I always though the concept of original sin to be a rather stupid idea. For those who don’t know, it’s a concept according to which the entire humanity inherited the sin of Adam and Eve, as well as its consequences. It’s basically a concept according to which you are always guilty of something, regardless how pure and faultless your life is. It is actually quite likely that the concept was intentionally developed by the Church in order to foster dependence, because they supposedly own the intangible cure for this intangible but deadly problem, which is by definition genetic, but is somehow cured by accepting Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

Of course, someone somewhere inevitably asked how was Jesus supposed to be sinless if he inherited the original sin from Mary? The answer was that Mary was excepted from the original sin by an act of God, since her conception. That’s the origin and meaning of the dogma of the immaculate conception; that’s actually a description of Mary, she’s the immaculate conception.

So, what do we know about the original sin, according to what the Christians believe? It’s pervasive, with only two exceptions throughout history (Mary and Jesus), and two trivial exceptions (Adam and Eve before they believed the snake and ate from that tree). It’s something that causes a fatal conditioning of some kind, precluding salvation, and required a very serious personal intervention from God in order to make a special exception for those who accept it.

It sounds like worse bullshit than it actually is, because the Christians don’t really believe in the existence of Adam and Eve and they think that this entire story is some kind of an allegory for mankind’s relationship with God. Well, at least the Catholics are smart enough, I’m sure there are literalists, especially in America, who are so lacking in their understanding of the mythological part of the scripture and so untrained in reading through such material they would be sure to flunk the first year of Catholic theology, but they boastfully think themselves to be the true believers. So, idiots aside, the smart Christians know it’s some kind of an important message cloaked in myth, but I don’t think they have a singular and consistent explanation of this message. They would usually say that the message is that God created human souls in a perfect state, and then they were seduced to commit sin against God, by separating their choice from God’s will, and then had to suffer the consequences of this separation. I never heard a good explanation for why this would be heritable. I also never heard a good explanation for why it was irreversible, and why God couldn’t simply give humanity some kind of a temporary lesson instead of a permanent exile. Considering how they believe God to be forgiving and merciful enough to sacrifice the life of his own Son-person for their salvation and as payment for the collective sins of mankind, this makes very little sense and that’s why I decided that the entire concept is so profoundly flawed, it may only cause spiritual harm if it is taken seriously, and I always argued against it.

But then you get the nagging question of what was it that Jesus actually had to die for? Let’s take it from the source – what did he say about it?

“Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12, 31-32, NIV)

“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me, but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me. (John 14, 28-31, NIV)

But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because people do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. (John 16, 7-11, NIV)

As you can see, there are three very notable details. First, all quotations are from the gospel of John. Second, there is no mention of the original sin in any way. Third, what is mentioned, repeatedly, is “the prince of this world”, who is to be “driven out”, “has no hold over him” but will be the direct cause of Jesus’ suffering and death according to the will of God, and, after Jesus’ resurrection, “stands condemned”.

There are, of course, other parts that are often quoted as supportive of the original sin and redemption thesis, like John 3:16-18, but if you extend the quote to the verse 21, it suddenly sounds different, because it’s not about the redemptory value of his sacrifice, but redemptory value of recognizing the light that he is as that of God, and opting for it and not against it:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God. (John 3, 16-21)

So, I’ll express my own little theory here. Jesus didn’t think that people were to be saved because he did some magical act of removing their sins. He thought that he’s the pure light of God, and whoever recognizes him as such, chooses him over everything else and believes in him, will be saved by the virtue of that spiritual choice. This is supported in numerous places across the gospels:

Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty … For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. … I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6;35,40,51 NIV)

From the context it is obvious that the “disciples” took this metaphor too literally, but to me the meaning is obvious, and it’s actually the repeated preamble of John’s gospel:

Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. … No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

Basically, Jesus is the pure and unadulterated nature and character of God that is manifested in this world, without any stain or confusion, and it is there for people to be able to choose it over all other things and thus attain salvation. It is hinted that it is his sacrifice that is for their salvation, but the most straightforward explanation is that it is painful for God to be born as a man and it is a great sacrifice God was willing to make in order to give people the chance to see him and choose him in this world and thus be redeemed from the snares of illusion, because of which the pure nature and character of God are unknown to them.

