Good and Evil

[UniverseSeven]

P+E(AC)=E

Everything that is "good" exist within the Natural Law and the Square.
Everything that is "evil" goes against , subverts, or alters Natural Law and Truth.

People have a general understanding of what good and evil are based on the Laws God gave Musa. They can be interpreted also in the Supreme Mathamatics as numbers 4-8.

Negative is not inherently evil, it is the opposite of positive and exist on the atomic level. Ying and Yang do not show a duality, co-existence, or mutual agreement between good and evil, there is no agreement between God and Devil. This is the moral relativists (Luciferian) explanation.

Ying and Yang are symbols to show the qualities of 8 = Build/Destroy, Creation and Destruction. The Formost of the two is Creation, since you cannot destroy somthing that has not been made to exist. It must be created to destroy it. Thus the Universe is ordered through Natural Law, expressed first through Creation. Hence There is an order to the Universe and it is not born out of Destruction or Chaos (Big-Bang).

Destruction of somthing that is Righteous, is evil.

Destruction of somthing evil is Just and Righteous.

When a Star dies naturally it is percieved as destruction, but it is only death, in which the energy is transfered and lives on. Our perception of Destruction is also associated with death, but it is Un-Natural death in which the Earthly connection is made.

Only God through His Supreme Knowledge, Wisdom and Understanding can wield the 8 properly.

Evil is perpetuated in the Earth subconciously (through ignorance and ego) and overtly. Evil is manifested through the absence of God, within oneself and the builders of this society (World) within a false reality that is doomed by the Light of Truth and Understanding.

"A mighty God is a Living Man you can fool some people sometime, but you can't fool all the people all the time. So now you see the Light! Stand up for your Right!"

Bob Marley

P+E(AC)=E

[Os3y3ris]

Negative is not inherently evil, it is the opposite of positive and exist on the atomic level. Ying and Yang do not show a duality, co-existence, or mutual agreement between good and evil, there is no agreement between God and Devil. This is the moral relativists (Luciferian) explanation.

Moral relativism involves the yin and yang?

Ignoring your odd view of relativism, there IS a balance between good and evil. There simply has to be. When good is strongly present the standard is raised and those that were once righteous are now wicked. Evil traits that were once excsable are no longer such. Lets say you have a situation where everyone's a saint. Guess who's evil?

Destruction of somthing that is Righteous, is evil.

Destruction of somthing evil is Just and Righteous.

Disagree. This is far too simplistic.

Lets take a historical example. You have a sitauation of instability. People are dying left and right and will continue to die if things are not stabilzed quickly. So, being a righteous man, you send a wicked man to punish the righteous and the wicked alike. Total butcher. After a while he breaks the people. They no longer have the will, let alone the power, to fight. However, this evil man is not only an evil man, but his presence will spur retaliation. You kill him, appeasing the people and solidifying their support of you, your righteous ideals and regional stability. What has been done? Good or evil? You have destroyed the instable elements within that society, gained the love of the people, and have presumably built the forundation for a more righteous era. However, to do so, you sent a butcher to break the people, killed said butcher and thus recieved accolades for destroying an evil that you created. Its a tad more complex than what was destroyed.

[UniverseSeven]

I did not pose any view at all on relativism.

I spoke on the philosophic idea of MORAL RELATIVISM which is well documented. If there is a balance between good and evil that would make them equal, they are not. Are God and Satan equal? Do you believe in God? For Morals to exist, God must exist; hence Universal Truth (Absolute Truth), Conciousness, an ORDER to the Universe.

Moral Relativism is related to Theosophy etc...

Wikpedia: Moral Realtivism

Moral relativism - is the position that moral propositions do not reflect absolute or universal truths. It not only holds that ethical judgments emerge from social customs and personal preferences, but also that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Many relativists see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries. Some would even suggest that one person's ethical judgments or acts cannot be judged by another, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.

Some moral relativists — for example, Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) — hold that a personal and subjective moral core lies at the foundation of our moral acts. They believe that public morality is a reflection of social convention, and that only personal, subjective morality is truly authentic.

