Sin = Guilt
The notion of “sin,” original or not, is at once the linchpin and leitmotiv of Lucifer transformed into jesus through Mary, his bible book and the pair’s common product of christianity. Sheared of sin, both producer and product instantaneously dematerialise through denaturation, no matter how hard the votaries of sin might try to prop them up, all three having been suddenly turned into the likeness of a tree denuded of its root. That eventuality, in other words the demise of sin, is indeed well noticed, if not dreaded, by their most representative expositors. Sin being thus the basis of christianity, we are concerned here with the whys and wherefores of this aberrant concept by which it has sought to hold man in its grip, in order to undo him eventually—through repentance everlasting.
Based on the assumed authority of the bible, christians prescriptively post the notion of “original sin” as the keystone of their faith. In the subconscious of man, which can hardly discriminate between real and the imaginary, the christian sin, being imaginary, would in point of fact be fatal—from creating alienation from environment or reality. The christian theologian Soren Kierkegaard is a typical example. In psychiatry, such alienation is considered a diseased condition in which the individual suffering becomes prone to self-annihilation. This kind of struggle is constantly going on in every christian, unconsciously if not consciously, and varyingly as to its degree in accordance with the individual’s genetic, racial and ancestral mores and modes of his personal involvement with christianity. In extreme cases, self-annihilation is unavoidable. It is this sin that we propose to delete from the annals of consciousness and of mankind itself, with the instrument of correct knowledge.
This sin has been intentionally transfused into the consciousness of man—importantly, the consciousness of a particular scriptural segment of the race—by a malevolent being, the real original sinner, whose seeming ascendance and potency devolve from his unipolar intelligence, motivated and pitted against man from the moment of his fall from goodness, the true original sin, and from his relatively advanced application of genetics. His ultimate motive was negation of man’s pursuit and acquisition of correct knowledge of “God” as perfection of goodness, thereby to monopolise the deepest part of his consciousness, the part vital for his actions and consequently for his existence.
The authentic firsthand citations and observations of Mary of Agreda, which are autonomous to christianity, on the one hand place the origination of sin at a site earlier and different from the so-called garden,  and on the other appropriately identify the original sinner differently from man in Adam, as scriptural christianity claims—as “the prince of that (same) assembly.”
On account of its complexion, as original, the sin above is integral with, and inseparable from, its originator. Therefore, the being and the consciousness that carries the underived sphotam of sin at genesis 4:7, and exerts itself verbally to discharge it upon man, is the same “prince of sin” as above.
The reader has seen in the previous chapter the enumerated first entry under sin in the bible book, where the sin issues alone from the consciousness of jehovah, in words avowedly spoken by him to Cain. Here below is the same passage in full:
A) “If you had done the right thing, you would be smiling; but because you have done evil, sin is crouching at your door. It wants to rule you, but you must overcome it.”—Good news bible, p.7.
However the same verse in the importantly attested Knox bible goes as follows:
B) “If thy actions are good, canst thou doubt they will be rewarded? If not, canst thou doubt that guilt, thenceforward, will lie at thy door? Meanwhile he (Abel) is at thy mercy, and thou canst have thy way with him.” —p.3.
The entire bible book being underived and the text titled and couched as “genesis” being the bottommost compartment of the same aspect, “sin” and “guilt” in A & B above are interchangeable. Secondly, they are expressly personified by the speaker. Thirdly, they lie in a crouching state of inertia when and until so personified.
Unless acted upon by an external force, they would interminably so remain in inertia in, with, and alone with, its first and only spokesman above. The statement, “it wants to rule you,” is how he elementally personifies sin/guilt – specifically too, by naming them “it” – so that he can apply on it with the force he needs to start it on motion, “it” embracing the sense of a person in lexicographic definition. By the expression “wants” he acts on the personified guilt/sin and puts it in motion.
As a figure of speech, personification is used for its appeal to the imagination. Therefore, the “lord’s” figurative expression constitutes a direct suggestion to Cain’s imagination to admit to the guilt for the dead body of Abel—and inevitably therefrom, by the christian interchangeability thereof (by way of B & A above), the Sin.
The lord himself had done Abel to death just before for this very purpose of confronting Cain with the body, so that seeing the visual proof he would admit himself to the killing, and to the guilt/sin thereof. The lord killed Abel also from impulsion of his singular and distinguishing trait of superabundant infliction of those who go out their way—as did Abel, by reason of suggestion on the part of Lucifer—to serve him phenomenally.
