This is an essay that I have finished but this is just part of it. if you want to read the whole thing you'll have to go to http://my-big-toe.com discussion board.

For the Entertainment of GOD

Perhaps the meaning of life is not so complicated as trying to reach a form of enlightenment or to pay homage to a self proclaimed god. Perhaps it is as simple as theatrical entertainment that ultimately evolves each actor within the worldly play of life. Many will take issue with this idea, I’m sure, but if we give this examination I feel we can find some definite meaning in such an analogy.

For years we’ve been taught that morality, for one, can lead to enlightenment. But can immorality lead to it as well. What if our lives are about entertaining the God of All instead of obeying. The ones who obey are still entertaining, but the ones who choose not to obey (in the eyes of this god, anyway) are just as entertaining and thus their learning will lead to enlightenment as well. At a glance this seems to be rather selfish to think of the people we label as “horrible” as having some redeemable presence in the world, but upon further scrutiny I think it may just be so.

Some will say I am merely making a case for avoiding the “True” path of which they are certainly walking, however, I think my interpretation of enlightenment easily makes as much or more sense. Yes, striving to overcome obstacles to spirituality may increase our awareness of “being good”. Yet without the “bad” the good has no actual meaning. There would be no drama. The bad ones are as integral a part of the quest for enlightenment as the good. Like actors in a play on the stage we serve two purposes: 1. To learn about a character and 2. to entertain an audience. We are all part of that audience. “Bad” people and “bad” situations scare us. These can even scare the bad people, but without them there is no frame of reference for the good. To say this is moral relativism is one way of passing judgment on the premise, but is it true?

What a boring world it would be without contrast. If we are aware we are acting here then nothing should keep us from pursuing our own destinies. There are those who follow the golden rule and those who choose to avoid it. In this place we punish the ones who avoid it and even sometimes punish them when they haven’t broken this rule, but that is the flaw of law. There does seem to be a standard for enlightened behavior, but this I must bring into question, especially if we are all actually acting on this world stage. We all have our part to play and it could just be that once we have shed this mortal coil of a body we remember exactly who and what we are, just as an actor exiting the stage becomes a much more complete person upon entering the “green room” off stage and then returning to the larger world outside the world of the stage.

Awareness becomes key here. IF I am aware of my true intent as the actor it may be quite different from my intent as the character. I create an entertainment within my life because of the juxtaposition of “good” and “bad” within my own life just as these qualities create the same within the world as a whole. One is not better than the other as far the entertainment is concerned. Each becomes its own expression that will hold the attention of the larger consciousness where we all exist together in a kind of harmony. As an actor graduates to a new level of enlightenment he may venture beyond this physical world stage never to return or to indeed return as a teacher of how to advance to these other stages, but this person then becomes part of the drama as they set up the very obstacles that can be overcome by the others. Even they do not have the market cornered on right and wrong. The very idea that they are taking the side of “the good path” causes the drama to excel as others make attempts to live according to another’s wishes and perceptions.
Does this mean hurting and killing people is permissible. Not really, as it has to be viewed as “bad” to keep the drama alive, but from this worldly perspective it is impossible to know if the character has done the killing or the actor knowingly is breaking the golden rule of “do no harm”.

When one is working on a stage in the physical plane the actor must do this according to certain rules or he will be dismissed. Fights are not REAL fights, they are staged. Perhaps what seems a real fight on our planet is known to be unreal, or at least should be, when viewed from the larger reality that houses our world but also exists well beyond it. This knowledge it seems to me is key to true enlightenment. Once I know I am in a play. I have the choice to follow my instinctual direction that may well come from a point outside physical reality or I can go it on my own as an actor who becomes something of a renegade, but then taking the chance that the source of my direction, the director, will reject what I have done and send me back to square one. But just maybe I will surprise the director and carry the entertainment in a new and interesting direction.

Here we come upon the notions of good, evil, and balanced behavior. Good excludes bad. Bad excludes good, and balanced neither finds refuge in either, but seeks to explore a more rounded set of possibilities where the decision space of the actor becomes much larger, thus giving the director more to work with to provide the ultimate entertainment.