So, in other words, the way Jesus saves you isn’t dying for your sins, except maybe in a stretch of metaphor, because if it weren’t for your sins he wouldn’t have to come get you out. He saves you by showing himself here in order for you to be able to know God, and if you know God, in his true character and nature, and if you choose him and believe in him, you are saved, not because of magic, because it’s all about choices and their consequences. If you align your spiritual vector with God, you end up with God. Of course, in order for Jesus to give people this option, he had to pay a great personal price of being born and dying in this awful place. If there is any place that is at the exact opposite end of all existence from the bright and glorious throne of God, it’s here, and for God it’s such a sacrifice to be born here, that the addition of being flogged and crucified is merely a matter of degree.

So, the concept of Jesus dying for our sins is a completely arbitrary reading of the text. It’s not straightforward or clear. However, Jesus dying because it’s the will of God, and because it will defeat the prince of this world, which is his name for Satan, that’s a very straightforward reading. But what the literal hell was that all about?

Let me tell you how I read it.

This world is not God’s domain. It has another ruler, who is God’s personal enemy. How that came to be is another matter, but it is very clear that God has no sovereignty over this world, that it is the principality of Satan. Also, human souls are under the power of Satan and cannot escape it on their own. Showing them God’s pure nature, in this world, seems to be something that breaks their spell and provides them with Ariadne’s thread that will eventually get them out, if they remain faithful.

As corroborating evidence I cite Buddha, who also claimed that this world is within the sovereign power of a demon of illusion called Mara, whose temptations and challenges were the last obstacle for him to break before attaining buddhahood.

I don’t think it’s a metaphor. It’s too much of a coincidence. I think it’s a description of the actual state of affairs: this world is not the real world, not the domain of God. It’s some kind of a very consistent, persistent and spiritually influential illusion created by a being who is, essentially, the opposite of the bright light of truth, reality, knowledge and bliss that is God, and whoever gets stuck here, for whatever reason, is in a very grave situation because the truth of God is so obscure, hidden and difficult to recognize and opt for in this place, one is apparently stuck. That is what came to my mind when I was thinking about the original sin, and its possible interpretation that isn’t silly or outright foolish. Humans made a certain kind of choice by which they ended up here, in the domain of Satan, the enemy of God. They were probably seduced by the promise of spiritual evolution that is possible only through difficulties and in separation from God, because they can’t learn how to discern between good and evil if everything around them is good and there’s no possibility of evil. They need to go to Satan’s private illusion of a world where both good and evil are possible, where knowledge is an option and not the normal state of things. When they, in that state, choose the light of God, it will be an actual, not a trivial choice, because it’s easy to believe in God when he’s all around you and he’s impossible to deny. However, they would have to accept his rules when they enter.

The problem is, how would God prove that Satan did the entire thing out of a malicious intent, out of hatred for God? If it were obvious, we probably wouldn’t have a problem. The easiest way to prove it is to have God personally enter the trap and see how Satan treats him. This is, obviously, what Jesus thought: that Satan will choose to kill him in order to hide the pure light of God from people, and in doing so, he will condemn himself in the eyes of God, revealing his true intentions and thus opening himself to righteous punishment.

However, I don’t think it worked the way Jesus planned. I think Satan was smarter than him, and simply introduced the explanation stating that he allowed Jesus to be killed and to resurrect from the dead in order to provide a glorious beacon of light throughout history, for people to be able to see and choose the light of God, not only in the physical presence of Jesus, but through authentic testimony. And, since that is a very credible and convincing explanation, I think Satan completely evaded condemnation and punishment, at a price of actually having to leave an Ariadne’s thread in his maze.

Of course, he also used his power to confuse the matter and obfuscate everything with doubts to the point where few will actually understand what’s going on here, what’s at stake and where they will actually use the instrument of salvation that they have at their disposal, but that, of course, is a matter of choice between good and evil, between light and darkness, ignorance and truth, and here Satan was actually true to his original promise of making things exceedingly difficult.

So, that’s my take on it.

I was thinking about how it became common for people in the West to think that the more monotheism a religion has, the more intellectually superior it is, but my opinion is that it’s exactly the opposite, that monotheism is the first stupid idea an undeveloped mind of a fanatic will come up with, and rather than being all-encompassing and all-inclusive, it usually ends up being extremely reductionist and exclusive, quite hostile to any form of difference in opinion or understanding.

Trinity can be a sophisticated theistic way of illustrating God’s connection with the world and his interaction with human spirit. Any other stance will quickly degenerate into deism, removing God from any possibility of contact with the world other than the point of creation.

