Reading your paper, the distinction of righteous anger at genuine injustice or wrongdoing vs. the sin of wrath, in the sense of petty anger over non-issues, immediately caught my attention. Yes, there is wisdom in that distinction.
Righteous anger feels controlled, its direction is productive, its aim is the betterment of self and others, and the correction of bad behaviour, low standards, or incompetence.
Petty anger is simply unproductive, even counterproductive, feels like emotional incontinence, and is often a major problem for the workplace and for relationships of all kind.
The former is an expression of the divine masculine; the latter is a vice to be tamed. I fully concur with Biblical wisdom on this matter.
That's not the doctrine of original sin, which is the desire to sin and all such associated corruption. Every person who successfully achieves conversion yields a sin rate of zero of the types you specified. Yes, that requires an explanation outside of mathematical possibility, which shows the change in a person if they find the faith.
The paper does not define the doctrine of original sin. It examines the quantifiable measurements of sin against the concept.
Your objection that a "converted" person has a sin rate of zero is observably false, seeing how many actual Christians are part of this community and know our own sinfulness. You're literally lying right now.
"Yes, that requires an explanation outside of mathematical possibility"
The math is straightforward set of calculations based on objectively observed sin rates from a variety of scientific studies.
Sins can be quantified and counted, and that intrinsically allows mathematical analysis.
To make it even stronger, if you follow your logic and accept it (even though it is flawed, and rather obviously so, black swan) then what has really been proved is that Christianity is a false and fake religion, because what it teaches is required is in fact "observably false".
Your conclusion is based on the assumption that those who consider themselves to be believers are generally correct. This is observably false, both in the examples from Scripture and with the tests that Scripture provides: "no one born of God sins" "if you wish to enter life, keep the commandments". Therefore those who sin are not God's children. Also confirming this is the testimony and teaching of the father's, who confirm the scripture in this and also the reformation restoration of this teaching.
And on top of this is personal experience, having found the way myself and being unable to locate anyone else who has.
So since I'm certainly not lying, and everything I say is easily confirmed, I suspect you are just projecting.
Anyone who claims he has not sinned is calling God a liar. You're clearly not very intelligent if you try build a doctrine of self-righteousness by ignoring obvious teachings from the Bible.
Now confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead.
Interesting with the insults. First I'm a liar and second not very smart. While it is possible that I have weak spots it's not those. You can tell how inferior your intelligence is by the fact that you can't even begin to deal with what I said and all that you can do is effectively think that you've proved that Scripture contains contradictions and thus congratulations: you've proved is a false religion again. Congratulations, thousands of years later you've now found a contradiction that no one else has before, which you certainly must believe otherwise you would have spent 30 seconds looking out up and understand that's it's not the same thing to "have sin" and "commit sin".
Ben K abuses one sentence of 1 John 3 to claim that true converted people do not sin, which does not even relate to Vox's paper that Original Sin is demonstrated by the mathematically calculated rate that all mankind has sinned, barring the single historical exception of Jesus Christ. The usual Gamma nitpick that misses the point.
In his tangential claim, Ben K ignores that that 1 John 1 establishes that all have sinned, confirming the concept of Original Sin as described in the paper. He ignores that 1 John 2 reassures believers that if they have sinned they can rely on Jesus as their advocate. He cherry-picks 1 sentence from 1 John 3 as proof that he is sinless, blind to the hubris of his claim or his human weakness. His false testimony about Vox's work is a sin, and he should repent of it.
The critical thing here is that he does not even think it important to confess Jesus Christ is Lord. It is more important to him to take pride in his intellect by twisting the words of others. Thus, Witch. He has no moral authority.
Holy crap you've gone into full gamme witch-hunt mode, literally. Now you're verifiably lying that anyone reading this thread could verify. You need a reset, go sit down and read 1 John 3 until you stop raging.
Yeah, can you please explain in 50 words max what did you mean by this "Every person who successfully achieves conversion yields a sin rate of zero of the types you specified". Do not derail.
I didn't ask you about scripture or a Bible lesson. I asked you wtf are you even talking about. You know like your comment.
Humanity is fallen , we live in a fallen state and Christianity is the answer to get back to God. Conversion doesn't change our fallen state or makes us sinless. I'm barely a decent Christian, don't even go to church and even I know this.
It means that logically when Vox observes people sinning he's just concluding that all the swans are white. It generally stems from assuming ones own salvation ex nihilo rather than by critically assessing oneself with Scripture. Just like you assume that because you "know" something to be true despite not going to church and not carefully studying.
Vox is one of those rare people whose opinions, if they go against your own perception or view on a matter, you should strongly consider reevaluating. Sometimes even your life and your life choices. If you find that something he writes hurts your pride, you are very definitely wrong and should shut up.