Many say, “But my guides have told me to be good.” All well and good there. Their motivations could be two fold: 1. creating a drama of choices for the individual and 2. contributing to the overall drama within the world. If we are all good all the time there is no drama and the audience will quickly disperse. If they leave then no lesson has been taught anyway. Sure the guides will tell you to be “good” or they may tell you to do something others consider bad or dangerous, but if there were no one to question your guidance then there would be no choice instilled in your character.

Actors tend to be cliquish and it is entirely possible that we return with other actors we are used to working with to create more new and interesting situations, but at the end of the day we sit down with all of them and share our stories over a beer at a corner pub in the larger reality. Is this so far fetched really? Perhaps this is the very reason that theatre is the oldest and most collaborative art form we have.

The most wonderful aspect of being in this world is that we are the audience and the actor all at the same time. We join with and thus become one with God as we observe this world whether we take the world at face value or realize it is a great entertainment that teaches us not so much as characters (a person living in the world) but as actors advancing in spiritual experiences.

Desire is the fire that burns inside of you to be yourself. No judgment because you will never get where you want to be by making judgments of yourself or anyone else, but once you grasp that concept you can judge all you want…crazy right? I have deep burning desires and I know all too well what its like to have them thwarted by someone else’s opinion or rules or laws. I am the

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages.

Shakespeare
As You Like It - Act 2, scene 7,

Quote:

For the Entertainment of GOD

And for the benefit of Mr. Kite.

   I too like Shakespeare's idea of considering the physical world as a stage that we all play our part in. Your concept of there needing to be good and bad roles played out to make learning and experiencing here more colorful and entertaining makes sense to me after I learned not to take my role here too seriously; like just before my suicide attempt in 2006.

   I've learned so much since then, in which was almost ruined had God not rescued me from my pure stupidity. That's something I would never even consider trying again as I don't treat God's gift to me lightly. Yes, I like to think of there being an omnipotent being in charge of all creation, but not anymore from the limited Sunday school version of God. The Sant Mat or Shabd Yoga concept is more to my liking.

Ralph

  Beau, i think you made some good points--like emphasizing that we all have our parts to play in the grand scheme of things.  But re: "enLightenment" etc, i like to simplify things a bit.  There is a really old teaching that says like attracts and begets like.  A more modern way of saying that is a certain consciousness or frequency resonates with similar, and can clearly perceive, understand, experience, etc. said similar frequency or consciousness. 

   To me, enlightenment is nothing more than fully attuning oneself with PUL consciousness and becoming a living expression of it within ones daily and moment by moment thoughts, acts, and relationships.  If PUL isn't positive and about being and doing "good", i don't know what is.  It seems to be the very essence of such concepts and notions.

   If like attracts and begets like, like i think it does, than to become enlightened, then one must become PUL personified.

But since i'm not fully attuned with PUL and im not enlightened, i could be off about the above.

  I know my view makes the process seem really hard and perhaps  almost unobtainable by us humans.  Maybe such a standard is kind of scary to those limited and stuck parts of self which reside in insecurity, fear, illusions, and limitations. 

  It does seem to be hard and challenging, but maybe it's less so than we tend to view it.  Perhaps when a number of people in the near future step forward into the public and demonstrate "He/She" like awareness, abilities, and beingness, perhaps then humanity will begin to really understand and believe that it's quite doable and they will be inspired to do likewise. 

  But, this won't happen until humanity as a more collective, actually wants to heal and asks for help, and demonstrates some more consistent and concrete attunement to PUL.  This is why, such an event won't happen until AFTER the collapses that are coming.  The collapses will change a lot of people's perspectives, desires, and attitudes.  More will be more humble and open. 

  Even here, with such outer events, like attracts and begets like, and we have to attract such to us. 

Quote:

Even here, with such outer events, like attracts and begets like, and we have to attract such to us.

Greetings Justin

   I suppose that's what keeps us regulars glued to this forum. I like reading your remarks, as well as Beau's remarks and everyone else here. It's like what you said about attuning to PUL (Pure Unconditional Enlightenment, freshly squeezed, not from concentrate:-).

   What you said about "He/She" awareness means a lot to me. That is what I strive for; to have a perfect Yin/Yang balance in my thoughts and decisions. I think I may have an added advantage over others. I bear one of the characteristic marks of someone with chimerism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28genetics%29
I would like to be tested for this. Anyway, being at least transgendered, I feel like my thoughts are both male and female like in combination. I used to have a stronger shifting between the two, but now have both under better control.

