A Divine quote?

Can we make it a collective deal that no one abandons the forum because something is upsetting them... if at all possible?

Goodness knows there's been enough of that already just in the last week, and we're not that many here to begin with.

Haha...no, of course not!

I deeply enjoy reading the comments and links of others here. It is one of very few forums I check out daily. I however don't pay too much attention to individual usernames or people, instead I rather evaluate what they've posted in any given moment/thread. I am like this with most forums I read, and almost never participate in any. I'm interested more in content than personalities, so apologies if I don't understand or appreciate all the inter-group dynamics, I have always been clumsy or perhaps inconsiderate in that way.

Ironically - albeit, and I apologise if this seems condescending to say, understandably - the original point of this thread (I think), and my own comments, has been perhaps lost. I will try to recap in as inoffensive and unchallenging a way as possible before logging off from this thread only (not the forum!).

The types of actual "spiritual" experiences in which "love", "evil" and "forgivness" are encountered and "resolved" in an indescribably glorious vision or understanding that transcends all dualism and conceptuality (the reality is in actuality beyond any labels) are my personal passion and obsession. But these are too hard to talk about and discuss, especially when I'm so lazy.

But to simplify, imo, love, forgiveness, compassion, empathy, understanding etc are the totality of any path worthy of being called "spiritual", whatever other aspects or forms it may take, from Jesus to Shiva to Buddha to whatever. They are all empty shells without these qualities. Further, that the deeper one dives into such genuine spirituality, that notions of evil and suffering - which will utterly consume you as "realities" at earlier specific points of the "spiritual path", will disappear and be replaced by a far higher, non-dualistic understanding that transcends the implied duality, hence incompleteness, of less sophisticated conceptualisations of "evil".

Personally, I wonder why so many people are so troubled by this? It seems the very anti-thesis of an unpleasant idea? Hmmmmm.

Damn it, I was sure I could write that without being offensive 

Peace and good day/night to all you wonderful & beautiful sentient sacks of sh...Divinity!!

Hey Tim. I'm sorry, but it is quite evident that you have indeed responded in an emotional way and are not actually making any logical sense.

For example, you now aggressively & massively contradict yourself with the above comment, which is completely different to your original response to my first comment here. You clearly did NOT agree with my point you quote above, saying it was actually untrue which is why I wrote the 2nd comment to clarify my point (which, btw, had absolutely nothing to do with you personally, or your imagined sense of identity on this forum. I have no idea about anything about you, and you may well be a vegan activist and that would not have changed my impersonal point, but hey-ho). It was in response to that clarification that you claimed I was being "patronising". Now here you are claiming you knew that my first comment was true all along and I was being patronising for rebutting your original crystal clear statement that it was wrong?

When the discussion becomes so emotive, value, coherency, meaning etc flies out the window. Discussion becomes all noise and no signal. Whatever has caused you to get that way, and so very rapidly, I suggest is worthy of further examination by your own self. I could speculate on several possible motives, but it is of no real interest or concern to me. To each their own.

Yes, I have now decided to enjoy the appearance of patronisation. When in Rome. 

PS - Stan also posted a quote from Khalil Gibran in this thread. Apologies if you were not referring to that one specifically.

Manjit, you can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead. 

Okay, sorry everyone - one last comment!

This conversation reminds me of this book which is available freely and legitimately online:

https://archive.org/details/historydevil...9/mode/2up

There may be better copies online. It's a great book to get a generalised history of the various conceptions of "the Devil" and hence by extension "evil" too. I found some sections somewhat inaccurate (such as the section on Yazidi cosmology, and other parts I forget as I read it many years ago) which is understandable given when it was written, but generally a very interesting and informative book.

Also, one last thought I'd like to add in direct response to Stan's original quote, and the comments about free-will etc. Even ignoring alleged transcendent spiritual metaphysical perspectives, just from a mundane point of view, it is hard to cut off a conception of evil that is not dependant on other factors, such as the very obvious conditioned free-will we have (if we have any at all), our genetics, our current biological-state, our environment and our upbringing, all of which almost always play an overtly obvious influence on say the behaviour of a "serial killer". Even in those exceptionally rare cases where there is no obvious factor of abuse during their formative years in one of these areas, it is no huge leap to assume a hidden neuro-biological abnormality or abuse in their upbringing that conditions them to behave in such "evil ways"? This goes back to the original quote of the thread and Stan's defense of it, just because we don't know all and consider something "evil", doesn't necessarily mean it is impossible to "know all", and by virtue of that knowing implicitly "forgive". This is just a logical observation to make. Doesn't necessarily mean it's true, but not false either.

