate use of accumulated wealth. I guess what I am trying to work toward is a Christ-Like Minimalist Corporate Constitutional Democratic Representative Republic Solar System Theocracy!!!!!! Confused? I am! I am not I AM. I am easily confused - but I still want this solar system to be properly run. Period. Here's the view from the USSS NAMASTE. Notice the 'Five Wise' and the 'Council of Seven'. Don't be frightened. She's got the whole world in her hands...
I think this 1994 Alex Collier Interview might have a helluva lot of hidden information and meaning. I don't take this interview at face value. I think it might contain valid information in a fictional context. Try various combinations of the information. Watch it again, in light of this thread, and in light of all of your research. I think this might be quite important - especially in light of what has happened since 1994 (such as 9/11). Please tell me what you think. Please think. Do you think? Come-on! Think!!! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8316692185126189734#
eleni posted this on AV1 - and I thought it quite interesting. Check out this cool-looking site: www.bibleufo.com. I will continue to maintain that we shouldn't go to sleep in the churches - but that we shouldn't stray too far from them, either. I like the idea of continually imagining what an ideal theology and church would be like. This is a valid idea - whether one attends church or not. I used to - I don't presently - but I might do so in the future. Church shouldn't be required - but it should always be available - seven days a week. Anyway - here is the repost from AV1. Enjoy.
Finally, in a recent round of exchanges with several informants, some of them new ones, we asked them the following question. What are we dealing with here? The extant literature mentions humanoids, grays, reptilians and other kinds of life forms. Which of these are the Anunnaki? And what do they look like? Their answers were quite enlightening. “Let’s start out by saying that we are definitely dealing with biological entities, not altogether more complex than us, except that their cellular electrical capacitance is much higher than ours, which makes them an energetic envelope of much higher bioelectric potential than us. When you are in the presence of one of them, you can feel their presence as if you could cut it with a knife. A very definite force of what could best be described as intention emanates from them” (Eight 2005, 2006). “They are very large, very tall biological specimens, no doubt of that. They can also be best described as looking almost like albinos – white, almost milky white skin, with a sort of sweat or beads of water evident on their skin, like a film – about seven or eight feet in height, very white hair – not gray white, but kind of snow white. Like white wool – yes, kinky white hair, some of them wear it shoulder length, others short, almost close cropped. But you can tell it is kinky. Oh, eyes are red, when you catch them inside in low light and they are not wearing dark, almost black contact-like lenses, but different from ours. They always travel in pairs, so if you see one of them, the other is not too far away. This is true of the kisam. Haven’t had the chance of meeting the others [those who went to the original late ‘70s meeting, ostensibly coming from the home planet] so I can’t tell you what they’re like. [I] Imagine they look the same. But you can tell more about them from their presence” (Eleven 2006). It is interesting to note that C. L. Turnage, author of a series of provocative books on the connection between the Bible, Planet X and the Anunnaki (Turnage 2000, 1997, 1996) had also described an encounter with one of them, in which she described them in nearly identical terms (Turnage, personal communication to the senior author, 1997).3 And an entirely similar description of the Anunnaki can also be found in Patrick Cooke’s controversial but well thought out arguments on his website www.bibleufo.com.
I think it would be cool to live in a non-militaristic underground base - which might be the intergalactic diplomatic center for this solar system. A 90 square-foot room with a Cray would be more than enough for me! I'd probably only come out for meals - or when invited to do so. I'd probably mostly just keep doing what I'm doing right now! My second choice would be to hang-out in an Underground Reptilian Monastery! The Vatican doesn't seem to want me! I can't imagine why not! Was it something I said? Maybe I'll just have to build a 90 square-foot shallow underground civilian base with a Cray - under my house - if nobody will give me the time of day - let alone access to the nerve-center of the universe. Damn ingrates...