I have truly enjoyed Sigma Game for the same reason I enjoy the vox populi posts or the Darkstream, and the unifying quality is a commitment to an individual man consistently creating and performing genuinely. We know them by their fruits and the products will exist whether the creator is valued or vilified.
My favorite thing about Vox is he creates. Authentically and without apology. I will say creators like him or Owen Benjamin sometimes stun me but they astound me so rightfully that one can only imagine the misery of the critic that wishes them to be wholly destroyed.
I now mentor young people - no one will help you build a solution but many will happily criticize your best attempt to make something better. Use that. Love that you get to create only for the opportunity to refine or resist based on what those who couldn't say.
It's funny those ones who assembled the Justice League of Smarts together just to prove you wrong and show you how utterly insignificant you are. None of them read the book though.
It would take a Gamma to claim that we have not all sinned.
Speaking of Gammas, where are all the great books authored by them? With the amount of criticism and corrections one would assume there is a whole catalogue waiting.
While we have all sinned, Dark Lord's patience with Gammas is commendable.
They don't write "great" books, they write books that appeal to their own fantasies and preferences. Narcissists, remember. Their readers are other Gammas for whom their predilections match up favorably.
I could name you quite a few Gamma authors/book series. They probably wouldn't appeal to you unless you're a Gamma.
Expecting too much from the Gammas. They have to give someone an "ACTstually" at least once a day or their spirit will diminish under the weight of irrelevancy. To have them all tied up with Reditt and Bluesky is a human service. They think they are important. We know otherwise. Let them die.
Look up. There's the sky. Shake your fist at it. Ankle biters will always exist.
Reading your paper, the distinction of righteous anger at genuine injustice or wrongdoing vs. the sin of wrath, in the sense of petty anger over non-issues, immediately caught my attention. Yes, there is wisdom in that distinction.
Righteous anger feels controlled, its direction is productive, its aim is the betterment of self and others, and the correction of bad behaviour, low standards, or incompetence.
Petty anger is simply unproductive, even counterproductive, feels like emotional incontinence, and is often a major problem for the workplace and for relationships of all kind.
The former is an expression of the divine masculine; the latter is a vice to be tamed. I fully concur with Biblical wisdom on this matter.
Page is blocked so I'm assuming this is a joke?
That's not the doctrine of original sin, which is the desire to sin and all such associated corruption. Every person who successfully achieves conversion yields a sin rate of zero of the types you specified. Yes, that requires an explanation outside of mathematical possibility, which shows the change in a person if they find the faith.
The paper does not define the doctrine of original sin. It examines the quantifiable measurements of sin against the concept.
Your objection that a "converted" person has a sin rate of zero is observably false, seeing how many actual Christians are part of this community and know our own sinfulness. You're literally lying right now.
"Yes, that requires an explanation outside of mathematical possibility"
The math is straightforward set of calculations based on objectively observed sin rates from a variety of scientific studies.
Sins can be quantified and counted, and that intrinsically allows mathematical analysis.
To make it even stronger, if you follow your logic and accept it (even though it is flawed, and rather obviously so, black swan) then what has really been proved is that Christianity is a false and fake religion, because what it teaches is required is in fact "observably false".
Your conclusion is based on the assumption that those who consider themselves to be believers are generally correct. This is observably false, both in the examples from Scripture and with the tests that Scripture provides: "no one born of God sins" "if you wish to enter life, keep the commandments". Therefore those who sin are not God's children. Also confirming this is the testimony and teaching of the father's, who confirm the scripture in this and also the reformation restoration of this teaching.
And on top of this is personal experience, having found the way myself and being unable to locate anyone else who has.
So since I'm certainly not lying, and everything I say is easily confirmed, I suspect you are just projecting.
You're not only lying, you're retarded.
Anyone who claims he has not sinned is calling God a liar. You're clearly not very intelligent if you try build a doctrine of self-righteousness by ignoring obvious teachings from the Bible.
Now confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead.
Interesting with the insults. First I'm a liar and second not very smart. While it is possible that I have weak spots it's not those. You can tell how inferior your intelligence is by the fact that you can't even begin to deal with what I said and all that you can do is effectively think that you've proved that Scripture contains contradictions and thus congratulations: you've proved is a false religion again. Congratulations, thousands of years later you've now found a contradiction that no one else has before, which you certainly must believe otherwise you would have spent 30 seconds looking out up and understand that's it's not the same thing to "have sin" and "commit sin".
You are a very smart boy! Gold Star :)
Witch Test failed.
"First I'm a liar and second not very smart. "
Correct. Repent of your lies.
Ben K abuses one sentence of 1 John 3 to claim that true converted people do not sin, which does not even relate to Vox's paper that Original Sin is demonstrated by the mathematically calculated rate that all mankind has sinned, barring the single historical exception of Jesus Christ. The usual Gamma nitpick that misses the point.
