Playback speed
Share post
Share post at current time

The Real 7 Deadly sins


There sometimes seems to be a bug that suppresses the picture-in-picture (PIP) feature when accessing this website indirectly through a link. The PIP feature is normally available in the bottom right corner of the above video.

Also, the substack app seems to suppress the PIP feature much of the time, so I don’t suggest using the substack app, but rather directly access this site through a web browser, WITHOUT clicking a link. Simply type into the browser URL and PIP should work.

Using the PIP feature is the best way to assimilate this site’s information, IMHO, because you can scroll the video with you, as you read along. NOTE: you must also have PIP feature turned on in the settings for your browser.

Original video on WOEIH.COM

7 Deadly Sins
122KB ∙ PDF file

NOTE: clicking the below underlined text links jumps up and down the Table of Contents (TOC). Please be patient, as there can be several seconds delay each way. 

Also note that clicking the underlined timestamp links will forward the video to that spot BUT you will have to manually re-position to the text spot you desire. 

Finally, there is a bug in the underlined timestamp links, because they only work properly on desktop and/or laptops.

1) (00:00:35) Name of presentation and caveats

2) (00:05:33) Implications of the Real 7 Deadly sins

There is such a thing as sin and some are more deadly than others.

3) (00:09:40) Definition of sin

Sin as transgression against divine law.

4) (00:11:23) Natural law

Brief review of natural law

5) (00:14:18) Law of Freedom

As morality increases, freedom increases; as morality decreases, freedom decreases.

6) (00:17:45) Apophatic definition of rights

Define the small amount of wrongs, and automatically everything else is rights.

7) (00:23:48) Religion as deception

The so-called 7 deadly sins: pride, gluttony, sloth, lust, anger, jealousy, and greed. Religion gives us false definitions of immoral behavior to confuse about objective morality and natural law, to hold back consciousness. These are 7 vices because you do it to yourself. Sin is transgression against another sentient being.

8) (00:33:48) The real 7 deadly sins

Vices cannot compare to the societal damage caused by the true 7 deadly sins that initiate harm to other sentient beings: murder, assault, rape, theft, trespass, coercion and deception.

9) (00:42:40) All “sins” are a form of theft

Theft includes coercion, because that is stealing a person’s free will decision, and deception is stealing a person’s access to true information to make informed decisions, etc… and all 7 deadly sins steal something from others.


Welcome one and all. I'm Mark Passio of It's a pleasure to be speaking here at the Freedom Under Natural Law III Conference. I want to say thank you to Will Keller and all of the other organizers of this great event, and thank you to the other speakers for making this a really incredible event focused on natural law, objective morality, the occult, and many other absolutely vital topics for us to understand at this point in human history.

(00:00:35) Today my presentation is entitled, “The Real Seven Deadly Sins”.

And I am emphasizing the word real, because there are, of course, false, deadly, so-called sins that we are told are the true seven deadly sins, the true transgressions that we could perform upon our fellow men and women, when in fact this is highly misleading and creates a lot of moral confusion in the population.

This is a topic that I have been wanting to discuss and formalize for actually quite some time. So the Freedom Under Natural Law III Conference presented this opportunity, and I think it's a perfect opportunity to expound on this very important topic.

So let's jump into the presentation. As always, I begin my presentations with simple caveats for new viewers to my work to attempt to understand. The first thing is, many people will say, “Well, there’s nothing really truly new here. This is all things that have existed.” And I fully agree.

Nobody should be expecting anything new at this point. Tyranny is ancient. Slavery is ancient. The real new thing is the idea of freedom, and unfortunately it has not manifested in our world yet.

So, I always begin by telling people, you will not be seeing or hearing anything new presented here today. This is simply the truth that has always existed. As the ancient saying goes in many different mystery traditions, there is nothing new under the sun. And what that statement means is that truth is objective and eternal. It has always been here, and it will always be here. It is for us to recognize, and unfortunately, since we haven't yet recognized it as a species, nothing truly new is happening here on our planet, under the sun, here on Earth.