As for Cain, his act of assault in the direction of Abel with no attendant, nor intended, manhandling was directly contrived by the lord by mutating the rage gene intrinsic in him as man into the luciferian gene of anger, the very gene that activates the killing of a biological brother, as the scriptures of India do tell us.  Therefore, when sanctimoniously confronted by the actual assassin, viz., jehovah, with the corpse of Abel in the form of his lifeblood, Cain relates it with his own act of assault, and instantly admits himself to the killing. This is how sin and guilt came to be in consciousness and in its history.
Now to relate it graphically. The gravitational fall of Lucifer, alias jesus, is ascribed in the primitive christian memory to his intolerance of man.  Afterwards, he vows uncaused vengeance against man at his council held in the innermost regions of the netherworld. He bides time until he finds Moses. Through the subliminally moving fingers of Moses, he begins executing the plan, the resultant book, viz., genesis, constituting the execution of the plan until the time point of Mary and her uterine son in all its essential elements.
All characters at this primary level of execution—Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Ismail, this last the gene of Islam—are either archetypal or even primordial, Adam and Eve belonging to the latter category, both being essential for producing Cain and Abel, Which remains their prime function as far as the plan is concerned.
Using the obscure proper name of “Canithi,” which is dropped in all versions save one, Eve lets Cain understand that he is sired by Lucifer. Acting on the suggestion, Cain offers an innocent sacrifice of crops to his sworn begetter. From the beginning Lucifer had very consistently and very characteristically exerted to excite the rage gene in Cain, even at the risk of endangering himself, by expressed favouritism towards Abel and partiality against Cain, presently culminating in the stonewalling of Cain’s sacrifice. The stonewalling by the self-affecting god works, according to agenda, as a suggestion to Abel to follow with a different sacrifice.
Attuned as it is to its lying founder, historical christianity lyingly claims in text and illustrations that the sacrifices of Cain and Abel were offered independently of each other, but both at the some moment. However, their own book attests to the contrary from recording Abel’s act by a separate verse and division, following the recording of Cain’s: “And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.”—genesis 4:3-4.
Enraged against the god for exerting to instal the gene of discord between Cain and his brother, Cain was about to kill the god in retaliation. His face frowned against the god, as the god admits, in fear: “What does this frowning face of thine mean?” This is the point where Lucifer, as much in deadly fear of man as from malignancy towards him, mutates the rage gene into anger by this one malevolent, lying statement in the direction of Cain. “What does THIS anger mean?” The narrative on the other hand identifies Cain’s vibration at and up to this moment as “rage.”  These are two different genes, “rage” being Sanskrit “rabhas,” meaning violence, and “anger” Greek “anchein,” meaning strangulation (see Webster’s, pp.946, 43). Since both swing equally but from different sources, the former from man and the latter from Lucifer, towards the common territory of violence, it is always possible to mutate rage into anger by suggestion upon the unconscious of the subject.This triggers the tooltip
And this is what Lucifer does by enunciating the word “this“—which means “what has just been mentioned,” viz., rage—to point to “rage” at the moment the sense breaks in his consciousness and in a simultaneous movement in the same consciousness, but recorded as his next expression, actually mutated into anger in the direction of the consciousness of Cain. Impelled now by the anger gene thus charged into his consciousness, Cain deploys the resulting rage-anger conglomerate against Abel—but still only in the form of assault, with no manhandling—exactly as programmed by Lucifer to deflect Cain’s deadly wrath from himself and, equally, to bring the sin into motion in the direction of man, from its inertial and exclusive existence in Lucifer, alias jesus. Abel runs away in fright. On the way, the waiting Lucifer kills him by strangulation—and the blood spills to the ground—and leaves the body to be seen by Cain as if by accident the next morning. Upon thus seeing the body, Cain is overpowered by guilt, which pursues him afterwards.
Let us go back to the very beginning. Having put Adam in induced coma, Lucifer proceeds to make Eve professedly from a piece of his skeleton. But he does not wake him up once the deed is done—Evidence no. 1. Here is the relevant part of the narrative: “This rib, which he had taken out of Adam, the lord god formed into a woman; and when he brought her to Adam, Adam said, Here, at last, is bone that comes from mine.”
The italicised particles, particularly the semicolon after “woman,” manifest the occurrence of respite after Eve is professedly formed and the point when she is brought before Adam. The question is: What was Lucifer doing to Eve during the respite? The answer will be Evidence 2. Again the answer is obliviously provided by Hindu scriptures, which consistently reflect a conceptual awareness of Lucifer. Just as consistently they stop short of specific recognition of his existence in consciousness history. This feature so abiding and noteworthy in the Sanskrit scriptures stems from the realistic history of consciousness, filled as it was, and as it still is in India, with the gene of goodness, to the complete exclusion of sin, prior to interpolation of the same by Lucifer, alias jesus, through the so-called chosen mankind, and subsequently by Peter and his crew to this day. 