Moral nihilists propound a view that bears some similarity to relativism. The most famous nihilist, Friedrich Nietzche (1844-1900), believed that morality is impossible without God, and as he argued there is no God, there is ipso facto no morality.

Moral relativism is not the same as moral pluralism, which acknowledges the co-existence of opposing ideas and practices, but does not suggest that they are equally valid. Moral relativism, in contrast, contends that opposing moral positions have no truth value, and that there is no preferred standard of reference by which to judge them. Continued at Wikpedia

For a full explanation of MORAL RELATIVISM go here!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

To your second point:


(24) But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

(25) And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

(26) And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

(27) And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.

(28) But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.


On Ying and Yang: I said the symbol that is Ying and Yang and others like it, do not represent Good and Evil, but Creation and Destruction. Life and Death. Infinity. They are commonly interpreted and used within Good and Evil context which is misleading to show Equality between Good and Evil, when there is none.

[Os3y3ris]

Moral relativism does not acknloweldge a balance between good and evil. Completely unrelated. Why is that a part of your argument? Relativism is the philosophy that the definitions of good and evil aren't necessarily universal, but depend on one's culture. OR, you can flip that and instead say that you're in no place to judge other cultures. Now, you can take that to ignorant levels, but for the most part its correct. There are essential values, no question, but the way in which those values are balanced and the way that that is done varies by location. I could give a broader example, but I'll speak on something I know about. In Thailand, children are often forced to fight muay thai style to win money that their parents gamble. If you brutalizd your child in that manner here in the states, people would think you're bararic. If you do that over there, everythings cool. So, is it right or wrong? In a case where there is no malice and honest intentions, morality is decided by culture. In a case where you have clear and willing evil, such as Nazi Germany where they violate fundamental values found in all cultures, that is evil.

Now, in rgeards to that gospel you quoted. Jesus is saying that devils will not cast out devils as that would lead to their downfall. He's saying that they have that sense. However, my example is not that clear. When one casts out devils through the destruction of that which is good, what do you have? The end result is the greater good, but switch perspectives for a minute. Say you're a good man killed by the evil man that was sent. You're not gonna be too enthusiastic about this plan. Say the one who sparked this fails somehow and can;t control his dog. The end result is greater evil. But his intentions were good. Whats the judgement on that one? Was his scheme good or evil?

[UniverseSeven]

HISTORY

Moral relativism is not new. Protagoras' (circa 481-420 BC) assertion that "man is the measure of all things" is an early philosophical precursor to modern relativism. The Greek historian Herodotus (circa 484-420 BC) observed that each society thinks its own belief system and way of doing things are best. Various ancient philosophers also questioned the idea of an absolute standard of morality.

The 18th century Enlightenment philosopher, David Hume (1711-1776), is in several important respects the father of both modern emotivism and moral relativism. He distinguished between matters of fact and matters of value, and suggested that moral judgments consist of the latter, for they do not deal with verifiable facts that obtain in the world, but only with our sentiments and passions. Moreover, he, too, observed that there are differences in moral standards among individuals and societies. He is famous for denying any objective standard for morality, and suggested that the universe is indifferent to our preferences and our troubles.

In the modern era, anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict (1887-1948), cautioned observers to not use their own cultural standards to evaluate those they were studying, which is known as ethnocentricism. Benedict said there are no morals, only customs, and in comparing customs, the anthropologist, "insofar as he remains an anthropologist, he is bound to avoid any weighting of one in favor of the other." To some extent, the increasing body of knowledge of great differences in belief among societies caused both social scientists and philosophers to question whether there can be any objective, absolute standards pertaining to values. This caused some to posit that differing systems have equal validity, with no standard for adudicating among conflicting beliefs. The Finnish philosopher-anthropologist, Edward Westermarck (1862-1939) was among the first to formulate a detailed theory of moral relativism. He contended that all moral ideas are subjective judgments that reflect one's upbringing. He rejected G.E. Moore's (1873-1958)intuitionism, in vogue during the early part of the 20th century, due to the obvious differences in beliefs among socieities, which he said was evidence that there is no innate, intuitive power.

