Homosexuality is not a sin!

[thormas]

On 12/25/2019 at 3:18 AM, JosephM said:

To me, in your last 2 posts you make a case for the dangers of opposites even if that may not be your intention.

Joseph, 

I am still considering the information and POVs but my basic, present stance is that I accept one Reality - however, I do allow for individual takes, to a degree, on that Reality.

As an example, if Jesus says there is a Way, Truth and Light and I 'see' what such a Life looks like in the biblical portraits of him and I see a Hitler who by his very life opposes it and causes destruction, suffering and death because of his stance, I see that as the opposite of Jesus and I am in opposition to Hitler. 

I have no problem considering nuance in positions but I think, as I said in my first of the last 2 posts, that inherent in the position that there are 'different realities and that one reality is an illusion and pretend' is judgment and setting up or recognizing opposition to those who hold such beliefs - and I allow that it may be an inevitable consequence of that position. 

I remain open and I have tried to remove recrimination and ask for a considered response and not an endless barrage of questions. 

Gotta run, last minute chores.

[thormas]

On 12/25/2019 at 3:18 AM, JosephM said:

While i would agree with the example you gave using the temperature and parameters you gave earlier that the most likely scenario (reality) would be physical death for a normal human being, i would not be so absolute about it and at the same time not care to try and attempt to improve on science 😊   .  That was not a reality you expressed by opposites but actual temperatures on the continuum of heat according to science which is more precise than the use of a so called opposite. However,  keep in mind an alien might have a different physiology than us humans and might not perish which would be a different reality for them in the same scenario.  And to further complicate things ... Here is an interesting human that puts holes in what many people consider reality for humans.     Click Here ------->  Wim “Iceman” Hof

Joseph,

I allow for the 'miraculous' and that someone might - probably not - survive, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on it. I do like the introduction of an alien but I was talking humans and naked human at that .+} Would it be a different reality or would alien physiology, training or even technology (are the aliens naked or in space suits with spectacular gadgets?) enable them to meet the one reality differently.

I think Iceman is an alien ;+} However he does sound cool (no pun) and he has conditioned himself to be able to last longer in such temperatures but my scenario is one he has never endured. Seriously though, even this is not 'evidence' or indication of different realities: it is the same reality that all humans encounter but he has worked to adapt himself to extremes.

[romansh]

The concept of sin exists … it might come in different guises from enjoying a delightful cheese cake to, lets say, genocide in the millions. Not everyone may exhibit this concept, but most seem to, in some shape or form. We might put it on some relative scale or in terms of some absolute.

That as far as I am concerned is a part of reality; no ifs and buts.

Similarly the concept of red exists, some colour blind people might not have this concept, but the concept exists.

We are conflating the concept of sin which clearly exists with actual sin. Colour in a sense does not exist. My perception of the kitchen chair is that it is red. That does not mean it is red, not even if seven billion trichromats describe it as red. Similarly with sin.

If we want a more accurate description of 'reality' … there is only one reality, but many descriptions, we need to some heavy lifting.

Our perceptions are not reality, but they are reflections of that reality; and those reflections may contain aberrations.

Edited December 24, 2019 by romansh

[JosephM]

34 minutes ago, thormas said:

Joseph,

I allow for the 'miraculous' and that someone might - probably not - survive, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on it. I do like the introduction of an alien but I was talking humans and naked human at that .+} Would it be a different reality or would alien physiology, training or even technology (are the aliens naked or in space suits with spectacular gadgets?) enable them to meet the one reality differently.

I think Iceman is an alien ;+} However he does sound cool (no pun) and he has conditioned himself to be able to last longer in such temperatures but my scenario is one he has never endured. Seriously though, even this is not 'evidence' or indication of different realities: it is the same reality that all humans encounter but he has worked to adapt himself to extremes.

 

 

Yes, one can say it is the same reality but if one did not know Iceman, then ones reality might say no one could last 1 hour naked in the ice and their perception of reality would then be different and limited at least until until they met iceman. 😊

In this world we see darkly as in a glass. We do not understand all of the circumstances and actions that take place in this universe. The path of Hitler would not be my choice at this time in my evolution. I neither condone nor condemn his actions that i don't truly understand. But this i have been shown ... that if i were raised with the identical genetics, predispositions, conditioning, and exact experiences of Hitler, at that time in history, i would be him.  All are vessels of the One, some to honor and some to dishonor or shame. Being a product of the potters wheel myself, i will leave judgement to the Potter , strive to refrain from creating arbitrary opposites and forgive everyone at the same time using the wisdom that has been given me..

