'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.

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


  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)!

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:

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:

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.

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


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.