Evil or Good, what/who determines?

[themaster]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

What does this mean? Fighting and killing Hitler didn't make him stronger.

Actually it did.. I take it you don't buy into the idea that pushing against something in LOA attracts more of it?

Here's that carl yung quote that seems to hang around some times..
"What you resist, persist. What you fight you get more off"

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by themaster

Actually it did..

Oh, is that why he lost?

I think our fundamental spiritual beliefs are different, Themaster, so we're going to disagree no matter what. But here is my opinion anyway...

Everyday there are examples of people who try to do something, and when someone else resists, the resister wins out. If you want to kill me, but I knock you out instead, then I didn't make you stronger. I controlled you.

If I "push against the idea" of being fat, and decide to instead eat healthy, exercise, and so on... then I don't become fat. I become healthy and fit. LoA states that our thoughts create our reality. What you seem to imply is that LoA creates what we don't want it to -- what we resist against.

Now, I might know what you really mean, of course. Maybe you're thinking, "But LoA states it wouldn't even exist if you didn't think it did!" And if that's what you mean, then yes, I completely disagree with that thought and I find overwhelming evidence against it. The sun would continue to exist, even if I didn't think it did. This is where the word "delusional" comes from. Maybe if you had the mind of Jesus, you could make the sun disappear for all of us, but I don't think you're that powerful.

[LVGeneration]

If a bad thing led to a very good thing? If a very good thing led to a bad thing?
The Big Bang=chaos. Leads to harmony, Earth is born.
Life on Earth. Dinosaurs. Comet strikes = chaos, death. Leads to other species evolving and dinosaurs being extinct. Humans evolve.
Humans become the top of the food chain = survival increases=quality of life increases=earth diversity affected=earth polluted=death to other species=earth overpopulated with humans
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions". How can you tell good apart from bad if you cannot know the ramifications of a single action?

OK, let's say a scientist came up with a pill that cures all human disease, makes you live to be 200, and makes you extra fertile. Everybody is happy and he is proclaimed to be a saint, the best man that ever walked the earth besides Jesus. But 200 years from now, Earth's population increased so much that we are the only species still alive. Chaos everywhere, people starving, no food. To deal with the situation, leaders of the world decide to kill 80% of the population that was starving anyway. 200 years later. Order is restored. Abundance again. The scientist that invented the pill is considered the devil and the leaders that saved the human species are heroes.

Can we really decide what is the ultimate Good or Bad? Of course not. But we have to make standards for our everyday life, just like we have to take time and space and reduce them to something we can understand, like feet and seconds. We have to measure our perceived reality somehow, in order to distinguish it from chaos.

[Parthon]

I make the sun disappear at every sunset for everybody.

Hitler got a lot stronger and more entrenched. He fought against the enemy, and built a large political campaign based off that. He conquered a large portion of Europe. Then he died. His legacy still lives on. People still talk about him today. The war wounds are still there. Without an enemy to fight, would he have been so effective?

In the end, Evil and Good are just words, labels, descriptions. What is labelled Evil by one group is labelled Good by another. Hitler saw the Jews owning all the land of Germany as Evil and persecuted them for it. The Jews saw Hitler as Evil. So who was Evil? Most people would say Hitler, but not all.

So lets take subjectivity out of Evil. Lets create Evil as an objective morality. How would we do that? Take out the personalisation of ebil. Take out the subjective, and create it as an objective agreeable fact.

Evil is: Any action that harms the well-being of another person.
Good is: Any action that helps the well-being of another person.

Okay, I'm done. Lets go have some icecream.

As for LoA, there are millions of people who "fight" obesity, but fail. There are thousands who fight obesity and succeed. Those who succeed mostly concentrate on what actions they have to take in order to overcome it. They chance their diet and exercise. Those that fail mostly concentrate on the results, but take few actions. They do not change their diet or exercise. Is it LoA, or commen sense. Is it thought or action that makes the difference?

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Parthon

I make the sun disappear at every sunset for everybody.

No you don't. I bet half the world can still see it.

Hitler got a lot stronger and more entrenched.

To me, this is because of Hitler's thoughts. He was able to become powerful because not enough people resisted him at first.

Without an enemy to fight, would he have been so effective?

Nope, but we may not have democracy either.

Evil is: Any action that harms the well-being of another person.
Good is: Any action that helps the well-being of another person.

I partially agree. I may try to do something good for you but you may find it harmful. So maybe it has to do with intentions as well.

