Greetings,

I borrowed Alan's questions to start a new thread:
Alan said:
''1) Are some people born intrinsically evil?    
(My answer is I am not sure)

2) Most Christian fundamentalist believe we are
all born evil and we all need to be saved from the
fires of hell.  (I do not believe this, Jesus said
“blessed are the little children for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven”)

3) They go as far as to say a new born baby
is born with a sin (the fall of man due to Adams unbelief.)''

What do you think?

Bets

i speak with no knowledge of christianity...but i believe...a person is not born evil....ppl and circumstances make him evil....although exceptions do occur :)

NO.. I don't believe one is born 'evil'.
:)Aras

yeh...ive seen ppl badmouth hitler...but if u see..hitler wasnt a born bad man...his peers and circumstances made him a dictator. :-/

Hi bets I beleive that people are not born evil,i'ts just some are born into evil situations,be it family or war,these circumstances can lead to there upbringing knowing only that violence is the key and not love, as a child in wartorn country,and a violent family upbringing can create a child coming into adolesence and adulthood knowing only pain,violence and evil in their heart and at war inside with those they come into contact with through life, as there is the saying "Evil begets Evil,Some children are saved from there circumstances and some children are not so fortunate to be saved,theres a lot of wrong out there in the world.

Thats probably why when these adult children pass into the spiritworld,then these ones are also saved as there is so much love there ,evil stands no chance.

On the earth plain Evil is fed by the Evil of others,but in the spiritworld Evil is starved of Evil by unconditional love and thats why Evil cannot win because in the end it has to face our divine spirit God who's loving light throws out all darkness.

Love and God bless    love juditha

If we define evil as being opposed to love of people and God, and good as one who expresses love of other people and God, then I do believe that some children are born with evil tendencies.

From my perspective, the soul vibrates at a certain frequency which corresponds to the level of love that soul has attained.  There is a gradual progression of most souls toward love and God, however, some people in "hells" and lower focus levels (in Monroe/Moen speak) are caught up in ego-based nonloving behaviour.  

It seems to me that earth is a unique system in which people of all spiritual levels may incarnate.  As such, it is logical to me that some souls which would be in a lower astral plane or spiritual level may incarnate and be born into a child.

There are many variables once the child is born, but since I believe in the pre-existence of the soul, then I suppose I believe some spiritual beings who are unloving can be born into babies.  

It sounds bizarre, but I guess I do believe in evil babies or bad seeds.   I also believe in their ability to change, and become more loving - a wonderful thing when you see it happen on earth.  

M

  I feel that evil is a manifestation of an errant mind that has been caught up in any one or all of the five passions; being lust, anger, greed, attachment, and vanity.

  The separation of the loving soul from the mind can allow these passions to take over the mind of a person and in the satisfaction of the mind's ego, will cause total disregard for the affects upon other beings making the person seem evil.

  A person who's life is run by a self absorbed mind rather than their soul will not be able to realize that in the eyes of other's they are being evil. The errant mind may actually know that it is being evil and instead be enjoying it.

  I don't believe that God would have created any evil souls and being that the soul stays in the purer realms of existence, it's just a matter of time until the errant mind dissipates and all that's left is the original loving soul.

Sincerely,
Ralph

:) Guess in my (eastern influenced) current view the cycle of death and rebirth doesn't somehow magically change the person's ego/basic tendencies/karma - that's down to life experience/circumstances, self work and intention.

If an individual is very strongly controlled by egotistically driven behaviours in this life, then it's also going to be the case through the afterlife, and into the next life.

The big variable is probably life circumstances - given the that karma (some teach) manifests unpredictably the individual may be born into a situation that more or less causes underlying egotistical tendencies to manifest.

Over a longer picture/multiple cycles the negative karma resulting from this will presumably result in a tendency towards rebirth in less advantageous circumstances - and the deeper one gets enmeshed in karma the harder it seems to get to summon the will to work towards release.

This view essentially holds that there is no objectively existing independent evil - only degrees of entrapment by ego. Which in turn obscures our ability to see from the higher view (we instead perceive them from a low level that casts them as evil and hence fearful individuals undeserving of love) the oneness and lovable/love deserving nature of all - and hence makes it more or less difficult to choose love as the basis of our life.