You know, all I can do as a public presenter is apply my own personalized framework and personalized aesthetics to concepts and ideas that can help get them across better and help get them across to people in an interesting way and in a way that looks attractive so people will be more liable to pay attention to it.

So that's my job here and that's what I attempt to do, but if you're expecting anything brand new you're going to be disappointed because this is truth that has always been here among us as human beings for us to recognize.

The second caveat that I always give before delivering the body of a presentation is that if you're an easily offended human being, this information is probably not for you. If you hear more of the tone that something is delivered with and the style rather than the meat of the ideas, rather than the moral of the story, so to speak, then you’re thinking from an emotional standpoint. You’re trying to think and reason with your emotions, and thinking and reasoning doesn’t actually work that way. You’re prone to what I call emotional mind control or heart control, and that's the problem with a lot of people.

So I always give this caveat before I begin, that my presentation style is often very abrasive. It's often intense and at times even combative framework toward the viewer. That's because I recognize a lot of people are under influence of their own thoughts through their emotions. So I deliberately choose not to sugarcoat my words and not to sugarcoat my delivery. And that means some people who will watch this might become angered and offended by it. Oh well, that's your problem, so be it.

That will never make what I'm about to say untrue. I'm going to speak the truth in this presentation, and the truth remains the truth regardless of what anyone thinks about it. Truth, by its very nature, is actually a belligerent energy, because it wages war against all the forms of false indoctrination and mind control that we've been through in our lives. And, therefore, truth can be a very difficult thing for people to hear and digest and come to a true understanding of.

Nonetheless, that's what you're going to hear today, and I'm not going to sugarcoat the delivery of that truth. I'm going to say it plainly and out in the open, as if you're an intelligent adult human being that's psychologically mature and able to receive the truth, whether that's the actual target audience or not. So let's jump in to the material.

(00:05:33) The first thing, if we're talking about the real seven deadly sins, that implies a few things.

That implies, number one, that there is such a thing as quote-unquote sin. And the second thing is that it implies that there is a false definition of the deadly sins, or sin in general.

So the first thing I like to do when I'm fleshing out a presentation, and since the subtitle of this year's Funnel Conference is the Trivium, is we have to establish grammar. Grammar is the first step of the trivium, followed by logic. I'm going to present the true seven deadly sins and the false ones from a perspective of pure logic, the second stage of the trivium. But the first stage is going to be how we have to establish the grammar in the trivium process, and that means we have to set definitions for the words that we're about to use.

So let's define sin. I went to the Oxford English Dictionary for a decent definition of the word sin, and I was surprised that it actually gave a very good definition. So I used it here to start the slides. Their definition of sin is an immoral act that is considered to be a transgression against divine law.

Obviously this is from a somewhat religious definition of the word sin. I generally don't use the term sin when talking about the violations of natural law, which we will get into, that do comprise transgressions against other sentient beings. I tend to just call them harmful behaviors. But since we're talking about the real seven deadly sins in this presentation, as opposed to the false ones, I wanted to give a textbook definition of what is generally considered to be sin or sinful behavior. And I thought that this definition was actually very well constructed, hence I'm using it to define sin moving forward in this presentation.

Sin is defined as an immoral act that is a transgression against divine law. So let's define some of the parts of that definition. The word immoral, an immoral act.

Immoral simply means in conflict with moral principles, or wrong, meaning a wrongdoing. Again, something that is not a right, something that initiates harm against other sentient beings. That's what an immoral behavior is, and in the usage as an adjective it simply means that it is in conflict with what is right, it is in conflict with the general principles of true objective morality.

Then the word transgression, which was used in that definition of sin given by the Oxford English Dictionary. The word transgression simply means an act that goes against a law, an offense of some type. Again, very simple, very accurate definition to be used going forward in the subject material when we use the word sin. This is what we're really talking about.

So I think those establish the definition pretty succinctly of what sin is considered to be. So I have no problem with any aspects of those definitions. What I have a problem with is what religiosity, what major world religions, what most religious people consider sin to be in the world, because I think it's a very false definition of the behaviors that they categorize as sin. And what that does is that paints in people's mind a very inaccurate picture of what true wrongdoing is.