A COUPLE OF EARLY FAILED ATTEMPTS AT INTERGALACTIC DIPLOMACY
What are we going to do with all of the really nasty weaponry in this solar system? Is there any way to properly control it? Do we really need this weaponry to keep each other safe? Do we need to defend ourselves from the rest of the universe? Should we just leave everything in God's Hands? Has this attitude gotten us into one helluva lot of trouble? Who REALLY controls all of the REALLY nasty weaponry? What would happen if all of this weaponry were used simultaneously? Has this sort of thing been contemplated? I mean planned? I'm deadly serious. I had my eyes opened as a mere child, when I read 'When War Comes' (1972). Obviously, this is a seriously dated book - but it should still be read by everyone. I like the idea of never using any of this bullshit on each other - but I also like the idea of defending the human race against enslavement and extermination by who knows whom?! I do not like the idea of intergalactic conquest. If any of you start a WMD War - it might not end until the solar system is one big goddamn asteroid belt - exactly 93.57 minutes after the commencement of hostilities. My current theory is that most of the WMD's and UFO's are controlled by a Secret Government - which might not be Human. If this has been the case - I hope that it no longer is. But are Regressive Non-Humans more responsible than Progressive Humans? How do we properly defuse the madness in this solar system? Would a Vatican-Based Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom United States of the Solar System make this solar system a safer place for All Concerned? Damned if I know. What would Dr. Strangelove say?
This is a bit repetitious - but consider reading 'The Keys of This Blood', 'The Federalist Papers', and 'The Desire of Ages' while listening to Latin Masses https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enWiFcsBqIE and Sacred Classical Music. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLCcQixNvg&playnext=1&list=PLEFB725C82BC4D2A1 I may be mad - but at least I have a method. Remember - this is only a conceptual experiment. This thread is a solar system governance laboratory, with a mad social scientist, and no budget. I don't mean to make everyone think like I do - but I do desire a non-corrupt solar system governance core - which will facilitate responsible political and religious freedom throughout the solar system. When the center holds - other things can be safely varied. If the center fails - then everything goes to hell. Politics, Religion, and Solar System Governance MUST be properly addressed - or we are screwed. We might be anyway - but at least we have a fighting chance if we get these three things right.
How should I proceed with the following list?
1. The Teachings of Jesus.
2. The U.S. Constitution.
3. The Latin Mass.
4. The Classical Sacred Music.
5. A Vatican-Based Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom United States of the Solar System.
Siriusly - what is the true nature of the souls of the mammals, reptiles, etc? Do they have souls? If so - how do they differ from our souls? How does a Drac Soul differ from a Human Soul? I don't think they're trying to reform themselves. I think they're trying to take over! Phobos Today! The Solar System Tomorrow!investigator wrote:What do ya think of my tinfoil theory bud? Okkkk..... Here it is! What if those pet crocodiles are reincarnated Draco Reptilians or fallen angels that wanted to reform their ways? And them being a pet for humans is a science experiment to learn love and get along with humans in the rest of the universe? An experiment to end the galactic wars?
Thank-you investigator. I appreciate your concerns. I wish to maximize religious and political freedom for everyone - including Satanists and Communists! But it is necessary to properly deal with BOTH politics and religion - as it relates to Solar System Governance. If this is done properly - then other things can be done freely and responsibly - including your idealistic ideas. Politics is a special case of religion. Religion is a special case of politics. One should not be pitted against the other. There should be a minimalist integration at the solar system governance level. But this is different than a state church. The Vatican is a huge part of the problem - and potentially a huge part of the solution. I worry about who has REALLY controlled the Vatican for nearly 2,000 years. I seek a changing of the guard - along with reforms in liturgy, theology, and governance. Positively reinforcing the best of the past is probably the best way to pave the way for all of the great ideas, like yours. The center might have to be somewhat traditional, so as to facilitate continuity and stability. I prefer evolutionary change over revolutionary change. This is a complex subject, and I fear that many will burn out while trying to figure it out. Conflicting Idealistic Concepts could potentially scuttle evolutionary progress. I will re-read your post several times, to make sure that I completely understand it. Thanks again for your interest in solar system governance. I'm sure that eventually, things will work out well for all concerned. This is only the beginning. The best is yet to come! Namaste.investigator wrote:But shouldn't a truly free responsible system of global governance, exclude religious favoritism? I'm more of a fan of "The Earth Confederation" or something like that, without any religious connotations. A system of governance where everyone has access to free energy, photographic memory, all of their abilities, the very finest in alternative medicine, and complete respect for free-will. I don't like the word federation, and prefer confederation, because confederation respects free-will more imho. If we were still a confederation, we could just be like "Hey Illuminati we are sick of you guys printing up a gazillion dollars, the stupid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are leaving the union, switching to gold and silver, joining the Agartha Network, and switching to free energy. Peace out!" Not a big fan of the Vatican myself though, even the good guys in the Vatican, cause they are like "You are going to hell if you don't believe as I do" and I know that to not be true. Hehehe I dunno about the pet crocodiles though man, maybe it's possible, because maybe those crocodiles really can feel love. I'm not sure.