However, Hinduism shows the flexibility that is possible when someone doesn’t care about whether something is monotheistic or not, but whether it is a good explanation of reality or not. In Hinduism, you can have brahman, the transcendental Absolute, manifesting as both the Gods and the world, the Gods can manifest different aspects of brahman, and God-states are described as male-female couples, like Radha-Krishna or Shiva-Shakti, where male and female versions of the same spiritual state are described as behaviorally completely different. Also, God can choose to incarnate as his own worshipper in order to feel the taste of his own being from another perspective. There is also a concept of God incarnating together with his companions, basically Purusha-level spiritual beings who all participate in the same level of consciousness, in order to be able to manifest this level of consciousness on the physical plane.

All the while, the Hindus will have no problem with the statement that all Gods are brahman, or that an entire plane of existence is Krishna, or that God can simultaneously be personal, impersonal, incarnated, incarnated as a group of people simultaneously, incarnated in different aspects having a relationship, being pure knowledge and being a source of a special kind of ignorance (yogamaya).

Basically, that’s what you get when sophisticated minds explore complex ideas. They end up with stuff that actually makes you think, not just Allahu akbar like a zombie.

I often saw Muslims, who are silly enough to think that whoever has more monotheism wins, claiming that Christian belief in trinity is some kind of a polytheism.

It’s not, of course, it’s just one of the first real example of modern thinking in history, because today it isn’t uncommon to say that the same thing can be both wave and particle, or that a cat can be 50% alive. Apparently, a Muslim god can do everything except:

• be incarnated
• be incarnated while remaining in his original state
• be incarnated while remaining in his original state, and act as a spiritually uplifting and comforting force at the same time

Apparently, the only thing their God is capable of is sulking and killing, but that’s fine as long as he isn’t complex enough as to confuse his believers regarding his quantity.

After all, water is complex enough that it can be ice, water and steam in the same picture, but somehow such triune complexity is beyond Allah the akbar.

One of the main holes that the monotheistic religions dig for themselves consists of claims of their God’s greatness and power – in fact, he’s not merely powerful, he’s omnipotent. He can do anything that isn’t logically contradictory. And he’s so incredibly good, that when he gives a commandment, it’s the best possible thing and a cornerstone of any positive ethics.

And then someone says, OK, if this God is omnipotent, why is there evil in the world? The first thing an omnipotent good God would do is eradicate evil.

“Err… well, evil is the result of free will. You can’t have free beings if they are unable to use their freedom to choose to be evil and to do evil things. But God will eventually put things right when it all ends.”

Excuse me, but not all evil is due to human actions, evil or otherwise. The main causes of human suffering are inherent to the world God created – sickness, disease, natural disasters. Earthquakes, floods, droughts, plague, malaria, cholera, locusts – none of it has anything to do with human volition, so the argument stands.

In a desire to praise their God, they inadvertently do him a great disservice by blaming him for most of the evil in the world, and this isn’t any kind of rhetorical trickery that can be easily dismissed with some clever argument. It’s a serious problem for monotheism. What I will do now, is tell you how I would answer this conundrum.

I see God as both one of the forces that manifest their influence in this world, and an alternative to this world. God is not the supreme power in this world; in fact, this place seems to be designed as an alternative to God, a place where God’s influence is diminished to the point where it becomes possible to doubt his very existence. God occasionally manifests in this world as “light that is not overcome by darkness”, as this or that shining beacon of truth and light, but not as a sovereign ruler. In fact, I see no reason to believe that this world was at all created by God, or even that God had a hand in its making. I see it more like this: God is the highest reality, but this place here is not. In fact, it is probably the lowest illusion. It’s everything that is not God. It is limitation, ignorance, suffering and evil. It is the world of pain, death and ignorance, and is exactly opposite to the light and beauty that I know as God. I see God as a promise of what is possible if we remain faithful to beauty, knowledge, reality and truth, if we resist all temptations and cowardice and keep our faith until the end. I don’t see God as a white ape in the sky who will solve all my problems or else I’ll sulk and not believe in him. I don’t see God as a magician who will wave his hand and make all the difficulties disappear from the path of those who believe in him. I see him both as a way and as the goal, as truth which you need to choose, reality which you need to live, knowledge you need to gain, and eternity that will be yours if your choices in life are on the God-vector.

God is not someone who’s so powerful that he can make all the horrors of this world go away. God is someone who is the eternal beauty and wonder beyond this world, whom none of the horrors of this world can touch, and who is an alternative to be chosen and a way to be lived.

God is limited. He is limited by his nature and by his word. He is not in both good and evil; no, evil is something that goes beyond the limits of God, it leaves God to depart into the sphere of nothingness, the great void beyond all that is real, beautiful, true and worthy. And if God allowed there to be a place where the laws would be such that He is not the supreme power, then such place can indeed be, but don’t blame God if this place is evil, and don’t blame God for not being here, because that is by design, and evil is what you get if you remove God from your life.