SOME PHILISOPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

So-called descriptive or normative relativists (for example, Ralph Barton Perry), accept the fact that there are fundamental disagreements about the moral course of action even when the same non-moral facts obtain and the same consequences from an action will occur. However, the descriptive relativist does not necessarily deny that there is one, correct moral appraisal, given the same set of circumstances. Other descriptivists believe that opposing moral beliefs can both be true, though critics point out that this leads to obvious logical problems. The latter descriptivists, for example, several leading Existentialists, believe that morality is entirely subjective and personal, and beyond the judgment of others. In this view, moral judgments are more akin to aesthetic considerations and are not amenable to rational analysis.

In contrast, the metaethical relativist maintains that all moral judgments are based on either societal or individual standards, and that there is no single, objective standard by which one can assess the truth of a moral proposition. While he preferred to deal with more practical, real-life ethical matters, the British philospher Bernard Williams (1929-2003) reluctantly came to this conclusion when he put on his metaethicist's hat. Metaethical relativists, in general, believe that the descriptive properties of terms such as good, bad, right, and wrong are not subject to universal truth conditions, but only to societal convention and personal preference. Given the same set of verifiable facts, some societies or individuals will have a fundamental disagreement about what ought to be done based on societal or individiual norms, and these cannot be adjudicated using some independent standard of evaluation, for the latter standard will always be societal or personal and not universal, unlike, for example, the scientific standards for assessing temperature or for determining mathematical truths.

Moral relativism stands in marked contrast to moral absolutism, moral realism, and moral naturalism, which all maintain that there are objective moral facts, facts that can be both known and judged, whether through some process of verification or through intuition. These philosophies see morality as something that obtains in the world. Examples include the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), who saw man's nature as inherently good, or of Ayn Rand, who believed morality is derived from man's exercising his unobstructed rationality. Others believe moral knowledge is something that can be derived by external sources such as a deity or revealed doctrines, as would be maintained by various religions. Some hold that moral facts inhere in nature or reality, either as particular instances of perfect ideas in an eternal realm, as adumbrated by Plato (429-347 BC); or as a simple, unanalyzable property, as advocated by Moore. In each case, however, moral facts are invariant, though the circumstances to which they apply might be different. Moreover, in each case, moral facts are objective and can be determined.

Some philosophers maintain that moral relativism devolves into emotivism, the movement inspired by logical positivists in the early part of the 20th Century. Leading exponents of logical positivism include Rudolph Carnap {1891-1970} and A. J. Ayer {1910-1989}. Going beyond Hume, the positivists contended that a proposition is meaningful only if it can be verified by logical or scientific inquiry. Thus, metaphysical propositions, which cannot be verified in this manner, are not simply incorrect, they are meaningless, nonsensical. Moral judgments are primarily expressions of emotional preferences or states, devoid of cognitive content; consequently, they also are not subject to verification criteria. As such, moral propositions are essentially meaningless utterances or, at best, express personal attitudes (see, for example, Charles L. Stevenson {1908-1979). Not all relativists would hold that moral propositions are meaningless; indeed, many make any number of assertions about morality, assertions that they undoubtedly believe to be meaningful; however, other philosophers have argued, since there is no means of analyzing a moral proposition by using objective verification criteria, it is essentially meaningless, and, in their view, relativism is therefore tantamount to emotivism.

The political theorist, Leo Strauss (1899-1973), subscribed to a species of relativism, for he believed there are no objective criteria for assessing ethical principles, and that a rational morality is only possible in the limited sense that one must accept its ultimate subjectivity. This view is very similar to the one advocated by the existentialist philosophers, Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) and Sartre. The latter famously maintained that ethical principles only arise from our personal feelings at the time we act, and not from any antecedent principles.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a moral relativist, for he thought each moral system was simply a product of the dominant class, and that the movement of history will settle moral questions, not a fixed, universal standard.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

[Os3y3ris]

Did you write that?

