Ezra

[Nick_A]

Hi cOda

Now this really gets interesting. It is a shame that more aren't willing to contemplate these things but I'm happy that you are.

The assumption you are making is that the "new man" of Christianity believes in an "inner objective morality"... This is simply not true. This is even clear from the words of the Bible that you yourself quoted: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." Nothing about an objective inner morality here, in fact, the exact opposite.

Yes Man is asleep in Plato's Cave. It is through grace that he becomes aware of it. Man cannot awaken and follow the illumination back to the source without grace. Remember the Ninth Wave painting. The survivors were offered help by the light which connected to the source that leads to freedom.

I believe that Plato is right on this.

20th WCP: Plato's Concept Of Justice: An Analysis

Plato realizes that all theories propounded by Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, contained one common element. That one common element was that all the them treated justice as something external "an accomplishment, an importation, or a convention, they have, none of them carried it into the soul or considered it in the place of its habitation." Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment. It is in this way that Plato condemned the position taken by Glaucon that justice is something which is external. According to Plato, it is internal as it resides in the human soul. "It is now regarded as an inward grace and its understanding is shown to involve a study of the inner man." It is, therefore, natural and no artificial. It is therefore, not born of fear of the weak but of the longing of the human soul to do a duty according to its nature.

We are ruled by our personality which connects the soul to the external world. It has become perverted into egotism. Morality is considered an aspect of our personality described differently by Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon. Plato sees inner morality as an innate understanding of the soul. Its inner knowledge comes from God.
Inner morality then is the direct experience of the soul which we are incapable of. Our conditioning is too strong so it is perverted.

Also, to go further, the idea of "inner objective morality" is itself is a fallacy. Consider the classic Kantian arguments against this idea. Man can never realize "objective inner morality" because such an idea would be transcendent, and thus, by definition, out the grasp of the mind of man.

I would agree that objective morality is beyond the limitations of man in the world at the exoteric level. However if the soul exists and is directly nourished by grace, there is no reason that it doesn't have an innate knowledge of inner objective morality.

My argument is that only God is aware of "objective morality" because only His perspective is objective. Why? Because only He has the authority to define objectivity. For example: Jesus PBUH only knew what morality was, because God told him what it was. Not because Jesus PBUH somehow discovered it himself through some innate reasoning abilities. Read on:

It isn't a matter of defining objectivity since objectivity is existence itself Our personalities can only experience subjectively. What we then accept as subjective morality is only a devolved expression of objective morality leading to mixed results as you know in the stoning of the young girl for example.

My contention is not with the idea that transcendent levels of reality exist. Abraham PBUH "arrived" at the conclusion that there is One God, through applying basic logic and reason (forget for a moment that I believe that even this level of freedom must be taken in a deterministic world view). But the question is this: Can it be stated that he or any other human being has ever achieved a state of "objective inner morality" through use of some innate logic or reasoning ability? In my view, no. Morality, is only moral in relation to God's definition of it. The commandment: Thou Shalt Not Steal... is only "moral" because God commanded it so. Not because of any objective value judgment on the act of stealing that man can make. Atheists believe such truth-statements can be reasoned by man himself. But I believe this is not possible because real life makes issuing these value-judgments complicated.

But the commandments not only have an external exoteric meaning in the world but also an esoteric inner meaning for the growth of our being. Thou shalt not steal also means not believing that understanding comes from you rather than from higher consciousness.

Not taking the name of God in vain isn't because God gets insulted but when spiritually powerful words are received wrongly and in negative parts of our psych, they lose their potential as an awakening tool. It is us that lose something important and not God being insulted.
Jesus healed on the Sabbath and the Pharisees became annoyed. If the purpose of the law is to acquire the good, we must see that it is foolish to follow a law when it deprives us of the good. It may be against the law to pass a red light but if you're driving a friend to the hospital at 3:00AM and pass a red light when no traffic is around, it is against the law but a moral good. Is this a slippery sloap? Of course but I believe Man can acquire wisdom where the law and the good are balanced.

My argument is that man stands in need for his morality to be defined for him. And the only source of truly objective information, in relation to God's judgment, is God's own revelation. And since this source is today available in its purest form only in the Quran, therefore one should make it the basis for all journeys on the path of progress. This is why, I reject the concept of trinity, because it is rejected in the Quran, plain and simple.

