No-Pill #37 Original Sin, Thought Crime, and Condemnation of Emotions

— “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out”

The 114 No-Matrix/No-Pill Advantages Course. Start here.

“Unravel the power of emotions and how they influence your actions. Discover a fresh perspective on the morality of emotions vs. actions, shedding light on some controversial Christian teachings. Empower yourself with the knowledge that while you can’t control your emotions, you can control your actions – and that’s what truly matters.”

Emotions are a natural and inherent part of the human experience, and as such, they are not something that can be classified as right or wrong.[1] They are not the result of a conscious decision or action, but rather they are automatic responses to stimuli or situations. Therefore, it is unjust to condemn, guilt, or judge someone based on their emotions. In contrast, actions are the result of a choice and thus are the only thing that can be morally judged as right or wrong.

This perspective is in opposition to certain teachings within the Christian ethical system, which can sometimes place moral judgments on emotions. One of the most significant and damaging examples of this is the idea of original sin. This concept implies that humans are inherently sinful from birth, which can lead to feelings of guilt and condemnation.

Another harmful aspect of the Christian ethic is the demonization of certain emotions. For instance, in the Sermon on the Mount, lust is condemned to the point where even the mere act of looking at a woman with desire is equated to committing adultery. This approach demonizes a natural human emotion, making people feel guilty for something they cannot control.

This strategy has been used by some within the Christian faith as a means of control. By making everyone feel guilty for their natural emotions, they can manipulate them more easily and exert power over them. This is particularly damaging because it is impossible for humans to control or stop their emotions completely.

However, it’s crucial to recognize that while we may experience negative or irrational emotions, we do not have to act on them. Our actions are a result of choice, and thus, they are the only aspect of our lives that can be morally judged. We can choose whether or not to act on our emotions, and it is only these actions that can be deemed right or wrong.


[1] A person is always accountable for their actions, regardless of whether they are intentional or accidental. Even if a mistake is made in all honesty, the individual is still liable for their actions. Consequently, one is inevitably held accountable for errors, even those that are innocent or accidental. However, most innocent mistakes do not have the severe, far-reaching implications that uncorrected intentional or dishonest errors do.

14 Comments

  1. John Bafaro on September 2, 2023 at 04:48

    I agree emotions, such as lust, are natural. But they are “natural” to a fallen people who are far, because of rebellion towards God, from the state in which they were created. God offers a solution to their fallen state, through Christ. “Religion” certainly muddies the water.



    • Richard Nikoley on September 2, 2023 at 08:21

      Well you’ve got the Abrahamic faiths covered (I assume; or, is “God” only applicable to Christians?) since it would be odd if Abraham—whose God was Jehovah—need not apply as he was the first, nearly 2,000 years prior to Christ, yet is revered by Christians. And then there’s Allah (which means “God” in Arabic).

      Then, of course, you have hundreds of sects within Christianity itself…really, the most of any religion I can think of.

      … And what of faithful Hindus and Buddhists who live upstanding lives of value creation for themselves and others?

      Need not apply?

      Is so, how odd.



      • John Bafaro on September 2, 2023 at 09:21

        I’m not sure I understand your answer, as everyone/group you mention are part of the same fallen race, regardless of time or sect or nation. They all have the same redemption offered them through Christ. My point was, that what you want to term as “normal” impulses or emotions, are only normal because of man’s fallen state. Sin is “normal” for sinners.



      • Richard Nikoley on September 2, 2023 at 10:29

        Oh, OK, gotcha.

        Sounds similar to those professing to have been “born again” through Christ’s redemption.

        Am I correct?



  2. John Bafaro on September 2, 2023 at 11:15

    I would say that even some of the religions of the world besides Christianity would consider some “normal” human impulses/emotions as wrong. The only difference being, that they have no Savior. Some religions don’t particularly acknowledge sin, as the God of the Bible declares it. They are still guilty, nonetheless, as God makes clear in His Word, Romans 1&2. It comes down to whether or not one chooses to acknowledge the true God, which I do, to be clear. Based on this, my original statement was to counter your assertion that impulses God deems sinful, are “normal”. This is only true for a race/individual that is fallen and alienated from God and does not factor Him into the equation, nor cares for His revealed will.



    • Richard Nikoley on September 2, 2023 at 13:21

      So you are simply going to evade my question then, and recite from your own metaphysics, correct?



  3. John Bafaro on September 3, 2023 at 00:45

    I didn’t think I was evading it. Obviously I believe in one being born again to be redeemed, as taught by Jesus, John 3:3-8. It’s the only way a fallen human can see sin as sin, rather than “normal”. Nothing “metaphysical” about what I’m saying, just a view of your post from a Biblical perspective.



    • Richard Nikoley on September 3, 2023 at 02:39

      Just looking to confirm.

      It may interest you to know, if you didn’t already, that I grew up a “born-again” in a fundamentalist baptist church (which my parents, other relatives, and friends started after leaving The Evangelical Free Church in Reno, NV, taking the school with it… Grace Baptist Church). I graduated high school from Reno Christian Academy, part of the Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) network, and then Attended Tennessee Temple University. Two of my brothers attended Bob Jones University and Pensacola Baptist Bible College, and cousins, friends, and a couple of uncles attended Hyles-Anderson College.

      You could say I’m rather well versed in what you call “the Biblical perspective.”

      By metaphysics, I’m referring to the classic philosophical meaning, not woo mysticism (though religion, including fundamentalist/baptist/evangelical Christianity, is itself mysticism). It’s wholly unsurprising you’re unfamiliar with the term (nor was I, until I peeked outside that box of indoctrination, a near impossibility similar to fundamentalist Islam).