One might ask what I find objectionable in Christianity. It’s an easy question to answer. What I find objectionable is that they canonize people like Theresa of Calcutta, that they sanctify groveling before God, that they sanctify humility and vilify power. Essentially, Jesus is what Hinduism and Buddhism would aspire to produce as the end-result of their teachings, but Christianity would be aghast at the very thought, because He is God, and they are worms. That’s what I find objectionable about Christianity, that it is shocked and aghast at all the things that I find to be the greatest parts of my personal spiritual practice.

Sure, there are versions of Hinduism, like the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, who are basically the Hindu version of Islam, who would find nothing objectionable about the Abrahamic approach to God, but that’s because they took their theology from Islam and their theological understanding of Krishna is indistinguishable from the Islamic understanding of Allah, if you ignore their extensive use of visual aids like statues and images. Their concept is that God is one, he is a person who lives in some very physical description of heaven surrounded by his worshipers, he’s the ultimate lawmaker and judge and if someone has a problem with that, there’s reincarnation in lower forms, instead of hell, but the basic principles are all similar. That is so because their cult was born under Islamic rule, and as someone who has Bosnia in his neighborhood I know what a country looks like after centuries of Islamic rule.

Their worst crime, in my mind, is that they stole Krishna, and turned him into something contemptible, into a faggot deity with the vile character of Allah.

Krishna is an example used by Vyasa, probably the smartest man of all times, in order to carve pathways into a human mind that will make it possible to understand God – what God is like, what would God do, what would God say, how would God react to something, how would certain people react to Him. It’s a masterpiece of the highest order, there are very few things like it in the history of literature. Tolkien, for instance, used similar literary means to illustrate his views on spirituality, in a very subtle but profound way. Krishna is something of a blend between Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas and those two silly Hobbits, Merry and Pippin, who are always planning some fuckery and getting themselves into trouble. He’s the super-sage who impromptu pulls Bhagavad-gita out of his sleeve just because his friend needed some advice on the battlefield. He’s the exiled heir to the throne who was forced to live with foster parents in some village while his parents were imprisoned in a dungeon by his demon uncle; growing up, he killed the bastard and restored order. He’s the super-warrior who kicked so much ass he became a legend, and was best friends with another super ass-kicker, Arjuna, and they both combine incredible power with incredible poise and grace; they are relaxed and funny yet deep, gentle yet horribly powerful, illustrating both similarities and differences between the aspects of Vishnu and Shiva, allowing each other the opportunity to show a subtle relationship between two major Gods that are not revealed in interactions with mere humans. What you can see, for instance, is God’s distress and anguish when his friend vows to do something that is almost certain to get him killed, and he walks in circles, distressed, talking to himself about how he, too, will then choose to die because a third of his being is in Arjuna and what draw is there in this world without him? You have Arjuna, who had to make a choice between Krishna (who vowed not to fight) and his vast army, to fight alongside him in a war, and he immediately chose Krishna. When Krishna later asked what the hell that was about, Arjuna smiled and answered that it’s a great opportunity for him to catch up to Krishna’s high score because he won’t be able to do anything but watch him kick an enormous amount of ass from the best seat in town.

God is funny. There’s an explosive, bright spark of humor and joy in His smile that can light up the whole world, that can dry all tears, because it shows that light, consciousness, bliss, reality that is beyond this videogame of an illusion that we take so seriously here. It is true that heaven is full of souls who worship God, but that’s not because he’s a narcissistic asshole who wouldn’t have it any other way, it’s because he’s so incredibly fucking cool there’s nothing better in the whole world than just looking at him do things his way, showing what God is all about, what absolute reality is all about, what it looks like, what it feels like, and when you look at it, you don’t just look at it, because a light in your own being reacts to him and grows brighter, and as you glow worshiping Him His light grows within you and at one point you lose the difference, you no longer see it as you worshiping His light and beauty and love and power and reality and greatness, because as you worship the highest reality you become realized, as in, turned into that which is real. You become enlightened, as in, filled with light, becoming of light. You understand that that brahman, that factor of all that is cool and great about the Gods, that brahman am I, I am That, and that is the moment where I both fall to my knees before God and I am God, because in God everything is first-person, everything is I, and everything is now, it is the eternity beyond space and time and limitation of any kind.

That’s what I find objectionable in Christianity, that it finds enlightenment to be something sinful.