The other perspective that's important in my book is that karma and tendencies to ego/evil are not the result of some external cosmic system of reward or punishment. They are rather the result of our own beliefs, the creation of our mind.

This is in fact the way mirage of ego sustains itself - we draw on our perhaps heavily suppressed knowledge of what is good to set a standard by which we judge ourselves. The resulting guilt combined with an imagined vengeful God (seen as another self to be feared, rather than an all loving power of which we are a part, one that will not punish and  which anyway sees what we perceive as evil as non-existent) causes us to instinctively retreat from love, and hence further into ego driven beliefs and behaviours that result in 'evil'. This becomes a negative spiral driving us away from God/love/our higher nature.

This is why ACIM for example teaches that forgiveness is the solution (Buddhism teaches the development of compassion, wisdom and equanimity by similar means, most especially compassion towards self) - realisation that this whole belief system is just that, and not real; and therefore capable of being dropped instantly.

The problem is of course to find our way to doing this - ego beliefs make our guilt and fear and all the other perceptions that strengthen ego and thus make self forgiveness very difficult.

It's taught that it's not possible except with the help of higher mind/the Holy Spirit and right intention....

Hi Bets,
I'm very happy about the answer you gave on number 2.

In a way, yes, we are born into evil (though it's a bit hard that word), just because we incarnate into a body; this way, it's the name of the game that we're swimming in muddy waters. It's a game, and when we know that, we can focus on what is really important and joyous. You used/interpreted a bible text in a way I like.

Spooky

When I first saw the topic I thought maybe you were going to talk about hot tattoed Babes with, uh, cartoon figures out on the prowl... ;D

Born evil and born in sin might not be equivalent....

one of Sylvia Brown's books discusses people who reincarnate without an interim period of reflection. Some of the descriptions of these people sound to me like they fall toward the evil category. They keep repeating because they refuse to reflect in between lives.

One book I read years ago and was written decades ago, so had a slightly different perspective, included a statement from a woman who claimed she could tell the character of a baby right after it was born Something was  stamped on the face. This something seemed to fade away after a day or two or something like that. I think in order to see that sort of thing, she must have been like a midwife in what we would call a small town in a time when babies were born at home. Still, I thought it was an interesting statement.

Sin is often defined as separation from God. How is evil defined? Some people do seem to have the intent to have power over others  and to do harm.

I had something happen to me that made me feel like the people involved were evil. Of course, I was very enraged and not everyone would agree with tme that this was evil. But I found that I wanted to say they were evil  because what happened to me brought me to a place of great darkness and despair. My definition of evil at that point was not based in words but in the experience itself. I still have trouble finding the words to describe "evil."

But maybe I kid myself when I think I understand what is meant by "separation from God." If evil has such a particular feel, then what does 'not separated from God' feel like?

http://www.dailymotion.com/related/x21oka/video/x12vmb_suzanne-vega-luka-1987_music

born evil?
no

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_disabilities

If you read through the complete article it will explain why a human (and animals) are born evil.  Read the whole thing--- cat

I wrote back on a blog that there are many physical factors that will casuse a human being to be prone to a particular personality. That is why we have profilers. By checking a person's genes, we are able to determine what that person is pron to become as s/he developes. Sometime, with the proper education and medications, the "evil" is avoided. We are all born pure. We have a decision BEFORE we carnate to the human form as to which factors we will accept for our personalities. ---cat

The link is informative, cat.

In my mind, mental disability is one thing...and 'evil' is another. I don't use the word 'evil' because, from my perspective, its use could be interpreted to demean others, so, to me, it is an overly open term. I hear it as a verbally abusive term, when applied to a living being, and there are many other terms which I consider verbally abusive.

Now, I do not accuse anyone here of verbally abusing anyone else. I simply continue to point at the word 'evil' to express my discomfort. I must be careful to distinguish between actions or events which I consider harmful -- and human beings. The actions may be in error, -- in which case, the causes of pain and suffering can be identified, and better understood, but even the use of words such as 'insane' can be misapplied, from my perspective.