As for LoA, there are millions of people who "fight" obesity, but fail.

Their thoughts are not aligned with their actions. "Faith without works is dead," or in other words, "thoughts without actions are dead."

[Parthon]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

No you don't. I bet half the world can still see it.

All at the same time? Well, that's much harder. I bet I'll be able to do it in 10 billion years.

To me, this is because of Hitler's thoughts. He was able to become powerful because not enough people resisted him at first.

Very possibly too. I think too many people resisted him intellectually, but took no overt action against him.

Nope, but we may not have democracy either.

True.

I partially agree. I may try to do something good for you but you may find it harmful. So maybe it has to do with intentions as well.

It could do with intentions, but increased wisdom and empathy allows you to align your actions to do more benefit for others. Instead of acting out of your own mindset and causing harm, you act inside thinking of others, and realise what others really need, not what you think they need.

Paraphrasing: The road to evil is paved with good intentions.

Their thoughts are not aligned with their actions. "Faith without works is dead," or in other words, "thoughts without actions are dead."

Yup, spot on. Their actions were unaligned with their thoughts, so they failed. Perhaps even more so: They resisted their obesity so much so that it become an unescapable reality. Instead of doing what works, they try hard to avoid what doesn't work, and that didn't work either. Without a positive direction to aim in, they ended up going in a different negative direction and ended up at square one.

[themaster]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Oh, is that why he lost?

Obviously, you’re saying that only the one most empowered by LOA can win.. in winner and losers scenario there can apparently be only one by definition in reality.. but this truth is both parties are winners

All I'm saying is resistance is empowerment and giving away your power.. there are a ton of individuals on this planet bitching about their representation.. they feel like they’re not "represented" yet in doing this.. there giving their power to the "representative" then taking their power in the reality that is there's..

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I think our fundamental spiritual beliefs are different, Themaster, so we're going to disagree no matter what. But here is my opinion anyway...)

I am not disagreeing with you.. if you feel this conversation does not serve any more I am fine by stopping.. otherwise I will continue..

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Everyday there are examples of people who try to do something, and when someone else resists, the resister wins out. If you want to kill me, but I knock you out instead, then I didn't make you stronger. I controlled you.

Everyday there are examples of people who try to do something, and when someone else resists, the resister wins out.

Okay, hang on this is so broad and base a statement I'm going to have to translate it..

Let's see you said.. there are examples of people who try to let's say convert people to christianity (subject is random for fun.. somewhat ), "hey, you your not invited on my doorstep.. leave", there person leaves and the resistor won.. okay simple enough.. logical and real enough yes.. and a tad bit complicated for me to understand just do to your language..

If you want to kill me, but I knock you out instead, then I didn't make you stronger.

No because I was talking about ideas, thoughts and even some actions.. here's a idea..

We have many organized groups out here that resist shall we say "child molestation" as a subject, LOA states that what you think about persists/is made stronger, won't go away.. and if your part of this group, obviously as part of this we "hate" child molester’s campaign.. you will notice more in your reality, more news of child abductions, child rapists getting accused and generally everything that you engage in this you will get back more info.. per LOA, per thoughts here and per some actions on your part.. to educate the public about how bad they our..

In this way I say that hitler was made stronger by his resistor's.. this doesn't mean he didn't lose the game in this reality's illusion history.. he certainly won the game likely in others.. hence we do have some nice fiction out there about hitler getting away with it

Now let's come back to the action part of this statement which is your basis for belief.. you stated

If you want to kill me, but I knock you out instead, then I didn't make you stronger. I controlled you.

Here's the thing, I'm at a stage with LOA idea/theory/rule set where I don't believe in coincidences.. so it's not a coincidence if I wanted to kill you, which I'm stating here I do not.. You are defining the idea that this is a action based reality that you have no control over anything.. that a child molester/rapist could break into your house (obviously randomly) and make a attempt at any time.. ANY where... this is where I disagree I believe we create our reality, that there are no coincidences therefore for said action to happen.. you would have had to attract it most likely as a victim and I would have to attract it as some kind of anger/revenge act, you be that victim for one reason or another..

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

If I "push against the idea" of being fat, and decide to instead eat healthy, exercise, and so on... then I don't become fat. I become healthy and fit. LoA states that our thoughts create our reality. What you seem to imply is that LoA creates what we don't want it to -- what we resist against.