Joseph

Edited December 24, 2019 by JosephM
edited

[PaulS]

On 12/25/2019 at 7:40 AM, romansh said:

If we want a more accurate description of 'reality' … there is only one reality, but many descriptions, we need to some heavy lifting.

Our perceptions are not reality, but they are reflections of that reality; and those reflections may contain aberrations.

Thanks Rom, that's a much better way to frame what I am trying to say.  It is our individual 'perceptions' and 'understandings' of reality that ensure there is no single 'right' reality.

Clearly, physically speaking, something like the sun existing is a single reality.  But what we think of that sun, how we regard it, whether we see it as a God or simply as a combusting star, are all different realities to different people.  We can argue that one reality is superior to the other, but the only reality is that everyone has a different reality!

But indeed our perceptions are not the reality - Thormas' reality that using somebody for sex is wrong is his reality, whereas my reality is that one can use another for sex and it be a good thing.  Neither reality is THE reality but rather both are our own personal perception of the reality of the 'act' of using another for sex.  Sometimes people can accept alternate perceptions of another's reality and sometimes we argue that another's perception is lacking, but at the end of the day, both are just perceptions.  At best, we seem to side with the perception that best suits our cultural and social circumstances at the time.

[PaulS]

On 12/25/2019 at 2:29 AM, thormas said:

Paul,  

Rather than recriminations, I'm simply saying there are far-reaching and unavoidable implications (intended or not) when you state that another's position is an example of a 'different individual reality' when you know s/he believes there is only one Reality. By the mere fact that you say their position is such an example, you have said (implied) they are wrong, i.e. that their position or belief is an illusion, pretending there is a singular reality, when it is actually just a individual reality. Even if you say you are not saying they're wrong, to characterize their position in that way is to dismiss their reality  - in favor of yours. And how could this not be the case, you are convinced yours is correct and there is no singular reality. 

This makes the point that such statements, by you or anyone else, of necessity* are a judgment (intended or not) and they set up an opposition. Furthermore, you can't say you are just expressing your reality: even inadvertently, a judgment is rendered on another's position (about reality) - no matter what they say, theirs is only an illusion. Of necessity, the obvious implication is that since another, any other, who doesn't accept that there is not a singular reality is pretending or unaware it is an illusion.......and, therefore, wrong.

*I think this is the very nature of and the necessary consequence of your position. 

****  Do me a favor: rather than ask questions and/or take each line I have written and comment on it, instead, as I have tried to do, write your position and explain it, explain how what I have said is not the necessary consequence, not a judgment, etc. and the very nature of your position and where I am wrong, if you think I am wrong.

Rom frames it better when he talks about 'perception' (thanks Rom).  How one 'perceives' any "only one Reality" is the point I am trying to make.  My experience is that there is no single 'reality' concerning how any reality should be perceived and this to me seems pretty self-evident in the world.  I would add to that that I can think of physical things as being a single 'reality' (quantum theory & reality aside) - but morals, thoughts, beliefs, etc are not 'realities' in my experience, but rather perceptions of reality and as such, are open to interpretation.

I find it hard to imagine that you have never experienced a change in your reality throughout your life and so I imagine you too understand that there is no singular reality.  I am sure there are things you once thought to be true and real, only to change your mind at some point to accept a new 'reality'.  Perhaps at some point you will change your mind again and a new reality will dawn for you.  This is what I am saying concerning there not being any one, single reality.  It's not that your reality is wrong and that mine is right, but rather it is recognizing that our 'realities' are perceptions based on our own experiences.  So how about you reconsider judging and condemning another's actions as 'wrong' and I'll try and not buy into arguing against other peoples' realities that they feel are important to them.  Fair enough?

The bible is probably a good example of perception - there we have people who believe bible writings point to a single reality called God - but the individual perceptions of that 'God', the reality of that God to individual writers, is remarkably different throughout the bible.  Now I am not arguing for the single reality of God but rather that we all perceive the reality of our lives based on our experiences - so it is quite understandable to me that we all have different realities and that all of those realities are both real for some and foreign for others, based on our own personal perceptions of life.

Similarly with your freezing to death example being a single reality, in the most basic sense, yes one might freeze to death.  But there are so many variables around that (e.g. people like Hof that Joseph pointed to) that any reality is different for different people.  Sure, ultimately they all might die, but the reality of when, how, if, etc - is a different reality for different people.