Ralph

  Hi there Ralph, thank you.  I understand, i also strive to be like "He/She", it's what i want to be when i fully grow up.  ;) ;D

  Physical sometimes follows or is molded by consciousness and mind, so if you feel that inner Yin-Yang balance/integration strongly, then i wouldn't be surprised if there might be some physical markers in the body for it. 

   I don't fully know how true it is or not, but some psychic sources, like Cayce's info, mention that in more ancient periods, like in Atlantis, there were actually true "He/She" human forms, which were more perfectly hermaphroditic or androgynous in nature and function.  Apparently the individuals within these forms, often had quite developed and "unusual" abilities as to psychism, to manifesting, etc. 

  However, while the physical is connected to and influenced by mind/consciousness, the physical is also it's own level and has it's own rules and tendencies. 

   According to my intuition and some outer sources i respect, the one called Jesus was born into a fairly strong and masculine looking body (muscular etc), and yet if there was ever a perfectly balanced He/She in consciousness, here was one. 

  So i guess blanket generalizations do not apply here. 

I'll admit I didn't read the entire OP (it was quite long), but I've heard it said / taught before that existence is just divine play.

I'd argue that existence for most of the human beings who have lived has been what would be called a terrible one from a perspective of a middle class, modern day existence.  Divine play?  As of 2007 there were about 21,000 children dying every day; about 4 every second.  If you want to just count the children dying of preventable diseases/lack of clean water and such it gets even more sad, sick, and tragic.  I don't see these issues as play.  Or if it is play then it is play for a sick and twisted creator who is wholly detached from his creation.  For me, the 'divine play' description of existence does no where near the justice necessary to explain the problem of suffering and the existence of moral and natural evil.

The Shakespeare quote is a good one, but again I'd interpret it as 'all the world and the universe we find ourselves in is simply a setting for a morality play to unfold; we are actors with our own free will and create actions with real significance because we are in an existence imbued with real consequences to actions'.  Not 'people are simply actors with no responsibility for themselves if they are playing an evil part'  (I am aware that evil is a loaded term for a lot of people on this board).

Just finished reading the original post.  I'd like to add one more point.

It seems as if the argument is being made that good is not necessarily better than evil, and that these are just roles that are needed to make the entertainment more interesting (similar to a fallacious argument that evil is necessary for good to be contrasted with).  Furthermore the argument that the intent as an actor being different than that of a character that one is playing so to speak is nice (and seems to spring from a true reverence for awareness, which is a good thing) but simply untrue.  For example imagine a Catholic priest who molests young boys as a character, all the while being self aware of the role he is playing as he is destroying lives, and providing evil as a contrast to good actions in life.  It seems like that world view fails miserably to take moral or natural evil and suffering as seriously as it should be taken.

Lastly, what sick f*ck wants to watch and experience the suffering of others and enjoy it as play?  That wouldn't be god; that would be every sociopath who has ever tortured someone for pleasure.

Because I've experienced divine love I figure God knows about love. Therefore, as Pratekya suggested, I don't believe God is like a sick f..k who gets off on watching people suffer.

Going by my experience with divine beings, they really care about our welfare and they aren't a bunch of sadists who get off on watching others suffer.

One doesn't have to be judgmental in order to see that a loving way of being is significantly "SUPERIOR" to an evil way of being.

Just because contrast can help us grow, this doesn't mean that treating others in an unloving way is okay.

It is important to remember that those who don't live according to the Golden rule cause others to suffer.

Interesting, Beau.

pratekya,
"Lastly, what sick fu*k wants to watch and experience the suffering of others and enjoy it as play?  That wouldn't be god; that would be every sociopath who has ever tortured someone for pleasure."

Whether you entertain a biblical god, a liberal new age god, a disk view or what not, there are horrible actions being made in this world, while there clearly are better options available. As mentioned first, whatever view you entertain, your god or our true beings are capable of events that seem like magic in this world. So, why is is even possible to make shit h*ppen?

recoverer,
"It is important to remember that those who don't live according to the Golden rule cause others to suffer."