I love watching videos of animals in nature. I've also seen videos of badly abused then abandoned dogs. One of the most heart warming things you will ever see is a growling, barking, biting dog, utterly vicious and will not let anyone or thing approach it.......be completely transformed into a playful, happy dog just by the sheer magic of showing it love and affection by the beautiful human beings who go and rescue these dogs from death's door. I'm just a weird old soul, I'd like to think and imagine that is how "evil" is transformed, by love and forgiveness. It's very, very possible I'm deeply mistaken and delusional. In fact, I would wager I almost certainly am. But I have to admit it is quite a beautiful and ecstatic delusion to participate in.

Peace.

Edit: I originally absent mindedly posted links to the incorrect book by the same name. A correct link has now been inserted, I think, but the book is called History of the Devil and the notion of evil by Paul Camus and should be easily downloaded as its more than a hundred years old!

 
Free will (at an informationally objective view) is to have two or more potential afforded choices of action and to act (or not act) in light of them.  Most real-world circumstances occur with random events and do offer multiple degrees of freedom, in an ecological context.  So your concluded premise means little without a founded first proposition.

On the other hand, I am very interested in the actions have "products of experience" assertion.  I know what a product is in math or in manufacturing.  I understand coding and organizational plans as products, products composed of documented information objects.

what do mean by a product that influences behavior? and are you talking about peptides and neuro-chemicals?
are you speaking about memes?  

Let me put it like this:

A man is presented with a situation and acts in a certain way.

Given the same man, given the same history and presented with the same situation, at the same moment, can we realistically expect him to act any differently. 

If yes, why would he?

But to simplify, imo, love, forgiveness, compassion, empathy, understanding etc are the totality of any path worthy of being called "spiritual", whatever other aspects or forms it may take, from Jesus to Shiva to Buddha to whatever. They are all empty shells without these qualities. Further, that the deeper one dives into such genuine spirituality, that notions of evil and suffering - which will utterly consume you as "realities" at earlier specific points of the "spiritual path", will disappear and be replaced by a far higher, non-dualistic understanding that transcends the implied duality, hence incompleteness, of less sophisticated conceptualisations of "evil".

Personally, I wonder why so many people are so troubled by this? It seems the very anti-thesis of an unpleasant idea? Hmmmmm.

From William James' Will to Believe:

I CONFESS  that I do not see why the very existence of an invisible world may not in part depend on the personal response which any one of us may make to the religious appeal. God himself, in short, may draw vital strength and increase of very being from our fidelity. For my own part, I do not know what the sweat and blood and tragedy of this life mean, if they mean anything short of this. If this life be not a real fight, in which something is eternally gained for the universe by success, it is no better than a game of private theatricals from which one may withdraw at will. But it feels like a real fight,—as if there were something really wild in the universe which we, with all our idealities and faithfulnesses, are needed to redeem; and first of all to redeem our own hearts from atheisms and fears. For such a half-wild half-saved universe our nature is adapted. The deepest thing in our nature is this dumb region of the heart in which we dwell alone with our willingnesses and our unwillingnesses, our faiths and our fears. As through the cracks and crannies of caverns those waters exude from the earth’s bosom which then form the fountain-heads of springs, so in these crepuscular depths of personality the sources of all our outer deeds and decisions take their rise. Here is our deepest organ of communication with the nature of things; and compared with these concrete movements of our soul all abstract statements and scientific arguments—the veto, for example, which the strict positivist pronounces upon our faith—sound to us like mere chatterings of the teeth …
 
  These then are my last words to you: Be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact. The ‘scientific’ proof that you are right may not be clear before the day of judgment (or some stage of being which that expression may serve to symbolize) is reached. But the faithful fighters of this hour, or the beings that then and there will represent them, may turn to the faint-hearted, who here decline to go on, with words like those with which Henry IV greeted the tardy Crillon after a great battle had been gained: ‘Hang yourself, brave Crillon! We fought at Arques, and you were not there!’

=-=-=

Not directly dealing with Stan's quote but related; the problem of evil is arguably the greatest excuse for not believing in a creator. But how could a creator create beings with free will, that are incapable of evil ? God (whatever that is) must have evil in him/her as well as unconditional love. I  never understood the platitudes dished out from scripture about God only being love. It can't be right.

This reminds me of an interesting note - in the published version of the Simarillion, which was edited together after Tolkien's death by his son, the chief evil of Melkor takes the role of Lucifer the rebellious angel.