And that's just for a physical event - clearly realities around thinking and moralizing have so much more room for difference because we all perceive life different due to our experiences.  It is to this end that I don't think there is one, single 'reality'.

[PaulS]

On 12/25/2019 at 4:14 AM, thormas said:

As an example, if Jesus says there is a Way, Truth and Light and I 'see' what such a Life looks like in the biblical portraits of him and I see a Hitler who by his very life opposes it and causes destruction, suffering and death because of his stance, I see that as the opposite of Jesus and I am in opposition to Hitler. 

If by 'opposite' you mean 'not in general concurrence with', I have no issue.  But that is not typically what we understand when we talk about opposites.  'In opposition to' is not the same as 'being a direct opposite of'.  Generally 'in opposition to' holds a different understanding than 'X is the opposite of Y'. 

[thormas]

On 12/25/2019 at 7:40 AM, romansh said:

The concept of sin exists … it might come in different guises from enjoying a delightful cheese cake to, lets say, genocide in the millions. Not everyone may exhibit this concept, but most seem to, in some shape or form. We might put it on some relative scale or in terms of some absolute.

That as far as I am concerned is a part of reality; no ifs and buts.

Similarly the concept of red exists, some colour blind people might not have this concept, but the concept exists.

We are conflating the concept of sin which clearly exists with actual sin. Colour in a sense does not exist. My perception of the kitchen chair is that it is red. That does not mean it is red, not even if seven billion trichromats describe it as red. Similarly with sin.

Indulging in cheese cake as sinful is simply an self admonishment, most times said in jest or even, "oh well" - it is doubtful that any seriously consider it a breaking of a commandment. So, that usage is a word or concept used out of context - thus the humor. Whereas genocide is definitely wrong, bad, immoral or for many who are religiously inclined, sinful. And I agree that not all use the concept.

I think red and sin are two different beasts. No matter what color you think the kitchen chair is or isn't. if you pick it up and smash it overs someone's head for no good reason (like self-defense or to kill the spider on their head) that is an act that is bad, wrong, immoral or for many who are religiously inclined, sinful.

[thormas]

On 12/25/2019 at 7:40 AM, romansh said:

 

Rom,

I requested as a possible Christmas gift, the book Sapiens and I received it yesterday from my daughter. I had explored it after you mentioned it earlier and after paging through it yesterday I am anxious to get into it..........so thanks.

[thormas]

On 12/25/2019 at 7:43 AM, JosephM said:

Yes, one can say it is the same reality but if one did not know Iceman, then ones reality might say no one could last 1 hour naked in the ice and their perception of reality would then be different and limited at least until until they met iceman. 😊

In this world we see darkly as in a glass. We do not understand all of the circumstances and actions that take place in this universe. The path of Hitler would not be my choice at this time in my evolution. I neither condone nor condemn his actions that i don't truly understand. But this i have been shown ... that if i were raised with the identical genetics, predispositions, conditioning, and exact experiences of Hitler, at that time in history, i would be him.  All are vessels of the One, some to honor and some to dishonor or shame. Being a product of the potters wheel myself, i will leave judgement to the Potter , strive to refrain from creating arbitrary opposites and forgive everyone at the same time using the wisdom that has been given me..

Then again there are the various polar bear clubs where people of all ages jump into freezing water for fun so that one would probably not be shocked upon learning of Iceman as he would be the extreme case and the President of the worldwide club. I agree though that there would be a change in awareness (upon becoming aware of the Iceman): it would be an eye opener. It would be an openness to the fullness of (or a fuller) Reality that was not previously glimpsed.  But that is the human way: it is experience and education and comes with the territory. Does reality change, are there simply individual realities and to think otherwise is illusion and pretend? No: there is one reality that is presented and ours is that chance to explore it, learn about it and 'own' it more and more fully. 

I had been 'in touch' with with my parents from birth and my understanding of and engagement in their lives expanded and grew as I explored and learned. They were always there, they were always themselves (albeit growing as I also grew) but as I developed and my knowledge grew, I got to truly know them. But they were always there to be known. 

If this is what one means, that there is a growing awareness of and experience of, understanding of (the one) reality - I agree. What I don't agree with and perhaps this is simply because it is not fully explained or explained well (no slam intended because this stuff is difficult to capture in words from either side) is if one means that perspective is a 'different reality' and mere illusion. However if someone insists on calling it that, fine.

