22 Sep 17
It seems to me evil is not a Son of the Morning-generated force that draws one into “sin”. “Inherently evil” and “Inherently good” intentions and acts, and thus “inherently good” and “inherently bad” lifestyle, exist not. States of consciousness, acts and lifestyle morally “good”, “neutral” or “bad” are volition-depended.
The unrighteous and the not useful should be known. The righteous and useful should be known and one should fall to the method which is righteous and useful. Purity and impurity depend on oneself. For whatever one desires, for one’s intentions and acts and way of living, one should accept full ownership and responsibility.
May All Beings Be Happy
😵
23 Sep 17
Originally posted by @black-beetle".., one should accept full ownership and responsibility."
It seems to me evil is not a Son of the Morning-generated force that draws one into “sin”. “Inherently evil” and “Inherently good” intentions and acts, and thus “inherently good” and “inherently bad” lifestyle, exist not. States of consciousness, acts and lifestyle morally “good”, “neutral” or “bad” are volition-depended.
The unrighteous and the not ...[text shortened]... y of living, one should accept full ownership and responsibility.
May All Beings Be Happy
😵
Indeed one will, regardless of what "it seems" to be.
23 Sep 17
Originally posted by @black-beetleSo when they ate that fruit, what changed so that they now knew good and evil? Was it something in the fruit or something in the act?
It seems to me evil is not a Son of the Morning-generated force that draws one into “sin”. “Inherently evil” and “Inherently good” intentions and acts, and thus “inherently good” and “inherently bad” lifestyle, exist not. States of consciousness, acts and lifestyle morally “good”, “neutral” or “bad” are volition-depended.
The unrighteous and the not ...[text shortened]... y of living, one should accept full ownership and responsibility.
May All Beings Be Happy
😵
24 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayThe myth of the Original Sin is a useful tool to me;
So when they ate that fruit, what changed so that they now knew good and evil? Was it something in the fruit or something in the act?
Methinks both of them "good" and "evil" decisions were just volition-dependent. Their decision came from within, not from the snake; the snake provoked them but forced them not, and their decision were solely the product of a specific evaluation of their mind.
When they ate the fruit, the point of attention of their minds shifted so that they then lost sight of their true nature.
They were free to choose whatever they wanted to choose and face the consequences of their decision. The loss of the cognizance of their true nature is rooted neither in the fruit, nor in the act; it is rooted solely in their own intentions, which triggered their series of thoughs, which triggered the evaluation of their minds, which in turn triggered their act. And, a mere intention causes kamma.
😵
24 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @black-beetleI believe that they lost something that they had when they ate, the choice they made was made by them the devil didn't force them into it.
The myth of the Original Sin is a useful tool to me;
Methinks both of them "good" and "evil" decisions were just volition-dependent. Their decision came from within, not from the snake; the snake provoked them but forced them not, and their decision were solely the product of a specific evaluation of their mind.
When they ate the fruit, the point o ...[text shortened]... ation of their minds, which in turn triggered their act. And, a mere intention causes kamma.
😵
The Lord walked and fellowshiped with them until then. The relationship that they had with God was gone, nothing they could do from that point could fix it. They broke faith and God restored us to Him through grace by faith.
The veil between the Holy and Most Holy was torn from heaven to earth restoring what they lost.
25 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayThis is accurate according to the Christian dogma.
I believe that they lost something that they had when they ate, the choice they made was made by them the devil didn't force them into it.
The Lord walked and fellowshiped with them until then. The relationship that they had with God was gone, nothing they could do from that point could fix it. They broke faith and God restored us to Him through grace b ...[text shortened]...
The veil between the Holy and Most Holy was torn from heaven to earth restoring what they lost.
However, if the mechanism regarding intentions, decision-making and acts is indeed volition-depended, it follows that “inherently evil” and “inherently good” intentions and acts, and thus “inherently good” and “inherently bad” lifestyle, exist not. What do you think?
😵
25 Sep 17
Originally posted by @black-beetleYeah, blame is a lame game 🙂c
It seems to me evil is not a Son of the Morning-generated force that draws one into “sin”. “Inherently evil” and “Inherently good” intentions and acts, and thus “inherently good” and “inherently bad” lifestyle, exist not. States of consciousness, acts and lifestyle morally “good”, “neutral” or “bad” are volition-depended.
The unrighteous and the not ...[text shortened]... y of living, one should accept full ownership and responsibility.