I've googled the golden rule and found a lot of versions going around. What's your take on it?

Quote:

Whether you entertain a biblical god, a liberal new age god, a disk view or what not, there are horrible actions being made in this world, while there clearly are better options available. As mentioned first, whatever view you entertain, your god or our true beings are capable of events that seem like magic in this world. So, why is is even possible to make shit h*ppen?

Are you asking why it's possible for people to commit evil acts'?  If that is the question you're asking at the end of the quote here, its because it must be so in order to allow good actions as well, logically speaking.  If you try to imagine a world in which only good actions are allowed it 1/ quickly becomes illogical 2/ quickly cause and effect break down, preventing meaningful ethical choices to be made with real repercussions, and 3/ doesn't really allow for free will anymore - only a veneer (if even that) of free will.  It seems that whatever your view of God is, we are in a world system that allows real moral choice to happen, with real significant repercussions, allowing a morality play that surpasses anything of Shakespeare's to proceed.  But it's usually not a comedy - I'd say usually its a tragedy.  At the end it will be for all of us, until we transition from this 'stage'.

Volu:

I figure the Golden Rule means to treat others as you expect to be treated. Of course, if a person expects to be treated in a negative way then it doesn't apply.

pratekya wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2011 at 1:30am:

... Divine play?  As of 2007 there were about 21,000 children dying every day; about 4 every second.  If you want to just count the children dying of preventable diseases/lack of clean water and such it gets even more sad, sick, and tragic.  I don't see these issues as play.  Or if it is play then it is play for a sick and twisted creator who is wholly detached from his creation.  For me, the 'divine play' description of existence does no where near the justice necessary to explain the problem of suffering and the existence of moral and natural evil.

Tragedy...sickness, disease and death are human maladies; immorality, evil and injustice are negative judgmental descriptions dependent on human cultural ideals.  We are not human in the afterlife and the opportunities to suffer any or all of these maladies or negative experiences in human form are obviously considered valuable to our higher selves...regardless of age.  As children, we may be young humans but we are still fully grown souls...I do not sense a child's suffering any greater than that of an adult, although I understand the human desire to protect our offspring if for no other reason than purely propagational reasons.  And I believe many of these "tragic" events involving children were known by those souls in the choice to inhabit that particular child's body and live the life plan involved therein. 

As for the play...there is free will or improvisation...much more difficult for children than adult humans, but available none the less.  The script is there, how the play is acted is up to the actors...to me, the director (or guidance) is simply there to help you remember your lines or to give hints when you're searching for the thread of the play.  I don't see the tragedies as the goal, rather they are some of the alternative plots available to the actors...how they play them is simply up to them.   

Usetawuz -
  Wow, quite a lot is said in your statement that can be commented on.  Here is my commentary for what it's worth.

Quote:

Tragedy...sickness, disease and death are human maladies; immorality, evil and injustice are negative judgmental descriptions dependent on human cultural ideals.

It sounds like you are writing that there is no such thing as objective evil.  I believe you are arguing that there would be no evil if there was no human commentary on these actions to label it as such.  I disagree wholeheartedly.  Some things are wrong, and I believe that most of humanity would agree with me that irrespective of one's culture, some things are simply wrong inherently, or objectively.  For instance, torturing small children for fun is wrong.  I'd argue that the vast majority of humanity would agree with me on this.  You however, would it seem, argue that torturing small children for fun is wrong simply because society has deemed it such.  I disagree and think that the vast majority of human experience corresponds with my conclusion and not yours.  The only people who would agree with you are relativists.


Quote:

We are not human in the afterlife

Hmm I'd question what you mean by that and what your logic or evidence is


Quote:

and the opportunities to suffer any or all of these maladies or negative experiences in human form are obviously considered valuable to our higher selves...regardless of age.

I'd say experience is valuable, but it is not necessary to have negative experiences to have positive learning outcomes - one can learn from positive experiences just as much as negative ones.  If my son learns to keep his crying under control, he can see his friends will more likely want to play with him.  He doesn't need to cry constantly to learn the lesson.
  As many non-theistic philosophers have noted; there seems to be an over abundance of suffering in the world.  At least some of that suffering is unnecessary I'd argue.  I guess to validate your assertion you'd have to show why one cannot learn from a positive experience.