Accordingly, the Sanskrit scriptures list eight prepossessions of Lucifer, calling each one a penchant, or raaga. The first of these penchants, and the foremost if we follow the gradation, is sexuality, which in the case of Lucifer expresses in the form of fornication with married women or with young lasses, as we know from his book. 
(A fine distinction between sex and sexuality is maintained both in the Sanskrit scriptures and in the Sanskrit literature emanating from the same scriptural basis. For example, Kalidasa positively acknowledges the relevance of sex in one’s youth. In the scriptures, the rishis reduce all the eight luciferian penchants in the same gradation to the level of man, but appropriately call them instead of raagas the eight calamities of man, ashtakashtangal. As for sex, distinguished from sexuality, the same rishis list it among the four objectives of existence (Purushaartha), with pursuit of goodness, or dharma, as the first and foremast, followed by artham, acquisition of wealth, then kamam, sex, and finally moksham, salvation.
Apart from sexuality, which is designated indivisibly as kamam in both listings, both in goals of existence and luciferian raagas, the distinctive luciferian penchants are krodham [anger], lobham [covetousness], moham [greed] madham [delusion], maalsaryam [contentiousness], dambham [vaingloriousness] and asooya [envy].)
Evidence 3 is the testimony of Eve after she gave birth to Cain: “I have gotten a man-child by the lord.” The text varies from version to version and no two texts agree. But words reflecting the activity of Lucifer in the conception run uniformly through them all, along with the absence of any allusion just therein in those meaningful utterances to the share of Adam in the act. In the above, the word by, which means “sired or fathered by” (Webster’s, pp. 150 & 1077), constitutes that positive common thread. Other texts of the same passage are as follows, with emphasis placed in each one on the link words/word:
“She called her child Cain, as if she would say, Canithi, I have been enriched by the lord with a man-child;”
“I have produced a man with the aid of jehovah;”
“By the lord’s help I have acquired a son;”
“I have gotten a man through god;”
“I have gotten a man from the lord;”
In the entire bible book, Lucifer has to do personally with three other females—Sarah, Elizabeth, Mary—before he got himself transformed into a pseudo-mammalian,  absolutely the only such, from the last-named. Each one is feminine biological category by herself, the first from advanced age, the second from infertility, and the third with none of these disabilities, and of the age of 14. All three are either married or ritually married, with spouses alive in every case. In all three cases, subsequent reports by the females concerned importantly correspond with the report of Eve, in sensual particulars universally alluding to their physical involvement with Lucifer rather than, and in the case of Elizabeth along with,  that was intimated to Zacharias in all secrecy when he lives in a different place from her. Since Zacharias is still dumb at this time, she learnt the name from the “Lord” who, says she in the meantime, “visited” her “at his own time” and “did this” for her—to take away her “reproach among men” for barrenness. Since Zacharias regains his speech after Elizabeth’s delivery, as announced before by Gabriel, he is co-begetter of John along with the christian god.) their spouses. Sarah after the birth of Isaac: “God has made me laugh for joy.” Elizabeth to Mary upon sighting her very soon after Mary came to be pregnant and six months after Elizabeth herself came to be so, as accurately reckoned by Gabriel: “How have I deserved to be thus visited by the mother of my Lord” (mate).
Since lord is capitalised, since it was thus pronounced earlier by Elizabeth while explicitly referring to his deeds as her mate (see Luke 1:25), and since the word means husband in the first place, it here refers to jehovah in his function as Elizabeth’s mate. Elizabeth’s words referring to Mary as mother of her mate demonstrate that her mate, who is six months earlier had jointly impregnated her, is now in Mary’s womb. Therefore, Mary’s uterine son jesus is at the same time her mate too.
(Shakespeare uses the word in the same composite sense, capitalised as well as uncapitalised in a single context, typically as spoken by the dying Desdemona—Othello: Act 5, scene 2, lines 85-90, 125-130.)
And finally the words uttered by Mary: “”My spirit has found joy in god. He has done valiantly with the strength of his arm.”