May All Beings Be Happy
😵
25 Sep 17
Originally posted by @black-beetleI would beg to differ with you, knowledgeable intent is not required for evil actions. It isn't required for breaking laws either. If intent was required for law breaking than ignorance of law would be an excuse. With respect to evil actions, ignorance of good or righteousness not ignorance of evil could cause someone to do something evil. Within scripture God put into place what needed to be done if someone discovered that they sinned in ignorance. That would not be required if it were not possible.
This is accurate according to the Christian dogma.
However, if the mechanism regarding intentions, decision-making and acts is indeed volition-depended, it follows that “inherently evil” and “inherently good” intentions and acts, and thus “inherently good” and “inherently bad” lifestyle, exist not. What do you think?
😵
26 Sep 17
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelYes;
Yeah, blame is a lame game 🙂c
I don't come very often here anymore as I have no time; hope you and your boy are OK, Charlie😵
26 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayOK, but I didn’t say that knowledgeable intent is required for evil actions. I said that all intentions, and all thoughts, and all actions are volition-depended. If one disagrees as regards this matter, then one rejects the hypothesis that free will holds –but that’s another story.
I would beg to differ with you, knowledgeable intent is not required for evil actions. It isn't required for breaking laws either. If intent was required for law breaking than ignorance of law would be an excuse. With respect to evil actions, ignorance of good or righteousness not ignorance of evil could cause someone to do something evil. Within scripture ...[text shortened]... ne discovered that they sinned in ignorance. That would not be required if it were not possible.
Therefore, since one’s “inherently good”, or “inherently neutral”, or “inherently bad” intentions, thoughts, acts and lifestyle are all just volition-dependent, each intention, thought, act and lifestyle lack of inherent substance; because, whatever has inherent substance, it has to stay eternally in separation of the conditions and the causal field that brought up its manifestation (in the context of the Christian dogma, the sole example of an entity with inherent substance is G-d; no other entity, and nothing else too, has such a quality).
But, in fact, nothing in Kosmos has inherent substance. Everything is manifested by means of conditions and a specific causal field, and changes continuously until it fades away in the realm of a non-observed by us reality. Since volition manifests solely according to one’s will and since one’s will exclusively promotes mere events by means of intention, thoughts and acts and way of living, then one’s products lack of inherent substance. I can well paint that wall black like Mick, but it ain’t mean that the substance of that wall is blackness. The same evaluation holds as regards “good”, “bad”, this, that and everything: if it is good to a bobcat to kill that rabbit and thus manage to survive, this same action is bad to the bone to the bunnies that lost their mom cause they ‘ll starve to death;
😵
26 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @black-beetleYou believe we are chained by our make up? If one is "inherently" something, than that is
OK, but I didn’t say that knowledgeable intent is required for evil actions. I said that all intentions, and all thoughts, and all actions are volition-depended. If one disagrees as regards this matter, then one rejects the hypothesis that free will holds –but that’s another story.
Therefore, since one’s “inherently good”, or “inherently neutral”, o ...[text shortened]... action is bad to the bone to the bunnies that lost their mom cause they ‘ll starve to death;
😵
what they will do, be it "good", "neutral", or "bad"? That sounds more like there is no hope
to be, or do anything other than what one's nature tells them, I agree with you if I under
stand what your saying, our nature is our nature.
I think that Adam and Eve could have obeyed, they didn't, they were innocent, but they
were part of a very good Kingdom until the fall. After the fall, now people have within their
nature sin. If I understand your point, and I may not, that would mean that if you were
"inherently bad" you'd have no choice, except to remain that way.
With Christianity God came to save sinners, who by nature were/are inherently bad. The
requirement being God in us, literally, making us born again. I believe that Adam and Eve
were capable of doing what was required, but their volition would have had to be free to
do what they will, what they will in either direction good or evil. If this were not true that
means they were created to fall. That is what some believe I grant you, but I think not, it
would mean that they were without choice, they will be judged for choices they could not
avoid making. I believe God being good would not do that, the ability to choose, had to be
there for both directions.
Being bound by a nature to fall before sin means they were created with evil intent in
them, no choice was ever there. If judgment is true, if indeed God gave them the ability
to do anything than if means they could have gone either way.
They knew good in their walking with God before the fall, but evil had not tainted them
before the fall. They came to know that when they choose it, not before.
26 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayI am sure we lack of inherent substance. The lack of an inherent substance permits us to keep up changing. We are neither inherently good, nor inherently neutral, nor inherently evil.