My argument is that Man can become more in touch with the soul that is really what we have in us that can be nourished by God and has innate knowledge of objective morality. To understand God we must allow the seed of the soul to grow as it was designed to do rather than be unnaturally suppressed by our acquired conditioned personalities which are proficient at perverting scripture.

A fascinating difference in perspectives.

 

[c0de]

Hey Nick

Now this really gets interesting. It is a shame that more aren't willing to contemplate these things but I'm happy that you are.

I doubt this is interesting for most people.

Yes Man is asleep in Plato's Cave. It is through grace that he becomes aware of it. Man cannot awaken and follow the illumination back to the source without grace. Remember the Ninth Wave painting. The survivors were offered help by the light which connected to the source that leads to freedom.

I believe that Plato is right on this.

20th WCP: Plato's Concept Of Justice: An Analysis

Yes.... But this does not deal with my objection to your argument that you were wrong in using that verse from the bible in supporting your viewpoint on inner objective morality.

We are ruled by our personality which connects the soul to the external world. It has become perverted into egotism.

This is not a valid statement. As you have not qualified/defined the terms "personality" or "soul". The truth is Nick, you can not define what the term "soul" means... as that would require an objective/Divine viewpoint. And this term has been left undefined by God. So you can not hypothesize on the subject without being subjective.

Morality is considered an aspect of our personality described differently by Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon.

Plato sees inner morality as an innate understanding of the soul. Its inner knowledge comes from God.

No such innate understanding exists.

Inner morality then is the direct experience of the soul which we are incapable of. Our conditioning is too strong so it is perverted.

It has nothing to do with conditioning. The term has been left undefined by God. This is why it is ambiguous and no one can know what it is, until it is defined by God.

I would agree that objective morality is beyond the limitations of man in the world at the exoteric level. However if the soul exists and is directly nourished by grace, there is no reason that it doesn't have an innate knowledge of inner objective morality.

... You can not even define the word "soul", you do not even know what it is. Yet you somehow think you can use it to reach "inner objective morality".... which, by the way, you just admitted is beyond your grasp to begin with?

It isn't a matter of defining objectivity since objectivity is existence itself

Ambiguous statement.

What we then accept as subjective morality is only a devolved expression of objective morality leading to mixed results as you know in the stoning of the young girl for example.

There is no such thing as "subjective morality". There is Morality, and the lack thereof.

But the commandments not only have an external exoteric meaning in the world but also an esoteric inner meaning for the growth of our being. Thou shalt not steal also means not believing that understanding comes from you rather than from higher consciousness.

Not taking the name of God in vain isn't because God gets insulted but when spiritually powerful words are received wrongly and in negative parts of our psych, they lose their potential as an awakening tool. It is us that lose something important and not God being insulted.

Jesus healed on the Sabbath and the Pharisees became annoyed. If the purpose of the law is to acquire the good, we must see that it is foolish to follow a law when it deprives us of the good. It may be against the law to pass a red light but if you're driving a friend to the hospital at 3:00AM and pass a red light when no traffic is around, it is against the law but a moral good. Is this a slippery sloap? Of course but I believe Man can acquire wisdom where the law and the good are balanced.

This entire passage rests on this last statement. However, this statement depends on the definition of the word "good"... Well Nick... "Good".... is whatever God defines it as. So you are back to where you started. The whole "objective inner morality" concept becomes superfluous.

My argument is that Man can become more in touch with the soul that is really what we have in us that can be nourished by God and has innate knowledge of objective morality. To understand God we must allow the seed of the soul to grow as it was designed to do rather than be unnaturally suppressed by our acquired conditioned personalities which are proficient at perverting scripture.

I would argue that the way you are using scripture to justify your notions of "inner objective morality" itself warrants careful scrutiny.

A fascinating difference in perspectives.

Indeed

 

[Nick_A]

Hi cOde

Yes.... But this does not deal with my objection to your argument that you were wrong in using that verse from the bible in supporting your viewpoint on inner objective morality.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— " Nothing about an objective inner morality here, in fact, the exact opposite.