Then they don't understand what wrongdoing is, and they're more susceptible not only to perform wrongdoing, but to condone others doing wrongdoing. Okay?

So that's why it's so important to truly establish definitions of what we're talking about, then move forward with an understanding of, let's understand how certain categories of behaviors fall in line with this definition, or do not fall in line with it. So let's move on to the next slide.

(00:09:40) What we're talking about here overall, moving forward, is sin is transgression against divine law.

And again, if you don't like the term divine law, use the term the laws of God, the laws of the Creator. I call it natural law in all of my work. It's moral law, it's the laws that define true and objective morality. These are the laws of cause and effect, because they actually bring a result into the human experience when we behave either in alignment with them or out of alignment with them.

Some people have called this consequentialism. Some people have called this karma. Probably the oldest name for it is karma, coming from the ancient Indus Valley traditions of what it means to conduct action in the world. Karma actually means action, and then the result that you get from the taking of that action.

So, I find this to be purely in alignment with the correct definition of what would be considered sin, and very much in alignment with natural law principles. So let’s move on and talk about natural law.

Now, of course, we can't define every aspect of natural law here in this presentation. I took about eight and a half hours to do that in my natural law seminar. So, let's just do a brief review of what natural law is, because this is what karma is. This is what the laws of cause and effect are. This is what God's law, or the Creator's law, is. This is universal law, what we're talking about here, that sin is a transgression against.

(00:11:23) So, as a general definition, as a working definition, natural law is a set of universal, inherent, objective, non-man-made, eternal and immutable conditions which govern the consequences of behaviors of beings with the capacity for understanding the difference between harmful and non-harmful behavior.

So it's universal, everywhere present, no matter where you go in the universe. Inherent. That means it's part of nature. It's actually embedded in the fabric of reality. It is not a constructural idea in the mind. It's objective. That means it's not based on human opinion or perception. It's not subjective. It's non-man-made. This is not made by any human beings. It is not made by society. It is not made by any groups of people. It is made by the universe itself. It is eternal. It exists for as long as the universe exists. It is immutable. It can never be changed by any action of anyone or anything.

And they are conditions which govern the consequences of behaviors. These are moral consequences that we receive when we act either in alignment with the laws of morality, or out of alignment with the laws of morality. The understanding of natural law is centered upon bringing our own conscience, our knowledge of the difference between right and wrong, into alignment with objective morality. It's choosing moral behavior over immoral behavior. That is what it means to bring our behavior into alignment with morality.

So, to do that means definitively knowing which behaviors are rights, because they do not initiate harm to other sentient beings, and knowing which behaviors are wrongdoings, because they do initiate harm to other sentient beings. And as we will see, that's the very definition of right and wrong.

The problem is, most people don't understand that. They have completely falsified notions and ideas and conceptual constructs in the mind of what right and wrong actually are. And I'm going to prove that objectively with data from social experiments that we did. I'll present those results in a moment.

So how does natural law actually function in the world? Well, when human beings in the aggregate, in the collective, actually live in harmony with natural law, and are therefore considered to be acting morally in the aggregate, they become and remain free. This is how the laws of consequence of behavior work.

When human beings in the aggregate, in the collective overall, live in opposition to natural law, and are therefore, overall, immoral as a species, they will become and remain enslaved. This is what I personally refer to as the law of freedom, this dynamic of natural law I call the law of freedom.

(00:14:18) And here it is stated very simply, as morality increases, freedom increases, and as morality declines, freedom declines.

This is how entire civilizations either create a situation in which they live in freedom and harmony and peace together, or a civilization creates the situation that we are in right now. Tyranny, covert enslavement, moving toward overt enslavement, and ultimately extinction, if the cycle continues and we do not better ourselves and therefore better our condition as a species. That's what natural law is, that's how natural law works in our world.

