Obiwan
Member
Can we judge our parents? Cooks who make our meals? Mechanics who repair our cars?
If so why would God be in a separate category?
Maybe god isn't a person like the categories you mention? :)
Can we judge our parents? Cooks who make our meals? Mechanics who repair our cars?
If so why would God be in a separate category?
Maybe god isn't a person like the categories you mention? :)
You're asking me what God is? Assuming there is one.But then in what way is God different? If it's just a metaphysical lynchpin, then sure judging God is like judging gravity.
If God is a parent - well we judge parents for neglect and abuse. If God is a craftsman - we judge those too. Same with teacher, coach, etc.
Because he's been the subject of so much 'fake news'?Can we judge our parents? Cooks who make our meals? Mechanics who repair our cars?
If so why would God be in a separate category?
In the context of NDEs the traditional notion of judgement by an all powerful being is often replaced by a different concept, where we judge ourselves . But really, it isn't so much the person, as the actions, which are under consideration - "did I act in a loving way in such-and-such a situation?". It does seem to be a very human trait, this making of judgements, since in these NDE accounts, sometimes a person will assess themselves (with the benefit of hindsight and fuller information) very harshly, while there is nearby a powerful and loving spiritual being who is only giving support and trying perhaps to persuade us to be a little gentler with ourselves, that being is anything but judgemental.
I do feel this human trait is one we have assigned to the concept of God, a concept which we have moulded in the image of man.
If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us.Jung has a great quote, that I wish I could recall but will try to track down, about how oftentimes we judge ourselves with greater harshness than the world.
It seems almost contradictory in this seemingly narcissistic age but I do wonder at times if supposed callousness is actually a fear of genuinely reflecting on our place in this world. Would a better ability to self-forgive make us better people, less likely to close ourselves off from the cruelties of the world - especially those we may indirectly exacerbate?
Anyway just rambling....
I'm going to have to disagree with this. While mundane "transgressions" may certainly apply (we despise the display of vanity in others, while we ourselves fail to recognize our own vanity, for instance) but there is most certainly a category of people that have yet to be understood in any meaningful way. Those with Anti-social Personality Disorder, formerly and more commonly known as psychopath. Talk about red pill/blue pill, I watched a very difficult to watch YouTube video earlier this week that was really quite well done. It went into the pedophile rings that have been exposed recently, showing just how huge this problem really is (sorry if I seem obsessed, but I'm telling you, do not open the pizzagate can of worms unless you're prepared to really be presented with realities you wish you never knew, even if pizzagate is unsubstantiated).If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us.
Hermann Hesse
Swiss (German-born) author (1877 - 1962)
agreed... very difficult for any sane person to process, but I don't think we should look away. the pedo thing is a huge problem that has morphed into every kind of evil imaginable. and it's not a left/right thing. look at the Franklin Coverup (more horror).... I watched a very difficult to watch YouTube video earlier this week that was really quite well done. It went into the pedophile rings that have been exposed recently, showing just how huge this problem really is (sorry if I seem obsessed, but I'm telling you, do not open the pizzagate can of worms unless you're prepared to really be presented with realities you wish you never knew...
Magda, I have to thank you for being true to your word, and answering my questions "as directly as possible, without beating about the bush". It makes for a refreshing conversation.
So, I think it's clear that the main difference between our provisional Gnostic views is that you postulate a ground of being which contains both good and evil, whereas I postulate a primordial dualism of good and evil entities (or grounds of being), each of which was/is both self-existent and independent, until primordial evil "noticed" primordial good, and attacked and compromised it.
In your view, the good-and-evil primordial ground of being then emanated more recognisable beings, which (I assume) were equally good-and-evil, each of which might have emanated further beings, until we arrive at the demiurge which created our flawed reality.
In the view that I canvassed, the self-existent good pole of the duality emanated a being (or multiple beings) which were initally wholly good, but which were compromised after being attacked by evil, the nature of which perhaps they did not initially understand, which is why they could have been compromised.
I want to say up front that I am not particularly committed to my view, which, like yours, is provisional - my aim in this post is simply to contrast the two views and see if we can gain any helpful insight into their relative pros and cons.
Here's my summary of these insights:
- Your view is more elegant: it postulates a singular primordial Source rather than a primordial dualism.
- Your view provides a better explanation of the existence of that demiurge which created our reality: it is easier to explain this both-good-and-bad, flawed being as the emanation of an already both-good-and-bad ground of being than to explain that its bad side arose by being compromised by an otherwise independent evil.
- On the other hand, your view is a more hopeless one: even the primordial ground of being contains evil, and so we can never eradicate evil. I'm not presenting this as a logical argument against your view, just as a reason why we might be emotionally inclined not to accept it.
- And then again... why would a both-good-and-bad ground of being not recognise for Itself that good is preferable to evil, and, before doing any emanating at all, purge Its own Self of evil? What prevents the ground of being from choosing which moral pole to identify with? Why would it choose both as opposed to solely the Good?
- Your view is harder to reconcile with experiences of God as a perfect being of light, as in STEs and "it's all Good" NDEs. You suggest that one possibility is that these type of NDEs are a result of "people end[ing] up in the hands of some of "the good forces of the Universe”", but why would there be "(exclusively) good forces" in the Universe in the first place, when even the very ground of being Itself is not entirely good? How did the good forces escape contamination by evil? Did the ground of being polarise itself into independent moral categories before emanating (independently) good and evil? If so, our proposals are very similar after all: we both propose a primordial dualism, even if yours originates in a singular Source.
There is probably much else on which to comment, but I'll leave it there for now! Thank you again for engaging so sincerely and directly!
I had a similar impression re integration and authenticity.Alex question: "Can we avoid evil by not looking at it?"
ROFL!!!!
As Dr. Phil would say: "How's that workin' for ya?"
I have no trust for this person, she has clearly not integrated her life at the time of this interview and has no intention to do so as far as I can tell. That means, as a medium I don't care if she's a great gift to mankind, she might very well be speaking reliably from another dimension, but she has not gained authenticity in this dimension, which to me says she cannot reliably intervene in it in a wholesome and realistic way.