Quote:

As children, we may be young humans but we are still fully grown souls...

I totally disagree, based on the actions of my almost - 3 year old; he is almost completely immature, selfish, and childlike.  Most honest, rational parents would say the same thing.
  Furthermore, if children are old souls already, what's the point of a human experience?  They are already spiritually developed; your assertion seems to be self refuting.


Quote:

I do not sense a child's suffering any greater than that of an adult,

I do.  I've been to the emergency room with my son multiple times and a child cannot and does not understand what is going on in a way that an adult can, and their fears can simply overwhelm them that an adult with a rational mind can better handle.  Note I am not claiming that all adults can do this, but most adults can deal with suffering on a better level than a child because they have a mind that can understand what is going on.  The suffering of kids is more primal.  Again, I base this on experience and while you may disagree, if we are honest with ourselves I'd argue that the vast expanse of human experience agrees with my assertion, not yours.


Quote:

although I understand the human desire to protect our offspring if for no other reason than purely propagational reasons.

I'd agree that there are evolutionary / biological reasons for protecting offspring, but that does not necessarily explain all of our attitudes toward children.  You are committing what's called the genetic fallacy.  It means that just because the origination of an idea can be explained, that cannot be used as justification for dismissing of the idea; the validity or falsity of the idea is completely independent of how it originally came to be.  In short, even if we have a biological incentive to look after children, whether or not we have a moral imperative to look after children is a totally independent idea.


Quote:

And I believe many of these "tragic" events involving children were known by those souls in the choice to inhabit that particular child's body and live the life plan involved therein.

That is possible, however it is not an excuse for evil.

In conclusion, I'd argue that your post makes perfect sense if we assume relativism to be true, disregard the irrational suffering of children, believe the genetic fallacy to be true, and make assumptions about the afterlife that pretty much correspond to nothing in the shared common human experience.

'Some things are wrong, and I believe that most of humanity would agree with me that irrespective of one's culture, some things are simply wrong inherently, or objectively.  For instance, torturing small children for fun is wrong.  I'd argue that the vast majority of humanity would agree with me on this.  You however, would it seem, argue that torturing small children for fun is wrong simply because society has deemed it such.'

I certainly agree that most people in the world would agree that torturing small children for fun is wrong but that does'nt change the fact that what is deemed to be good or bad varies considerably over time and geographical space. For example in the short time since I left school (25 years or so) actions by teachers (which I personally witnessed) which were considered appropriate discipline at the time would now be viewed as child abuse and result in at the least instant dismissal or maybe a court case.

Thank you for your response Pratekya.  I appreciate your comments, though I am shown the image of two ships passing in the night.

I am drawn to ask to what extent you believe yourself responsible for choosing the life you are living, together with the conditions and circumstances in which you find yourself?  Do you believe they are the product of the direction and choices you have chosen for this life?  If so, then wouldn't all other human beings have the same opportunity to choose their life, how they'll live it and the choices they make?  If not, who makes those decisions? 

As for the majority of humanity siding with your conclusions, from the human standpoint you are no doubt correct.  I was simply opening the door to the other side which, not being human, is not blinded to the greater perspective of the overall activity involved in living life...which may be considered good, bad, or indifferent from a human point of view.  As souls we come here for a human experience and there is value in every event we endure.  As humans incarnate we may declare anything right or wrong and live our lifetimes in accordance with those judgments, but over there the true value of all our experiences is treasured and judgments are left with the deceased body. 

usetawuz wrote on Dec 16^th, 2011 at 6:32pm:

As for the majority of humanity siding with your conclusions, from the human standpoint you are no doubt correct.  I was simply opening the door to the other side which, not being human, is not blinded to the greater perspective of the overall activity involved in living life...which may be considered good, bad, or indifferent from a human point of view.  As souls we come here for a human experience and there is value in every event we endure.  As humans incarnate we may declare anything right or wrong and live our lifetimes in accordance with those judgments, but over there the true value of all our experiences is treasured and judgments are left with the deceased body.

  Apparently the core of morality or of ethics is not just a human perception and while the upper ups value all experience, etc., there is a gentle nudging if you will to that which will lead to growth and completion (through love). 