So this brings us to the crux of the matter in understanding sin, what are rights, what is an actual human right? A sin is something that we do not have the right to perform. We don’t have the right to conduct sin without negative karmic consequence. So if we know what our rights are by knowing what comprises sin, what are the wrongdoings, which we're going to get to, then we will create freedom when we behave in alignment with those laws of morality in the aggregate.

Defining a right is one of the most important things we can do, and unfortunately it's one of the things our society fails miserably at, and I'm proving that with social experiment results that we conducted back four years ago in 2019. But nothing has really changed since then. You could do it today and get the same results. I guarantee you will get the same results unless you're doing it in a highly, in a concentration of highly enlightened beings, which is a rarity to even have that assembled anywhere in human society. But if you're in an environment such as that, yes, you'll probably get skewed results.

If you go out on any given street corner in any major city in America, you'll get these results. I guarantee you'll get these results. So we define a right in the correct way. A right is an action that does not initiate harm to another sentient being. You are not beginning harming someone else. If you don't do that, there will be no problem, there will be no trouble, there will be no sin.

Therefore there will be no negative karmic consequence in the form of tyranny and enslavement, when all of humanity conducts their affairs that way and then condones other people doing that type of violence, which is where we're at now.

So we did a social experiment in the year 2019, and the results that we got is that no one we asked out of the hundreds of people that we asked could correctly define what a human right is. Zero, out of all the people that we've ever asked. And this is anywhere we did it, any city in the United States, or actually anywhere else. I haven't done it outside of the United States, but I guarantee you if you did it outside the United States, you're going to get the same results.

No one could correctly give the definition of what a right is. Now, my question in response to that is always the same. If you cannot correctly define a right, how could you possibly ever expect to be able to keep your rights from being stripped away from you? If you don't even know what they are, how are you going to know that they've been stolen from you? See, this is the problem in ignorance that we have in human society today.

(00:17:45) So in the defining of a right, we actually immediately define the wrongdoings, because we're defining the right in the negative, or the apophatic definition.

In theology, when you study things from the perspective of what they are not, this is called apophysis, or apophatic inquiry. A very interesting topic to look into from theological schools of thought.

So we're defining a right in the negative, or an apophatic definition. A right is an action that does not initiate harm to another's sentient beings. By definition, from that grammar, using the trivium, we could easily see that what are wrongs, then.

True wrongdoings are actions which do initiate harm to other sentient beings. Very simple. We're just inverting the definition of a right. If a right is an action that does not initiate harm, wrongdoings are actions that do initiate harm to other sentient beings. This is almost kindergarten level logic here. Right? It's very simple, it's very non-complex, it's very easy to understand. Most people should understand it.

Unfortunately, the mind control, the social engineering, the brainwashing, the conditioning that they've been through since they've basically come out of their mother's womb is so colossal that they cannot even grasp simple definitions such as this. And they want to overly complexify things.

It's very simple. I didn't say aligning our behavior to it is necessarily easy, but the definitions are quite simple, if we're being honest with ourselves.

So, moving forward, if this is the simple, natural law definition of what wrongdoings are, then we have to look at what we've been told about what the seven deadly sins actually are. Because so many people have this in their religious programming, that they believe morality is something other than what it is, and that's the problem.

Then it paints a bad idea when someone's trying to talk about morality, because people who have been so inculcated with false definitions from religion carry that into their understanding of what's going on in the world, and of natural law and of true objective morality, and then they confuse the two, they conflate the two, and it brings a bad name to people who are trying to really explain how natural law and morality and freedom are inseparably interconnected. That's why this is such an important topic, to get right.

So I felt it was so important. I have to go back to things like what I presented in my Fake Ass Christians presentation. I actually brought out the quote mascot, this religionist, this dark evil priest who's really giving people false religion and it's really coming from the dark occultists of our world.

Again, he's basically giving people a false version of morality, telling people he's the intercessor between God and man, God and humanity, and kiss his hand, why don't you? This is the attitude that really any clergy and priest class take. I'm better than you, I'm more moral than you, I'm closer to God than you. You have to use me as an intercessor between you and God, an intermediary, a middleman.