Once again it's hard for me to understand your argument.. it's like I think for me reading non-sense.. but maybe not.. i will break you argument down to individual sentences in the hope I can translate it to my way of thinking..

If I "push against the idea" of being fat, and decide to instead eat healthy, exercise, and so on... then I don't become fat. I become healthy and fit.

Right and when you subtract the healthy, exercise and son.. you go back to being fat.. cause you believe that was the cause of the fat.. yes I understand this part.. You allow yourself to lose weight cause you believe that you ate healthy, exercise, and so on was the reason.. I will simply remind you, you don't need these reasons.. to do the same act/change..

LoA states that our thoughts create our reality. What you seem to imply is that LoA creates what we don't want it to -- what we resist against.

Absof*ckinglutely.. this is what I've been getting at yes.. don't when you resist; you think about the "what" your resisting???

When you watch the news and you here a "child molester" got nabbed don't you re-enforce that preconceived idea that you already have stated that it is wrong.. that your resist.. (and the news is a example.. a conversation with a friend perhaps.. or watching that terrible show about harassing child molesters)

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Now, I might know what you really mean, of course. Maybe you're thinking, "But LoA states it wouldn't even exist if you didn't think it did!" And if that's what you mean, then yes, I completely disagree with that thought and I find overwhelming evidence against it. The sun would continue to exist, even if I didn't think it did. This is where the word "delusional" comes from. Maybe if you had the mind of Jesus, you could make the sun disappear for all of us, but I don't think you're that powerful.

I wasn't thinking that at all.. the argument mostly sounds nonsensical, so I won’t even address it unless you wish me too..

"Delusional" is a normal reality based idea.. it's a negative term or can be applied that way to say.. his ideas are out of wack.. fine.. it's a also a psychological term and buys into science related ideas that we understand the mind and the people just have conditions..

Here's the real question what's wrong with being "delusional"??

If you believe you’re going to win the lottery or per LOA "everything in my life goes perfectly" according to LOA you get just that.. nothing wrong with being "delusional" period by my definition.. apparently yours is different.. LOA by some in this reality could be described as "delusional"

Maybe if you had the mind of Jesus, you could make the sun disappear for all of us, but I don't think you're that powerful.

Ohh how limited this statement this is.. I believe anything is possible.. notice that I went out of my way to bold believe.. cause I'm saying yes I think your idea above is possible too.. anything less is limiting in this limiting physical reality.. (not that I deny I'm also limited.. but working on being unlimited )

Here's what I think Daffy.. I think you are embracing some very limited ideas in this reality.. you've incorporated them from "others" as we all do.. and now you’re trying to defend them here.. they are indefensible.. as are most ideas of fear.. I am merely trying to show you how to look at it a different way.. but it's up to you, to look or not.. if this long orchestration of text no longer serves the purpose.. let us just let the matter go.. fine by me..

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by themaster

In this way I say that hitler was made stronger by his resistor's..

In that way you just described, I could agree. But ultimately, Hitler lost the war, even if he may have convinced many people to his way of thinking.

You are defining the idea that this is a action based reality that you have no control over anything..

No. I think we have control over many things. I don't think we have control over every thing. I've never met anyone who has control over everything either.

Once again it's hard for me to understand your argument.. it's like I think for me reading non-sense..

I know how you feel.

I will simply remind you, you don't need these reasons.. to do the same act/change..

Are you saying we can eat garbage and using our thoughts alone we can become completely healthy? I disagree. If the people here believed that, I don't think we'd see as many raw foodists.

don't when you resist; you think about the "what" your resisting???

It depends on how you resist.

I wasn't thinking that at all.. the argument mostly sounds nonsensical, so I won’t even address it unless you wish me too..

It seems like you were, based on the quote before this one.

If you believe you’re going to win the lottery or per LOA "everything in my life goes perfectly" according to LOA you get just that..

Not everyone who believes they're going to win the lottery actually wins the lottery. I'm not sure what you mean.

I believe anything is possible..

So do I, but neither of us believe we can do anything. It is my observation that no one does, based on their actions and results.

as are most ideas of fear.. I am merely trying to show you how to look at it a different way..

You call ideas "fear" and I call them "reality." I could just as easily say that your ideas are based on fear. The fear that you can't control everything, for example.