As far as the strangulatory spilling of Abel’s blood is concerned, there does exist an exact but unconscious analogue in the Hindu scripture Mahabharatham, the rishi no doubt being well aware of the fall but not taking the heed of the subsequent rebellion. The scene features the strangulation of Keechakan by Bheeman for attempted misbehaviour to his spouse Draupadi with the patronage of his (Keechakan’s) sister, which she, “afraid,” dutifully reports to Bheeman. On his instruction a trap is laid by her, and Keechakan is strangled by Bheeman hiding in the rendezvous, blood spilling to the earth as he dies writhing there, the same as Abel’s after he is strangled by Lucifer, alias jehovah. (Facing a similar decision while with the procurer Gabriel,  instead of reporting to her spouse Joseph, Mary, although initially “afraid” as Malini [alter name of Draupadi] was, responds affirmatively—and is forthwith impregnated,  allegedly by a so-called holy ghost.)
The so-called jehovah does mention the blood spilled to the earth. And this is also corroborated by the etymos of anger, which is specified as the same strangulation, as we saw.
Since all scripture is couched in transcendent, as distinct from historical, language, and unfurled in timeless, typifying situations (with the special proviso that starting form the so-called gospels and in the subsequent books of the so-called new testament immediately accruing from them, John’s final book excepted, the dominant strain is historical), the blood of Abel that Lucifer exhibits before Cain with the determinant “this” (“What is this thou hast done? The blood of thy brother has found a voice that cries out to me from the ground”), symbolises the body of Abel.
So here now is Cain, who typifies man in scripture, Lucifer’s scripture to wit, but scripture nonetheless, admitting to the guilt when confronted with the body of Abel whom he had assaulted before by force of the rage-anger conglomerate engineered in him by Lucifer and who had in consequence fled from sight. Just before, i.e., before the body was displayed, Cain had realistically disclaimed about Abel’s whereabouts when Lucifer was contriving on him, unsuspected, in exact fashion the sequence culminating in the guilt admission. (“Where is thy brother Abel? I cannot tell, said he [Cain]; is it for me to keep watch over my brother? But the answer came, What is this thou hast done?”—Knox bible.)
Lucifer works further on Cain, now suddenly turned miserable before the spectacle of the body. He, Lucifer, alias jehovah, alias jesus, presently flashbacks to details of the manner in which he had strangled Abel with his hands—as does Bheeman to Keechakan in Mahabharatham— transcribing  “my hand,” however, as “thy hand.”—Knox bible, p.4. This is followed right away with hopeless deprivation of his trade, in order to summon up in Cain the ultimate anxiety of loss of livelihood, which is termed “aamayam” (fumes exuding unbeknown from consciousness) in the Sanskrit scriptures: “Henceforward thou shalt be an outlaw from this ground, that has opened to drink in thy brother’s blood. Till that ground, and it will yield thee its fruit no longer.”—ibid.
Confronted now with the body and the loss of his livelihood in diabolically formulated perpetuity, Cain admits to the guilt for the assassination of Abel by the so-called jesus, alter ego of Lucifer, and applies to the same murderer for forgiveness: “Guilt like mine is like too great to find forgiveness. And now thou art robbing me of the ground.”—genesis 4:13-14.
The “guilt” above is suppressed in all other versions of the selfsame text, and supplanted with sin, translated therein as “iniquity,” which is synonymous with “sin,” both in works of lexicography and the bible book.
Thus, the genesis of sin in consciousness is coterminous with the genesis of guilt. And the genesis of guilt is by way of transposition on man of the first murder, done by the so-called god of the christianity. A murder emanating from his dominant proclivity of superabundant affliction of those who serve him at all phenomenally. And its transposition achieved fraudulently by exhibition of the corpus, by privation of man’s means of sustenance, viz., land, and finally by exploitation of his agreeableness, his innocence, and his biological filial ties.
This is why guilt is defined as “feelings of culpability, especially for imagined offences” (Webster’s, p.506), and the christian sin, a figment from the same guilt, as “transgression of the law of the god.”—ibid., p.1075. Moreover, since sin and guilt are interchangeable, the distinctive characteristic of the one is also the distinctive character of the other. The distinctive character of guilt being its irredeemablity by reason of its subjective nature, so is the christian sin irredeemable. Therefore, the jesus emerging from Mary and positioning himself obtrusively as redeemer is in reality a pseudo-redeemer, thus the very antitype of redemption or salvation, and the christianity sourced from him a pseudo-religion, in fact the very antithesis of religion. In short, both are the enemy of man, from implanting an irredeemable—and therefore, suicidal—guilt in consciousness. This is why Isaiah calls for the physical extermination of both from history and from consciousness: “Make ready, you men, a slaughtering block for the sons of this king because of the sins of their forefathers, that they may not rise up and actually take possession of the earth and fill the face of the productive land with cities.”—Isaiah 14:21.