  A number of different sources corroborate a similar experience that transitioning humans go through. 

   The basic, core story goes something like this: These individual consciousnesses stand before a Council of very wise, completed Beings (along with their more regular "guides), who help the individual consciousness before them to perceive their life and choices through their eyes.

  These Elders can perceive everything about the person and their life, because they are PUL personified and truly know their Oneness with Source and all Consciousness.  They are crystal clear.

They do not sit in judgment of the individual before them in the common sense or use of judgment, but rather they try to help that individual perceive where they can improve themselves.   In a sense, there is gentle criticism involved, but yet with the complete feeling of love and acceptance of the individual. 

  These Life reviews center around core issues of morality and ethics as they relate to PUL or to the relative degree of lack.  The constructive moments and choices are lauded, but the non constructive events and choices bring up a kind of gentle, "don't you think you could have chosen more wisely there...?" 

   Surely, cannot it be both at the same time?   That "over there", there is a valuing of all experience, and yet at the same time, not completely unlike humans and the moral part of our society, there is also a slightly greater value and priority given to that of constructive choice which comes from ethics/morality, which ultimately comes from the core awareness of the overriding reality of PUL consciousness?

  There is the Yin and the Yang, both equally important, and yet most of us in any given moment, favor one too much, above the other. 

  Your message above was more Yin.  Pratekya's more Yang.  Both relatively correct and yet incomplete unto themselves.  When we merge the Yin and Yang within, all becomes clear. 

Happy merging (where ships meet within love)!

Hello Justin, and thank you for your comments.  My thoughts were intended to draw a contrast between a purely human moral perspective and a greater soul-level perspective.  I understand the love-based tutelage received "over there" and the hopes and goals that we, while incarnate, will be able to effect that life here.  Naturally, we were discussing two ends of the same topic ultimately to find commonality in the middle.    

Heisenberg -
  I am not arguing that everything in the world is black and white, morally wrong or morally right.  Most of our thoughts, actions and motivations are various shades of grey I would argue.  Your example is a good one pointing out that some social morals change with time. However that is not what I was originally arguing against.  I am saying that there are some things that are black and white (not all, but some, probably a small minority of things).  Some things are objectively wrong independent of culture, such as 'torturing small children for fun is wrong'.  Your example would be a good one to counter my point if I was arguing that all of morality is objective and has no societal component at all, which is not what I am arguing.  We may disagree on the key issue; which is - are there things that are true or not independent of culture, time and society?  I would argue yes, and I'm not sure what you would argue.

Ustawuz and Justin -
  Thank you for your kind tone in your replies.  I also appreciate trying to find commonalities or to lessen the at times harsh arguments I can put forward.  However, I would like to mention a couple other things that may be non-agreeable.  If the goal engaging in a spiritual life and a spiritual search is to be agreeable to everyone then I think I would fail; but I think Jesus would also fail the 'nice guy' test.  For instance he called the religious leaders 'whitewashed tombs' to their faces and told parables against them in their presence.  I would say that searching for truth wherever that leads (even to an unpopular, uncomfortable world view) is more important than keeping the peace at all costs.


Quote:

I am drawn to ask to what extent you believe yourself responsible for choosing the life you are living, together with the conditions and circumstances in which you find yourself?  Do you believe they are the product of the direction and choices you have chosen for this life?  If so, then wouldn't all other human beings have the same opportunity to choose their life, how they'll live it and the choices they make?  If not, who makes those decisions?