Inner morality is a potential for evolved man or the "New Man" Sleeping humanity is not aware of this vertical psychological connection with the above that comes to some through grace. Inner morality is not programmed but rather natural for Man at a certain level of inner development. It is not an intellectual awareness as much as an emotional awareness.

At our level of fallen man we can do nothing. It is through grace that the inner direction comes to our awareness that leads to awakening and freedom.

Also, to go further, the idea of "inner objective morality" is itself is a fallacy. Consider the classic Kantian arguments against this idea. Man can never realize "objective inner morality" because such an idea would be transcendent, and thus, by definition, out the grasp of the mind of man.

Quite true. We are not our evolutionary potential so inner morality is impossible for us. But that is not to say it is not natural for the New Man.

My argument is that only God is aware of "objective morality" because only His perspective is objective. Why? Because only He has the authority to define objectivity. For example: Jesus PBUH only knew what morality was, because God told him what it was. Not because Jesus PBUH somehow discovered it himself through some innate reasoning abilities. Read on:

It isn't a choice. God doesn't decide what is objective and what is subjective. Objectivity is what exists. Subjectivity includes our interpretations. The closer we are to awakening, the closer we are to objective morality that already exists. The Ten commandments was written for sleeping humanity and not for the New Man.

Well, no. Because actual morality, is only moral in relation to God's definition of it. The commandment: Thou Shalt Not Steal... is only "moral" because God commanded it so. Not because of any objective value judgment on the act of stealing that man can make. Atheists believe such truth-statements can be reasoned by man himself. But I believe this is not possible because real life makes issuing these value-judgments complicated.

Here we disagree. This commandment has both an inner and external meaning. we all know the external meaning but the inner meaning is not to assume your own knowledge as the source of higher awareness. We cannot "steal" it but must admit the source.

External morality comes into being only because of our lack of inner understanding. The danger is that people themselves try to interpret morality which can lead to the greatest societal horrors. The person on the esoteric path seeks the experience of inner morality that replaces the "Law" with the good of the Law through an acquired higher level of being and consequent understanding.

Hence, result in an ends justify the means approach, or a compromise with morality out of necessity. But even that is not the problem, the problem is the slipperiness of the slope on which man now stands, if such methods apply.

This must be. it is part of the cyclical nature of society. The alternative is a slave state. Simone cautions against it and I agree:

"To set up as a standard of public morality a notion which can neither be defined nor conceived is to open the door to every kind of tyranny." Simone Weil

It will always lead to tyranny because the potential for understanding is destroyed in favor of blind obedience.

My argument is that man stands in need for his morality to be defined for him. And the only source of truly objective information, in relation to God's judgment, is God's own revelation. And since this source is today available in its purest form only in the Quran, therefore one should make it the basis for all journeys on the path of progress. This is why, I reject the concept of trinity, because it is rejected in the Quran, plain and simple.

No, Man needs to awaken and help from above is what is needed rather then societal domination. Unfortunately we've sunk so far IMO that a society based on sound principles that aid in

awakening is no longer possible. The domination of the Great Beast is too strong.

I could never reject a concept like the Trinity because of the Quran. The Trinity has allowed me to understand what would be impossible without it and is essential for appreciating the creation of cosmological levels of reality.

You reject it because you believe the Quran does. For this broad shouldered Aries male, that sort of dogma doesn't fly. I'm a chess player. I enjoy the logic of the position. I don't need a personal God to tell me but rather need to psychologically grow to understand what is now impossible but normal for a being worthy of the word Man and participate in true human meaning and purpose.

 

[c0de]

Welcome back Nick

Quite true. We are not our evolutionary potential so inner morality is impossible for us. But that is not to say it is not natural for the New Man.

It seems you have forgotten the progress of our discourse.
I challenged the very existence of this "new man" of yours.

You were trying to convince me that this point can be reached
by man trying to realize an "inner objective morality"....

I then rejected the "objectivity" of any "inner morality".

God doesn't decide what is objective and what is subjective. Objectivity is what exists.

This is a circular argument. It is therefore invalid.
You have not taken into consideration the fact that
it is God, who gives everything its existence.

And since God is the only all-knowing Being there is,
there is only one conclusion which follows:
God's subjectivity, is the only real objectivity.
Therefore, God does indeed define what is objective.

