Goddess_Ashtara and GreatestIAm: Evil should remain in the world ? or only if it doesn't affect us

[emilynghiem]

Challenge to GreatestIam and Goddess_Ashtara

They both said they believe Evil should remain in the world as part of life.

I ask don't they mean as long as ill will doesn't harm or affect them?

If they had a choice of curing cancer or stopping a rapist, would they prefer to suffer and die if this could be prevented?

I am guessing what they mean is only if the sickness in the world only affects other people, it's okay to let it go on.

Can you both please clarify? Thanks!

I can post resources to examples of demonic illness being cured in people; so why would you wish for illness to continue and cause suffering or death when it could be cured and restore sanity and healthy life.

 

[ChrisL]

Challenge to GreatestIam and Goddess_Ashtara

They both said they believe Evil should remain in the world as part of life.

I ask don't they mean as long as ill will doesn't harm or affect them?

If they had a choice of curing cancer or stopping a rapist, would they prefer to suffer and die if this could be prevented?

I am guessing what they mean is only if the sickness in the world only affects other people, it's okay to let it go on.

Can you both please clarify? Thanks!

I can post resources to examples of demonic illness being cured in people; so why would you wish for illness to continue and cause suffering or death when it could be cured and restore sanity and healthy life.

Do you really expect to get any kind of a respectable answer from forum trolls? Lol! These people are here to cause reactions and to try to be "shocking", and you have played into their hands. They thrive on getting attention and a reaction, no matter what it may be. They are best to be ignored or made fun of.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Challenge to GreatestIam and Goddess_Ashtara

They both said they believe Evil should remain in the world as part of life.

I ask don't they mean as long as ill will doesn't harm or affect them?

If they had a choice of curing cancer or stopping a rapist, would they prefer to suffer and die if this could be prevented?

I am guessing what they mean is only if the sickness in the world only affects other people, it's okay to let it go on.

Can you both please clarify? Thanks!

I can post resources to examples of demonic illness being cured in people; so why would you wish for illness to continue and cause suffering or death when it could be cured and restore sanity and healthy life.

If you want 'good' in the world, you must tolerate evil. Without the opposite, one doesn't mean anything. No up without down, right without left, good without evil. Just one of those truisms.

As to death, death isn't evil. Isn't good either so much as the natural consequence of life. Death serves a vital role in the sustaining of life. Nothing in existence lasts forever. No even the stars, but through a star's 'dying' it releases a lot of building block matter which become other things, including lifeforms. If stars lasted forever, life couldn't exist. And if life never became death, life couldn't exist. We war with one another pleanty as it is without fairly short life-spans. Can you imagine a world where everyone born never died? We wouldn't exist at all. Simple as that.

Sometimes I think the reason we get children pets when they're growing up is simply to teach them about death. Avg pet dog or cat lives about a dozen years. So at some point the child's beloved pet is going to die. That's a harsh lesson for a kid, but a necessary one.

 

[emilynghiem]

Challenge to GreatestIam and Goddess_Ashtara

They both said they believe Evil should remain in the world as part of life.

I ask don't they mean as long as ill will doesn't harm or affect them?

If they had a choice of curing cancer or stopping a rapist, would they prefer to suffer and die if this could be prevented?

I am guessing what they mean is only if the sickness in the world only affects other people, it's okay to let it go on.

Can you both please clarify? Thanks!

I can post resources to examples of demonic illness being cured in people; so why would you wish for illness to continue and cause suffering or death when it could be cured and restore sanity and healthy life.

If you want 'good' in the world, you must tolerate evil. Without the opposite, one doesn't mean anything. No up without down, right without left, good without evil. Just one of those truisms.

As to death, death isn't evil. Isn't good either so much as the natural consequence of life. Death serves a vital role in the sustaining of life. Nothing in existence lasts forever. No even the stars, but through a star's 'dying' it releases a lot of building block matter which become other things, including lifeforms. If stars lasted forever, life couldn't exist. And if life never became death, life couldn't exist. We war with one another pleanty as it is without fairly short life-spans. Can you imagine a world where everyone born never died? We wouldn't exist at all. Simple as that.

Sometimes I think the reason we get children pets when they're growing up is simply to teach them about death. Avg pet dog or cat lives about a dozen years. So at some point the child's beloved pet is going to die. That's a harsh lesson for a kid, but a necessary one.

Hi Delta:
Do you practice this with all things you consider evil?