You believe we are chained by our make up? If one is "inherently" something, than that is
what they will do, be it "good", "neutral", or "bad"? That sounds more like there is no hope
to be, or do anything other than what one's nature tells them, I agree with you if I under
stand what your saying, our nature is our nature.
I think that Adam and Eve co ...[text shortened]... l had not tainted them
before the fall. They came to know that when they choose it, not before.
I am sure that anybody uses her cognitive apparatus according to the nature of her mind and her volition. If this holds, evil is truly done by oneself; by oneself is one defiled; by oneself is evil left undone, and by oneself is one purified; purity and impurity depend on oneself. No one purifies another.
To me, the “nature of sin” is not a part of the man; the “nature of the Good” and the “nature of the Evil” are not a part of the man. The nature of one’s mind is all a man has inside, and in there exists Volition amongst else.
And if one’s intuition and feelings are missing, one’s evaluation of the mind is worthless.
I am sure one’s mind is able to bring up all the kinds of fruit. The nature of the man is just the nature of the mind of the man.
😵
26 Sep 17
Originally posted by @black-beetleNo, if left alone we are doomed, but we are not. The thing is, if you actually believe what
I am sure we lack of inherent substance. The lack of an inherent substance permits us to keep up changing. We are neither inherently good, nor inherently neutral, nor inherently evil.
I am sure that anybody uses her cognitive apparatus according to the nature of her mind and her volition. If this holds, evil is truly done by oneself; by oneself is o ...[text shortened]... up all the kinds of fruit. The nature of the man is just the nature of the mind of the man.
😵
you have said you would have to think about God for a moment. God is good. That is one
of the most important things ever, and by Him we are all created, the whole universe, by
Him it all is sustained, by Him we have our being.
When Adam and Eve broke faith with God, our connection we had with Him was broken.
It has been restored, so now in Christ, the Author and Finisher of our faith, we have
the Life, Way, and Truth our purifier.
Our nature now is either found in the flesh, where we were are outside of Christ, or in
God's Spirit. The Spirit of God, is a good thing. 🙂
26 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayYou name it G-d, other persons name it Allah or Shiva, meaning that under some circumstances they are in unison with a specific entity. I know what you mean and I think you should follow your evaluations and your beliefs if you feel in balance with yourself and the ones you serve and love, and if you do not cause harm to other sentient beings.
No, if left alone we are doomed, but we are not. The thing is, if you actually believe what
you have said you would have to think about God for a moment. God is good. That is one
of the most important things ever, and by Him we are all created, the whole universe, by
Him it all is sustained, by Him we have our being.
When Adam and Eve broke faith wit ...[text shortened]... where we were are outside of Christ, or in
God's Spirit. The Spirit of God, is a good thing. 🙂
During my conceptual and non-conceptual awareness I recognize dualism and non-dualism. When this mind is free of dualism and calms naturally in non-duality, all that exists is the Void. In the Void there is no good, no evil, no self, no otherness, no sameness, no difference, no feelings, no thoughts, no supernatural entities, no Creator, no Destroyer, no coming, no going, no birth, no death, no cause, no effect, no kamma. Just clear light.
When back in the dualist realm of existence, I am immovable in my knowledge that my real nature is the nature of my mind -and the nature of my mind is clear light;
😵
27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @black-beetleNo, not even close God isn't a homogeneous creature that everyone's idea of God all
You name it G-d, other persons name it Allah or Shiva, meaning that under some circumstances they are in unison with a specific entity. I know what you mean and I think you should follow your evaluations and your beliefs if you feel in balance with yourself and the ones you serve and love, and if you do not cause harm to other sentient beings.
Durin ...[text shortened]... dge that my real nature is the nature of my mind -and the nature of my mind is clear light;
😵
refers to the same one. I didn't name Him God, He is who He is, and nothing about
Him changes due to how I think about Him.
Throughout scripture you see God doing things that set Him a part from man, and any
so called god there is. Creation, the fall, promises made, the flood, then calling out
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and even those choices were done with promises that
required God to act. We also see Him do great things leading His people out of Egypt,
after all of that He started a nation, made promises about a King to come that would
have an eternal kingdom.
This is a singular God, who speaks to His people, who isn't one who waits in the by
and by, but is active with mankind. Those who are saved, are not so because they
were able to reach some level of spirituality on their own, but through the gift of God,
which is His grace. Saved sinners, the worthless being given grace by the most Holy.