However in the early drafts Melkor is not the devil but rather the shadow of God, a part of the Divine that seems to subconsciously influence creation...

Let me put it like this:

A man is presented with a situation and acts in a certain way.

Given the same man, given the same history and presented with the same situation, at the same moment, can we realistically expect him to act any differently. 

If yes, why would he?

Because maybe consciousness, which we don't understand, isn't rational in the traditional sense?  Maybe the man's considerations include things that aren't purely material (i.e., "same history, same moment, same situation"); perhaps there are other variables.

I mean why are you presupposing that the man's actions would be the same each time?  What's your evidence for this presupposition?

[quote='tim' pid='35204' dateline='1587647434']
No one who did such terrible things would ever be forgivable in my opinion, from a human perspective that is[/quote]

I’m not sure what you mean by human perspective Tim. You appear to be saying you as a human living now could never forgive, if so I can understand. But that is what I’m saying, at our stage of consciousness such acts might well be impossible to forgive, that’s not in dispute. What I’m saying is that as our consciousness grows towards love, we might realise that forgiveness is the only way forward. I would venture a guess that this would be true even from a human perspective, it would work even if we did not understand fully the complex reasons behind everything. Perhaps Jesus was meant to show us the possibilities, but it was bound 
to end the way it did because we just weren’t ready for it then. Would it be very different now? I doubt it.

I’m rather surprised at your opposition to this thinking, having studied NDEs in some depth. Have you found evidence from NDErs that God would not forgive even the most awful acts ? Take for example NDEr George Ritchie, the author of Return from Tomorrow, who tells of one man he met who had been in the concentration camps...if true, this is definitely one from a human perspective, albeit linked to a spiritual one via Ritchie:

“And that is how I came to know Wild Bill Cody. That was not his real name. His real name was seven unpronounceable syllables in Polish, but he had a long drooping handlebar mustache like pictures of the old western hero, so the American soldiers called him Wild Bill. He was one of the inmates of the concentration camp, but obviously he had not been there long: his posture was erect, his eyes bright, his energy indefatigable. Since he was fluent in English, French, German and Russian, as well as Polish, he became a kind of unofficial camp translator. We came to him with all sorts of problems; the paperwork alone was staggering in attempting to relocate people whose families, even whole hometowns, might have disappeared. But though Wild Bill worked fifteen and sixteen hours a day, he showed no signs of weariness. While the rest of us were drooping with fatigue, he seemed to gain strength. “We have time for this old fellow,” he would say. “He’s been waiting to see us all day.” His compassion for his fellow prisoners glowed on his face, and it was to this glow that I came when my own spirits were low. So I was astonished to learn, when Wild Bill’s own papers came before us one day, that he had been in Wuppertal since 1939! For six years he had lived on the same starvation diet, slept in the same airless and disease-ridden barracks as everyone else, but without the least physical or mental deterioration.

Perhaps even more amazing, every group in the camp looked on him as a friend. He was the one to whom quarrels between inmates were brought for arbitration. Only after I had been at Wuppertal a number of weeks did I realize what a rarity this was in a compound where the different nationalities of prisoners hated each other almost as much as they did the Germans. As for Germans, feeling against them ran so high that in some of the camps liberated earlier, former prisoners had seized guns, run into the nearest village and simply shot the first Germans they saw. Part of our instructions were to prevent this kind of thing, and again Wild Bill was our greatest asset, reasoning with the different groups, counseling forgiveness. “It’s not easy for some of them to forgive,” I commented to him one day as we sat over mugs of tea in the processing center. “So many of them have lost members of their families.” Wild Bill leaned back in the upright chair and sipped at his drink. “We lived in the Jewish section of Warsaw,” he began slowly, the first words I had heard him speak about himself, “my wife, our two daughters, and our three little boys. When the Germans reached our street they lined everyone against a wall and opened up with machine guns. I begged to be allowed to die with my family, but because I spoke German they put me in a work group.” He paused, perhaps seeing again his wife and five children. “I had to decide right then,” he continued, “whether to let myself hate the soldiers who had done this. It was an easy decision, really. I was a lawyer. In my practice I had seen too often what hate could do to people’s minds and bodies. Hate had just killed the six people who mattered most to me in the world. I decided then that I would spend the rest of my life—whether it was a few days or many years—loving every person I came in contact with.” 

Loving every person . . . this was the power that had kept a man well in the face of every privation. It was the Power I had first met in a hospital room in Texas, and was learning little by little to recognize wherever He chose to shine through—whether the human vehicle was aware of Him or not.”