I see people do this frequently, even here. "Oh, your idea is based on fear. You learned it from everyone else." Have you considered that I could have come to these conclusions myself after much thought? Groupthink applies to everyone, including "New Age" beliefs. I'm sure a ton of people believe in something just because Steve does. Or how about, "oh, your ideas are on a lower level than mine." I've seen people say this too. Hell, I might have said things like that before. But these sound to me like words of the self-assuring ego, don't you think?

I appreciate our conversation, but things like this do bore me a bit, because I rarely hear original ideas anymore. You are trying to show me how to look at it a different way. What you might not realize is that I already looked at it your way a long time ago. I just don't believe it's the best way to look at things. At least not for me.

[seeds]

Quote from themaster:

This is where we differ then.. I do think that children come forth to participate in fornication, child murder, rape, war and even partial birth abortion.. and I do think they come forth willing and excitedly for said experience from there original higher perspective..

Quote from themaster:

So as you do you incarnate on this earth you spend a few years here.. you find you have strange feelings towards children.. you repress your sexuality/limit cause it's not moral in this incarnation based on "others" assessments and that just makes it stronger (rules of loa?)

So you attack one of yourselves and you fulfill your needs.. the other self just feels weirded out but is happy to be back with his mom when you’re all done.. then his mum tells him and the police that what that man did was bad.. that it was very wrong.. you obviously don't know why it's wrong..

Originally Posted by themaster

There is nothing to protect, if there is no harm..

Here's a few enlightened ideas for you.. "let those that want to be themselves, bee themselves... and you do the best to be yourself" “Don’t judge others”

themaster,

I am sure that you truly mean well in what you are saying.

But I am not so sure that you have attained any “enlightenment” through your “teachers.” The jury is still out on that one. But let’s assume you have.

The point is there is a huge difference between enlightenment and wisdom.

Enlightenment without the wisdom of how to apply it in certain contextual situations can be misleading and destructive.

With that said, if anyone reading this wants to understand the true meaning of the Biblical phrase, "that spirit of antichrist,” just read some of the posts in this thread.

And that is not a personal indictment against you, themaster (I am not calling you the antichrist, though I'm thinking you might like that ), it is just a general statement regarding the dark implications surrounding certain “new age” concepts, and how they represent the antithesis of the teachings of Christ, especially when it comes to children (see the first quote above).

Anyway, to understand what I'm getting at, let’s apply your reasoning in a broader context:

Souls incarnate on earth and begin having “strange feelings” (your words) of superiority over other races. So they put on some white sheets and silly hoods and begin lynching people. Where’s the harm?

Other souls incarnate and begin having “strange feelings” of superiority over certain ethnic groups. So they put on dictator uniforms and attempt genocide in order to eliminate what they call “sub-human” species.

But according to you, nobody needs to be protected in those situations because there is no actual harm taking place.

According to your doctrine: the humans being lynched or murdered en masse in those scenarios, purposely incarnated in order to experience total denial of their humanity, ending in horrifying deaths through strangulation, gas chambers, torture, cruel experiments, etc.

But all is good in the “upper realms” because all of the above are merely “valid” modes of incarnational experiences, with humans just “being themselves.”

"let those that want to be themselves, bee themselves... and you do the best to be yourself" “Don’t judge others”

Your statements appear to be grounded in the unproven concept of “reincarnation” and have clearly demonstrated the dark side of reincarnation itself.

But if the concept of reincarnation turns out to be wrong, then under a totally false pretense you have just given a “Caesaresque” wave of your hand, imparting to humans an unrestricted "source imbued mandate" to commit any heinous act imaginable, without the slightest suggestion of anything being wrong with that.

It is utterly wrong!

And that is where I differ from you.

Your sibling,

seeds

[wolfgang]

let's not forget what kind of terrible death Jesus had.

forgive them for they know not what they've done.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by seeds

themaster,

I am sure that you truly mean well in what you are saying.

But I am not so sure that you have attained any “enlightenment” through your “teachers.” The jury is still out on that one. But let’s assume you have.

The point is there is a huge difference between enlightenment and wisdom.

Enlightenment without the wisdom of how to apply it in certain contextual situations can be misleading and destructive.

With that said, if anyone reading this wants to understand the true meaning of the Biblical phrase, "that spirit of antichrist,” just read some of the posts in this thread.

And that is not a personal indictment against you, themaster (I am not calling you the antichrist, though I'm thinking you might like that ), it is just a general statement regarding the dark implications surrounding certain “new age” concepts, and how they represent the antithesis of the teachings of Christ, especially when it comes to children (see the first quote above).