From the same token, it also follows that there is no
"inner objective morality" for any "new man". Because there
is no morality outside of God's definition of it.

For this broad shouldered Aries male, that sort of dogma doesn't fly. I'm a chess player. I enjoy the logic of the position. I don't need a personal God to tell me but rather need to psychologically grow to understand what is now impossible but normal for a being worthy of the word Man and participate in true human meaning and purpose.

You have your own dogma Nick. One that you try to preach here
all the time. You think this dogma of yours is liberating, but you have
not yet proven any foundation for it.

 

[Nick_A]

I agree that the New Man is not provable. There is no way sleeping man can comprehend awakened Man. However we can conclude that the old man is burdened with imagination to the extent that it is simultaneously capable of the greatest compassion and greatest horrors. We accept mechanical evolution up to a point. Is it so much of a stretch to consider its continuance as conscious evolution?

We can learn through simple attempts at self knowledge that consciousness is relative in ourselves. The question becomes if conscious humanity would be capable of the same horrors. I don't believe so. I believe that Man's evolution is the evolution of consciousness and will which includes the natural experience of inner morality. The Great Beast is as it is since it is not conscious and is governed by desire rather then will as an expression of consciousness.

The idea of Man's evolution into a new quality of being is an old one and I know it from esoteric Christianity.

Esoteric Christianity

Movement Away from the Authentic Teachings of Jesus
After Jesus' death, those who understood the genuine teaching of Jesus recognized him as one of a long line of savants within the Perennial Tradition 2--such as Hermes and Plato--who initiated chosen disciples into a mystical rebirth of the soul into a Higher Consciousness.

Each Perennialist teacher interpreted the fundamental message about spiritual regeneration in terms of the needs of the people during their age. So we have the Hermetic teachings during the time of Hermes Trismegistus, the Mystery teachings during the days of Egypt and Greece, Platonism during the time of Plato, Neo-Platonism during the time of Plotinus--each an embodiment of the Perennial Tradition. The genuine, hidden teachings of Jesus--Esoteric Christianity--is one of those embodiments.


Can I prove it to you? No. But the idea of a conscious universe structured upon levels of reality and Man's conscious place within it makes a great deal of sense. Christianity refers to man's possible awakening as illustrated in the many Bible excepts quoted at the beginning of the article. I believe that this drive to evolve is part of our search for the experience of "meaning" as something beyond societal responsibilities. All a person can do is to partake in the efforts to inwardly grow. The more one does, the more the door opens.

This is a circular argument. It is therefore invalid.
You have not taken into consideration the fact that
it is God, who gives everything its existence.

And since God is the only all-knowing Being there is,
there is only one conclusion which follows:
God's subjectivity, is the only real objectivity.
Therefore, God does indeed define what is objective.

From the same token, it also follows that there is no
"inner objective morality" for any "new man". Because there
is no morality outside of God's definition of it.

But the point is that God by definition is objectivity. Subjective interpretations are creations of Man. The Bible or the Quran must be initially written in a subjective manner since the objective truths are beyond our comprehension. We lack the quality of consciousness to experience them. Inner morality is God's truth. We are programmed for human interpretations of subjective morality which varies from culture to culture normal for sleeping humanity.

You have your own dogma Nick. One that you try to preach here
all the time. You think this dogma of yours is liberating, but you have
not yet proven any foundation for it.

There is no dogma in esoteric Christianity. One must verify everything or it has no value. Societal conditioning is concerned with its conception of right and wrong. A person interested in esoteric Christianity is concerned with how to become able "to be." The concern is for what we do in the higher context of what we are.

We should not think that holiness is based on what we do but rather on what we are, ... -Meister Eckhart

Again, these things cannot be proven. If a person feels an inner calling they pursue it for themselves. We see that we are the "wretched man" as described by Paul in Romans 7 so speaking of what to do is naive if what we are prevents any long term change accept through a slave state.

 

[c0de]

@ Nick

But the point is that God by definition is objectivity.

You have no choice but to admit that Nick.
And it is this point which proves that your entire
argument rests on a fallacy. Observe:

The Bible or the Quran must be initially written in a subjective manner since the objective truths are beyond our comprehension.