As to Hitler, his choice was not even the choice of many in the age of Hitler or for countless human beings though history (in their evolution). Hitler was simply wrong; it was not simply his individual reality. By the fact that millions rose up against him, in defense of millions, was more than defending their millions of individual realities, it was because Hitler was judged wrong in light of Reality. BTW, this is not a judgment on Hitler's culpability for his actions (and perhaps that goes to the ideas expressed in this thread about individual realities).

If you can't condemn the actions of Hitler, the execution of millions, the invasions, death and destruction that followed, then it must follow that you cannot condone or praise the words/actions of Jesus or similar figures in history or any you might have ever learned from. But if you ever did value and learn from another, that is praise and condoning in itself. 

Indeed if conditions were identical, as you have said, you might have been Hitler - but, for me, this goes to culpability and judgment of the man (best left to God) not the reality, the wrongness and the judgment of his actions. 

I have never seen God as the potter and we merely the product. Rather in God as Creator, I see the Artist, who is in his creation (and his creation of him) but the art, the creation, has a life of its own and in some real ways, sets its own course.

[thormas]

19 hours ago, PaulS said:

If by 'opposite' you mean 'not in general concurrence with', I have no issue.  But that is not typically what we understand when we talk about opposites.  'In opposition to' is not the same as 'being a direct opposite of'.  Generally 'in opposition to' holds a different understanding than 'X is the opposite of Y'. 

I will ponder this. 

I and millions upon millions were/are not in general concurrence with Hitler but it still seems that Hitler is 'directly opposite' to what many, including those he killed, were for.

Why can't it be said that one is in opposition (general concurrence) to Hitler and, also, that Hitler was and is the opposite of others, for example the Jews..........in pretty much everything? 

[PaulS]

7 hours ago, thormas said:

Why can't it be said that one is in opposition (general concurrence) to Hitler and, also, that Hitler was and is the opposite of others, for example the Jews..........in pretty much everything? 

 

I did say that one can be in opposition to Hitler, but I also said that that is different than qualifying Hitler as the direct opposite of something.  To call something an 'opposite' means that you have determined a threshold or a measure by which you have established the direct opposite of the other thing.  Clearly what Hitler did doesn't align with how many (i.e. a lot of) of us think, but trying to qualify it as a direct opposite to somebody else's alleged behavior is only perception.

Maybe if I put it this way - if you were to reduce Hitler's crimes, at what point would you qualify that Hitler ceases being a direct opposite of Jesus?  If he killed half as many Jews?  What about if he only killed a few hundred thousand.  What if he only killed one Jew?  What are the parameters for you that specifically detail Hitler as direct opposite to Jesus and not a shade in between somewhere along the spectrum of behaviors? 

We all know Hitler committed horrendous acts, but what qualifies those acts as opposite to Jesus and not say the acts of Charles Manson (or do you consider Manson to be the opposite of Jesus as well as Hitler?  Where do you draw the line about what is opposite to Jesus and what is not?  Perception.

Maybe, as we're talking about people being opposites, you could consider more recent circumstances - could you contemplate an opposite for Donald Trump?  I imagine you could - and if you did so, could you possibly recognize the 'opposite' you have in mind is affected by your perception of Trump?  I know mine would be, but I can accept and acknowledge that.

[PaulS]

6 hours ago, thormas said:

Whereas genocide is definitely wrong, bad, immoral or for many who are religiously inclined, sinful.

Yet there are many religiously inclined people who have no issue with genocide, who in fact love the God that they think instructed others to commit it.  Perception.

Just to clarify, when you say 'many' are you saying 'lots of religiously inclined people" or are you saying the 'majority' of religiously inclined people?  If you meant majority then you have misused the word 'many' as an adjective.  If your intention was to use the word to represent a 'majority' then you should have used it as a noun - e.g. 'the' many.

And if you do mean the majority of religiously inclined people, I just wonder how you can support that statistically?

[PaulS]

6 hours ago, thormas said:

I requested as a possible Christmas gift, the book Sapiens and I received it yesterday from my daughter. I had explored it after you mentioned it earlier and after paging through it yesterday I am anxious to get into it..........so thanks.

Excellent book!

[JosephM]

6 hours ago, thormas said:

If you can't condemn the actions of Hitler, the execution of millions, the invasions, death and destruction that followed, then it must follow that you cannot condone or praise the words/actions of Jesus or similar figures in history or any you might have ever learned from. But if you ever did value and learn from another, that is praise and condoning in itself. 

Indeed if conditions were identical, as you have said, you might have been Hitler - but, for me, this goes to culpability and judgment of the man (best left to God) not the reality, the wrongness and the judgment of his actions. 