Can you name something that is wrong that you do want to see stopped and obliterated
because it is completely preventable and correctable.

Please look through your threads, like when you were yelling about falsified media hype about Ebola, for example.
Were you willing to tolerate people hyping up flu's to scare people to make money off the hype.

At what point do you draw the line and say you will not tolerate abuses at THIS point.

Where do we agree that X is preventable and should be avoided, there is no excuse for it,
and Y cannot be helped so we accept when that happens sometimes.

 

[GreatestIam]

Challenge to GreatestIam and Goddess_Ashtara

They both said they believe Evil should remain in the world as part of life.

I ask don't they mean as long as ill will doesn't harm or affect them?

If they had a choice of curing cancer or stopping a rapist, would they prefer to suffer and die if this could be prevented?

I am guessing what they mean is only if the sickness in the world only affects other people, it's okay to let it go on.

Can you both please clarify? Thanks!

I can post resources to examples of demonic illness being cured in people; so why would you wish for illness to continue and cause suffering or death when it could be cured and restore sanity and healthy life.

Would you take competition out of evolution?

Would you have man be at his weakest or his strongest?

Should we not promote the survival of the fittest?

Regards
DL



=====================
Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind.

That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability as the author and creator of human nature.

Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all do evil/sin by nature then, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree with Christians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that can only be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has been forcibly withheld.

Much has been written to explain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.

First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.

In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act.

Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.

As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.

Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim.

We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.
This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.
Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

This link speak to theistic evolution.

Profmth Mitch - YouTube

If theistic evolution is true, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not really any original sin.

Doing evil then is actually forced on us by evolution and the need to survive. Our default position is to cooperate or to do good. I offer this clip as proof of this. You will note that we default to good as it is better for survival.



Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Regards
DL

 

[emilynghiem]

Would you take competition out of evolution?

Would you have man be at his weakest or his strongest?

Should we not promote the survival of the fittest?

Regards
DL

Who said competition was evil?
There is nothing wrong with competing with ourselves to be the best we can be, to do the best we can with what we're given.
Olympic teams compete with other members and compete as a team at the same time.
There is nothing evil about that, though it would be evil to bang up a skater's knee to try to damage them,
or to take harmful steroids to cheat the tests or other competitors.

There is nothing wrong with competing to solve problems in the most cost effective, consistent way.
Plenty of ways to compete without doing any evil but only doing the most good.

I think we would need to make a distinction between
unfair competition and what is called cooperative economics
where all people can benefit while competing for maximum benefits.

The difference between abundance mentality where everyone builds together through free enterprise,
and scarcity mentality where people fear evil from competitors for the same resources.

======================

Hi DL for this next part
these are three different questions
1. what is the evil we can or cannot prevent
2. does God punish for what
3. what does Christianity teach and what is the wrong interpretation and why

1. I believe we cannot help but get angry, but we don't need to act on anger to shoot out our workplace or take it out on the dog. We cannot help if we have lust or envy in our hearts, but we don't need to steal or cheat to act on that lust or coveting.

Do you see the difference?

What we CAN choose to do, is to FORGIVE when these things happen.
So we have better chance to correct early on, and not let it escalate into physical wrongs that could be prevented.

So even if people have sickness and want to rape or murder people,
I do believe we can catch and prevent this before it happens. we can diagnose cancer early before it kills,
and we can do the same with mental and criminal issues before they become deadly. We may miss cases because we aren't perfect, not all cancer can be cured and neither with criminal sickness, but most cases have signs in advance something is wrong and can be stopped by early intervention.

We can't prevent all wrongs, but we can choose to forgive so we can see clearly how to correct
the problems we can do something about.

This is not the same as allowing evil to go unchecked,
it is still trying to find and elimniate and reduce the causes as much as possible.
forgiving the ones we can't change is not the same as celebrating and thinking this is ncessary.

it only happens because we aren't perfect, and maybe it remains
as a reminder so we don't go fundamentalistic trying to fix everyting.
it is a humble reminder no matter how safe we make our world some accidents or things will go wrong.
and just forgive we aren't perfect while we work to prvent the ills we can stop.

2. no I do not believe it is God's will to punish people.
But by the laws of justice, you get the justice you give.
So if you seek to punish others, they will punish you.
if you judge and reject others, they do the same to you.
if you forgive and work to correct problems, people will do the same with you.

