Knowledge of Good and Evil

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Flow, I see your point, but in a society, you can become co-dependent on people you consider "evil" just to be able to survive. So the act of Killing in and of itself may not be "evil" but using it without wisdom is truly the most "evil" act of all. i.e. cain an able story. That act of killing was senseless.
Where as when the children of Isreal killed the inhabitants of the land they were supposed to posses was an act that helped those people realize the covenant betwen GOD and Abraham

Example: If there was a child that had in it's blood the cure for all disease, and the only way to get that cure was to kill that child to harvest it. Would it be "good" or "evil" to kill that child so that others who are dying in large numbers from disease can be cured?

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

Yes. Another popular scenario is, what would you do if a plane had been hijacked and was heading towards a nuclear reactor? Would you shoot it down?

I'm in the minority I know, but I maintain the answer is "no". If killing innocent people is bad when terrorists do it, how can it be good if we do it? Sometimes you have to dig your heels in and say "No this is wrong". I think that's important.

 

[wil]

Yes. Another popular scenario is, what would you do if a plane had been hijacked and was heading towards a nuclear reactor? Would you shoot it down?

I'm in the minority I know, but I maintain the answer is "no". If killing innocent people is bad when terrorists do it, how can it be good if we do it? Sometimes you have to dig your heels in and say "No this is wrong". I think that's important.

hmm vc, 300 passengers on board...30,000 dead, 3 million with radiation sickness if it hits the reactor...by allowing it to hit you can justify that it is the fault of the terrorist?

 

[taijasi]

Yeah, this one would really suck, but I don't care if it's a 747 with double its normal capacity ... it's gotta go down before it hits the nukes!!!

With the child scenario, an old enough kid you could ask. But okay, the kid is 2 years old, of course s/he doesn't want to die. However, consider what the Native American was doing when s/he (presumably he) as a shaman or medicine man offered a prayer to the (spirit of the) plant, before harvesting its leaves, or another vital piece other than fruit. Same thing, higher turn of the spiral.

To object that a plant doesn't have a soul and person does - imho - is not accurate, in my book. The plant has no individual soul, but it's still killing ... the taking of a life! The medicine man knew that! That's why he offered/offers up a prayer, and essentially asks forgiveness for his act of killing. As a vegetarian, I choose my diet not based on the idea that I am doing no harm, but - in part - because I am trying to do the least harm possible. If I could survive entirely on synthetics and be healthy, fine. But ... yuk!

So anyway, it's gonna suck to say this, but ... the question that I think we have to ask is, "What's the greatest possible good for the greatest number?" That will almost always help us with the dilemma of "killing innocents." But it's not just a numbers game. It also involves the quality of life. And not all will agree - but I'd say, there ARE people in this world whose INDIVIDUAL existence IS worth ... I dunno, say - five, ten, FIVE HUNDRED other people's lives?

AH yes! How could I - or anyone - reasonably and rationally, sane and sensibly, compassionately and logically ... say that? Because. If you are familiar with the Buddhist teachings, then you know that one of the greatest possible crimes is to kill an Arhat. Why is that? Well, if you don't get it, I'm not gonna be able to explain it. But it DOES come down to the idea, that some people, with their ONE life(time), manage to do MORE GOOD on/for this planet, than HUNDRED of others - even in TEN lifetimes each!

We might say that's sad, or you might wish to argue it. I'm the LAST person who would want to suggest that "one individual (life) is worth less or more than another" ... and if pressed, I would only be able to readily defer this one to "G-d," for lack of a better way out.

Now if that arhat willingly gives up, or sacrifices his life - as most of them end up doing (such is our way of crucifying our saviours) - then it's different. But to kill such a being (beyond Humanity, after all, arhat's are PAST the human stage) ... is VERY bad karma. To kill a Bodhisattva (Christ), much less a Buddha - ah well, there are stories about the last time that happened. And it wasn't cool.

So anyway, some of these contemplations may seem horrid, and we'd really rather avoid them, wouldn't we? But look - Dietrich Bonnhoffer (right?), that whole plot to kill Hitler thing. I mean, ok, I believe in the Principle too - but to say, "not nohow, not never, NO WAY" - is to miss the point entirely, imo. HOW do we decide, or make the judgment call? Don't go there. Just DON'T. If we ever have to, we'll know what to do ...

(I guess I could have boiled all that down to `situational ethics' - oh well.)

Love & Light,

taijasi

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Anything that coerces me into involuntarlily participating in the death of innocents, whether it is a misguided set of governmental policies for imposing the death penalty, or going to war based upon unjustified and/or mendaciously constructed reasoning, is manipulative and evil. It is an anti-life activity, and in my compendium of life values goes againt G-d's prime directive of choosing life over death, as long as one has that choice.

