Evil In The Science Of Mind

Probably the greatest theological problem faced by New Thought is the question of the existence of evil. This same problem dogs orthodox Christianity, of course, but at least itcan fall back on the doctrine of original sin. That doctrine is rejected by New Thought, which teaches that we are all created perfectly, not just in the image of God but as manifestations of God - a part of creation which is eternal, wholly good and perfect. The existence of bad thinsgs in such a schema would seem to be a fundamental stumbling point. It was exactly this point that many of the early critics of Christian Science (most notably Mark Twain, to the consternation of his devoutly Christian Science daughter) harped on, and it continues to be the achilles heel of New Thought philosophy. If God is Good and good is our natural state of being, why do we witness so many bad things in our world?"Evil is man created," says Ernest Holmes in The Science of Mind (p. 499). He goes on to explain "God - the eternal goodness - knows nothing about it. He is too pure to behold evil and cannot look upon it. Evil is the direct and suppositional opposite to good, and has no reality behind it, or actual law to come to its support." This is the standard explanation, and is pretty much the same thing you'd hear from a Christian Scientist or, for that matter, a Swedenborgian. God is only goodness, so anything that we might interpret as evil is created by us, and is, in fact, an illusion. This seems an adequate response, but I always want to ask, "Yes but why? Why do we have to suffer these delusions? If God is Good and wants only happiness for us why has he allowed us to create these phantoms of unhappiness?" The response to this is that we have been afforded free will - that free will is, in fact, the one essential aspect of our being as humans, the thing with which God has gifted us. This is an idea which derives clearly from the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. We are free to choose at any moment between good and evil. Interestingly, this same notion of free will is essential to most Buddhist thinking - that conditions, circumstances and karma are all very real, but equally real is that moment of volition when we can choose between a wise or a foolish action.It is interesting to note, as well, that in this passage Holmes seems to be anthropomorphising God, something strictly frowned upon in New Thought theology. This turn of phrase is undoubtedly reflexive, but it betrays an older way of thinking about God, creation and the problem of evil. God in this description is definitely a pure deity, one who knows only good, and cannot see imperfection. But to my mind it begs the question - because it is unseen, does it mean it doesn't exist? In the rest of his writing (and in New Thought in general) Holmes absolutely rejects a dualistic vision of the universe as divided between good and evil. The problem is always in human perception, in our own misunderstanding of circumstances. In an essay on The Impersonal Face of God, Holmes writes:"We are not dealing with a negative as well as a positive Power-not two powers but one; a power that sees neither good nor evil as we see it. It knows only that it is all, and since it is all, it creates whatever is given it. From our limited standpoint we often think of good and evil; not realizing that, as yet, we do not know the one from the other. What we call good today, we may call evil tomorrow, and what we think to be evil today, we may tomorrow proclaim as the greatest good we have known. Not so with the Great Universal Power of Mind; It sees only Itself and Its infinite ability to create."To further refine his explanation in The Science of Mind, Holmes goes on to make a distinction between God, which is all good, and Universal Law, which is objective and unchangeable. "The law is no respecter of persons and will bring good or evil to any, according to his use or misuse of it" (SOM, p. 500). So God is the source of all good, but his agency is the action of Universal Law. It is the duty of the human to work with these immutable laws and fall into harmony with them - thus bringing ourselves the promised perfection.So serious is this question of evil (and, probably, so recurrent were the questions surrounding it) that Holmes devotes a whole section of The Science of Mind to it. Here he underlines the notion of evil as an unwise use of life's laws and conditions. It is nothing in and of itself - it is a fiction. It is the word we use to describe a whole host of results, the causes of which are mysterious to us. Evil is a destructive meme, and the student of Religious Science can leave the concept behind forever. "To turn from evil and do good is the desire of every soul who is consecrated to the Truth; this we can do only as we cease talking about, believing in, or doing evil."

Read More

Social Background Of Jainism

Type Buddhism, Jainism after that originated at a time when on earth the Behind Vedic style (1000 BC-600 BC) had come to an end and there was a break the surface of republics and hardly kingdoms. The break the surface of the cover kingdoms was finale by the entrance of the ruling class in each state-owned, which belonged to the Kshatriya or the warrior caste. As the Kshatriyas ruled these kingdoms and held the rest of the grassroots, the Brahmin or the office caste catered to the office and uplifting desires of the people, as well as deified the plain-spoken of the Kshatriyas.

The Kshatriyas and Brahmins in racing bike asserted their power better-quality the people in common and the grassroots belonging to the inferior caste in particular. The lowermost strata of the culture could not skepticism the power of the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas. To one side from the contest with the people belonging to the inferior caste, there was a fall foul of with the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas to store waterway of the reigns of the culture. The Kshatriyas were alarmed by the upward power of the priests, who in turn wanted to commandeering the power of the Kshatriyas. The break the surface of Buddhism and Jainism via this style was a natural corollary to the reaction the troublemaker of the Brahmanical Hindu order, as the founders of these religions were themselves Kshatriyas or warriors.