So all this trial and error, with retributive justice applied to those who seek retribution
and restorative justice granted to those who seek restoration, we learn the difference.
we learn that if we live by retribution we get it back in our faces.
and if we restore relations with others, people reciprocate and try to meet us halfway
and work with us also to correct the problems dividing us. We get what we give.

it goes both ways. if we punish, then yes we may get punished in return.
good will begets good will. ill will begets ill will.

that is just cause and effect, the laws of karma or justice.
we reap what we sow. until we all agree to seek justice with mercy for all wehre we are equals.

3. Christianity is supposed to teach restorative justice as the meaning and message of Christ.
I agree with you there is too much focus on retribution, so the message is confused and lost.
There is too much antichrist mixed in with the message of Christ.

only if we forgive these wrongs mistaught through religions
can we work together to correct it. this is the process of restorative justice
or justice with mercy through Christ Jesus. to break the cycle of retribution
by forgiving first embracing one another as neighbors and seeking
corrections and restitution together as partners and peers, not enemies or adversaries.


we aer supposed to unite on the same side of truth and justice for peace.
but too many are teaching division, that Jesus divides by the sword.
so again people get the justice they give, if they reject they reap rejection.
I regret this happens, but as you point out people cannot always help it.
i rejoice where peopel forgive and find ways to fix the parts we can to turn this around.

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

RE: Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind.

That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability as the author and creator of human nature.

Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all do evil/sin by nature then, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree with Christians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that can only be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has been forcibly withheld.

Much has been written to explain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.

First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.

In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act.

Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.

As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.

Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim.

We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.
This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.
Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

This link speak to theistic evolution.

Profmth Mitch - YouTube

If theistic evolution is true, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not really any original sin.

Doing evil then is actually forced on us by evolution and the need to survive. Our default position is to cooperate or to do good. I offer this clip as proof of this. You will note that we default to good as it is better for survival.



Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Regards
DL[/QUOTE]

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Challenge to GreatestIam and Goddess_Ashtara

They both said they believe Evil should remain in the world as part of life.

I ask don't they mean as long as ill will doesn't harm or affect them?

If they had a choice of curing cancer or stopping a rapist, would they prefer to suffer and die if this could be prevented?

I am guessing what they mean is only if the sickness in the world only affects other people, it's okay to let it go on.

Can you both please clarify? Thanks!

I can post resources to examples of demonic illness being cured in people; so why would you wish for illness to continue and cause suffering or death when it could be cured and restore sanity and healthy life.

If you want 'good' in the world, you must tolerate evil. Without the opposite, one doesn't mean anything. No up without down, right without left, good without evil. Just one of those truisms.

As to death, death isn't evil. Isn't good either so much as the natural consequence of life. Death serves a vital role in the sustaining of life. Nothing in existence lasts forever. No even the stars, but through a star's 'dying' it releases a lot of building block matter which become other things, including lifeforms. If stars lasted forever, life couldn't exist. And if life never became death, life couldn't exist. We war with one another pleanty as it is without fairly short life-spans. Can you imagine a world where everyone born never died? We wouldn't exist at all. Simple as that.

Sometimes I think the reason we get children pets when they're growing up is simply to teach them about death. Avg pet dog or cat lives about a dozen years. So at some point the child's beloved pet is going to die. That's a harsh lesson for a kid, but a necessary one.

Hi Delta:
Do you practice this with all things you consider evil?

Can you name something that is wrong that you do want to see stopped and obliterated
because it is completely preventable and correctable.

Please look through your threads, like when you were yelling about falsified media hype about Ebola, for example.
Were you willing to tolerate people hyping up flu's to scare people to make money off the hype.

At what point do you draw the line and say you will not tolerate abuses at THIS point.

Where do we agree that X is preventable and should be avoided, there is no excuse for it,
and Y cannot be helped so we accept when that happens sometimes.

The problem with intervention is who decides when to intervene, and how reliable is their estimation of the correctfulness of doing so? Is pleanty of bad stuff in the world, and much of it is preventable. But in the act of intervening to prevent something bad often the ones intervening become bad by trying to impose their idea of what's good and proper.

Example: radical violent religious interpretations. Is it proper for other religions or non-religious peoples to intervene and prevent a dangerous religious interpretation from being practiced? Are Christians right in intervening against Muslims, or less religious Christians against more religious Christians? Let's say you've intervened and prevented some negative expression of religion. Now what? Are you going to maintain a vigil and if it reappears intervene again? If so for how long will you maintain that vigil and policy of intervention? And if you're now permanently intervening every time it resurfaces aren't you now just as bad as what you sought to end?