Once again, you forget that I believe the Quran to be
the direct word of God. So unlike you, I have no dilemma
in my guidance. My guidance comes from an objective source.
You have to try and invent inner objective morality, but
you can not do that without employing circularity, which
makes your position invalid.

 

[Nick_A]

@ Nick



You have no choice but to admit that Nick.
And it is this point which proves that your entire
argument rests on a fallacy. Observe:




Once again, you forget that I believe the Quran to be
the direct word of God. So unlike you, I have no dilemma
in my guidance. My guidance comes from an objective source.
You have to try and invent inner objective morality, but
you can not do that without employing circularity, which
makes your position invalid.

You have no choice but to admit that Nick.
And it is this point which proves that your entire
argument rests on a fallacy. Observe:

It is only the impossible that is possible for God. He has given over the possible to the mechanics of matter and the autonomy of his creatures. Simone Weil

She has this way of depicting the very profound in this picturesque manor. The point is that God as the source is outside time and space. God's will is represented as creation within time and space. The manifestations of God's will is objective. Our interpretations are subjective.

Once again, you forget that I believe the Quran to be
the direct word of God. So unlike you, I have no dilemma
in my guidance. My guidance comes from an objective source.
You have to try and invent inner objective morality, but
you can not do that without employing circularity, which
makes your position invalid.

Word God has a different meaning for me and refers to a quality of vibration. Words are composed of letters and in ancient times letters were connected to vibrational quality. Sacred text has a way of communicating a quality of vibration that serves as an awakening influence for our being.

it seems to me that our basic difference is that you believe in a personal God concerned with Man on earth and I believe that Man's essential importance in the universal context occurs when Man becomes a conscious being serving a conscious purpose that establishes the God/Man relationship. From this perspective, Man's necessity is to awaken. From the perspective of a personal God it seems that the primary objective is doing what we are told and not offend this supreme deity.

 

[c0de]

From this perspective, Man's necessity is to awaken. From the perspective of a personal God it seems that the primary objective is doing what we are told and not offend this supreme deity.

Your criticism of the reality of a personal God is not
going to fix the fallacy in your own argument Nick.

 

[Nick_A]

Your criticism of the reality of a personal God is not
going to fix the fallacy in your own argument Nick.

I just don't see a fallacy. As sleeping humanity we cannot have access to the inner qualities awakened man is capable of including the experience of inner morality or the ability to love without being aroused from an external source. Granted I cannot prove conscious evolution leading to awakened humanity as a reality so you are free to reject it and believe in the dictates of a personal God.

 

[c0de]

I just don't see a fallacy.

That is because you do not want to see a fallacy.

You tried to contradict my objection that: God defines objectivity.
You failed in that attempt Nick. The only reason why you choose
to carry on with your paradigm is because of a deep attachment to it.
You say you are an avid chess player and appreciate logic,
Well, in chess, such an attachment to a piece is usually fatal.

 

[Nick_A]

That is because you do not want to see a fallacy.

You tried to contradict my objection that: God defines objectivity.
You failed in that attempt Nick. The only reason why you choose
to carry on with your paradigm is because of a deep attachment to it.
You say you are an avid chess player and appreciate logic,
Well, in chess, such an attachment to a piece is usually fatal.

It is you that doesn't want to discriminate between defining objectivity and creating it. Consider Genesis 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

From a secular perspective this is madness but not so when read psychologically. The light is the objective good. Is this a definition or a description of an expression of God's will? Notice how the darkness isn't bad.
A chess player of any decent strength is not attached to a piece but rather to variations and this can be fatal. Attachment to variations doesn't allow the player to see the forest for the trees.

 

[c0de]

It is you that doesn't want to discriminate between defining objectivity and creating it.

The One who creates objectivity, defines objectivity.
You can try any variation you wan't Nick, it won't help.

 

[Nick_A]

The One who creates objectivity, defines objectivity.
You can try any variation you wan't Nick, it won't help.

If one defines objectivity they are separate from it. Objectivity in this sense is the process of the expression of God's will which existed within God as potential outside of time and space. The good in this case is a direct affirmation and not a definition.

 

[c0de]

If one defines objectivity they are separate from it.

These are your words from post #65:
"God by definition is objectivity"

Circles Nick... round and round you go.

