Knowledge of Good and Evil

[earl]

Originally Posted by taijasi

Thank you, BJ, I couldn't have said it better. I really don't even need to respond, having read your post now.

I would like to second what you've just said, though. What is it that you're looking for, juantoo3? I don't question a Divine Christ. Nor that Christ was the Jewish Messiah (on which point I am in disagreement with nearly all of orthodox Judaism, though not the spirit or sentiment of reformed Judaism), or the Christian "Saviour," as more current language expresses it.

Where the points of disagreement and difference arise, will have to do with the standard, orthodox interpretation - and certainly the insistence of conservative Christians that Christed Jesus is the only path to Salvation, yadda yadda. OR that Jesus was the first Initiate to arise on the world scene, OR the most advanced (either up to that point, or since). I have a VERY different interpretation of the details of Christianity and Christ's esoteric Teachings.

However, when it comes to the GOSPEL message, which was broadcast plainly for ALL to hear (or so, I would insist, said Christ Himself), the injunction to Love our Neighbor as our self ... is quite clear.

Also, we are asked to Love our God with all our heart, all our mind, all our soul, and all our strength. I have my own understanding and interpretation of what this means, both exoterically and esoterically. Some of this discussion is probably appropriate here, if it becomes relevant and helpful. Some of it belongs on Liberal Christianity. Some on the Esoteric or Mystical forums. And maybe even some on the regular Christian forums.

Again, what is the question?

When it comes to the Christ (Whom and Which I distinguish from the Initiate Jesus), I do believe that we see an Aspect of the Divine Trinity, incarnate for us to behold outwardly ... along with the challenge not to confound the Message with the Messenger, or the Spirit with the form it temporarily took. Some have asserted that this distinction cannot be made. I tend to believe, that to fail to make, one risks idolatry, which is more or less what we see has happened. Those are fairly different viewpoints. Perhaps there's something to discuss there. But again, that belongs under Liberal Christianity.

Here, however, it might be worth mentioning, that I think the Buddha (Shakyamuni) embodied the 3rd Aspect of the Christian Trinity, prior to Christ's Coming. That would be Light, the "Holy Spirit," or Active Intelligence, as esotericists termit. The "3rd Ray."

And upon Christ's Return (imminent, happening now, etc.) ... the 1st Aspect, the Will of the Father, has been opened to Humanity, and our touch with this Divine Center of energy is deepening. Contact was first made, directly, during the final days of WWII. This brought about the triumph of the Allies. And it coincided with Christ's DECISION to make an outward, objective - physical - Reappearance to Humanity at large.

NOW there's something to talk about, IMHO. Again, here????

Shambhala Impacts, as esotericists refer to this contact with the Father's House, are now a part of a regular cycle of Humanity's rapport with God - a cycle of 100 years, with a "high point" and a "low point," like a sine wave. There are four definite points of contact with God, with Shambhala, occurring at quarter-century intervals. These are during the times which the Spiritual Hierarchy has called the Centenary Cycle, but again, only two (or three) regular contacts have been made. The first closed WWII. Since then, 1975, and 2000, have been milestones for Humanity.

Following the 2025 Shambhala Impact, Christ's Reappearance as an outward, objective, established fact ...will fairly well settle, for many people, the question of a "Divine Christ," and answer a good many other questions as well. It will not, I think we'll find, be quite what the conservative Christian is expecting, especially if insistence is made that Christ conform to certain, more narrow interpretations ... of Biblical prophecies (as they've been rehashed, reworked, and pretty well form-fitted to modern-day theology).

Buddhists will know the Christ as Maitreya Bodhisattva (Buddhahood comes a bit later). Muslims will recognize the Imam Mahdi. To Zoroastrians, this is the Saoshyant. Theosophists call Him the World Teacher. Hindus look for Kalki Avatara.

And sectarians, insisting that he fit "the mold," whatever that means, will miss him altogether, sadly enough. Like a thief in the night ....

If there's any interest in discussing any of this, please ask!

This is all what I believe, in broad outline, and I see more evidence of every single thing I've said, than I see of the existence of KANSAS.

So again, discussion of beliefs, here or wherever, appeals to me. If indeed, there is interest ...

(Again, which forum? Is this the right thread?)

Namaskar,

taijasi/andrew

Hey Andrew, while I typically agree with the spirit/essence of what you say, (though not so sure of your esoteric history/pedictions-that in itself may be confusing the esoteric with the exoteric ), I can assure you Kansas exists. earl

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by earl

I can assure you Kansas exists. earl

rofl ... shazam! And I was so sure Dorothy had it all backwards!!!

(Now I have to go find the ohhh-weee-ohhh audio file somewhere ... )

[flowperson]

I personally prefer the "I'm melting, I'm melting... oh, what a world...." part.

flow....

[taijasi]

Oh my goodness! flow, it's been so long since I've seen that movie, I had completely forgotten about the rest of it. I dunno if "what a world" ever registered with me! But what I like, is what comes next:

Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness.

How do ya like that!

-a

[Dr Mallard]

Do you feel it is easier to be evil than good - evil is surely more clear cut?

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Dr Mallard

Do you feel it is easier to be evil than good - evil is surely more clear cut?