In his tangential claim, Ben K ignores that that 1 John 1 establishes that all have sinned, confirming the concept of Original Sin as described in the paper. He ignores that 1 John 2 reassures believers that if they have sinned they can rely on Jesus as their advocate. He cherry-picks 1 sentence from 1 John 3 as proof that he is sinless, blind to the hubris of his claim or his human weakness. His false testimony about Vox's work is a sin, and he should repent of it.
The critical thing here is that he does not even think it important to confess Jesus Christ is Lord. It is more important to him to take pride in his intellect by twisting the words of others. Thus, Witch. He has no moral authority.
Holy crap you've gone into full gamme witch-hunt mode, literally. Now you're verifiably lying that anyone reading this thread could verify. You need a reset, go sit down and read 1 John 3 until you stop raging.
Yeah, can you please explain in 50 words max what did you mean by this "Every person who successfully achieves conversion yields a sin rate of zero of the types you specified". Do not derail.
You mean the scripture I quoted which says that? Read the post, ask a question about it if you want, but do actually read it first.
I didn't ask you about scripture or a Bible lesson. I asked you wtf are you even talking about. You know like your comment.
Humanity is fallen , we live in a fallen state and Christianity is the answer to get back to God. Conversion doesn't change our fallen state or makes us sinless. I'm barely a decent Christian, don't even go to church and even I know this.
It means that logically when Vox observes people sinning he's just concluding that all the swans are white. It generally stems from assuming ones own salvation ex nihilo rather than by critically assessing oneself with Scripture. Just like you assume that because you "know" something to be true despite not going to church and not carefully studying.
Wtf
Vox is one of those rare people whose opinions, if they go against your own perception or view on a matter, you should strongly consider reevaluating. Sometimes even your life and your life choices. If you find that something he writes hurts your pride, you are very definitely wrong and should shut up.
I have truly enjoyed Sigma Game for the same reason I enjoy the vox populi posts or the Darkstream, and the unifying quality is a commitment to an individual man consistently creating and performing genuinely. We know them by their fruits and the products will exist whether the creator is valued or vilified.
My favorite thing about Vox is he creates. Authentically and without apology. I will say creators like him or Owen Benjamin sometimes stun me but they astound me so rightfully that one can only imagine the misery of the critic that wishes them to be wholly destroyed.
I now mentor young people - no one will help you build a solution but many will happily criticize your best attempt to make something better. Use that. Love that you get to create only for the opportunity to refine or resist based on what those who couldn't say.
And Vox even took the time to create an md5 hash value for his paper on original sin.
It's funny those ones who assembled the Justice League of Smarts together just to prove you wrong and show you how utterly insignificant you are. None of them read the book though.
You had me at "strangle all the Gammas".
I'd say we are far to close to WWIII to go around defenestrating people; even the richly deserving, just in case.
I hearted this without reading. The title just speaks to my gamma-weary soul.
Today Hal Turner turned 64:
https://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/component/content/article/64-today?catid=17&Itemid=101
And among his other discoveries growing older:
.....Completely intolerant of fools, the ignorant, the stupid, and bullshit artists.
Thankfully, the older I get, the faster I can make those determinations!
By the time I'm dead, I'll be really smart!
Replacing a behavior a man wants to quit works better than trying to eschew it.
Two suggestions therefore:
1. Restack with a note; repost to X or Gab ditto.
2. Pray for the author of the OP.
God bless you, good Sir. Consider (and I'll reach out to discuss the Manalive Salon):
https://substack.com/@manalivemusings/note/c-228183140?r=dasep&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
?
It would take a Gamma to claim that we have not all sinned.
Speaking of Gammas, where are all the great books authored by them? With the amount of criticism and corrections one would assume there is a whole catalogue waiting.
While we have all sinned, Dark Lord's patience with Gammas is commendable.
They're too busy mastering the blade and buying Fedora's apparently.
They don't write "great" books, they write books that appeal to their own fantasies and preferences. Narcissists, remember. Their readers are other Gammas for whom their predilections match up favorably.
I could name you quite a few Gamma authors/book series. They probably wouldn't appeal to you unless you're a Gamma.
C.S. Lewis was almost certainly a gamma. So there's one.
"Shut up".
Expecting too much from the Gammas. They have to give someone an "ACTstually" at least once a day or their spirit will diminish under the weight of irrelevancy. To have them all tied up with Reditt and Bluesky is a human service. They think they are important. We know otherwise. Let them die.
- Claiming to have somehow anticipated or previously accomplished something that has never existed before.
- Retro-asserting something that was previously deemed to be totally impossible as easy or even obvious.
These two happened. I was like, bruh. Where's the math. Everybody knows this was proven false a long time ago by .... Bruh. Where's the math.