I no longer take anything that 'the master' says too seriously. I take his views with a pinch of salt and humour. I made the mistake in an earlier post of taking him seriously and trying to understand his mindset.

His arguments are a general, unstructured, not well thought through, incoherent hotch-potch of various new-age teachings and monism, with a salting of Aleister Crowley's, 'Do what thou wilt' doctrine.

I'm not sure if he even takes his own beliefs seriously. I think he just puts this stuff out for his own amusement and to test the reaction (which he indicated as such in an earlier post).

[Parthon]

seeds: I agree with you there. All that evil stuff that happens is wrong. Very very wrong. Extremely and horribly wrong.

But some people incarnate to witness and experience that wrongness, both on the giving and receiving end. But, that choice doesn't make it right. We, as humans, can still fight that kind of behaviour.

Those souls may have have chosen to incarnate in that place and time, because it's a time when it was happening. They jump on the bandwagon so to speak. In the history of the earth those, perhaps those were devastating lessons that needed to happen in order for the larger mass of humanity to learn from them. Ie: they are not good acts at all, but the wisdom gained by those not involved has improved the rest of humanity.

Most of the problem is the separation between the 'good' people and the 'bad' people, when there is no such thing, there's only good acts and evil acts. Everyone is capable of great good and great evil, but the choice between the two is harder than it looks. Most people who do evil, don't mean to, and most people who do good don't mean to either.

In the end, we are all part of the greater populace that we call humanity. Those trangressions of evil are just humanity hurting itself. Individually humans have not yet gained the wisdom required to rise up out of our separation mindset and embrace the concept of the one whole of humanity. These acts, person against person, are just transgressions of a lack of wisdom, heinous as they may be. I am not encouraging or permitting such acts individually, but I am denouncing the needs to persecute and commit revenge on those involved. In this case, persecution and revengs is just more of the same, is it not?

Right now the acts, and the widespread availablity of their broadcast is needed, in order for humanity to finally stop being such petulant children and rise up and be the beacon of humanity, compassion and morality that we can be.

[themaster]

Originally Posted by Parthon

seeds: I agree with you there. All that evil stuff that happens is wrong. Very very wrong. Extremely and horribly wrong.

Wow, thanks for some backup But at the same time I fundamentally disagree with this statement.. and at the same time I'm going to spin the coin yet again.. and say that my own argument is "invalid" and that "all things are true, that every argument expressed is valid not invalid"

These are my beliefs and ideas and yes I'm still sorting them out.. when I'm done sorting them out.. I will likely no longer be engaging in the "self improvement" phenomena..

Cantando is right to say.. that I am testing my beliefs.. I am testing them on you and I am testing myself.. and yes I've hinted or said it before.. (and they haven't faltered.. though I noticed as usual a propensity to want to brake out a can of whoopass on christian types.. I have belief issues, I'm human.. give me a break )

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I appreciate our conversation, but things like this do bore me a bit, because I rarely hear original ideas anymore. You are trying to show me how to look at it a different way. What you might not realize is that I already looked at it your way a long time ago. I just don't believe it's the best way to look at things. At least not for me.

And no one said it had to be "right" for you.. I respect your right to disagree and see things another way.. for in no way would I ever want to resist you and instead thank you for a beautiful reflection

I think maybe in the future however, you will come to see it my way.. or not.. but that's up to you

I'm not in the mood at the moment to address any of the meat in these arguments.. if I do feel like it I will refresh the thread.. thanks all for this nice interactive text experience

[Parthon]

That's what makes discussion so hard. When people believe their beliefs are right, or should be right, or looking for the right beliefs, when it all doesn't matter.

When I say that evil acts are wrong, it's wrong on the level of humanity, where morality, compassion and integrity come into it. When I say wrong, I purely mean that they are harmful, negative, and humanity would be better off without them. In that sense there is a right and wrong, but I choose not to use those terms. The ideas of 'positive' and 'negative' are far closer to what I would mean.

In the end, beliefs aren't worth the paper they are written on. Doubly so for religious beliefs. The important thing is what those beliefs allow you to do, and allow you to achieve. Beliefs outside of congruent action is just masturbation, it's only when they are applied to your life and allow you to live better, and assist the overall global humanity, do they even matter at all. Someone could have completely incongruent beliefs, but if they allowed them to act in a powerful and beneficial way, then I applaud them for that. Those people who have strong beliefs that allow them to lie, cheat, steal and mooch from the rest of humanity are those I oppose.

