Sociopath Community

by emilynghiem

Dear Cipher and Thrill Kill: You posted before that you don't believe Evil exists.

or as Cipher quoted: "Evil is just a point of View"

I find it interesting that some people don't believe in evil just because they can forgive whatever people are calling evil. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is a difference scientifically in the energy from loving positive thoughts and prayer, vs. negative unforgiving hateful/retributive energy. This can be proven scientifically. Doctors who study and write books healing prayer compared with voodoo/curses, report that the energy is so different they CLASH. Forgiveness studies show the difference in the impact and recovery on mental/physical health. What is "relative" is what people are willing to forgive.

I also make a distinction between people who "don't believe hell exists" and those who believe there is hellish suffering, but it has a purpose and an end, so "hell" can be overcome. Even "war" can be seen as sending someone into hell. Or sending anyone through the criminal justice system after a loved one is murdered becomes a long drawn out hell if the family doesn't forgive and let go spiritually.

Are you okay with this idea that "hell" and "evil" may exist, but don't have to be feared as "evil". These can be overcome by forgiveness, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Does this explanation still work with what you believe?

Otherwise, what do you call that negative energy to distinguish it from positive? What do you call the level of peace that comes from forgiveness and letting go, as opposed to the level of suffering that comes from fear, unforgiveness, and seeking retribution against others? If you don't call it evil, what terms do you use? Thanks!

 

 Without evil there cannot be good; therefore, evil must exist...

 RE: "Without evil there cannot be good; therefore, evil must exist..."

There can be good without evil.

Just like there can be health without disease.

Disease and bad health exist as a consequence to help us learn the difference.

So we choose what maintains good health over what diminishes health or life.

We are meant to choose what is good by free will, by comparing the consequences and using reason.

So evil and ill will exists to teach us the difference. Just a part of natural laws, of cause and effects.

P.S. If you turn out to be a better revisionist than I am, you are welcome to

take over my karma and do a better job! But as Slimey warned, my life sux so be careful what you wish for....

 To you, that may be so. To others, THEIR "beliefs" affect their perceptions, happiness, satisfaction, security and quality of life. So this is RELATIVE what matters to people in this life for THEM to enjoy it.

Just because these are "subjective" doesn't mean they aren't RELEVANT to THOSE ppl.

Your system is as meaningful to you as their is to them.

And true, you could say it is all meaningless. Like English as a language says nothing, but what matters is how you use it and what the message means in context. thelanguage itself is just symbols like math.

by emilynghiem

 

 RE: "Without evil there cannot be good; therefore, evil must exist..."

There can be good without evil.

Just like there can be health without disease.

Disease and bad health exist as a consequence to help us learn the difference.

So we choose what maintains good health over what diminishes health or life.

We are meant to choose what is good by free will, by comparing the consequences and using reason.

So evil and ill will exists to teach us the difference. Just a part of natural laws, of cause and effects.

P.S. If you turn out to be a better revisionist than I am, you are welcome to

take over my karma and do a better job! But as Slimey warned, my life sux so be careful what you wish for....

 Everything exists.  The evil begins as soon as we call something good.

I don't view things as either good or evil in the moral sense. In my mind there is simply actions and reactions, and they only matter if you get caught.

 RE: Everything exists. The evil begins as soon as we call something good.

I think you are talking the "relative good/evil" as TK pointed out.

There is also an absolute definition, even scientific between positive/negative energy and forces.

So these are two different contexts.

(as for the defined type of evil, this exists independent of good. The evil entities that work through a hierarchy of "dark energy" don't depend on "good" to define themselves.)

So we are talking about two different things. No conflict there.

 RE: How do things become facts?

As Cipher pointed out there are relative interpretations going on, aside from any absolutes that may or may not count.

1. relatively speaking, people decide what is fact based on either experience or believing some level of proof that is valid to them. Some people disagree on facts of science, or results of research proving X Y or Z. So this is still faith based to some degree, since there could be error even in the science or the research we are citing as "fact"

(for example, with spiritual healing, some people have experienced living proof this process works; others have seen or read research they believe; while others have not seen any proof or research, so this is NOT fact to them)

2. in context with others, where we "agree" something is fact, we establish truth by consensus. Again, there could be errors, but as long as we "agree it is proven" then we call this fact, until any corrections are proven also.

Most people are okay with their own "facts" under #1.

And they can align with others as in #2 as long as they stay within their own group that agrees.

The trick is aligning them across "different systems" OUTSIDE their own groups.

On some level, ALL of these are faith-based. We could be wrong on any level, and are taking it on faith our perceptions are correct. Most of it depends on what we AGREE is valid fact, but even that is faith based.

 BTW Cipher we can try a different approach to this whole puzzle, of why do religionists make a big deal of God/Christ/Holyspirit if no such things either exist or can proven to exist outside the natural laws of science.

What do you call the three levels of body mind and spirit?

How do you define your principles in life, starting with your individual freedom/choice/responsibility or conscience,

then in relationship with other people, and then in relationship with greater society or the whole of humanity?

If you can define what your value system or philosophy is in life

from individual self, to relations with others, to whatever you call the greater whole,

that is the equivalent of what Christians symbolize by the Trinity or Buddhists by the Three Refuges, etc.

EX: my friend Tom who is secular humanist believes in Respect for Truth, Respect for Freedom, Respect for People/Environment. So I told him that is his secular equivalent of body/mind/spirit, or physical/mental/spiritual, or individual human/human relationships/collective society.

If you have your own way of defining your relationship with others and with collective society or collective truth,

how would you describe this in your own terms? That have real meaning to you?

by emilynghiem

 RE: How do things become facts?

As Cipher pointed out there are relative interpretations going on, aside from any absolutes that may or may not count.

1. relatively speaking, people decide what is fact based on either experience or believing some level of proof that is valid to them. Some people disagree on facts of science, or results of research proving X Y or Z. So this is still faith based to some degree, since there could be error even in the science or the research we are citing as "fact"

(for example, with spiritual healing, some people have experienced living proof this process works; others have seen or read research they believe; while others have not seen any proof or research, so this is NOT fact to them)

2. in context with others, where we "agree" something is fact, we establish truth by consensus. Again, there could be errors, but as long as we "agree it is proven" then we call this fact, until any corrections are proven also.

Most people are okay with their own "facts" under #1.

 

And they can align with others as in #2 as long as they stay within their own group that agrees.

The trick is aligning them across "different systems" OUTSIDE their own groups.

On some level, ALL of these are faith-based. We could be wrong on any level, and are taking it on faith our perceptions are correct. Most of it depends on what we AGREE is valid fact, but even that is faith based.

 

Facts are relative to the observer; facts will evolve 

Yes i like your revision much better. Much shorter.

You left out the part about agreement.

If we dont agree on the facts then ppl argue those arent facts

But misinformation. NOT ALL of this is relative or equally true/false.

Some conflicts can actually be resolved so those truths remain

And dont change once theyve been established.  there are some

Things we could prove or agree on as absolutes that wont necessarily change.