ANYWAYS, the problem with philophical analysis and debate is that it often assumes silly absolutes. EVERY SOCIETY HOLDS CERTAIN UNIVERSAL VALUES. We know this. Because this isn't implicitly stated and because philosophy deals with concepts that can be applied to real life after discussion, one can get the idea that relativists have NO moral standards and don't observe any. Ridiculous. It doesn't necessarily need to be stated in every discussion of relativism and it if you take any principle to ignorant porportions it gets rather stupid. Its like saying that utilitarians never help individuals. While their overall philosophy may lend them to certain tendencies, circumstance as well as the completion of the philosphy as opposed to a brief overveiw will lead to seemingly uncharacteristic thoughts and action.

Take capitalism and communism. A random observer may look at the situation and say "OH SHIT. THOSE CAPITALISTS ARE EXPLOITING EVERYBODY AND RUNNING RAMPANT OVER THE LOWER CLASS." They may look at communism and say "WOW. THEYRE ENSLAVING THE PEOPLE AND DENYING THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE UP IN LIFE." Niether is correct. A relativist will look at it and say "Interesting. This is how they live." Now, how does that tie in to TRUE immorality? True immorality is either inflicted on outsiders, inflicted on the weak, or punished by society. A relativist looking on the social standards can NOT simply say that thats the standards they have set seeing as in those cases the victim has not been involved in the standard. That being the case, even the relativist will deem it immoral as they're violating someone else and not doing what they will amongst themselves.

[UniverseSeven]

No It is the definition from Wikpedia continued. I figured you didn't read the link.

CRITICS OF MORAL RELATIVISM

Those who believe in moral absolutes often are highly critical of moral relativism; some have been known to equate it with outright immorality or amorality. Historical events and occurances, such as the Holocaust, Stalinism, Apartheid, Genocide, Unjust wars, Genital mutilation, Slavery, Terrorism, and Nazism, among many other examples, present difficult problems for relativists. An observer in a particular time and place, depending on his outlook (e.g., culture, religion, background), might call something good that another observer in a particular time and place would call evil. Slavery, for example, was thought by many to be acceptable, even moral, in other times and places, while it is viewed by many (though certainly not all), today, as a great evil. Many critics of relativism would say that any number of evils can be justified based on subjective or cultural preferences, and that morality requires some universal standard against which to measure ethical judgments.

Some relativists will state that this is an unfair criticism of relativism, for it is really a metaethical theory, and not a normative one, and that the relativist may have strong moral beliefs, notwithstanding his foundational position. Critics of this view, however, argue the complaint is really disengenuous, and that the relativist is not making a mere metaethical assertion, one that deals with the logical or linguistic structure of ethical propositions. These critics contend that stating there is no preferred standard of truth, or that standards are equally true, addresses the ultimate validity and truth of the ethical judgments themselves, which, they contend, is a normative judgment. In other words, they say this separation between metaethics and normative ethics, in this case, is a distinction without a difference.

Some philosophers, for example, Michael E. Berumen {1952-} and R. M. Hare (1919-2002), argue that moral propositions are subject to logical rules, notwithstanding the absence of any factual content, including those subject to cultural or religious standards or norms. Thus, for example, they contend that one cannot hold contradictory ethical judgments. This allows for moral discourse with shared standards, notwithstanding the descriptive propeties or truth conditions of moral terms. They do not affirm or deny there are moral facts, only that logic applies to our moral assertions; consequently, they contend, there is an obejctive and preferred standard of moral justification, albeit, in a very limited sense. These philosophers also point out that, aside from logical constraints, all systems treat certain moral terms alike in an evaluative sense. This is similar to our treatment of other terms such as less or more, the meaning of which is universally understood and not dependent upon independent standards (measurements, for example, can be converted). It applies to good and bad when used in their non-moral sense, too, for example, when we say, "this is a good wrench" or "this is a bad wheel." This evaluative property of certain terms also allows people of different beliefs to have meaningful discussions on moral questions, even though they disagree about certain facts. Indeed, this is among the linguistic tools that enables one to persuade or convince someone else to change his mind.

Berumen, among others, has said that if relativism were wholly true, there would be no reason to prefer it over any other theory, given its fundamental contention that there is no preferred standard of truth. He says that it is not simply a metaethical theory, but a normative one, and that its truth, by its own definition, cannot in the final analysis be assessed or weighed against other theories.