Evil is the path of least resistance. I think it's often easier in the short run, but much harder in the long run. It can be the most difficult path of all, in some ways. Both paths are painful, but perhaps in different ways ...

taijasa

[Dr Mallard]

Perhaps it is easier being evil because to be evil you have just to do evil acts. To be good demands that you see both the light and the dark paths of each decision you make.

[Blue Jay]

Originally Posted by Dr Mallard

Perhaps it is easier being evil because to be evil you have just to do evil acts. To be good demands that you see both the light and the dark paths of each decision you make.

I don't know about that. Just do what is right and decent. No need to figure out the dark and ugly aspects of whatever situation you're in.

[Dr Mallard]

Right and decent being a subjective term. What is right may be different for a Palestinian than for an Israeli and each may be equally wrong to the other...... shades of grey all round!

[Blue Jay]

Originally Posted by Dr Mallard

Right and decent being a subjective term. What is right may be different for a Palestinian than for an Israeli and each may be equally wrong to the other...... shades of grey all round!

Evil (your term) is a subjective term, too. If you're going to apply the ethics of war to everyday life then I'm out of the debate. After all, blue jays and mallards don't have too much in common beyond being labeled birds by that non-flying four-limbed two-legged species.

[Dr Mallard]

Evil is the term started by the debate not mine! Those two legged non flying buggers cause the problems its up to us high flyers to think it out! The ethics of war.. I guess its the ethics of human nature you hurt me then I am going to hurt you, it takes someone like Mandela to rise above such nonsense.

[Marietta]

Hello, Please forgive me for jumping at this late time in this tread without reading all of the thread. I would like to explain from what I have come to understand, what the knowledge of good and evil is al about.
Good and Evil simply refere to polarity, black and white, male and female, hot and cold, pain and pleasure. There was a point in time (or not time) when polarity didn't exist and all was in perfection. It was the dividing into polarity that came to be called good and evil, which is merely different extreems of a common energy.
Midge

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Marietta

Hello, Please forgive me for jumping at this late time in this tread without reading all of the thread. I would like to explain from what I have come to understand, what the knowledge of good and evil is al about.
Good and Evil simply refere to polarity, black and white, male and female, hot and cold, pain and pleasure. There was a point in time (or not time) when polarity didn't exist and all was in perfection. It was the dividing into polarity that came to be called good and evil, which is merely different extreems of a common energy.
Midge

I think that's a very astute point Midge. And welcome to CR.

lunamoth

[Marietta]

Hello lunamoth, Thank you for the welcome. This seems to be web site with a lot of different topics allowing many different views as to this place we call home and eternal state of being.
Midge

[Narnian]

It would take too much of my time to write a critique of the article by Victor, about Paul of Tarsus, but from a brief review of the summary, I have a couple of points.

"...each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.... If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through the fire." (I Corinthians 2:13-15; RSV)
The 'fire' that he lit burned innocents at the stake; they were hanged, strangled, impaled, beheaded, and stoned to death... so easily misled, so many died, all for the desires of one man.

Paul did not mean that those who sinned should be burnt to death! The concept of the "fiery test" originates with Zarathustra, whose religion, Zoroastrianism, had more influence on the post exilic Jews and later Christians, than anything else. Between 1000-1700BC, Zarathustra wrote this;

51.9 Both parties, O Mazda, will be put to the Fiery Test. This alchemical process will reveal the truth in the souls of these people, indicating their Award, which will be frustration will be the false ones, and blessings to the true.
47.6 Lord of Life and Wisdom, through the Holy Spirit and your blazing Fire, you will separate the righteous and wicked. Those who hear will heed.
46:7 Who have you appointed to protect me from the Liar’s violence, O Mazda? Your Fire and Insightful Conscience will protect me and Universal Law will be fulfilled.

This is lost knowledge as far as modern day Christians and most theologians go. Fire as a purifying archetype is seen in the post exilic OT prophet Daniel’s symbolic story of the 3 ‘good’ men thrown into the fire. They did not burn because they were ‘good’, and only ‘bad’ burns.

Daniel 3:25 He replied, "But I see four men unbound, walking in the middle of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the fourth has the appearance of a god.
Isa 63:2: When you walk through fire you will not be burned

Fire as purifier in the NT quoted by Jesus:

Luke 12:49 "I came to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!
Mat 3:10 Even now the axe is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Matt 3.11; (John the Baptist) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Matt 3.12 he will clear his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire." Mark 9.49 "For everyone will be salted with fire." (Salt is "Characterised as good and useful" Torries Topical and/or "Purifier" Jesus Seminar Five Gospels suggesting fire as good purifier)

Secondly, I find that trying to reconstruct Paul as a liar and a deceiver is not taking into account poetic licence of all art forms, including literature. Why do all the NT have to agree? Isnt' there a beauty and mystery in these artistic tensions? ALL religions that exist have opposing views somewhere in their texts. They were written as a pastiche by many authors. Even Paul's letters were redacted. In fact, some scholars believe the verse about women in Corinthians was a later insertion to support Timothy's misogyny (see the discussion section of Wikipedia Corinthians entry).

That's all I have time for.