      At any rate, my personal experience with it goes back to 1970, so 53 years and I lived it on a daily basis through about 1984 when I moved to Japan as a freshly minted Navy officer and then just meandered philosophically for about the next 6 years before I achieved having a mind of my own.

      But not to worry. I still have plenty of family and friends still steeped head-to-toe in the nonsense. Others who’ve moved on in different ways, I’m still in contact with as well. it’s rather amusing for me to hear them still use the same self-reinforcing affirmation lingo all these decades later…the code-speak, as it were.

      In retrospect now, looking back, it’s remarkable to me how many parallels I see between evangelical (fundamentalist, born-again) Christianity and fundamentalist Islam. They are the most intransigent of faiths on the planet, and there’s very good and solid reason for it. They’re nearly identical in their ways, means, attitudes, and how they see themselves in the “worldly” society in which they live and breath. Somewhat like cults, but not completely. Just enough of the elements to maintain a steadfast us & them (the saved and the lost) “separation.”

      Well, if you’re reading the 114, it’s in large part my learnings and testimony during that early stage in the 1990s when I was no longer a “born-again,” per se, but hadn’t gotten off the pot, so to speak, and it’s a fair representation about what’s seriously fucked up about it all.



  4. John Bafaro on September 3, 2023 at 04:58

    I believe I’ve seen that story (yours) before. You want to call Christianity/faith/belief mysticism and “metaphysical” (I’m quite familiar with the term, it’s what I consider the teachings of the ‘Word of Faith’ frauds) but that is because you have never really BEEN born again. You present a good example of the fact that upbringing and education in things Biblical are not what produces saving faith. That is a gift of God, I’m sure you are familiar with the verses saying so. You equate Christianity and Islam, and in a sense, you are right. They share the writings of Moses and the prophets and their moral concepts, but there is one glaring difference. Islam has no savior, nor do they claim one. Neither do the other religions. He always will be the dividing line. As did the Jews, they ‘stumble at the stumbling stone’. I fully realize that from the perspective of the unbeliever, everything about the born-again experience is subjective, but it’s as real as oxygen to one who is. I used to think you hated belief in God / His Son /judgment because you knew it was actually true. I don’t think that anymore. Since you are versed in the ‘Biblical perspective’, you can see the reasoning behind my original comment I believe.



    • Richard Nikoley on September 3, 2023 at 06:17

      Hey, whatever floats your boat. If it works for you, keep doing it. Many mind-conjured-up fantasies work for lots of people, not just yours.

      Most of the billions of Buddhists know nothing of Christianity, and many have never even heard of it. It’s the last thing they need. They do just fine.

      Of course, that doesn’t stop Christians from strutting around with their hubris and presumption to try to “save” them, a hilarious joke. “Missionaries,” LOL.

      “but it’s as real as oxygen to one who is”

      No, it is not.

      That’s very easily verifiable and happens every microsecond of every day with billions of people “lost” by your standards…alive and well…but requiring oxygen to do that.

      “you can see the reasoning behind my original comment I believe.”

      No, I see the childlike fantasy of it. What’s different is that I’ve come to realize that only a miniscule percentage of the population is capable of living without some authority passing down a metaphysics (universal, all-encompassing “explanation” of everything). Even people who profess to be “atheist” usually need something to believe in (socialism.communism, environmentalism, wokeism, etc.) or they can’t seem to function.

      It probably has roots in evolutionary biology and our status as social beings. The social aspect runs very deep and is easily exploited by those who can create origin myths for people to congregate around and share.



  5. John Bafaro on September 3, 2023 at 09:33

    You have no idea how many Buddhists have or have not heard of Christ. It doesn’t change the reality of the truth of Christ either way, and the story is not over, is it? Those billions of lost people you mention will be alive and well until they are not, and stand before the God they rejected, with no remedy. You create a myth of what’s “normal” on your own authority, I suppose. I think it takes more hubris to do that, especially being a finite creature living in an extremely well-ordered universe you (nor anyone else) knows but a trifling amount about. But, as you say, keep doing what works for you. After all, you are alive and well. Until, as will be true for everyone, you no longer are. I wish you well.



    • Richard Nikoley on September 3, 2023 at 10:50

      “You have no idea how many Buddhists have or have not heard of Christ.”

      I do have an idea.

      I live amongst them 100% of the time.

      Look, you suffer from the stupidness disease of mysticism, as most people do (including Buddhists).

      You’re too stupid in practical terms to grasp that you are.

      Does a screeching monkey in the jungle understand that it’s stupid by human standards? No, of course not. It’s doing just fine.

      As are most stupid humans.



  6. John Bafaro on September 3, 2023 at 11:21

    So, Ad Hominem is now in play. I’m disappointed. LOL. Do you live among 100% of Buddhists? Do you even know where 100% of them live? I’m guessing you don’t. I do not consider YOU stupid at all, on the contrary, I have found you over the years to be quite informed and a good source of information, in as far as you know your subject. Even in this conversation, I don’t consider you stupid, I consider you blind. Spiritually blind. The condition of all men unless by the grace of God, the scales are removed from their eyes. I would ask you about it, but I’ll assume, that you consider the record of the NT concerning Jesus as just a concoction by those looking to have a good story to tell? I seriously hope for you that you are given grace to believe while you are still “alive and well” since I’m assuming even you don’t have a plan for after that. There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12-16



  7. Richard Nikoley on September 4, 2023 at 08:17

    Well, I began writing a reply, and it has turned into an entire post…

    Deprogramming Born-Again Christian Cultists

    — Almost Impossible But Worth a Try

    Forthcoming.