Example: disease outbreaks. Surely there can be no objection to fighting something like ebola? Diseases are a natural occurence. While alleviating and preventing human suffering is a nice thing to do, there's a larger issue at hand, namely why did the outbreak occur in the first place. If you're only treating the outbreak, but not the underlying cause aren't you ensuring a future outbreak which might be even worse now that the disease germs are evolving drug resistance from the previous intervention? "Some must be sacrificed if all are to be saved." - "Babylon 5" A good point. Are pleanty of disease outbreaks and contions ongoing worldwide, do we fight them all? If so, aren't we just shouting at the rain? Outbreaks are supposed to happen. It's nature's way of maintaining balance in an ecosystem. If we meddle in how nature establishes balance and harmony we're risking nature's reaction to the interference and conjuring up something more effective and much more devastating. There are limits to what should be done independent of what can be done.

 

[emilynghiem]

The problem with intervention is who decides when to intervene, and how reliable is their estimation of the correctfulness of doing so? Is pleanty of bad stuff in the world, and much of it is preventable. But in the act of intervening to prevent something bad often the ones intervening become bad by trying to impose their idea of what's good and proper.

Why can't each group, each community or organization, decide for themselves what procedure they agree to follow?
Example: homeowners association and school districts can set up peer counseling, mediation, or grievance boards to address code of conduct violations. if the members themselves agree on the rules and procedures to live there or go to school there, it is democratic and by consensus. if there are conflicts they either agree how to resolve them, or they agree how to split up and move people under different organizations like how churches branch off and form their own school or community if they disagree with Mgmt.

Example: radical violent religious interpretations. Is it proper for other religions or non-religious peoples to intervene and prevent a dangerous religious interpretation from being practiced? Are Christians right in intervening against Muslims, or less religious Christians against more religious Christians? Let's say you've intervened and prevented some negative expression of religion. Now what? Are you going to maintain a vigil and if it reappears intervene again? If so for how long will you maintain that vigil and policy of intervention? And if you're now permanently intervening every time it resurfaces aren't you now just as bad as what you sought to end?

I suggest that every organization, not just religious but also business nonprofit political parties etc., be required upon registration with the govt to respect the same Bill of Rights and due process/equal protection of laws as the govt has to follow. Right now even the City of Houston is not required to respect this until and after they are sued successfully.
So to nip oppression and abuse in the bud, require it in advance, and a process to be set up by each group to resolve grievances by consensus so there is no gameplaying. Any group that cannot set up such resources should only practice in private, because the public is diverse and will benefit if not require conflict resolution and mediation services.

Example: disease outbreaks. Surely there can be no objection to fighting something like ebola? Diseases are a natural occurence. While alleviating and preventing human suffering is a nice thing to do, there's a larger issue at hand, namely why did the outbreak occur in the first place. If you're only treating the outbreak, but not the underlying cause aren't you ensuring a future outbreak which might be even worse now that the disease germs are evolving drug resistance from the previous intervention? "Some must be sacrificed if all are to be saved." - "Babylon 5" A good point. Are pleanty of disease outbreaks and contions ongoing worldwide, do we fight them all? If so, aren't we just shouting at the rain? Outbreaks are supposed to happen. It's nature's way of maintaining balance in an ecosystem.

If we meddle in how nature establishes balance and harmony we're risking nature's reaction to the interference and conjuring up something more effective and much more devastating. There are limits to what should be done independent of what can be done.

I trust that if we organize the medical and academic communities and resources, the experts in the field can work with the people in the field to come up with the best solutions.
We have to listen to our doctors and the people like you bringing up issues to be resolved.

So by networking all schools, medical programs, and science/academic resources and institutions together, then the people can work together to address things in the most effective sustainable manner. And yes, they should NOT go with seemingly good solutions that merely create worse problems. Someone will always object and bring up a better idea, if we use our resources like online networking, and listen and incorporate these ideas.

I believe we can solve 98% of the world's problems this way.
There may be 2% that we can't totally control, but most things we can prevent if we do things the right way to begin with so things stay as balanced and harmonious as possible and as natural as intended.

Thanks DE
I think you are one of those people who would make sure nobody overlooked something.
So it is important to have people like you in the process, so all ideas are used in building a consensus, case by case, issue by issue, region by region, group by group. Not everyone will come up with the same answers, so it is important to share and use the best ones.

 

[September]

I do not "object" to other peoples' belief systems... in regards to religion or the Law. I feel no need to.