I have never seen God as the potter and we merely the product. Rather in God as Creator, I see the Artist, who is in his creation (and his creation of him) but the art, the creation, has a life of its own and in some real ways, sets its own course.

Hitler was not alone in his beliefs. Millions of Germans followed him and believed that the Jews needed to be eliminated. Will my condemning him and the others change reality or the number of hairs on my head?

Your first paragraph in the quote presupposes  opposites as reality concerning me. It in essence says .. If i can't condemn Hitlers actions then it follows  i can't praise those i have learned from or value. 😄  I have learned from from both those who have made not so wise choices and those who have made wiser choices. At what point on the line of wisdom does condemn sit and at what point on the line of wisdom does praise sit? And where sits the one reality in relation to your use of those opposites? 😊

FYI - God as Potter and we as clay .... read Jeremiah Chap 18

[thormas]

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

Hitler was not alone in his beliefs. Millions of Germans followed him and believed that the Jews needed to be eliminated. Will my condemning him and the others change reality or the number of hairs on my head?

Your first paragraph in the quote presupposes  opposites as reality concerning me. It in essence says .. If i can't condemn Hitlers actions then it follows  i can't praise those i have learned from or value. 😄  I have learned from from both those who have made not so wise choices and those who have made wiser choices. At what point on the line of wisdom does condemn sit and at what point on the line of wisdom does praise sit? And where sits the one reality in relation to your use of those opposites? 😊

FYI - God as Potter and we as clay .... read Jeremiah Chap 18

Actually because millions did condemn him and others - Reality was not changed but the fate of the world was. Would you not have condemned him in the early 40s?

Where it starts is with God/Wisdom and so too praise begins. The selfishness of human being like Hitler sits at a considerable distance and condemnation follows of necessity for wisdom begets/is the Good (and the Good is known by its acts). Wisdom/the Good creates and enhances life: it is and must be both expressive (Word) and it also must give courage (Spirit) or else it is not Wisdom.

You do seem to have some regard for Jesus and such others - so too it only seems right that you have some condemnation for those who 'sit' with Hitler wherever he is found. That we can learn from the wise and the self-centered is not the issue, rather to be able to act on wisdom - as did Jesus - and at times condemn and confront 'evil' is.

Although, I do believe that Wisdom will prevail and at some 'point in time' - before eternity - Hitler and all will respond and all will be One.

If the Potter creates art, we are in agreement, if the Potter produces products, not so much ;+}

[thormas]

3 hours ago, PaulS said:

Yet there are many religiously inclined people who have no issue with genocide, who in fact love the God that they think instructed others to commit it.  Perception.

Just to clarify, when you say 'many' are you saying 'lots of religiously inclined people" or are you saying the 'majority' of religiously inclined people?  If you meant majority then you have misused the word 'many' as an adjective.  If your intention was to use the word to represent a 'majority' then you should have used it as a noun - e.g. 'the' many.

And if you do mean the majority of religiously inclined people, I just wonder how you can support that statistically?

It seems obvious that such support of genocide is wrong and, in spite of what they say, their love is for an idol, a false god, not the God who is Love. In no way can genocide be construed or twisted to reflect the two great commandments. Wrong perception.

Exactly, many.

[PaulS]

1 hour ago, thormas said:

It seems obvious that such support of genocide is wrong and, in spite of what they say, their love is for an idol, a false god, not the God who is Love. In no way can genocide be construed or twisted to reflect the two great commandments. Wrong perception.

Nonetheless, there is a genuine perception by many Christians that God was 'right' in instructing the Israelites to commit genocide against various other tribes.  Clearly these people do construe genocide to be in alignment with the two great commandments because they perceive that to be God's desire.  Now possibly you know better than all of them, but I actually think it is more about....Perception.

Support for genocide would seem obviously 'wrong' to us today, but that has not been nor is it always the perception.  Was dropping the bomb on Hiroshima right or wrong?  I would say that depends on one's perception with there being no 'right' or 'wrong' but there being both, depending on one's perception.  

[JosephM]

Thomas ,

In summary ......

Lets not drift away from the real point of this discussion.  The use of opposites that are created by perceptions in the minds of men/women without an understanding that in reality they don't exist creates arbitrary positions that something is right or wrong, sin or good, condemnable or praiseworthy, etc. , as if all is black or white when in reality ones arbitrary point at which they use the terms is subjective, relative and based on a reality only created in their own mind. 

In conclusion, doing so (not understanding the above) contributes greatly to the divisiveness that separates human beings and is at the root of most wars and arguments and is an obstruction to peace within.