Nothing could be further from the truth. It's all toxic and poisonous from a true spiritual perspective and real spirituality. And I feel it's so important I brought him back into this presentation and I want to redefine the word religion as a form of mind control that holds us back from evolving in consciousness, that holds us back from the recognition of truth and objective morality and natural law.

The word religion itself is etymologically derived from the Latin verb religare meaning to tie back, to hold back from forward progress, to bind. It is occult binding, it is a spell. And again, this is all religion, not just cultural religions, not just Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. You can name all of the cultural religions of the world, but there are still other religions.

There's the belief in authority, that's one of the biggest religions on earth. There's the belief in government. There's worshipping money, there's worshipping “science”, even though it's all basically government grant money funded science. It's not true investigation into truth of how the laws of reality really work. And there's many, many, many others.

People can make all sorts of false idols, they can make all sorts of things to turn into religion and pure identity of self that they then cling to mercilessly with religious fervor. We're talking about religion from the point of view of it holds people back from an accurate understanding of truth, regardless of what the topic that we're talking about is. It doesn't have to be cultural religious ideas.

So, in most cultural religions, however, they give us a false definition of morality. This is why so many people are confused. This is why people don't understand objective morality. It's largely due to religious beliefs, religiosity.

By providing these false definitions of immoral action, religion ultimately holds humanity back from a correct understanding of natural law and true objective moral principles.

This is why we're heading into tyranny and bondage and slavery. We don't have accurate definitions of morality, we don't have the truth when it comes to what is an immoral behavior versus what are moral behaviors.

Religion is not helping with this task of unraveling this and coming to a correct understanding of it. It's actually acting as a block to humanity's forward progress in the understanding of objective morality, and that's why I think it does so much harm in society.

(00:23:48) So the seven deadly sins of “religion” in the Roman Catholic ideology are as follows: pride, gluttony, sloth, lust, anger, jealousy, and greed.

And if we look at these, it is not behaviors that we would say we necessarily want to dwell in, live in continually, constantly engage, make the driving impetus of our lives. I would be the last person to say, just go and recklessly engage in these types of behaviors ceaselessly. You'd have to be a fool to condone that, right?

So I'm not saying that these are good things to perpetually behave in this modality of consciousness. However, I am taking exception to calling these things sin.

See, this is where religionists who have been indoctrinated and inculcated into their mind-control belief system would take exception to what I'm saying. I'm trying to tell people that these are not sins in and of themselves.

If we constantly lived in these modes of consciousness, they could be an impetus for us to begin conducting real sin. In and of themselves they are not sin per se, and this is where the logic of the trivium has to come into play, you see, because if we can't apply the logical transforms to understand that these are behaviors that are conducted upon the self, not others, the definition of a sin, again, a transgression against natural law, is an action that does initiate harm against another sentient being, meaning they can't be actions that we perform to ourselves.

If we do it to ourselves, it can't be defined as a sin. It is a vice. That is the difference between a vice and a sin.

Roman Catholic ideology in particular, and in general, most of the Christian religious tradition, what I call churchianity. It is not true esoteric Christianity, but churchianity. They give us these false definitions of sin, and in telling us that these are immoral behaviors in and of themselves, it leads to all kinds of confusion in the general population about morality.

Then when someone like myself comes along and says, hey folks, morality is intimately and inextricably interconnected with human freedom. You get a bunch of people that go, “Here’s another religious nutter”. No, this isn’t religion. This is a science defined by the Trivium Method to help people understand objective morality so that they create freedom instead of tyranny. That’s what the understanding of natural law is, a science.

In that sense, I’m a moral scientist. I'm not a religionist. I think religion is the root of our problems, and religious thinking needs to go away if we're going to evolve as a species. So please don't confuse what I'm saying with religion, just because I'm talking about objective morality.

Objective morality is a scientific understanding, not a religious belief. And we're going to prove this here. So let's look at these behaviors in turn, from a logical point of view. Here we're applying the transforms of step two of the Trivium process, logic. Okay?