 

[Nick_A]

These are your words from post #65:
"God by definition is objectivity"

Circles Nick... round and round you go.

You are trying to catch me in circles to the point of imagining a contradiction. Is it more important to imagine oneself "right" at the expense of the big picture then just trying to be open to it with impartiality?

Objective reality is what exists without interpretations. It is consciousness without content. Subjective reality is how it expresses itself within a universal structure and experienced by life within the universe.

God the Father is objective or consciousness without content. The universe is structured on degrees of lesser levels of conscious perfection compensated for by an increasing amount of mechanical laws. The light is good because it is a process at the beginning of creation initiated by the three aspects of God or theTrinity.

God doesn't define objectivity or God which is incomprehensible for us but demonstrates its devolution into creation by means of universal laws which we can experience as beauty for example.

 

[c0de]

........The universe is structured on degrees of lesser levels of conscious perfection compensated for by an increasing amount of mechanical laws.

....God which is incomprehensible for us but demonstrates its devolution into creation by means of universal laws which we can experience as beauty for example.

I don't have a problem with such theories. What I do have
a problem with is the manner in which you are trying to use
them to justify your conclusions, which do not follow from
your argument. Refer to the debate between Liebniz and Newton.
Your arguing for Leibniz's position, against Newton's.

God doesn't define objectivity

Again, you have taken the circular route.
Let me remind you what happened last time:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:

God doesn't decide what is objective and what is subjective. Objectivity is what exists.

This is a circular argument. It is therefore invalid.
You have not taken into consideration the fact that
it is God, who gives everything its existence.

And since God is the only all-knowing Being there is,
there is only one conclusion which follows:
God's subjectivity, is the only real objectivity.
Therefore, God does indeed define what is objective.

From the same token, it also follows that there is no
"inner objective morality" for any "new man". Because there
is no morality outside of God's definition of it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Nick_A]

cOde

This is a circular argument. It is therefore invalid.
You have not taken into consideration the fact that
it is God, who gives everything its existence.

And since God is the only all-knowing Being there is,
there is only one conclusion which follows:
God's subjectivity, is the only real objectivity.
Therefore, God does indeed define what is objective.

You are assuming an argument where it doesn't exist. Objectivity is what exists without interpretation. the act of interpreting is subjectivity. God doesn't interpret but rather affirms. There is no reason to define that which truly exists. Universal experience is by definition subjective. The experience of objectivity for us is the conscious experience of God's will manifesting as creation. Our normal subjectivity doesn't allow it since we exist in contradiction and hypocrisy. for this reason we cannot appreciate God's will from a more conscious human perspective and rightly participate in universal purpose. Human meaning and purpose for us becomes defined by the Great Beast and its existence upon one cosmological level of reality or the earth. We cannot appreciate that Man's conscious purpose is in connecting two levels of reality known biblically as heaven and earth. We do so now only in our imagination.

From the same token, it also follows that there is no
"inner objective morality" for any "new man". Because there
is no morality outside of God's definition of it.

Inner morality is what is natural for evolved humanity and corresponds with the balance between God's will and divine love. The problem we have is that we are fallen creatures and representatives of the Beast interpret it and try to enforce it which can only result in harm. You appear to define morality as external actions and I appreciate inner morality as a latent inner quality which can manifest through awakening but impossible for sleeping humanity.

 

[c0de]

Inner morality is what is natural for evolved humanity.

... No, I am sorry Nick. It isn't.

Not only can you never prove it,
without employing circularity, it
contradicts the Quran, and I am
sure it contradicts the Bible.

 

[Nick_A]

... No, I am sorry Nick. It isn't.

Not only can you never prove it,
without employing circularity, it
contradicts the Quran, and I am
sure it contradicts the Bible.

Re-birth or a life for a life would be meaningless if it diodn't lead to freedom from imagination and bondage to the earth which opens us to the experience of inner morality.

John 12

23Jesus replied, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. 25The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.

The choice is to rule in hell or to serve in heaven. The life of the Beast consists of many rulers for its domain. A small minority have the need to leave Plato's cave from an inner calling to greater human meaning and purpose beyond the dictates of the Beast. Such understanding can only come through that which includes inner morality.

 

[c0de]

We both look at the same verse and see a different message.

I do not accept your views, but to each his own.