The just beginning teaching of Jainism conceded from instant to instant fine hair the oral tradition. A office committee was held in Pataliputra (there Patna) in third century BC, somewhere all Jain knowledge were recorded and compiled. This store was once on edited in fifth century AD. The cronies of Jainism lethargically began to move to the southern parts of the come to rest. The differences that rose far-reaching to the emigration of the monks to the south led to the come between of Jainism dressed in two sects-the Digambars or the sky-clad and the Svetambars or the white-clad. The monks belonging to the sky-clad tidy are open, while the monks belonging to the white-clad tidy wear white attire. Offer is small any principal independence with the two sects. Jain monks practice non-violence to the profound thought that they put a white cloth better-quality their mouths to maintain them from inadvertently inhaling insects.

Jainism became now in the middle of the majestic dynasties consider the Ganga, Kadamba, Chalukya and the Rashtrakuta. The ease up merchants of Gujarat accept patronized this religion.

As well as read this ebooks:Howard Phillips Lovecraft - Historia Del Necronomicon In Spanish

Miac - Asatru And Odinism

Tags: witchcraft practice atharva walking dead literature godzilla medieval cosmology jail brothers bars norse liber liber chanokh liber regum sanctorum

Read More

Umbris Posted A Discussion

HEAVEN IS (NOT) REAL

Is possible to hate something that doesn't exist? I recently seen this movie called Heaven is real according to people that produced this movie it based off the real story of kid who had a NDE and saw heaven. I personally think because this kid was raised in highly religious family (his father is pastor) on top of him being very sick that he hallucinated everything. Would not world be different if God really existed. According to the bible humanity is full of sin and god created us with original sin. Why would a perfect creator make his creation imperfect? If God is in fact omnipotent than he has the ability to create perfection instead created imperfection, flawed existence. I don't even believe in some supreme being whatsoever I feel if such a thing could exist than why should I be consider inferior to something that also came out the universe. A person could argue that God is nontemporal and existences in timeless and dimensionless environment, but then I would ask how could timeless entity create something into a temporal environment which requires time which is impossible in a timeless and dimensionless existence. I don't know if whether people are stupid or just afraid of the truth. If God exist than why then doesn't it intervene in everyone's life simultaneously and unveil itself to all mankind then have debates over whose definition or variation of God is create. God doesn't order men to kill men or tell men to rape women, etc. God doesn't command any of these things, humanity does. The bible, Koran, Torah, Vedas, and etc. are not the law for an individual to live an ethical and moral life. If anything the Bible and Koran all religious texts are the opposite of living a truly ethical life. Theistic people could argue that an atheist can't disprove the existence of God, but neither can a Theist prove without a doubt there in fact is a God. If Jesus Christ was in fact god on earth, than god is a parasitic cancer that halts the progression of human advancement. I say that because why the hell did Jesus only cure some people if he is 100% God and 100% human, than he could effectively cure all disease on earth could have unveil the truths of universe to humanity but instead decided to create a cult and enslave people to his ideology. Jesus Christ never was god, it most likely he never existed in historical history the Romans were masters of faking documents they pretty much invented psychological warfare. What is God if not an inhibition on the minds of humanity? Why debate something that is impossible? What is purpose of a nonexistent entity? What is God if not just the holism of the human experience as a collective whole? How does one begin to talk about God if an individual can not first define something consistently? God shouldn't be believed in because it has no sound definition anyone could redefine the ideology of God to fit their ideology. At the end of the day there is no God, just nature and nurture. In another movie I thought about watching called God is(not) dead basically trying force Christian ideology into peoples minds. Who cares if god exists if it really exist it can prove itself. Why does god speak through a person and doesn't speak for itself. According to followers of the delusion God's voice is too powerful for mortal ears. I ask again If God is all powerful then it can make it possible for it to communicate to humanity plus it communicate to one human so why can't it talk to all humanity? Lastly prayer, why do people pray as if an all powerful being is going stop what it is doing and come help you, but according to theist mythology god is personal and exist everywhere all at same time therefore it has no terrible in answer prayers right.Prayers are answered by the individuals subconsciously there is no divine intervention if there was why do some many people die from natural disasters God could have prevented so much death, but instead it allowed them to die horrible deaths. What kind of benevolent being does that? They say God works in mysterious ways. (I wish I had defense lawyer as good as God's damn lol) that still doesn't explain why killed millions? It very strange that there is still a great attachment to such a thing. To those whom are believers or atheist what are your thoughts and feelings about ideology of God, not so much as whether if it exist or not, but the purpose of need of supreme being. See More

Read More