A confederation is an association of sovereign member states that, by treaty, have delegated certain of their competences (or powers) to common institutions, in order to coordinate their policies in a number of areas, without constituting a new state on top of the member states. Under international law a confederation respects the sovereignty of its members and its constituting treaty can only be changed by unanimous agreement.
By definition the difference between a confederation and a federation is that the many memberships of the member states in a confederation are voluntary, while the membership in a federation is not.[A confederation is most likely to feature these differences over a federation:
* (1) No real direct powers: many confederal decisions are externalised by member-state legislation.
* (2) Decisions on day-to-day matters are not taken by simple majority but by special majorities or even by consensus or unanimity (veto for every member).
* (3) Changes of the constitution, usually a treaty, require unanimity
I can always tell when I'm on target, when my computer starts running really slowly, and the fan sounds like a 757 preparing for takeoff. Today, it's been so bad, that I almost called 'checkmate'...
I remain a follower of Jesus - but I am presently reevaluating and reconsidering everything. I'll take a look at the book you mentioned. Gerald Massey and Ralph Ellis are interesting sources of alternative views of Jesus and the Bible. Gotta go! The Reptilians are Coming! Even Jesus is preparing for the Reptilian Invasion. Better stock-up on Orgone. Better Dead Than Rep. http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/ What is the true nature of the soul? What if it is Interdimensional Reptilian in nature - for Reptilians, Greys, Dracs, Hybrids - and Humans? I don't know - but I just have to keep stirring things up. My theory is that we should consider ALL possibilities - no matter how ridiculous they might seem. I will just keep being sort of a smart-alec regarding what could potentially be very serious and dangerous. Some of this is so sad, that it's funny.
I don't usually listen to Alex Jones - but today's show should be interesting, regarding the birth-certificate thing. I continue to have mixed-feelings about President Obama. I've been mostly silent about him. I continue to think that the Secret Government really calls the shots - but how obedient is this President? Who knows? I don't trust anyone or anything anymore. I think 'THEY' have something on EVERYONE - which can be used to manipulate or destroy whoever 'THEY' are dealing with. The guilty can be made to look innocent - and the innocent can be made to look guilty. The general public can be easily led around by the hooks in their noses. I tend to be emotional and gullible - and I have to really work at being a critical thinker. I'm still seeking a happy-medium in this regard. I like President Obama - but he always seems to have a 'vacant' look to him. I really worry about what politicians are subjected to, regarding mind-control, blackmail, threats, bribes, and even supernatural harrassment and control - which could potentially involve 'perfect-possession'. What do we really know about hybridization, walk-ins, soul-scalping, soul-transference, etc, etc, etc? I am very fearful regarding all manner of advanced technology and ancient 'wisdom'. I keep thinking that we live in a VERY creepy and dangerous world. I don't envy President Obama one little bit. I just wish we could really rationally discuss all of the madness, without being nasty with each other. We don't seem to be very civilized. Are we barbarians - or are we reptilians? Which is worse? How should we attempt to shine the light on this present darkness? I've made some suggestions on this thread - but what the hell do I know???
I just wanted to reinforce that I intend this thread as a mental and spiritual gymnasium - rather than being any sort of exclusive claim to 'the truth'. I am also not trying to set myself up as some sort of a guru of the absurd. I'm not sure why I said that - but it sounds sort of cool! I wish to focus upon sound principles and concepts - rather than focusing on personalities. I just want this solar system to get it's act together - regardless of who or what is involved in accomplishing this. I'm not happy with myself at all. I am very uncomfortable with my life and with current events. I am not a happy camper at all. I continue to ask all of you to study this thread in it's entirety. I'm not claiming that it is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - but that it might lead you toward the truth - in ways that very few other sources can, at this point in time. This is just sort of like an all-night brainstorming session in front of the fireplace. I purposely use off the wall images and comments to provide contextual contrasts which help to stimulate unconventional thinking. I use humor to try to deal with some VERY dark subjects. I think we are in VERY serious trouble, and that we somehow have to retain a sense of humor. I continue to hate no one - but I distrust everyone - including myself. I am truly an honest softball-player in a dishonest hardball-world. I need to somehow get tougher, quicker, and craftier - while continuing to be honest and idealistic. I need to be wise as a serpent, and harmless as a dove - but perhaps I need to strike once in a while - and inject some venom into the infowar! What am I saying? Shame on me!