I do not make these remarks with the intention of denying or minimising the effects of the kinds of differences that exist in this world, the tragedies, the difficulties, but simply as a caution. If I use a term such as 'evil' it is likely that my mind will attach negative emotions to that term. That, in itself, attaches a burden to my interpretation of a given situation.

Do I need that emotional burden attached to a given situation? I choose what I carry with me, so I say no to that burden.

However, there may be a person who has a real need to use such a term from time to time, simply to vent, to express an enormous frustration with events beyond his/her control. From time to time I believe people can have a need to express frustration, to give themselves permission to use emotionally laden words. I won't judge that, and it's not my place to do so. In such a case, I might choose to leave that particular room briefly, if it is in my presence.

'Evil' is sometimes defined as doing wrong when knowing that it is wrong. i.e. a definite (although probably not necessarily conscious) and deliberate decision to head down a path as opposed inadvertent or unwise error.

This for me is a more satisfactory definition than some. It places it back in the realm of mind, and also suggests that absolute (a person completely incapable of good) or independently existing evil is not possible - in that you can't know something is wrong unless you also know what is 'good' or loving.

It also allows for the possibility that 'ignorance' (in the Budhist sense of not knowing what is wrong as a result of a lack of wisdom or correct teaching) is also a cause of wrong.

By this definition 'evil' is nothing much to do with the magnitude of the harm done despite our tendency to feel that this is the case - because the magnitude of the harm is a lot to do with the perception and situation of the other, and because in the end this 'reality' is not for real...

Uh-oh--
:-[
:-[

so if I don't pay attention to my conscience because I decided it was too strict, or that it overcompensated with excessive guilt
---  or whatever reason, -- then I did evil,?
because I knew that whatever bit I tried to get away with was wrong ??!

I guess that seems true because I cannot judge the ramifications of whatever bit I did wrong. Maybe that 'little' bit went on and bit someone else much more seriously, etc.

Hmmmm.  :-?

If this reality is not for real and that nullifies evil, then maybe all we ought to discuss is how to get to a personal realization that reality is not real.

Bets, do we need to define evil to discuss this? Does it have to be decided on a case-to-case basis?

I posted a link to a radio interview
(see here: http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1238099289)
that mentions among other things that monks who have been tortured re-experience the trauma in meditation. (A problem with w professional meditator). The investigator has studied victims of torture and published his results. He mentions that people who make a business of performing torture read his work so they can perfect their techniques and minimalize leaving evidence of their deeds. That's being pretty conscious of what one is doing. Anyone here think using information designed to help people in a way that further harms them evil? (Some of the folks who help in torture are medical people).

Then there's the Magdalyn Laundries, that old Irish Institution for wayward females. It looks to me like a form of slavery. But apparently there were those who sincerely thought they were saving these women's souls. So, is what they did putting people in the laundries evil or not?

Are puupy mills evil? They certainly do unnecesary damage. Nightline says they are common in certain Amish/Mennonite communities, where dogs are considered to be a form of livestock. One of the negatives not mentioned is the absurdity of producing more puppies when there are so many unwanted dogs put down every day in this country. Of course, that would make stupidity evil.

So first we have to define evil, but I'm starting to think that thing Hannah Arendt said about evil...that it is banal...might be close to true. At least it seems to be ubiquitous.


Now we get to decide if babies are born evil. Maybe the only way to tell this is to find the folks who perpetrate this kind of thing...oh, did I mention I think it would be nice to do this experiment OBE. So we need some highly controlled OBE folks...go to the moment when those folks were born and "see" if they look evil, or have that look of evil in their faces. (I reraly wish we could do this).