I would suggest that this type of story is not atypical of the type of message that nders wish to convey. I’m not troubled by your attitude, just a bit confused. As usual, it’s probably because what you or I meant to get across has been lost in translation by the limitations of language.

Stan said >"I’m not sure what you mean by human perspective Tim. You appear to be saying you as a human living now, could never forgive,..."

Stan, can I gently remind you (you know this of course) that when you're trying to make a particular point (stick), you need to be accurate and precise on what basis you are making that point.

I didn't say I could never forgive as a human being (did I ?)...I said I could never forgive the perpetrators of crimes of the magnitude mentioned. I'm not sure why you are so insistent and concerned for my spiritual welfare ? I assure you, I can forgive a great many things, Stan but I hope you'll forgive me when I say that sadistic monsters who put other human beings in gas ovens and dismember children alive, are not on the list. .

This is why I disagreed with the premise of that quote you supplied.

Stan said >"I’m rather surprised at your opposition to this thinking, having studied NDEs in some depth. Have you found evidence from NDErs that God would not forgive even the most awful acts ?

Studying near death experiences is not the same as understanding the mind of "God" whatever that is, Stan. NDE's provide clues as to the bigger existential picture, but we don't yet have anywhere near a complete picture of what we're doing here and how we should or shouldn't behave (beyond the basic and obvious) indeed if "should" or "shouldn't" are even relevant, do we ?

What about those NDE's that you're so fond of sticking up..the hellish ones? According to many NDE researchers, the type of character you are, seems to bear little or no relation to whether or not you have a hellish experience. That brings us nicely to George Ritchie, the author of the quote above and the theme of unconditional forgiveness you are recommending.

Ritchie's own NDE however, would seem to contradict a general theme of unconditional forgiveness in the next world, as he was (apparently) witness to a journey into (as well as other places) a horrific realm where the disincarnate were perpetrating the most sordid acts upon each other (Hell ?) etc. I know there was a caveat inserted by Ritchie that they could leave this place whenever they wanted but I was never convinced by that, personally.

Lastly, I wish you or anyone on the forum wouldn't assume (if you do assume) that because I post a particular NDE, it means that I am in full agreement with everything that it relates. Not at all. I've just tried to get good content onto the forum to attract visitors.

I would also like to add that I do get a bit pissed off with being repeatedly misunderstood (not by everyone of course) when I take great care not to overstate anything and stick to the facts.

Stan, can I gently remind you (you know this of course) that when you're trying to make a particular point (stick), you need to be accurate and precise on what basis you are making that point.

My post began with me saying “I’m not sure...” If I read that phrase in a post I would naturally assume that whoever was writing it, wasn’t certain of something? 

Can I gently remind you that I am trying my best to be ‘accurate and precise’ when I write posts here. Maybe you should consider the possibility that while accepting my deficiencies in the transmitting end you maybe ought to consider your skills in interpreting such posts? Perhaps the problem is not only on my end? 

I'm not sure why you are so insistent and concerned for my spiritual welfare ?

You are factually wrong here.(1)If this is sarcasm, is it acceptable when you’re being accurate and precise? Imo you alone are responsible for your spiritual welfare. And insistent on what? I’m only attempting to find out what you think about these subjects, I don’t lose sleep about what I find. 

I didn't say I could never forgive as a human being (did I ?)...I said I could never forgive the perpetrators of crimes of the magnitude mentioned.

In my opinion you’re being over pedantic here. 
Why would we be talking about crimes of the magnitude mentioned if that wasn’t the focus of our discussion? ‘Evil’ acts! Forgive me if I automatically assume that most people might accept that someone, in this case you, might for example easily forgive someone spilling a drink over them, but find it a different category when we’re talking about disembowelling children! 

Studying near death experiences is not the same as understanding the mind of "God" whatever that is, Stan.

How can you say that as a fact? (2)It may not be for you, but for others, studying NDEs might be totally different. God often features in NDEs Tim, no matter what you or I may think ‘that’ is. I choose to interpret some of these lessons in a similar way to many NDErs, otherwise what’s the point of their existence? Are we to be the scientist rather than the student when studying them? I choose to be the latter. 

What about those NDE's that you're so fond of sticking up..the hellish ones? 

To me, there is a air of something personal and bitchy in this sentence.
I would challenge you to prove your assertion by showing me that I post more hellish NDEs than any other type, but I think it would be unfair of me to do so. If I am wrong, and I have posted more hellish ones than usual, it is probably because I find them troubling, like our darker natures, but I am not afraid to face up to them, rather than hide them away in the attic. I happen to think that hellish NDEs are probably happen far more often than we know, but people are far more likely to keep them to themselves.