It's a little unclear to me if you're talking about pre-birth decisions about what conditions one will have in life or about life decisions that are ongoing in the physical existence we have.  I think that you are talking about pre-birth conditions, and will answer that here.
  It is possible that we have some decision making ability about our pre-birth conditions, such as someone agreeing to be born into a body that is handicapped, or born to poor parents, or born to a raped mother, etc.  It seems reasonable logically speaking because God places such a high value on our free will - so much so that it explains the existence of evil and suffering.  Additionally, Bruce in one of his books talked about seeing some sort of device with shrimp like creatures (representing souls or beings or whatever you want to call them) going through an incarnation process (my memory of this isn't exact), but I don't remember if he addressed the issue of choice in incarnation.  However, in the context of morality, I don't believe that people are choosing to be born into a body that will 30 years later be raped and murdered by a random stranger or something.  If these 'pre-birth choices' argument will be extremely extended out to justify fatalism and evil actions then I am getting off that train.  In other words, if you're going to argue that 'humans have chosen their existence and so they have these negative experiences coming to them' then I wholeheartedly disagree.  Prebirth choice does not justify evil actions.
  However, I would argue that to base a whole world view on pre-birth choice speculation is like building a house on a foundation of sand.  Who knows what our pre-birth experience was truly like, or if there was any real experience or choice at all?  I think most people (Buddhists, Hindus, Christians) would argue that prebirth knowledge would be a kind of a short cut to knowledge we should learn the hard way.  I would put it as this; we are given true freedom of will here, without apparent immediate consequences to those actions, to see what we will do with some real freedom.  I can cheat on my wife and maybe get away with it, but I can't remember meeting God before my birth because if I did my freedom would be more constrained; I would have an intense feeling of guilt and betrayal of God if I was considering cheating on my wife, and He would rather see what I am going to do with some real apparent freedom.

And as for Justin's comment here:

Quote:

These Life reviews center around core issues of morality and ethics as they relate to PUL or to the relative degree of lack.  The constructive moments and choices are lauded, but the non constructive events and choices bring up a kind of gentle, "don't you think you could have chosen more wisely there...?"

I simply do not know if this is one person's experience of the afterlife; maybe it is a good representation for some.  However, the issue I have is this:  I think you are a very nice guy who is more spiritually developed than a lot of people, including myself most likely.  And I think Usetawuz probably is a nice guy too.  I think the gentle questioning would work for you if this was your life review.  I would bet that you are going to have a relatively good life review, and will need just the slightest of gentle questioning to help you progress and evaluate.  However there are sick monsters that pass off as people in our world.  Child molesters.  Rapists.  Murderers.  I don't think a 'gentle questioning' method works for them, or does justice to the victims.  Additionally, because I have had a hard time exploring the afterlife on my own (I have tried Bruce's method but could never get past the 3-D blackness stage - I never saw anything), I do put my trust in the ethics of Jesus.  Note I'm not saying Christianity, or organized religion, or one denomination or church over another.  But Jesus rings authentic and true for me.  And Jesus' metaphors for a life review / judgement of people in the afterlife aren't involving 'gentle questioning', but being out in the outer darkness, and weeping / gnashing of teeth.  I'd argue that this is actually in agreement with the importance of PUL and the principle of like attracts like, and it also respects free will.  I think people separate themselves into hellish groups in the afterlife.  I can't think of a life review parable, but the word 'judgement' in the New Testament (as in he will return to judge the living and the dead) is I think in agreement with what we would say is a life review, as opposed to what most people mean by that word.
  I guess I would conclude by addressing the idea that all experiences are valuable, both negative and positive.  I think this is possibly true, but I don't like the fatalistic tendency I sense that this is being used to justify suffering and evil.  I think that is the main difference between ourselves.  To look at a child who dies of preventable malaria at the age of 3 and say 'hey, her negative experience will be valuable in the afterlife' seems to be out of touch with reality to me.  I would say 'she didn't need to die of this', or 'why can't she learn from positive experiences rather than negative ones', and finally 'we should all work for more positive experiences for humanity rather than negative because we are motivated by compassion for living beings'.  I think the danger of elevating negative experiences is that it encourages apathy, or a lack of compassion, or justification of evil.  Note I am not saying you are like this; I'm saying the philosophy you ascribe to is dangerous in these ways.

'We may disagree on the key issue; which is - are there things that are true or not independent of culture, time and society?  I would argue yes, and I'm not sure what you would argue.'

To be honest I can't think of many examples that would support the idea of a morality independent of time and place. Anthropologists remark on how dissimilar cultural 'norms' are around the world with something in one place perhaps actively encouraged in one place earning a lengthy spell in prison in another, maybe even death (e.g San Francisco v Tehran).I remember as a child there was an excellent anthropological periodical called 'Family of Man' which focused on cultures around the world and it left me agog at some practices which were considered good moral behaviour.I think incest was one of the few cross-cultural taboos (for presumably good biological reasons).