So let's look at each behavior in turn. Is pride a behavior we do to someone else? Once again, you wouldn't want to constantly dwell in the modality of counterproductive pride, like thinking that you're way better than you're actually are you're actually doing in the world right. That's not going to motivate you to do any better. But if you have done really well from an objective point of view and you you have gotten what you want accomplished and you've done it to the best of your ability and it's very well done, even from other people's perspective uh... at you know assessing it all together just about having agreement universally that you've done a brilliant job. You could take pride in that work. It's something that is not necessarily the initiation of any harmful thing against another.

Counterproductive pride, you're going to basically diminish what you could be doing better. That's why there's a good form of pride, there's a bad form of pride. But I don't think anybody disputes that this is an internal emotion that one feels toward oneself. We're just applying this simple logic. Is this done toward the self internally? Is it an emotion that exists purely internally within the self? Or is it an action, a behavior that you do outside of yourself toward someone else?

I don't think anybody's going to say that pride itself is something that you do to someone else. It is an emotion. Pride is a noun, it's not a behavior, it's not a verb.

So let's look at gluttony. Gluttony is overindulgence in food. That's self-indulgence. That's something you do to yourself that could be a vice. You could get sick, you could get heavy and overweight and out of shape and in bad health. All kinds of bad things can come out of gluttony.

If I am gluttonous one day of the year, or maybe two or three, it's not going to undermine my health necessarily, right? So, it's like just engaging in that behavior is not doing something harmful to someone else. You could potentially, if it's overboard, do harm to the self, but your body is your property, as long as you're not forcing food down someone else's throat in too large of an amount when they're telling you they don't want that done to themselves, then it's not a harmful action against others.

We can continue down the line. Sloth, by definition, is inaction. It's the state of inaction. It's laziness. Now you could say, well, maybe not taking any action when someone's actually being, having violence conducted upon them, you're sort of complicit with the violence. That's a rare exception to the rule. Sloth just generally means you're lazy, you're in a state of inaction, you're not actively harming someone else.

Lust, again, it's an internal emotion. The desire for sex, the desire to perceive others in a sexual way too much. Right? Lust, is an internal emotion. It's not a behavior that you're doing to someone else. Rape, if you went overboard with lust and then said, I'm just going to rape somebody because, you know, I feel like I have the right to engage in sexual activity with them without their consent, no, that's a crime. That's a transgression against natural law. Lust in and of itself, an internal emotion, not an outward behavior toward others, so it cannot be a transgression against others.

Anger, again an internal emotion, different kinds of anger, anger over trivialities and nonsensical things, just because you want to placate your emotions or rage against something that isn't even really truly important in the world, just from your own whims, that's counterproductive anger.

Righteous indignation about a matter of true justice in our world, that's a righteous form of anger that could compel someone to then take true, right action against injustices and iniquities in our world. So, anger could be a positive thing, but again, I don't think anyone would argue it's not an act against others. It's an internal emotion.

Jealousy, the same thing. Another internal emotion. I could be jealous of someone else's skill sets as a presenter and say, boy, I wish I had that ability. Boy, I wish I had that that knowledge and know how. Boy, I wish I could present like that and make slides like that. That's just an internal emotion. They might never even know that I'm jealous of them. And it could compel me to go and do good things. Right.

So bad jealousy is like you're worried about trivial things, you're just wanting what other people have just because they have it and you don't, and just physical possessions. And it's like, then, okay, if it leads to you going and saying, I'm going to take something from someone else, well then that's theft, then that's a transgression. But the internal emotion of jealousy itself is not a sin, it cannot be, because it's not even an action. Jealousy is an emotion, it's not an action.

This is where the confusion of emotion and action comes into play, and that plays such a big role in how our society doesn't understand true morality.

And then greed, another form of self-indulgence, like gluttony, right? But just with things and possessions. And again, that is a form of a behavior, but it's not an action that's taken against others.

We have to understand, if we are doing these behaviors to ourselves, they are vices. These are definitions of vices, of specific instances of vices, and there's many others. But vices themselves are not immoral acts against others. This is something, again, you wouldn't want to dwell in all the time, that might debauch and debase the self, but it's still not violence against others, it's not violating anyone else's natural rights.