The End

 

[JosephM]

Now ....  a Zen  epilogue  about a Taoist farmer

 There was an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically. "May be," the farmer replied.

The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed. "May be," replied the old man.

The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune. "May be," answered the farmer.

The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. "May be," said the farmer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The lesson of the Taoist farmer is, of course, that no event in and of itself can truly be judged as good or bad, lucky or unlucky, fortunate or unfortunate. Only time can tell the whole story.  He doesn't divide Life into good events and bad events, like piles of laundry. He experiences Life as one thing: undifferentiated energy/consciousness. For the Farmer, this open-minded approach is not a strategy. It is the byproduct of what he was searching for and his ultimate realization.

Dennis Atsit

[PaulS]

9 hours ago, JosephM said:

The lesson of the Taoist farmer is...

I've always loved that story, especially as told by Alan Watts!

 

[JosephM]

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

I've always loved that story, especially as told by Alan Watts!

 

Yes, he says it well .... epilogue 2 by Allan Watts     ------> https://mariaerving.com/alan-watts-taoist-farmer-story/

[thormas]

On 12/27/2019 at 8:34 AM, JosephM said:

Lets not drift away from the real point of this discussion.  The use of opposites that are created by perceptions in the minds of men/women without an understanding that in reality they don't exist creates arbitrary positions that something is right or wrong, sin or good, condemnable or praiseworthy, etc. , as if all is black or white when in reality ones arbitrary point at which they use the terms is subjective, relative and based on a reality only created in their own mind. 

In conclusion, doing so (not understanding the above) contributes greatly to the divisiveness that separates human beings and is at the root of most wars and arguments and is an obstruction to peace within.

Well, we weren't actually drifting and you haven't responded to the Jesus references I've given. It is not for nothing that I do that, rather it is a way to present my position and to flesh out the 'length and breath' of your position - just as you employ Taoism.  That you haven't (unless I've missed it) is 'interesting.'

Moving on...........you tie the use of opposites to mere 'perceptions in the mind' yet then state - unequivocally - that 'in reality' they don't exist and therefore that right and wrong are merely arbitrary positions. However to make such a statement puts you in a position where you are defining reality (saying it is this and not that), opposing those who don't see it this way and clearly stating that their understanding of reality is wrong, as is all that proceeds from that understanding. Your statement is a contradiction and such a contradiction is inevitable: a 'reality created in the other's own mind' and what (you say) is your understanding of what is '(in) reality'  - when logically yours would be mere perception also.

 

Still moving on......... It remains the case that Hitler's evil was not merely in the minds of all those who opposed him, including those who suffered, died or lost loved ones at his hands. To condemn his actions is not to pass judgment on the man because we don't know all that when into making Hitler and to what degree Hitler 'understood.' However, this being said, it is possible and necessary to condemn those acts that wreak havoc in the lives of others. 

To hold to such a position as you present is to be unable and unwilling to name and condemn evil, and unwilling to confront evil and thus relieve the suffering of others - because it might be 'an obstruction to one's peace within'. Rather it seems like such peace, such wisdom, would compel one to go out from himself in love - which is creative and which saves/heals - to confront and stop that which destroys the very possibility of peace for others.   

I side with Jesus whose inner peace drove him into the world to enable others to see the Reality that was always present, to heal in his short time and to confront and 'correct' those whose refusal to see/to understand, harmed others. 

In the story of the adulteress there are men and women who do not yet see/understand Reality-as-it-is (I AM) until a Word is uttered that confronts/challenges them and Love is offered that encourages/empowers them to live that Reality.   

Perhaps as I suggested earlier, it is more the explanation of what each of us means and we are not far apart. My understanding is that were you in the place of Jesus, you would not have  'condemned and challenged' by his question the action that the group was about to take and that would have sucked for the adulteress ;+{

Jesus did not say, "may be." then again the subject under consideration was not a runaway or returning horse(s) or a son's accident - it was not merely 'chance' happenings in the life of a man and his family, rather it was something that was about to be 'chosen' by others that would impact and destroy the life of a woman and determine the fate of a crowd.

[thormas]

 .

 

Edited December 28, 2019 by thormas

[JosephM]

Thomas,

I understand your position. My whole and only real point/position is my summary (6 posts above) and (the epilogue) in the the Zen quote above.  If you can't see it there, then perhaps there is nothing i can say to make it clearer. If you do see it there, you win and i take back everything else i said  in this thread as my failure to communicate clearly and adequately. Happy New Year.

Joseph