Christianity teaches that they will be rewarded or tortured in one of two possible afterlives. I disagree with that, but I don't object to people embracing that perspective.

Believe what you Will.

Sometimes, "believing in a religion" does not mean embracing everything literally as concrete facts and as a system free of negative manipulation. Sometimes, "believing in a religion" means that you have recognized a profound level of wisdom and power in its systems, teachings, and culture that can be harnessed and put to great use. Sometimes, believing in a religion means that you believe it can do something magnificant for yourself and others.

From that perspective, and beyond any of my own personal theological beliefs, I believe in all religions, even the seemingly silly ones like Mormonism. I believe Joseph Smith "conned" a bunch of people, yes, but I also believe that he had his reasons, and if you see what Mormons have done with their religion, many of them have found great success in their pursuits in Life by embracing it. So, safe to say, I believe in Mormonism.

And I believe in Islam. I believe in Christianity, and Judaism, O9A Satanism, Luciferianism, Hinduism, Theravada Buddhism, Paganism, etc.

There are those who say, "Oh hey Ash, you know you can't believe in Christianity and also believe in Hinduism, or Luciferianism lol, they contradict each other and just aren't compatible." To that I say "Hell yes I can!"

The Essence is not the Outer Form. Religion is but the Outer Form. I strive to experience the Essence of every religion I can.

Law is another matter.

I am morally balanced. Within America, I recognize that the Law is there for great reasons, and the Police are certainly a necessary part of the Machine. America's laws, on average, tend to be more "just" than most places.

However

Some might call me a "criminal". For many reasons.

I find that those who are mindlessly subservient to the Law, and those who never defy "authority", are generally followers rather than leaders, and experience far less freedoms than those of us who choose to carefully explore our freedoms outside of what the Law permits. There is excitement to be found and great opportunities to be taken advantage of, beyond the Law.

There is much to experience on the other side.

But just as the "dark side of the Moon" isn't actually any "darker" than the side that faces us, and is only called such because it is never seen by most people and thus understood less... "Crime" can be viewed as very similar, especially when considering that "Good" and "Evil" are always subjective.

But I am balanced. There are times when I feel compelled to go about my business without doing the illegal, and there are times when I say "fuck it". It is my Life, after all. As long as I am prepared to deal with any potential consequences, yeah, I'll defy Uncle Sam. What, did he think he was my God? That his every wish was my command? Think again, Sammy boy.

Plus, many of my friends are also "criminals". We have our own culture, and great loyalty to each other. We've spilled blood for each other! We've had each others' backs when confronted with adversity.

Things are not always what they appear to be. A battle hardened criminal might be the one who saves your life one day.

Or they might be the one to help you "get to Heaven"...

lol

"Good" and "Evil"... terms that describe some collective subjective perspective on what is generally considered to be positive and negative behavior, primarily abused for social control. As with religion... I choose to experience the Essence of both of these, of both sides of our inherent human Nature, so that they are in harmony and synergize with each other... thus unlocking a new "side", one that is neither Light nor Dark.


​

 

[emilynghiem]

I do not "object" to other peoples' belief systems... in regards to religion or the Law. I feel no need to.

Christianity teaches that they will be rewarded or tortured in one of two possible afterlives. I disagree with that, but I don't object to people embracing that perspective.

Believe what you Will.

Sometimes, "believing in a religion" does not mean embracing everything literally as concrete facts and as a system free of negative manipulation. Sometimes, "believing in a religion" means that you have recognized a profound level of wisdom and power in its systems, teachings, and culture that can be harnessed and put to great use. Sometimes, believing in a religion means that you believe it can do something magnificant for yourself and others.

From that perspective, and beyond any of my own personal theological beliefs, I believe in all religions, even the seemingly silly ones like Mormonism. I believe Joseph Smith "conned" a bunch of people, yes, but I also believe that he had his reasons, and if you see what Mormons have done with their religion, many of them have found great success in their pursuits in Life by embracing it. So, safe to say, I believe in Mormonism.

And I believe in Islam. I believe in Christianity, and Judaism, O9A Satanism, Luciferianism, Hinduism, Theravada Buddhism, Paganism, etc.

There are those who say, "Oh hey Ash, you know you can't believe in Christianity and also believe in Hinduism, or Luciferianism lol, they contradict each other and just aren't compatible." To that I say "Hell yes I can!"

The Essence is not the Outer Form. Religion is but the Outer Form. I strive to experience the Essence of every religion I can.