[wolfgang]

But can you forgive those that seem to be doing "wrong" while still totally disagreeing with their behavior and letting them be free to be idiots - unless you have any power or influence to keep them from infringing on freedom of others or yourself?

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by themaster

I think maybe in the future however, you will come to see it my way.. or not.. but that's up to you

When people say that, I always hear a hint of "I'm right" in there.

Otherwise, why say it at all? Of course I may adapt your philosophy, and maybe I won't. Maybe you will accept mine! *evil laugh*

[Eric Roosevelt]

Ultimately I think we'll have to determine evil and good through discussion and reaching some type of consensus on any given issue. We can all create individual moral codes, but eventually we'll find that they'll come into conflict with each other in a way that requires us to find common ground.

Such discussions may be complex, and new conflicts will constantly arise (which is a positive thing), but people also often underestimate how much we have in common. We all share a fundamental human identity with each other, including basic physiological mechanisms for feeling pleasure and pain.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Eric Roosevelt

Ultimately I think we'll have to determine evil and good through discussion and reaching some type of consensus on any given issue. We can all create individual moral codes, but eventually we'll find that they'll come into conflict with each other in a way that requires us to find common ground.

Such discussions may be complex, and new conflicts will constantly arise (which is a positive thing), but people also often underestimate how much we have in common. We all share a fundamental human identity with each other, including basic physiological mechanisms for feeling pleasure and pain.

If all we had was to find common ground - we'd never get there. There will always be someone thinking differently than someone else. Better to let people have their views, try to understand them, agree or disagree but respect them - and forgive them for what you might think is wrong. The dark nature of people can't be made wrong - but you don't have to agree with them or try to force them into a different view - everyone must be free (and forgiven).

[Daffy Duck]

Our "common ground" is what become laws of the country. For example, you can not murder.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Our "common ground" is what become laws of the country. For example, you can not murder.

People do murder. It's in the news. We judge them and lock them up. What if it wasn't against the law? Laws seem to point to not trusting the people to govern themselves and maybe having laws to obey make us feel like we can't trust ourselves to do unto others as you'd what them to do around you. Would there be less murder? Can we forgive people that have murdered? I'm just stretching my ideas on this - not saying we should drop all laws and not lock up murderers. After all it's a big infringement on someone else freedom to murder them.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

People do murder. It's in the news. We judge them and lock them up.

Do cats meow too?

What if it wasn't against the law?

People would probably attack and kill the suspected murderer instead, even before they have a trial. I'm not sure though. History buffs -- is there a society that did not have laws? What did they do with a murderer?

I think our current system actually protects murderers to some extent.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Do cats meow too?


People would probably attack and kill the suspected murderer instead, even before they have a trial. I'm not sure though. History buffs -- is there a society that did not have laws? What did they do with a murderer?

I think our current system actually protects murderers to some extent.

yeah cats do meow. Funny I do that - state the completely obvious it's too funny sometimes when people point it out.

So then maybe in lawlessness murder would be less because other would murder the murders.

[themaster]

Originally Posted by Parthon

Those people who have strong beliefs that allow them to lie, cheat, steal and mooch from the rest of humanity are those I oppose.

I still disagree with you.. you may want to read up above (I'm assuming you didn't or maybe you did.. that discussion we had about hitler and LOA) where Daffy admitted I was right

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Otherwise, why say it at all? Of course I may adapt your philosophy, and maybe I won't. Maybe you will accept mine! *evil laugh*

This is quite possible

Originally Posted by Eric Roosevelt

Such discussions may be complex

Yah, but they don't have to be.. if only people could give up ideas of complexity.. they would stop blurring the lines on what good and evil/judgment is..

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Our "common ground" is what become laws of the country. For example, you can not murder.

This is could more clearly be called "common judgment" or "common shared beliefs/definitions"..

You shouldn't try and defend laws either.. you know there’s a law against sex, marrying a white girl over 40, owning a house.. you name it.. there are very silly laws and then there are so *serious* laws which are just as silly.. (IMHO but not the common man obviously) I declare that it's possible our governments may actually/possibly crumble in the next 15-30 years under their own bureaucratic weight..