How might a group of Renegade Jesuits combine this short-list into a single volume - complete with Latin and King James English? I'm sorry for being so repetitious - but I'm really trying to give myself spiritual-resuscitation. I am not speaking from a lofty mountain. I'm trying to climb back up - from the bottom of a cliff! Perhaps if there were 52 Latin Masses which incorporated everything on the list - including model homilies - this would be highly instructive. Then the Bretheren might try it out in that Underground Reptilian Monastery I keep talking about! The Reptilians would have to sign-off on it - wouldn't they??!! What Would Lord Draco Say? I would be interested to visit a church which used the Latin Mass (as is - at first) - but without crucifixes, wafers, fermented wine, announcements, or collections - and which used chapters from 'The Desire of Ages' (15 minutes) and 'The Federalist Papers' (15 minutes) word for word, in 30 minute homilies - and which integrated the best in Sacred Classical Music - before, during, and after the Mass. Do you see what I'm saying? This would just be an experiment - over say, 1 year - to see how it went. This whole thing is a test. It's only a test. I think this whole thing could be properly done - but I doubt that the level of cooperation would ever exist for this to be able to become a reality. The power struggling would be something to behold! This crude first-step would obviously have to be refined, before it would be ready for prime-time. Or - perhaps we should just go with the Crystal Cathedral Model - but without the "Looky Me! Celebrity Christianity!" Salvation by Self-Exaltation? I think not. Or - what about Salvation4Sale via PayPal? (get it?) I'll always want to strive out into the universe of ideas - so I will probably never be satisfied with any theology, church, or governmental system. I'm just trying to positively reinforce that which has been in existence for a significant period of time - and which has momentum and a track-record. And, I am not exactly sold on the idea of including the writings of Ellen G. White in the Biblical Canon - even though I think that we can learn a helluva lot from 'The Desire of Ages' - much of which is ecumenical in nature (unlike 'The Great Controversy'). The Latin Mass, Sacred Classical Music, and Gothic Cathedrals seem to harmonize in a rather grand manner - but I have substantial theological issues with the traditional theological interpretation of the Mass. How does one drain the bathwater without flushing the baby down the toilet? (Sorry - I couldn't resist.)
1. The Teachings of Jesus.
2. The U.S. Constitution.
3. The Latin Mass.
4. The Classical Sacred Music.
5. A Vatican-Based Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom United States of the Solar System.
I guess I'll just have to conceptually work with this in the coming years - and perhaps bits and pieces of the concept will be incorporated into whatever New Solar System emerges - probably after lots of fighting and misery. Which individuals and groups would support this list? Which individuals and groups would oppose this list? What would their reasons be? What if someone like Amen-Ra or Anna theocratically imposed this sort of thing on the solar system? The whole solar system would never agree to such a thing - would they? We can't really seem to agree on much of anything. Will the confusion just keep descending to lower and lower levels of civilization - until we exterminate ourselves completely? Everyone wants things to be 'Good' - but we can't seem to agree on what 'Good' is - or how to achieve that which is 'Good' - so things continue to be 'Bad' for most of the people in the world. All of this must REALLY seem stupid to those who live on the Moon. But then, they might want things to continue to be 'Bad', and they might even be greasing the skids to perdition. One major problem is that we have been lied to, regarding the most important things, and that it might be very difficult for us to be happy with reality. At least the lies gave us a perfect heaven to win, and an eternally burning hell to shun. Pretty good motivator, huh?! I think this world is going to be a Pissed-Off Mess for a very long time. I think it's going to be a mess - no matter what we do. I'm just hoping we can avoid Armageddon during the remainder of this century. I really need to internalize and refine everything in this thread. I should probably stop trying to pull others along with me, as I struggle in the muck - but misery loves company. I am really haunted by the opening scenes of Battlestar Galactica "The Plan". That could happen here, you know. Perhaps it already has - more than once. I've heard that there really and truly was a Caprica - and that this has happened before. As of this moment - we might very well be at war - in a conflict which began 600,000 years ago. But what the hell do I know? Will the Truth Set Us Free - or Will it Start a Brand-New Star War? Damned if I know. Probably Damned. Period. I really need to get away from all of this. I want to help - but I want to stay out of the crazy-place. I'm sliding closer and closer toward the edge - and there's no damn guard-rail. One more time - I invite the Beings of the Universe to Support Humanity in Establishing a Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom United States of the Solar System - Based Wherever it is Most Appropriate. Wouldn't continued discussions be most productive in the context of paradise, rather than purgatory or hell? Why does there always have to be fighting and misery? Can't we do better than this? Why is this so goddamn hard??????????