Law is another matter.

I am morally balanced. Within America, I recognize that the Law is there for great reasons, and the Police are certainly a necessary part of the Machine. America's laws, on average, tend to be more "just" than most places.

However

Some might call me a "criminal". For many reasons.

I find that those who are mindlessly subservient to the Law, and those who never defy "authority", are generally followers rather than leaders, and experience far less freedoms than those of us who choose to carefully explore our freedoms outside of what the Law permits. There is excitement to be found and great opportunities to be taken advantage of, beyond the Law.

There is much to experience on the other side.

But just as the "dark side of the Moon" isn't actually any "darker" than the side that faces us, and is only called such because it is never seen by most people and thus understood less... "Crime" can be viewed as very similar, especially when considering that "Good" and "Evil" are always subjective.

But I am balanced. There are times when I feel compelled to go about my business without doing the illegal, and there are times when I say "fuck it". It is my Life, after all. As long as I am prepared to deal with any potential consequences, yeah, I'll defy Uncle Sam. What, did he think he was my God? That his every wish was my command? Think again, Sammy boy.

Plus, many of my friends are also "criminals". We have our own culture, and great loyalty to each other. We've spilled blood for each other! We've had each others' backs when confronted with adversity.

Things are not always what they appear to be. A battle hardened criminal might be the one who saves your life one day.

Or they might be the one to help you "get to Heaven"...

lol

"Good" and "Evil"... terms that describe some collective subjective perspective on what is generally considered to be positive and negative behavior, primarily abused for social control. As with religion... I choose to experience the Essence of both of these, of both sides of our inherent human Nature, so that they are in harmony and synergize with each other... thus unlocking a new "side", one that is neither Light nor Dark.


​

Thank you, I love your answer and will share this link with other friends who might like how you express these things so well.

Again I agree with the general sense of freedom, and I respect how you support freedom so much you actually state you believe in all these other ways and trust that the essence is what you focus on.

I think you are indirectly implying the factor of "consent" where there is a natural limit on freedom and free exercise.
I don't see you state this directly, as I tend to emphasize.

With people as spiritually mature and aware, I guess this does not need to be stated.

But people without a sense of "consent" of others can get into trouble thinking they have this much freedom
and can break the law.

You say you are aware of the consequences and responsibility for going either way and "coloring outside the lines"
drawn by laws or society.

That is where I find people make mistakes, is doing this and then assuming someone else will burden the responsibility.
So when their karma comes back to them, and they have to face payback for that freedom or liberty they took,
THEN they object and DON'T want to take the responsibility after all. But by then it is too late.

So the men, for example, involved as either witnesses or participants in the rape and assault of the student at Vanderbilt,
NOW they say they wouldn't have acted that way, and don't think this is funny, and wish they had avoided the whole incident.

I believe people should fully agree UP FRONT what are the consequences, and agree who is going to pay or do what if someone's consent gets violated and this causes debts or damages.

I would like EVERYONE to be as enlightened and aware as you,
so we CAN be free to do more, since we agree what the limits are.

If people don't know or don't agree, then people end up "experimenting" and testing those limits.
So why not discuss them in advance? And yes, if there are people like you who believe in greater freedom,
there should be a way to allow for that without it causing harm or fear to others. So there could be whole
cities or states where people are free to live as openly as you without rules you don't need or want.

What do you think of that idea? That if you have this belief that people are free to break laws,
then all those who believe that can live under that agreement. And everyone who believes otherwise
doesn't have to pay for the consequences of people who feel or believe that way.

I would love to live in an environment where consent is respected for all people regardless of views.
If someone doesn't believe in consent as the standard, I don't want to invite people to test or experiment
on others, like how James Holmes tested the system by shooting people to death in Colorado
to study how the system responds and treats him. Those people didn't consent to be killed as part of his study.

So if someone like him is going to do whatever and study the consequences, that would still require consent of other people affected in order to take responsibility. otherwise it is dumping that on others as part of the study.

Even if he agreed to let other people do whatever against HIS consent, THEY still may not consent.
I believe there are better ways to learn how to manage this without experimenting in ways that violate consent and burden others.

The consequences are not just on the person, but affect others, so that's why I believe we should have agreement in advance.

Again, I look forward to the day where I see more people as transparent as you, Goddess_Ashtara,
and I agree that the ESSENCE of all groups would work in harmony where they can preserve their cultural differences.

Thank you!