[Parthon]

Originally Posted by themaster

I still disagree with you.. you may want to read up above (I'm assuming you didn't or maybe you did.. that discussion we had about hitler and LOA) where Daffy admitted I was right

In all honesty, I don't really care whether or not you agree with me. My only thoughts are "Wow, good for you!" What I said earlier: right/wrong/good/bad/yes/no/agree/disagree are all useless in the context of the world. The world doesn't care if you are right or wrong, the difference is in how those beliefs you hold shape your reality and allow you access to your inner power. The reason why I oppose those kinds of people, is because when I can understand them, and connect with them, I can lift them out of their unconscious behaviour and perhaps allow them to gain some wisdom.

Those people that say "Life is just the way it is." or "All beliefs are as valid as each other." are technically correct, but in the real world, they are wimps, unable to put their beliefs into action, or hold impotent beliefs so they don't have to be powerful.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by themaster

I still disagree with you.. you may want to read up above (I'm assuming you didn't or maybe you did.. that discussion we had about hitler and LOA) where Daffy admitted I was right

Where exactly did I "admit" that? LOL

We do agree on certain issues, but I think we have fundamental belief differences (like I said much earlier). You are much more of a moral relativist than I am. I also think you kid yourself a bit. You say you might grow from being locked in a small cage for many years, but I'm 99.9% certain it would drive you insane just like it would to most other humans.

I declare that it's possible our governments may actually/possibly crumble in the next 15-30 years under their own bureaucratic weight..

Very unlikely. People always say those things and they're usually wrong. Many people think the world is going to end in 2012... of course, I'll probably still be laughing about it in 2013.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Parthon

Those people that say "Life is just the way it is." or "All beliefs are as valid as each other." are technically correct, but in the real world, they are wimps, unable to put their beliefs into action, or hold impotent beliefs so they don't have to be powerful.

beliefs are what gives us perceptions. there is no way to not have them operating in your life. who believes something and has no action from the belief? no one. that's what beliefs do - one's behavior is an outcropping of internalized beliefs.

maybe some people are running around wishing they believed a certain thing and it's not doing anything in their life because it's just a concept instead of an actual belief running in them.

[themaster]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Many people think the world is going to end in 2012... of course, I'll probably still be laughing about it in 2013.

Don't get me started on the world is going to end in 2012

Originally Posted by Parthon

In all honesty, I don't really care whether or not you agree with me.

I completely agree with this statement

[seeds]

Originally Posted by Parthon

seeds: I agree with you there. All that evil stuff that happens is wrong. Very very wrong. Extremely and horribly wrong.

But some people incarnate to witness and experience that wrongness, both on the giving and receiving end.

Greetings Parthon, we dance again.

I know your heart is in a good place, however your offensive/defensive posture still originates from the perspective that the concept of reincarnation is actually true. But as I pointed out to themaster, you do not know that for certain, and defending indefensible ideas from such a shaky foundation, just isn't wise.

The eastern concept of reincarnation and the western concept of hell are components of the “old paradigm” that is quickly fading away.

You see, reincarnation is a "supporting pillar" of the eastern religions just as hell is a pillar of the west. And just as the west must "cling tightly" to the concept of hell in order for the religion(s) to have meaning and context, likewise, reincarnation serves the same purpose for the eastern traditions. The point being, they both make sense within the context of the "mythology" in which they reside, however, both are highly suspect when it comes to the truth of "ultimate reality."

I believe that the concept of reincarnation derives its appeal from the fact that it is so easy to grasp. It doesn't require any "mental gymnastics" in trying to visualize the "out-of-body" state. You just keep coming back again and again into an easily comprehended physical body, with no need to give much thought to the actual conditions that form the context of the outer dimension in-between incarnations.

But as you can see from previous arguments, due to the lack of understanding of those "outer conditions," some extremely twisted and dark logic arises (i.e. themaster).

And that same lack of understanding is also what underlies the twisted and dark logic of the concept of hell.

For example:

Imagine a little child dying at the age of three years. Anyone with a tenth of a brain’s worth of “common sense” knows that the child could not possibly be responsible for any thought or deed that would warrant sending her to hell.

So in the mythological context of the “heaven/hell” scenario, it would be a "given" that she would go straight to heaven, right?

(And if any Christian dares to say that because of “original sin,” the child must burn in hell because she did not accept Jesus as her personal savior before she died, I will come through your computer monitor like that little girl in the horror movie, The Ring, and be very unpleasant with you. )

I'm sorry, I can’t help myself; I have to stretch this out a little more:

(Imagine Jesus standing in “judgment day mode” before millions of little children in heaven and telling them: “I’m sorry, but you did not accept me as your personal savior before dying, so I am going to have to torture you for eternity. Stop blubbering and take the punishment you so obviously deserve!") The absolute absurdity of that vision frazzles the mind.