So eleven-11, I guess I would say that to the extent that government forces me to live this way, the only choice that I can have is not to actively participate in its activities and resist somehow the policies that I have objections to. I believe that this is my personal right and duty as a citizen in a democracy that as part of its foundation professes and upholds my right(s) to do so, although that seems to be open to much doubt and debate these days.

flow....

Flow, thanks for these thoughts. It gives me some idea of how to manage one's thoughts/feelings when one disagrees very strongly with what one's government decides to do.

 

[juantoo3]

Thought I might bump the thread with the most recent challenge, since it went largely unchallenged:

… I realize the inherent problems associated with "labels," it just seems to me that a Christianity without a Divine Messiah is not Christianity. Deism perhaps, as alluded to by both Sir Isaac Newton and Thomas Jefferson, and what seems to me the underlying premise of Freemasonry. But minus the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus, Christianity is hardly a worthwhile, or even separate and distinct, religion. It becomes, as I suggested earlier, either a branch of Judaism begun by a renegade rabbi, or it becomes a Deistic faith acknowledging "our Creator" who endowed us with inalienable rights.

A Christ who is not Divine, is to Christianity as no Christ. Without a Divine Christ, Christianity is no more than a collection of nice little platitudes to sooth hysterical women. There is no meat, there is no substance, there is no hope, there is no promise, there is no sacrifice, there is no resurrection, there is no religion. …Without (*a Divine*) Christ, there is no Christianity. Without Christ, or Christianity, one may as well be either a Jew or a Deist, depending (from my perspective) on how much one enjoys eating pork.
One may call oneself whatever one wishes, but without a Divine Christ there is no Christianity.

 

[Blue Jay]

originally posted by Juantoo3:

Thought I might bump the thread with the most recent challenge, since it went largely unchallenged:

I looked back several posts and I see that you don't accept Taijasi's interpretation so I guess you don't accept any interpretation except traditional orthodox Christian interpretation. That being the case, according to your understanding of Christianity there is no Christianity without a divine Christ. That pretty well closes the door on challenges. What is it you want?

BJ

 

[taijasi]

I looked back several posts and I see that you don't accept Taijasi's interpretation so I guess you don't accept any interpretation except traditional orthodox Christian interpretation. That being the case, according to your understanding of Christianity there is no Christianity without a divine Christ. That pretty well closes the door on challenges. What is it you want?

BJ

Thank you, BJ, I couldn't have said it better. I really don't even need to respond, having read your post now.

I would like to second what you've just said, though. What is it that you're looking for, juantoo3? I don't question a Divine Christ. Nor that Christ was the Jewish Messiah (on which point I am in disagreement with nearly all of orthodox Judaism, though not the spirit or sentiment of reformed Judaism), or the Christian "Saviour," as more current language expresses it.

Where the points of disagreement and difference arise, will have to do with the standard, orthodox interpretation - and certainly the insistence of conservative Christians that Christed Jesus is the only path to Salvation, yadda yadda. OR that Jesus was the first Initiate to arise on the world scene, OR the most advanced (either up to that point, or since). I have a VERY different interpretation of the details of Christianity and Christ's esoteric Teachings.

However, when it comes to the GOSPEL message, which was broadcast plainly for ALL to hear (or so, I would insist, said Christ Himself), the injunction to Love our Neighbor as our self ... is quite clear.

Also, we are asked to Love our God with all our heart, all our mind, all our soul, and all our strength. I have my own understanding and interpretation of what this means, both exoterically and esoterically. Some of this discussion is probably appropriate here, if it becomes relevant and helpful. Some of it belongs on Liberal Christianity. Some on the Esoteric or Mystical forums. And maybe even some on the regular Christian forums.

Again, what is the question?

When it comes to the Christ (Whom and Which I distinguish from the Initiate Jesus), I do believe that we see an Aspect of the Divine Trinity, incarnate for us to behold outwardly ... along with the challenge not to confound the Message with the Messenger, or the Spirit with the form it temporarily took. Some have asserted that this distinction cannot be made. I tend to believe, that to fail to make, one risks idolatry, which is more or less what we see has happened. Those are fairly different viewpoints. Perhaps there's something to discuss there. But again, that belongs under Liberal Christianity.

Here, however, it might be worth mentioning, that I think the Buddha (Shakyamuni) embodied the 3rd Aspect of the Christian Trinity, prior to Christ's Coming. That would be Light, the "Holy Spirit," or Active Intelligence, as esotericists termit. The "3rd Ray."

