I am sure even the most moral of people aren’t perfect, even that being this alone can be immoral especially in its application. …Though I done a thread called ‘righteousness itself is divisive‘ once so I don’t want to linger upon that here. So to the point;
Where we have done things that wont stand up to the highest moral scrutiny [or any moral scrutiny lols], how is it possible to get rid of them? for me it is as if although virtually meaningless over time, such things seam to be a stain upon the soul [remain in the memory etc.].
I happen to believe that no such things are the true me, whatever that means [well to me is the consciousness which moves into the higher realms in visions etc], things occur in the mind without my asking of them, events occur before I were of a maturity to not act by them. In fact this is pretty much the moral learning process as I see it. Other times I may say or do something and think ‘feck I didn’t mean it to go like that‘, or for such and such a thing to occur by my actions.
Even if one were completely guilty of a crime or something otherwise unethical even by ones own realisations, how would it be possible to remove any and all iniquities?
If I took away to heaven what I see as a purer soul within the greater complex of self, would that soul be me?
Up until now I have seen my higher self as something stripped away from earthy sensory input, and so all that goes with them are no longer part of my constitution. Is this plausible?
Its all a learning process, just as children are not responsible for there actions, anyone in ignorance or genetically and environmentally swayed/determined are not.
children are taught from a very early age about what you do and what you dont…one of the earliest is dont bite your mothers tit…
of course some persons are not capable of learning some things…but we still must say that an action occurred and someone did it…then we say how do we handle it…
Not to get too far into the nature/nurture debate, when an action occurs it is perhaps mostly nothing to do with some vague holistic entity we call the person.
I agree that we are taught right from wrong, but that doesn’t always correspond with new environmental conditions, nor do we always act by what we are taught, if we did would we not be automatons.
So first they need a genetic disposition towards violence e.g. I couldn’t kill someone unless e.g. my family were threatened [even then doubtful], and then it would be for similar reasons as to why soldiers kill people etc, etc. then they also need a motive, a rather stupid man may kill his wife because she went off with another man, ~ it threatens his family and values. that’s what he had been taught or he wouldn’t have done it, its all about conditioning. What if you kill people for morally justifiable reasons, just as people kill in the bible.
Unless the ethic is to not kill under any circumstances, which is fine with me given that no others are set on disobeying that ethic for any given reason.
Would you say all war and killing is always wrong? I would, except for when others disagree [as above] and break the rule. that’s the problem, there are always reasons!
ok we have established that a murder has happened…
a person has done that…what i am saying is that an evaluation needs to be made and then you decide what to do…
That is the point in Christianity. You personally cannot do it for yourself (no matter who you are).
It gets accomplished by being a part of a group that expects a certain degree of inequity along with the effort to remove it and makes that a part of their harmony through forgiveness and inspiration to higher standards.
Without the forgivenes issue, the other people will not allow self-harmony, but rather condemnation. Your participation in the attempt to reach a higher standard is a part of the agreement within the community and thus, in that sense, “earn” their forgiveness and thus maintain harmony.
That which remains in harmony, cannot perish. The point to survival is to establish harmony both within and around yourself. After which, God/Reality allows you to live free of condemnation. That is the theory involved in Christianity.
If you merely want to be Buddhist or Hindu, find a mountain with no one one it and stay there in pure peace of mind… until you need something that you cannot get for yourself, at which point God/Reality condemns you for not helping others to help you.
You could hardly take it with you if it wasn’t.
That is the state of the Buddhist and is “plausible”, but will fall short due to the requirement on people for people.
I don’t agree with the Buddhist point but we’ll leave that to one side [they do help each other reduce and remove duality in retreats etc]. otherwise that’s some interesting points you made there.
There is a sense of relief when there have been problems between parties, and there comes a resolution to the matter. Forgiveness is certainly fundamental to that, given that there has been a changing of ones ways in the process.
Could we say that such events changes ones condition? Is it not so that given certain circumstances one would often behave incorrectly, or say something regrettable? Are not such imperfections part of the human condition.