That brings us nicely to George Ritchie, the author of the quote above and the theme of unconditional forgiveness you are recommending

I was looking for the story of Wild Bill rather than George Ritchie, in fact I didn’t know that it was a story in Ritchie’s book, I thought it was a different NDEr. Eventually I googled Wild Bill and it came up as being in Ritchie’s book. So George Ritchie himself has little or nothing to do with the reason I posted the passage, apart from being an NDEr who seems to endorse the message of love like so many other NDErs.

I’m not recommending anything. (Pedant hat on) If we’re being accurate and precise, where did I say I ‘recommend’ unconditional forgiveness? I endorse it as something to aim towards, but is that the same as recommending it? Would I be able to do as I say? Probably not, but I would still say it is what I’m looking to achieve in theory. Maybe not in practise in this life, but in future lives, maybe.

Lastly, I wish you or anyone on the forum wouldn't assume (if you do assume) that because I post a particular NDE, it means that I am in full agreement with everything that it relates. 

I don’t. You assume that I might. From memory I couldn’t even recall one of your posted NDEs, my short term memory is hopeless. .
However, I have also looked at NDEs in some depth, so have my own ideas. I would say that Love features largely in them. I would say love and forgiveness are in the same general ballpark. You can say what you like.

I would also like to add that I do get a bit pissed off with being repeatedly misunderstood (not by everyone of course) when I take great care not to overstate anything and stick to the facts.

Oh lord it’s hard to be humble
When you’re perfect in every way. 
I can’t wait to look in the mirror
I get better looking each day... 

Stan said > "My post began with me saying “I’m not sure...”

Yes this >"I’m not sure what you mean by human perspective Tim".  (full stop) then you (Stan) said...You appear to be saying you as a human living now could never forgive,....

Then you said in your next post with reference to this :

Stan said >"Can I gently remind you that I am trying my best to be ‘accurate and precise’ when I write posts here. Maybe you should consider the possibility that while accepting my deficiencies in the transmitting end you maybe ought to consider your skills in interpreting such posts?"

How is that trying your best to be accurate, Stan ? I never gave any indication whatsoever in my first response to you that I was not capable of forgiving in a general sense. I never said anything else other than in my opinion, some crimes are unforgivable and therefore that quote was inadequate. 

Stan said >" And insistent on what? I’m only attempting to find out what you think about these subjects, I don’t lose sleep about what I find.

Maybe not lose sleep of course but you refused to accept my opinion as a valid one and carried on like a dog with a bone. That's okay of course, I don't mind, but it contradicts what you've just said there 

Stan said >To me, there is a air of something personal and bitchy in this sentence (with reference to me saying that you like to post hellish NDE's).

Nothing personal and bitchy about my comment. The reason why I mentioned that fact is because it is arguably inconsistent to believe forgiveness for everyone and in an all loving, all forgiving god, and then wonder about the potential of hell. No ?

Stan said >"(Pedant hat on) If we’re being accurate and precise, where did I say I ‘recommend’ unconditional forgiveness?

I didn't  actually say you used the word recommend, Stan, which you understand perfectly well. You "recommend" it by posting quotes which recommend it  and by urging others to pay attention to them. Which is okay, it's not a problem and it shouldn't be if I disagree, either. 

Stan said >"I don’t. You assume that I might. From memory I couldn’t even recall one of your posted NDEs, my short term memory is hopeless. 

Well Stan, I'm quite prepared to take your word for that, but sometime back we had a similar discussion about an NDE I posted and a comment you made about it and I remember having to point out that I was not necessarily in agreement with it, or something along those lines. 

Stan said >"  However, I have also looked at NDEs in some depth, so have my own ideas. I would say that Love features largely in them. I would say love and forgiveness are in the same general ballpark. You can say what you like*

*That's good of you, Stan.  Just to clarify, I'm mainly interested in the veridical content of near death experiences which suggest that there's something else to a human being, other than the interaction of brain cells. Whilst it's heartening to hear the stories of another world, beautiful celestial landscapes and unconditional love etc, it's beyond the scope of our understanding. Whatever it is, it is. 

I would also say that hellish NDE's are likewise beyond our understanding.  So what is it that fascinates you about them? I'm not saying don't post them, post whatever you like, but if everything is forgiven, where does hell come into it?

Don't bother answering, Stan. It's pointless.