And upon Christ's Return (imminent, happening now, etc.) ... the 1st Aspect, the Will of the Father, has been opened to Humanity, and our touch with this Divine Center of energy is deepening. Contact was first made, directly, during the final days of WWII. This brought about the triumph of the Allies. And it coincided with Christ's DECISION to make an outward, objective - physical - Reappearance to Humanity at large.

NOW there's something to talk about, IMHO. Again, here????

Shambhala Impacts, as esotericists refer to this contact with the Father's House, are now a part of a regular cycle of Humanity's rapport with God - a cycle of 100 years, with a "high point" and a "low point," like a sine wave. There are four definite points of contact with God, with Shambhala, occurring at quarter-century intervals. These are during the times which the Spiritual Hierarchy has called the Centenary Cycle, but again, only two (or three) regular contacts have been made. The first closed WWII. Since then, 1975, and 2000, have been milestones for Humanity.

Following the 2025 Shambhala Impact, Christ's Reappearance as an outward, objective, established fact ...will fairly well settle, for many people, the question of a "Divine Christ," and answer a good many other questions as well. It will not, I think we'll find, be quite what the conservative Christian is expecting, especially if insistence is made that Christ conform to certain, more narrow interpretations ... of Biblical prophecies (as they've been rehashed, reworked, and pretty well form-fitted to modern-day theology).

Buddhists will know the Christ as Maitreya Bodhisattva (Buddhahood comes a bit later). Muslims will recognize the Imam Mahdi. To Zoroastrians, this is the Saoshyant. Theosophists call Him the World Teacher. Hindus look for Kalki Avatara.

And sectarians, insisting that he fit "the mold," whatever that means, will miss him altogether, sadly enough. Like a thief in the night ....

If there's any interest in discussing any of this, please ask!

This is all what I believe, in broad outline, and I see more evidence of every single thing I've said, than I see of the existence of KANSAS.

So again, discussion of beliefs, here or wherever, appeals to me. If indeed, there is interest ...

(Again, which forum? Is this the right thread?)

Namaskar,

taijasi/andrew

 

[flowperson]

Hello All:

Leave it to Juan to stir the pot and bring old stuff to the surface, Yup...BJ and Taj...what's the point ?

As I pointed out elsewhere on this forum, the concept of divine resurrection is not unique to the Christian divinity. IMHO it is the stories of it all that makes this instance stupendously durable over the millenia. They are much better than the stories regarding Osiris, Atrahasis and other middle east dieties who also fit this format of resurrecting from the dead to rule in spirit. The best myths always win, but keep in mind that cultural myths that last for eons are probably the most reliable forms of cultural truth since they effectively transcend time itself and carry belief into the future for entire civilizations.

Having said all that, there is truth somewhere behind these superb stories, but what the facts may have been are likely lost for all time.

flow....

 

[wil]

This is all what I believe, in broad outline, and I see more evidence of every single thing I've said, than I see of the existence of KANSAS.

tried clicking your heels three times?

Always love your contemplations....where is the book?

I think you should cull now...and start editting, you've written most of it.

 

[earl]

Thank you, BJ, I couldn't have said it better. I really don't even need to respond, having read your post now.

I would like to second what you've just said, though. What is it that you're looking for, juantoo3? I don't question a Divine Christ. Nor that Christ was the Jewish Messiah (on which point I am in disagreement with nearly all of orthodox Judaism, though not the spirit or sentiment of reformed Judaism), or the Christian "Saviour," as more current language expresses it.

Where the points of disagreement and difference arise, will have to do with the standard, orthodox interpretation - and certainly the insistence of conservative Christians that Christed Jesus is the only path to Salvation, yadda yadda. OR that Jesus was the first Initiate to arise on the world scene, OR the most advanced (either up to that point, or since). I have a VERY different interpretation of the details of Christianity and Christ's esoteric Teachings.

However, when it comes to the GOSPEL message, which was broadcast plainly for ALL to hear (or so, I would insist, said Christ Himself), the injunction to Love our Neighbor as our self ... is quite clear.

Also, we are asked to Love our God with all our heart, all our mind, all our soul, and all our strength. I have my own understanding and interpretation of what this means, both exoterically and esoterically. Some of this discussion is probably appropriate here, if it becomes relevant and helpful. Some of it belongs on Liberal Christianity. Some on the Esoteric or Mystical forums. And maybe even some on the regular Christian forums.

Again, what is the question?

When it comes to the Christ (Whom and Which I distinguish from the Initiate Jesus), I do believe that we see an Aspect of the Divine Trinity, incarnate for us to behold outwardly ... along with the challenge not to confound the Message with the Messenger, or the Spirit with the form it temporarily took. Some have asserted that this distinction cannot be made. I tend to believe, that to fail to make, one risks idolatry, which is more or less what we see has happened. Those are fairly different viewpoints. Perhaps there's something to discuss there. But again, that belongs under Liberal Christianity.