Looking at time, anyone even thumbing through a book from the 50s will be amazed at the innocent racism and sexism which would ensure censure today.Even your example of child torturing for fun would be under threat. For example in English public schools there was a practice called 'fagging' (until comparitively recently) in which small boys would have to run errands/perform tasks for large boys. As can be imagined the big boys were not always benevolent masters - I think torture for fun (like the famous 'roasting' torture scene from Tom Brown's School Days) was no doubt enacted in the Harrows or Etons of the day.Fagging, now banned, was considered 'character building' -equipping young men with the qualities needed to run an empire.These people would have considered themselves good christians as would the slave masters of the 18th century.

I also think it would be fallacious to think of ourselves (either geographically or temporally) as being in any privilaged position. I have no doubt that future generations will shake their collective heads and say 'did they really do that ?!'. What the 'that' will be I can't say, but I can predict with confidence there will be a 'that' ! 
 

pratekya wrote on Dec 17^th, 2011 at 1:25pm:

It's a little unclear to me if you're talking about pre-birth decisions about what conditions one will have in life or about life decisions that are ongoing in the physical existence we have.  I think that you are talking about pre-birth conditions, and will answer that here.   It is possible that we have some decision making ability about our pre-birth conditions, such as someone agreeing to be born into a body that is handicapped, or born to poor parents, or born to a raped mother, etc.  It seems reasonable logically speaking because God places such a high value on our free will - so much so that it explains the existence of evil and suffering.  Additionally, Bruce in one of his books talked about seeing some sort of device with shrimp like creatures (representing souls or beings or whatever you want to call them) going through an incarnation process (my memory of this isn't exact), but I don't remember if he addressed the issue of choice in incarnation.  However, in the context of morality, I don't believe that people are choosing to be born into a body that will 30 years later be raped and murdered by a random stranger or something.  If these 'pre-birth choices' argument will be extremely extended out to justify fatalism and evil actions then I am getting off that train.  In other words, if you're going to argue that 'humans have chosen their existence and so they have these negative experiences coming to them' then I wholeheartedly disagree.  Prebirth choice does not justify evil actions.   However, I would argue that to base a whole world view on pre-birth choice speculation is like building a house on a foundation of sand.  Who knows what our pre-birth experience was truly like, or if there was any real experience or choice at all?  I think most people (Buddhists, Hindus, Christians) would argue that prebirth knowledge would be a kind of a short cut to knowledge we should learn the hard way.  I would put it as this; we are given true freedom of will here, without apparent immediate consequences to those actions, to see what we will do with some real freedom.  I can cheat on my wife and maybe get away with it, but I can't remember meeting God before my birth because if I did my freedom would be more constrained; I would have an intense feeling of guilt and betrayal of God if I was considering cheating on my wife, and He would rather see what I am going to do with some real apparent freedom.

My comments were based on both pre-birth and incarnate plans, choice and free will.  It is my belief we choose a life that will include various events, some of which, due to our free will, or that of another, result in being raped and murdered at thirty.  I don't feel we choose a life to experience a tragic death, however, we may, through our actions while creating our reality, effect just such an outcome.  We may also, through our actions, avoid experiencing such a tragedy.  I don't see this as justification for "evil acts" but rather a by-product of free will which allows it all, both good acts and bad.  I do not believe our lives are planned in full before being born; the view I've gotten included an amazing display of options along a path.  The "plan" seemed more like a list of suggested and favored choices, tips, hints and clues for the direction I would like to go, although the choices I would ultimately make were to be my own while "in country".  Naturally some of those options may result in a human tragedy which I have thus far successfully avoided.

I don't subscribe to fatalism.  My sense of tragedy is made bearable with the knowledge of a greater and higher purpose beyond our human sense of right and wrong.  This does not lessen my human reaction to evil inflicted on others, it simply enables me to function with a clearer mind and work more quickly to ameliorate the affects of that "evil".  

I hope this makes my point of view more clear.

pratekya,
"[...] I think the danger of elevating negative experiences is that it encourages apathy, or a lack of compassion, or justification of evil.  Note I am not saying you are like this; I'm saying the philosophy you ascribe to is dangerous in these ways."

How do you view not resisting evil and turning the other cheek in this regard?