Quote:


Are you saying that the lack of ability to keep a hostage for all eternity is a reason to justify a human being's actions? And that evil ceases to be evil if it happens every day?

By the way, beaurocrats will destroy lives because "the paperwork wasn't filled out right". How's that for evil? But to be honest, I don't believe in evil - here on earth anyway. Most people just do not understand, they do not have enough empathy or their own suffering is too overwhelming for them to cope with it. In my eyes evil would be someone who enjoys seeing other people in pain (not because of revenge or brain damage).

nastarowje,
Vagabound

I place myself in the 'Evil is Relative' camp which I sense a couple of posters on here lean towards. Here's why :

Using Recoverer's mass rape example as an act of evil I can think of examples in history where gang rape has been used as an instrument of punishment and revenge e.g. The Soviet march through Germany at the end of the Second World War.We would classify this as an evil act from our perspective. I think perspective is an important concept to bring into the debate. From the perspective of the Soviets after 4 bitter years of warfare the fascists deserved all they got. From Hitler's perspective he really did believe he was serving the German nation by removing 'Jewish' scum. Islamic extremists really believe that the US is the 'great Satan' and killing Americans is holy work. The point I am making is echoing Spooky 'If one is really convinced that something is wrong or evil, this one won't do it' basically 'evil' people don't think that they're evil.

Does this mean that we have to approve of genocide , mass rape or whatever as 'its all relative'. An emphatic no. We don't accept these things because they simply don't agree with how we define who we really are. For example we normally define ourselves as compassionate souls who don't want people to suffer pain.

I agree with Walsch  (sorry anti-New Agers  ) that we define who we think we are by our actions. In the past we would easily have put people to death for trifling issues (from today's perspective) because that was the reality of who we thought we were. We've changed our mind since then and we will continue to do that. I've no doubt that future generations will shake their head at today's barbarisms ( 'you mean they really let people starve to death !' ).

The problem I have with 'Good' and 'Evil' as a concept is that it perpetuates separateness. There are the 'Good' guys usually us and the 'Evil' ones usually them. Remember the 9/11 bombers thought they were the good guys. The illusion of separateness (i.e us and them) leads to warfare, starvation etc. in short - human misery.

Some would say this is just wishy-washy 'new age speak' - 'hey nothing's evil man'. I don't agree, I don't think its an easy option at all it means that if we don't like a behaviour the responsilibity is in ours  to do something about it. In short start the healing process by building bridges instead of barriers. In a practical sense this may mean dialoging with our 'enemies' rather than trying to destroy them, as one example.

Dave

Hi Recoverer:

I was'nt referring to any individual in particular - I
never get personal its not my style. I certainly would'nt describe myself as a devotee of Walsch  or a new ager at all its just when I feel something is intuitively valuable or helpful to me I give credit for it. What I particularly guard against is 'blunderbuss' i.e carte blanche/unspecific dismissals of material.

I realise we have to be discriminatory in our approach ( if we believe everything we believe nothing ) but I am also discriminatory with skeptics and 'debunkers' because they also often have agendas and prejudices (often unacknowledged) which I may not share.

Dave

I am the first creation I am the light being sent to banish the dark and its evil lord. It is not compatibly with life it is death and I am life.  I am the compassionate one, it is hate. We are not different we are opposites of the same reality that makes up and consists of all existence

It is the lord of utter darkness and I am the Lord of Light and Life. I am the Giver of life it is the Taker of Life

The battle continues forever, for eternities the dark smothers the light and for eternities the light dispels the dark. Take heart the battle is only in the grey domain the twilight zone between light and dark love and hate, life and death

I the story teller am the Light Being raging against the dark to bring you into the eternal light of love where I dwell always in beautiful composite light

Your Universe is the twilight zone the grey between heaven and hell the domain of the Dark Lord and the domain of the Light Lord .

Greetings ultra!

Good to hear from you again!

Until we get that work read, can we hear more from you about evil as 'the perversion of ignorance'?
For example I can recall thinking of doing something wrong and telling myself that I don't really know, am ignorant of, how wrong it might be in the big scheme of things, so I'd go ahead and do it, then wait to be smited down. Was I perverting my ignorance?

Bets

betson wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2009 at 12:25pm:



Hi Bets,
Thanks for the hearty hi ho!

Briefly, the idea is that the physical universe in which we find ourselves is an involution of divinity into matter - which is simply another aspect of and an instrumentality of the very same divinity except in a dynamic evolving form (vs static and unmanifest).

Here we are necessarily ignorant of divine essense/origin (Being) as an intrinsic condition, ie nescience in some degree - it is part of the "game". The purpose is an evolution (becoming) where greater more comprehensive consciousness is "acquired", more accurately realized (since it is already within) through an evolutionary process called life, in which infinite possibilities of that evolutionary realization process can be worked out on an individual basis.

What happens with evil is that relative to any individual achievement of greater, higher, more inclusive, more subjective etc. consciousness while on the physical plane, a deliberate individual choice can be made to preserve or promote the continuation of the ignorance, vs transcending it as a continuation of the normal process - a deliberate perversion of the evolutionary process which uses a limited transitory knowledge for the very purpose of thwarting in some way this evolution in oneself, another, or group, perhaps even the world.

So for instance, if a six year old is ignorant of certain physical laws and starts a fire in which someone is hurt, this is not necessarily evil even if unfortunate. However if a "normal" educated 36 year old who knows these laws uses that very knowledge to start a fire deliberately knowing and/or intending the consequences of some damage, destruction, etc., and someone is hurt - this could be evil.

This is an admittedly superficial explanation, much better explained in the article.
Imo, the reading and understanding of this one single article could be responsible for reducing bandwidth demand for 50% of all internet discussion oriented traffic! (lol) Of course, that would also be a superficial manifestation.
-----
To answer your specific question, if I am able to at all, my feeling is that if you are questioning motive with an intention to expand consciousness then this is part of the evolutionary process and not a perversion of it. You may still make a mistake, but mistakes in this context are obviously not "evil" and simply an artifact of process through a limited knowing - which is evolving. This is why designations like "sin" are problematic and fraught with debilitating connotations, ie: mistakes are evil - which ironically perhaps is promoting of a kind of evil in itself because it facilitates "stuckness".

best regards to you,
- u

Hi ultra,

I will check out the new links as soon as I have expended all my energy and stamina in my facebook Mafia wars game...I'm afraid I am rather addicted. Thank you.