Here, however, it might be worth mentioning, that I think the Buddha (Shakyamuni) embodied the 3rd Aspect of the Christian Trinity, prior to Christ's Coming. That would be Light, the "Holy Spirit," or Active Intelligence, as esotericists termit. The "3rd Ray."

And upon Christ's Return (imminent, happening now, etc.) ... the 1st Aspect, the Will of the Father, has been opened to Humanity, and our touch with this Divine Center of energy is deepening. Contact was first made, directly, during the final days of WWII. This brought about the triumph of the Allies. And it coincided with Christ's DECISION to make an outward, objective - physical - Reappearance to Humanity at large.

NOW there's something to talk about, IMHO. Again, here????

Shambhala Impacts, as esotericists refer to this contact with the Father's House, are now a part of a regular cycle of Humanity's rapport with God - a cycle of 100 years, with a "high point" and a "low point," like a sine wave. There are four definite points of contact with God, with Shambhala, occurring at quarter-century intervals. These are during the times which the Spiritual Hierarchy has called the Centenary Cycle, but again, only two (or three) regular contacts have been made. The first closed WWII. Since then, 1975, and 2000, have been milestones for Humanity.

Following the 2025 Shambhala Impact, Christ's Reappearance as an outward, objective, established fact ...will fairly well settle, for many people, the question of a "Divine Christ," and answer a good many other questions as well. It will not, I think we'll find, be quite what the conservative Christian is expecting, especially if insistence is made that Christ conform to certain, more narrow interpretations ... of Biblical prophecies (as they've been rehashed, reworked, and pretty well form-fitted to modern-day theology).

Buddhists will know the Christ as Maitreya Bodhisattva (Buddhahood comes a bit later). Muslims will recognize the Imam Mahdi. To Zoroastrians, this is the Saoshyant. Theosophists call Him the World Teacher. Hindus look for Kalki Avatara.

And sectarians, insisting that he fit "the mold," whatever that means, will miss him altogether, sadly enough. Like a thief in the night ....

If there's any interest in discussing any of this, please ask!

This is all what I believe, in broad outline, and I see more evidence of every single thing I've said, than I see of the existence of KANSAS.

So again, discussion of beliefs, here or wherever, appeals to me. If indeed, there is interest ...

(Again, which forum? Is this the right thread?)

Namaskar,

taijasi/andrew

Hey Andrew, while I typically agree with the spirit/essence of what you say, (though not so sure of your esoteric history/pedictions-that in itself may be confusing the esoteric with the exoteric ), I can assure you Kansas exists. earl

 

[taijasi]

I can assure you Kansas exists. earl

rofl ... shazam! And I was so sure Dorothy had it all backwards!!!

(Now I have to go find the ohhh-weee-ohhh audio file somewhere ... )

 

[flowperson]

I personally prefer the "I'm melting, I'm melting... oh, what a world...." part.

flow....

 

[taijasi]

Oh my goodness! flow, it's been so long since I've seen that movie, I had completely forgotten about the rest of it. I dunno if "what a world" ever registered with me! But what I like, is what comes next:

[FONT=helvetica,][FONT=helvetica,]Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness.
[/FONT][/FONT]​

How do ya like that!

-a

 

[Dr Mallard]

Do you feel it is easier to be evil than good - evil is surely more clear cut?

 

[taijasi]

Do you feel it is easier to be evil than good - evil is surely more clear cut?

Evil is the path of least resistance. I think it's often easier in the short run, but much harder in the long run. It can be the most difficult path of all, in some ways. Both paths are painful, but perhaps in different ways ...

taijasa

 

[Dr Mallard]

Perhaps it is easier being evil because to be evil you have just to do evil acts. To be good demands that you see both the light and the dark paths of each decision you make.

 

[Blue Jay]

Perhaps it is easier being evil because to be evil you have just to do evil acts. To be good demands that you see both the light and the dark paths of each decision you make.

I don't know about that. Just do what is right and decent. No need to figure out the dark and ugly aspects of whatever situation you're in.

 

[Dr Mallard]

Right and decent being a subjective term. What is right may be different for a Palestinian than for an Israeli and each may be equally wrong to the other...... shades of grey all round!

 

[Blue Jay]

Right and decent being a subjective term. What is right may be different for a Palestinian than for an Israeli and each may be equally wrong to the other...... shades of grey all round!

Evil (your term) is a subjective term, too. If you're going to apply the ethics of war to everyday life then I'm out of the debate. After all, blue jays and mallards don't have too much in common beyond being labeled birds by that non-flying four-limbed two-legged species.