UNIVERSISM

Universism is a new system of thought developed outside of formal, academic philosophy,and promoted by United Universists. They argue, among other things, that only those individuals causing or directly affected by an action can make any judgment about the action's ultimate rightness or wrongness. That is, individuals not directly involved in an action have no moral authority to judge that action. Any judgments, with or without authority, are understood to be relative to the individual's reason, experience and emotion, and thus different in many cases. This is similar to the outlook propounded by Sartre

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

[jonnygemini]

PEACE LIGHT & OVERSTANDING

i hope you don't mind the interjection in the xcellent build you both have constructed...I had a few thoughts I wanted to share

When I was a kid, I remember being enamored with the concept of organic morality...what feels good(not sensually) but what you know in your heart/conscience/soul to be good IS GOOD...I know how it feels to be in conflict with yourself, making decisions that are harmful and self-destructive. I can't imagine how it would feel to do another man serious harm or death...I know it would not feel good whether it was in self-defense or whatever the context. Basically, I feel the golden rule/karma-dharma/ Qur’an 42.30 provides all the morality any sentient being needs...Overstanding cause and effect, the reaction your action will produce is not arguing hypotheticals or moral relativism...I think we are all endowed with the innate ability to discern right from wrong action...true, one's upbringing, parents, family, community all have huge influences on our ultimate morality/code of ethics...the most negative influence is our CULTURE of convinience and mindless entertainment, where children's creativity and free thought is stifled by their passive role in being entertained by media with no value or substance...I think it is through play that our morality is most powerfully shaped...in competitions, games and play acting situations to mimic what surrounds us.

Relativism seems closer to a Non-Aristolean understanding of the universe...for how many millenia has it been A or B? white or black? good or evil? Now as physics moves toward quantum mechanical models...This statement is neither true nor false but contains a degree of truth and a degree of fallacy...Quantum mechanics is aiming to see the A/B dichotomy along a gradiation...It is said that once in contact however brief and however long ago, atoms will share an inextricable record of the contact...I don't see relativism as an excuse for wrong action, it is more of an overstanding that "to every worker, his due wages" as the masons say...We reap what we sow, so the more we become conscious of the divinity inside all living beings the more impossible it becomes to harm or destroy that spark in yourself or others

[Os3y3ris]

No, I didn't read the Wikpedia article. Wikipedia = not a valid source. If I so chose, I could go in and rewrite that thing to agree with me. Even if it was a proper source, its irrelevant. Im not in a conversation with them. What do YOU think?

[jonnygemini]

An article in today's New York Times surveys several psychologists' efforts to define evil....

www.nytimes.com/2005/02/08/health/psychology/08evil.html?ex=1265518800&en=3bf3993737ffbbb5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland


Most psychiatrists assiduously avoid the word evil, contending that its use would precipitate a dangerous slide from clinical to moral judgment that could put people on death row unnecessarily and obscure the understanding of violent criminals.

Still, many career forensic examiners say their work forces them to reflect on the concept of evil, and some acknowledge they can find no other term for certain individuals they have evaluated.

In an effort to standardize what makes a crime particularly heinous, a group at New York University has been developing what it calls a depravity scale, which rates the horror of an act by the sum of its grim details.

And a prominent personality expert at Columbia University has published a 22-level hierarchy of evil behavior, derived from detailed biographies of more than 500 violent criminals....

"We are talking about people who commit breathtaking acts, who do so repeatedly, who know what they're doing, and are doing it in peacetime" under no threat to themselves, said Dr. Michael Stone, the Columbia psychiatrist, who has examined several hundred killers at Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Center in New Hampton, N.Y., and others at Creedmoor Psychiatric Center in Queens, where he consults and teaches. "We know from experience who these people are, and how they behave," and it is time, he said, to give their behavior "the proper appellation."

[UniverseSeven]

You can go and find any unbias definition of moral relativism, and will find what I have posted from Wikpedia. Clearly you do not percieve what it is.

on with the subject...

Saying there is a balance between good and evil is the same as saying they are equal, or that evil is a necessary extension of good or vice versa.

This theme is often exampled in New World culture, they associate it with duality and have adopted symbols and created symbols based on their interpretation.