Then there's the question of what would you do with a baby if you knew it had evil in its heart when it was born and it was still ababy. Wouldn't it be nice to knw how to rediate enough PUL that you could at least protect yourself, if not change the baby for the better.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child,
I understood as a child, I thought as a child:
but when I became a man, I put away
childish things. For now we see through a
glass, darkly; but then face to face: now
I know in part; but then shall I know even
as also I am known."   Cor 13 v11

The meditator who has practiced all the way through their trauma (in reality or in memory) can heal. It is in how you frame the experience, and if you can take your experience and find a way to be grateful for your knowledge, because it enhances your understanding of life. There are many types of suffering, but pain is simply pain. There is really no reason to define pain, unless there is something to be learned from it. In my mind, pain is something to experience and release. Now, the physical body will always remember it. And that is how it should be. Without the ability to remember, where would we be? Those who are strong enough to tell their story will always be needed in this world.

So, in meditation, one can learn to observe. One can learn to observe oneself and others, and this is a very useful skill to have. In this way, one can be in the midst of great trauma, and yet be well-trained in useful observance. It is important to tell others, when you can.

It's complicated territory Bets (as you know) in that it's not just a matter of always blindly following your 'conscience', because what you take to be your conscience may be 'wrong'.

As in if we had a pure line to Spirit, then we'd 'know' 100% what was right/wrong or more to the point loving. But equally when we achieve that we'll presumably be realised. Meaning that we'll know experientially that this reality is a false invention of ego, and will no longer continue to create and sustain it, and so separation/individuality/fear and all they entail will end.

So we have the parallel problem (as we perceive it through an ego informed filter) of progressively developing those attributes that enable us to 'know' or see from Spirit - compassion, wisdom, equanimity and so on.

Meditation being one central tool (the altered 'view' which follows taking good teaching on board being another, along with self enquiry and properly used life experience) to creation of the mind space necessary to reveal these which are said to be inherent in us all, but buried beneath the mental static created by ego.

My personal experience of meditation is that it does precisely that. As one becomes more relaxed and centred, there can be quite spectacular events in terms of opening of the heart, development of emotional sensitivity, strengthening of intuition, and the dropping of much of the fear that leads to aggressive behaviours. It can be tough for periods, in that this opening (dropping of suppression and projection) brings one face to face with some very painful stuff, but over time there's a parallel development of a sense of joy, and the ability to cope always runs ahead.

So most of us get mixed messages - bits of knowing/insight mixed with ego urges. Which is how for example the Spanish Inquisition could justify a massive campaign of torture in order to 'save' souls, why the Pope could launch the Crusades, why religions in general (and none are immune) keep getting sucked into the wordly power and riches game. Why the fundamentalist tendency is likewise often ready to justify extreme measures.  

The rose tinted, 'nicey nicey' version of what passes for 'love' is the other extreme - indulgence worsens the position of others, but the individual feels good about them self.

Buddhism talks of the problem as 'obscuration', ACIM makes the distinction between 'knowledge' (love based reality as seen by Spirit) and  'perception' . (the fear and aggression based unreality created by ego by projection of faults on to others, and suppression of knowing - although indeed this entire time/space reality is said to be the work of the collective ego)

Setting oneself up as being spiritually superior to another must be the ego using religion to aggrandise oneself. To paraphrase ACIM  - we are all sons of God, all equally loved and loving. The perception that some are less deserving than others is the result of the projection by ego of our own faults on others - it causes us to perceive our own faults in them, and so we are provided with reason to fear them.

The Holy Spirit/higher mind it's said adjudicates between the wholly separate realms of Spirit  and ego, and ensures the feed of guidance and insight we need. Which we of course can experience in any number of forms. We may of course not be listening though, or may be intent on using it for selfish ends.

ACIM Lucy teaches precisely that we should think more about how to transcend this reality, and to not waste our effort on trying to understand how it ( :D 'egoworld') works - because it's in the end an incoherent and irrational system.

Buddhism does teach 'rules for living' in the Hinayana - not because it's all that real, but because while we are bound by our belief in this reality we need to avoid escalating our suffering to the point where the self work required for escape becomes impossible. Undisciplined behaviour not only causes suffering for others, we also risk digging ourselves so deeply into karmic debt that escape becomes the task of many many lifetimes.

When you stop being led by conditioning, and start to look carefully at the assumptions underlying ego thought it doesn't add up. How for example can happiness follow from an attitude where everybody tries to get ahead at the expense of everybody else?