So let's look at the real seven deadly sins, the heart of the entire presentation here. What does constitute violations of natural law and others' rights? Look at the qualitative difference in the words. The words, pride, gluttony, sloth, lust, anger, jealousy, and greed, compared to the real seven deadly sins.

(00:33:48) The false seven deadly sins don't even rate when it comes to the level of harm and evil that results from these types of behaviors, the real seven deadly sins, the real violations of natural law: murder, assault, rape, theft, trespass, coercion and deception.

I think anyone logically even looking at the qualitative difference between the vices versus the real sins, if they're being honest with themselves, is going to realize there's zero comparison. These are the real deal when it comes to harm. And they all share one basic thing in common.

So let's look at some of these from a logical perspective. We're going to look at what is the act of murder, just like we look at what is pride, what is taking pride in oneself. What is gluttony? What is sloth? What is lust? And on.

So, let's look at these in turn. A very logical procedure. The part of the trivium process we're engaging here is we're asking the question, who, what, and then eventually we come to how and why. We're looking at why these now are actual transgressions against others, because something has to be done in order for a transgression against someone else to have taken place. Not thought, not felt, but acted upon. That's why sins are actions. Sins aren't thoughts, sins aren't emotions, sins are actions.

And, you know, quite frankly, I really shouldn't have to even explain this to people who say that they're people who are spiritual, slash, even religious, people who want to take the laws of the Creator into the universe. This should be common sense, you know, and that's the definition of conscience. Conscience literally means common sense, when we etymologically break it down into con, meaning together, or with, and science, meaning to know, or to understand.

And this is the problem, we've lost the common sense of what the true sins are, what violations against natural law are. And that's why we do them and we continue to condone when other people do them, namely when government performs these behaviors. We say, that's perfectly justifiable and acceptable because they have some kind of magical rights that everyone else doesn't have, or we, not having those rights, have delegated them to this group of people who now magically have turned wrongs into rights.

It's utter ridiculous religious nonsense, of course, and this is how people have to come to perceive it. So let's look at these in turn from the logic perspective of the trivium.

Murder is the theft of life without having the right to take someone else's life. There is such a thing as the rightful ability to kill in self-defense, but that is not murder. That is a killing done in self-defense. When we talk about murder, it is the theft of life without right.

So you have stolen something that doesn't belong to you, namely the life of another being, when you did not have the right to do that. That's what murder is. Assault is the theft of well-being without right. Now, if I defend myself against assault, that's not assault. That's the right of self-defense, being engaged with.

So again, you can't do murder, but you can kill in self-defense. You can't do assault, but you can defend yourself with physical force in self-defense.

The next wrongdoing under natural law, the next sinful behavior is rape. Again, like we said, lust is an inward emotion, but rape is an external action done to another. That's the theft of sexual association that one has the right to engage with.

So you're taking another form of property from someone else, like their life, their well-being, and now their sexual association.

Simple theft, the act of taking something that doesn't belong to you, is the unrightful taking of someone else's property. Again, you're taking something that doesn't belong to you.

Trespass, you're taking security of another being within their living domain, their living space, their rightful property. That's the theft of someone else's security. You're taking something that doesn't belong to you.

Coercion. That's the theft of someone else's free will to make their own decisions in life, so long as their actions are not harming other people. This is what government always advocates for. This is what the supporters of government always advocate for, the taking of someone else's free will when they have not harmed someone else.

Coercion and duress are threats of violence if you don't comply to the commands of another claiming to be the authority over you. That's theft of free will. That's one of the most important ones in the seven deadly sins that unfortunately goes largely unrecognized in our world, and not seen as a sin, and unfortunately condoned by people who consider themselves, people who are saying that they want to follow the laws of the Creator.

And then finally we have deception, the theft of someone else's informed decision-making, because you're giving them false information, misinformation, lies, and willingly doing that, knowing that they're false and misleading, so that someone else makes incorrect decisions.

