This comment contradicts itself. Most of it emphatically states that all is one, good and evil are the same, the act of robbing is no different than the act of struggling.
Then, the last three sentences completely contradict the previous ones. Suddenly there is judgement and condemnation. They have to prove themselves worthy. Every thought and action is being evaluated for wrongdoing.
If the poster truly believes that good and bad are one, there would be no notion of unworthiness based on shortcomings.
These are two separate beliefs and, cannot, with true conviction, exist simultaneously within the creature.
Very inaccurate. Your assessment relies on parsing the usage of "good" and "evil" in relative terms.
A relative observation is generally defined in terms of contrast or "comparing oneself to another." Thus we may perceive the evildoer's acts as a lesser form of the good doer's acts and see the contrast as a necessity caused by the gradient of choice. In the common usage of "good" as "benefit to myself" and "evil" as "harm to myself," this meaning is inevitable.
However, good and evil can also operate in terms of the absolute. In the absolute sense, your statement is very wrong. The absolute definition is defined by the effect on reality: that is, its value; and the integrity with respect to reality: that is, its truth. An absolute good logically causes reality, sustains reality and promotes its general improvement. An absolute evil logically destroys reality, attenuates one's sense of it and multiplies harm.
A true definition of reality can only function in the scope of one of an absolute good for in its absence, reality would eventually cease to be real and we would be left with the ontological question of how reality began if evil were all that could exist. Such a question does not exist for absolute good, since it can continue acting infinitely in that capacity. The only variance comes from the observation that a perfect absolute good can permits a gradient of "less perfect good" to exist in its shadows.
The sense that morality operates is close to absolute in that it is the "net benefit to all things," but it's imperfect and limited somewhat by temptation to limit one's usage to "benefit [only] to myself and those I care about." At any rate, the problem is very serious as it is written "Woe to those who call good evil and evil good." (Isaiah 5:20) Those who assume that evil can be substituted for good are, frankly, insane.
view the rest of the comments →
16637382? ago
Duality is one of the "beautiful lies".
Consider that darkness and light are ONE.
Good and Evil are ONE.
We (or I should say YOU) fight yourselves!
Can you not see that??
YOU fight YOURSELVES.
WHILE you fight YOURSELVES, others pick your pockets.
Who is the greater fool?
WHO is truly at fault? YOU for fighting yourself, or others, who rob you while you struggle?
That is why you are viewed as foolish children.
You will have a place at the table when you have proven yourselves worthy.
And don't think you are not being WATCHED and EVALUATED
16651838? ago
This comment contradicts itself. Most of it emphatically states that all is one, good and evil are the same, the act of robbing is no different than the act of struggling.
Then, the last three sentences completely contradict the previous ones. Suddenly there is judgement and condemnation. They have to prove themselves worthy. Every thought and action is being evaluated for wrongdoing.
If the poster truly believes that good and bad are one, there would be no notion of unworthiness based on shortcomings.
These are two separate beliefs and, cannot, with true conviction, exist simultaneously within the creature.
16641849? ago
Very inaccurate. Your assessment relies on parsing the usage of "good" and "evil" in relative terms.
A relative observation is generally defined in terms of contrast or "comparing oneself to another." Thus we may perceive the evildoer's acts as a lesser form of the good doer's acts and see the contrast as a necessity caused by the gradient of choice. In the common usage of "good" as "benefit to myself" and "evil" as "harm to myself," this meaning is inevitable.
However, good and evil can also operate in terms of the absolute. In the absolute sense, your statement is very wrong. The absolute definition is defined by the effect on reality: that is, its value; and the integrity with respect to reality: that is, its truth. An absolute good logically causes reality, sustains reality and promotes its general improvement. An absolute evil logically destroys reality, attenuates one's sense of it and multiplies harm.
A true definition of reality can only function in the scope of one of an absolute good for in its absence, reality would eventually cease to be real and we would be left with the ontological question of how reality began if evil were all that could exist. Such a question does not exist for absolute good, since it can continue acting infinitely in that capacity. The only variance comes from the observation that a perfect absolute good can permits a gradient of "less perfect good" to exist in its shadows.
The sense that morality operates is close to absolute in that it is the "net benefit to all things," but it's imperfect and limited somewhat by temptation to limit one's usage to "benefit [only] to myself and those I care about." At any rate, the problem is very serious as it is written "Woe to those who call good evil and evil good." (Isaiah 5:20) Those who assume that evil can be substituted for good are, frankly, insane.
16637826? ago
Agreed.
Without Evil, how would one have a concept for Good?
Everything... simply... is.
16637553? ago
Saywhat?
16637473? ago
Whatchutalkinbout Willis?