Original meaning

Creation/Destruction viewed in an agriculteral and cosmic context. Birth and Death, The Sun rising and setting everyday.

Other examples are what's commonly called the Swastika. This is an ancient symbol used in Africa and Asia to show ORDER in the Universe and Earth. The Nazis adopted this symbol and reversed it just as the builders of this world have done in reality. It is much the same with Ying and Yang and why I used it as an example. Janus is also a symbol adopted by them to show duality or co-existence between good and evil.

Moral Relativists do not believe in the existence of absolute truth, an order in the Universe, that transcends and reflects on all societies or "good and evil" perse'.

History is littered with the ruins of empires that purposely built to circumnavigate alter and twist these Truths in exchange for the "pursuit of pleasure and happiness" in this life, this is every persons right? right? Wrong...True happiness is born from the pursuit of God/Truth and the Natural Way that comes from Him.

Within the True Reality of Existence they face(d) Destruction(8) irrespective of Time. And so will it be this time. This world is modeled after all three "World Empires" combined and any other nation that failed for this reason. Take Babylon (Lion), Greece (Ram/Bull), and Rome (Man) as the foundations of this New World: America:EU (Eagle/Phoenix). While some civilizations met destruction not because of their unrighteousness, but the effect of the unrighteous upon them.

To Devils and non believers the definition of morality is relative to the society. If this is true, then gay "marriage", homosexuality, infanticide paedophilia or incest etc.. are not immoral if the society does not deem them as such. Is this True? This is where they are, and where they are heading, stop and look how degraded the New World has already become. Remember "Do what thou whilt is the whole of the LAW" ? It equates to: there is no absolute (truth) or transcending definition of Morality. Morality is simply defined by that society and its leaders who build and shape it. In this world it is the written law of men and devils that dictates morality. It was the law that you could own man and woman (who were not even considered such i.e the justification) for no other reason than "pleasure" and material gain. Is it moral? There were laws that required the roundup and deaths of millions of people. Is that moral? Of course not but who did it? Is there not a greater holocaust?. Just as that goes, so is the invasion and occupation of Iraq and "war on terror" it is another planned premeditated atrocity to make the next steps in the evolution of the Plan possible. Who really demolished the WTC? What is Operation Northwoods? Why do we really have World Wars? welcome to world of Moral Relativism...the most depraved existence.

We know this is false. There is Absolute Truths i.e God that transcend ALL societies. These Truths are the compass of Good and Evil, Moral and Immoral, Natural Law and its reversal....We know that Homosexuality is immoral because it goes against Natural Law. Man was made to be with Woman for the purpose of PRO-CREATION and furthering their existence.

Homosexuality is now morally acceptable (as in Greece and Rome) because this World that was built is not based in Absolute Truth its foundation is cracked.... It may appear fine on the surface but We all Know and Agree it is not. It is a Morally Relative world and the builders made it like this on purpose, how else can there be MORE than enough food on the Planet (for the first time) yet so many are starving? It is justified on economic grounds. Welcome to the world of moral relativism, how do empire dwellers sleep at night? How do they live with themselves? Welcome to the world of moral relativism...

America invaded Iraq under false pre-text, then tried to justify the Invasion and occupation on Moral grounds which, when that criterion is applied equally to all we should be making our "righteous" might felt against Saudi Arabia and many other nations that are not "Free" or "Democratic" and are not ruled under the criterion set forth. Instead these countries are Americas "friends" just as Saddam was. This is because of Moral Relativism. Just examine the Hypocracy of this world it is because they apply their version of "truth" and so called "morality" selectivley when it suites their aims and where/how they see fit for material gain, control, and furtherence of the Plan, not because there is some Universal Absolute Truth that transcends all societies but because they seek the Culmination in desperate hopes there is no God.Wrong Again! Like I said earlier. Moral Relativism goes hand in hand with Theosophy they are often equated together by Critics (such as me) and themsleves. The Moral Relativist view is often associated with "freedom and Liberty" and "Enlightenment" this is all associated with the New Age Movement (World Religion, Ecumenical movement NWO.)