Anyway, the obvious point is that children who die young should be guaranteed heaven -- no ifs, ands, or buts.

Now here comes the dark logic:

If the preceding is true, then it is an unconscionable travesty of fairness and justice that any of us were allowed to live past the age of three years. The death of children would be a cause for celebrating their tremendous "luck" in dying young.

If our eternal destiny teeters so precariously on a demarcation "age line," then the logical choice is clear: have themaster summon up some of his “strange feelings” and kill all the children on earth to end any risk of them needing to be tortured by Jesus. (Attention themaster, this is just a thought experiment, please don't kill the children.)

Of course all human life on earth would soon end, but that would be worth it don’t you think?; to save our little brothers and sisters from an eternity in hell?

You see, that is just one example of the utterly insane logic that emerges from concepts that are founded in nonsense.

And the ultimate point is that when you, Parthon, defend the "dark side" of reincarnation, as you so constantly do, it sounds just as ridiculous to me as someone defending the "child burning in hell" scenario (of which I have actually heard someone of the Christian persuasion do).

It is time for everyone to start thinking outside of the proverbial box.

It is time to let go of reincarnation and hell, and realize that the ultimate truth of our destiny is much more wonderful, much more natural, much more intelligent and, above all, much more "logical" than the silly nonsense that is being extracted from the crumbling pillars of the old religions and presented in this forum.

Your sibling,

seeds

[themaster]

Originally Posted by seeds

I know your heart is in a good place, however your offensive/defensive posture still originates from the perspective that the concept of reincarnation is actually true. But as I pointed out to themaster, you do not know that for certain, and defending indefensible ideas from such a shaky foundation, just isn't wise.

I do know that for certain.. seeds.. I'm going to ask you to defend your position with one simple question.. (maybe two )

Tell me how to not in-validate millions of re-incarnation memories of millions of peoples on this earth without shrugging your shoulders or just saying there crazy?

Take it one step further.. tell me your theory on how to not invalidate these experiences claimed by some people on our planet?
- Alien abductions?
- Bigfoot citings?
- Ghost Sitings?
Since the list goes on and on.. a quickie list then
- Astral Projection, Out of Body Experiences, Remote Viewing, Spoon Bending, the philadelphia experiment

Originally Posted by seeds

But as you can see from previous arguments, due to the lack of understanding of those "outer conditions," some extremely twisted and dark logic arises (i.e. themaster).

I can see how you could define my logic as dark.. negative is what your really saying.. I assume at the time of this writing and probably is true to the case all of my logic was written from a neutral/positive place not from a negative feeling of lack..

Originally Posted by seeds

(And if any Christian dares to say that because of “original sin,” the child must burn in hell because she did not accept Jesus as her personal savior before she died, I will come through your computer monitor like that little girl in the horror movie, The Ring, and be very unpleasant with you. )

I like your imagination

Originally Posted by seeds

It is time to let go of reincarnation and hell, and realize that the ultimate truth of our destiny is much more wonderful, much more natural, much more intelligent and, above all, much more "logical" than the silly nonsense that is being extracted from the crumbling pillars of the old religions and presented in this forum.

I agree with you mostly in this statement.. as long as you’re talking about the idea of not getting too focused on "reincarnation" as such a important understanding or almost a religion in life.. for I would counter that with a simple statement "life is meant to be lived not forever focused on ideas that are likely unimportant"

However, I get lost in your pseudonyms of bad logic and thus can't follow exactly what you’re saying.. nor really care..

[Parthon]

Originally Posted by seeds

Greetings Parthon, we dance again.

I know your heart is in a good place, however your offensive/defensive posture still originates from the perspective that the concept of reincarnation is actually true. But as I pointed out to themaster, you do not know that for certain, and defending indefensible ideas from such a shaky foundation, just isn't wise.

Hi seeds. Isn't thinking you know all about me and my beliefs a little presumptuous of you?

Yes, I do know for certain. No, I don't defend my position, I express my experiences. Everything else is circumstance.

You aren't even conversing with me, but your own beliefs inside yourself. I'm not even here, I'm just a reflection of your doubt. What do *you* really believe seeds?