And that is the commonality between all of the wrongdoings listed. From a logical perspective, they all share one common characteristic. You're taking something, by engaging in those behaviors, you are taking something that does not belong to you rightfully. You are stealing, you are engaging in theft.

Theft is the root of all sin. If theft is not taking place, there is no transgression taking place. And this is a very difficult one for most people to see. It's because they haven't logically thought it through with the trivium process to a great enough extent.

And this is the crux of the entire presentation, folks. Religious people want to say that things are immoral, when, if that behavior has been engaged in and conducted, nothing has been stolen.

One of the examples I always give, even though I don't engage in it, and it's not my preference, homosexuality is a right. To say that someone cannot engage in a consensual behavior with another adult is trying to coerce them against their free will. Whether you like the behavior or not, whether it suits you, whether you find it comfortable or something that is within your preferences, it doesn't matter how you want to word it. It's not somebody doing something harmful to someone else. So it can't be considered immoral.

Immoral means someone's rights are being violated. So, in a consensual sexual act between homogenous beings in gender, how could it be an immoral act?

It's immoral only when it's forced upon another, when it's initiated without consent. If it's consensual between adults, it's a moral behavior, because that's the definition of morality, an action that does not initiate harm against another.

Rape is not simple homosexual behavior. If one man rapes another man, that's rape. If one man rapes a woman, that's rape. If a woman rapes a woman, that's rape. The act is non-consensual. The act is initiating harm against another. That's rape. Any form of consensual sexuality between two people, that's a right.

Religionists can get as upset as they want about that. You're still wrong. The problem is people don't understand the actual breakdown of what moral behavior means versus what it's not. That's the problem.

So since theft is the root of anything that is an immoral behavior, what by definition, from a logical standpoint, must be the root of virtue? The understanding of property.

(00:42:40) Property and its understanding is the root of all virtuous behavior. If we truly understand what we really own versus what we really don't own, most of the violence of the world will go away in the snap of a finger, overnight practically.

This is the problem. People don't understand property and property rights. All rights are property rights. All virtue stems from understanding what our property is versus what it is not.

So ultimately, in the very end analysis, in our rhetoric, we did the grammar stage of the trivium in the first part of the presentation, the logic stage in the middle, and this has to be our rhetoric. This has to define our behavior moving forward if we truly understand what the real seven deadly sins are and what the real transgressions against natural law truly are.

Ultimately learning and applying objective morality and natural law is 100% entirely about understanding what one's rightful property truly is, versus what one's rightful property absolutely and definitively is not.

The understanding of rights all stems from the understanding of property, and that's why the word proper or rightful is in the word property. And the suffix "-ty", etymologically, if you research it, actually means power, true power.

True power stemming from what is right, literally is what the word property means, if you break it down etymologically. Which is why the understanding of words is beautiful, because it helps us to really understand what they mean in spirit.

If we fully understand and value our rightful property, then we will naturally extend that accurate understanding to the property of all other sentient beings. We will not violate their life, we will not violate their rights, we will not violate their freedom, we will not violate their property rights. We will not coerce them, we will not deceive them, we will not steal from them, we will not diminish them.

That is what our rhetoric is to do. Once we understand, we have the grammar in hand, and we understand logically what rights are and what they are not. Our behaviors have to be brought into alignment with them through a full understanding of property. And in doing so, we will then as a species, hopefully, cease to violate the one true law of morality. Don't steal.

Don't take that which does not belong to you to take. Don't condone it when others are doing it. Then we might move into a free and prosperous world based on real justice, based on natural law.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for your kind attention in this presentation, and I'm very proud to have been part of Funnel 3 this year. Have a good one.


Share What on earth is happening (WOEIH) -> transcriptions 4 study

Leave a comment

What on earth is happening (WOEIH) -> transcriptions 4 study
Natural Law and related topics
Mark's videos about natural law, and how natural law is tacitly recognized everywhere, yet ignored in favor of legal. What can be done about the situation to educate the world? And to implement true lawfulness according to the Originator-Creator-Oversoul's natural law(s)?
Listen on
Substack App
RSS Feed
Appears in episode
Dennis promoting Mark Passio