Proof of sinful awarepaths

Proof of sinful awarepaths can also be restated as "Proof of sinful awarepaths existing in every or almost every ixperiencitness grouping" is not a proof that there is sin, it is a proof that once sin is defined as some action or thought every ixperiencitness grouping will contain sinful potential awarepaths that can be made actual. One of the proofs goes like this: after defining the sin as an action or thought the awarepoint on an awarepath can be located where the sin is supposed to be created. At this point on the awarepath any sensepath can be applied to get the desired "sinful" behavior or thought. If the sinful behavior or though can not be created applying any sensepath then the awarepoint can be changed to a different point on the awarepath. If this does not work for any awarepoint on the awarepath then the actual internapath can be directly tweeted to create the resulting (desired) undesirable behavior or thought. The awarepath does not have to contain any awareness of this manipulation to cause it to be sinful thus it can believe that it is responsible for the sin by way of it own volition or free will. When we consider each full spectrum of potential consciousnesses that has the same ixperiencitness there will be many awarepaths within this awarecontinuum that believe that they are sinful, based on may different definitions of sinful that they believe in or are told to believe in.

What relevance does this concepts have for religions or other belief systems in general? There may be reasons to want to create some ixperiencitness groupings over others. But religions or other belief systems that think that there can be ixperiencitness groupings that are sin free (using their definition of sin) are likely wrong.

Because sin can be defined in many different ways it is much easier to show for an ixperiencitness grouping of awarepaths than when sin is narrowly defined.

The concept of sin and its influence on going to heaven or hell as created by religions becomes much more complicated when considering the ixperiencitness concept. It would appear that every ixperiencitness grouping would have awarepaths that would be evil enough to deserve going to hell but also the grouping would contain also saintly awarepaths that would deserve going to heaven. Since punishing one or more awarepaths in an ixperiencitness grouping is like punishing all how is it fair to punish the good awarepaths as well as the bad?

For punishment to be fair or just the one being punished should have the ixperiencitness of the wrong doer. If not then the one bing punished is not the same ixperson as the one that maybe should be punished. For punishment to actually occur for a conscious being (human) there has to potentially exist one or more awarepaths that contain the punishing experiences. If these awarepaths do not potentially exist they can not later actually exist. Luckily for those who believe in punishment of others there are many hellish awarepaths that can be created for each ixperiencitness. Proof of existence of hellish awarepaths for each different ixperiencitness.