Now I examine all religions but I do not agree they are all equal or "a stream from the same fountain" as they love to say. Again, they apply the Partial Truth formula here as well. We all worship God just in different forms/ways... This is the Theosophist view, but the Luciferian is always "superior" to the "inferior" religions because they are not "Free", "Liberated", or "Enlightened". At the pinnacles of Power in Christendom they are Luciferian. Lucifer is their "real" god and the God most people percieve as the good force is an "omnipotent, obssessive, controller" that did not want Adam to be "Free" from his LAWS. So the morning star is the "true" Good force and god: the reason for Liberty. This what esoetric meaning "In God We Trust" is and why they adopted the Phoenix/Eagle (feather) and Serpent "don't tread on me". They also percieve the Sun as Lucifer (incorrect).

The Talmud and Kabbalah (Talmud always studied first)
are moral relative books that are based on the SO CALLED oral law that Moses supposedly communicated to them in seperate from the Commandments, this is false. upon the represention of duality within the the context of moral relativism for the subversion of the Law given to them by Moses. The texts are viewed as superior to the Bible and Qu'ran. The texts are often referred to by "New Agers", Zionists, Theosophist, Moral Relativist, Architects of the New World and alike...

Heru attested to the fact that the "oral Law" which the Pharisees followed was wrote by men and inherently corrupt and a deviation from the Source.

Free from or above Judgment, Concious, Guilt, Consequence or any other "mortal coil". You reap what you sow, the fields are plenty and ready for harvest...

related

Kabbalah and Jewish Mysticism and its Ontological Dualities by Jerome Gellman
www.princeton.edu/~wildberg/Papers/Gellman%20Judaism.pdf


The Divine Council
and the Kabbalah
www.redmoonrising.com/agenda.htm


groups.msn.com/Freethinkers5/9godsatheism.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=286&LastModified=4675440409339218148

This link is for anyone who denies the relationship between the Talmud, Kabbalah and Theosophy...
theosophy.org/tlodocs/teachers/MosesDeLeon.htm

THE TALMUD & JESUS CHRIST:
watch.pair.com/HRChrist.html

[Os3y3ris]

Abslute truth is an illusion. You see your truth and figure that it MUST be absolute because you're egotistical and/or ignorant. Absolute truth compells you to destroy men in the name of this truth when the reality is that true immorality is or indifference to, or willful infliction of, suffering of those around you. How has your society been determined to be the holders of this truth? You can always cite ancient doctrine or dogma, but what solid proof do you have of this concept? And it is just that. A concept thought up in the minds of men who lust for power. Absolute truth must be absolute, no? Get to work making it such. Spread this truth, this word of God, this civilization to every corner of the earth. Its only right, right? Now where have we seen that before? Or you can just sit on your truth, but that kind of defeats the purpose of it being absolute.

[UniverseSeven]

"Abslute truth is an illusion.".....
At least people know what you stand on.....nothing

[Os3y3ris]

No, I do stand on something. My morality is based on my interactions with other people. I won't hurt you. Besides that, nothing else is anyone's concern.

[UniverseSeven]

"I do stand on something. My morality is based on my interactions with other people."

Os3yr3s

So my question to you is: Is morality defined by the society(s) ? This is more or less what you are saying in this quote but is it True?

When you say other people, I'm assuming you mean friends. Lets say: your friends think rape is ok, how does that reflect on you, does it mean that it is ok?

Or say the society condones it, or it is not against the law. Is it ok? Or is it an Absolute Truth that rape is immoral and Evil? Do you coalesce and assimilate with societies (man's) definition, or base your definition upon criteria based in Natural Law? If you lived in America during slavery and your friends all owned slaves, its legal and condoned by society, Is it moral? Or does absolute Truth apply here? Just because everybodys doing it does not make it right or justified...

What I am saying is: There is God, and there are absolute Truths found in Him and his Creation and this world has deviated so far from both, in pursuit of self pleasure and gain.

"I do stand on something." Is it the people you interact with on which you stand? You may interact with anyone.

I stand on the Square, P+E(AC)=E, Freedom, Equality, Justice, Life and Islam the Natural Way.

Peace