The intrinsic strength of Good and Evil

[zero1]

Generally speaking in universal terms, "Good" is held to be intrinsically stronger than Evil. Whatever your own personal definition of "Good" and "Evil", most if not all theology, philosophy and ethics hold to this idea; good will always prevail in the end.

For example, in Abrahamic religion, God is held to be perfectly good, omnipotent and All-Mighty; whereas his supposed adversary the Devil is only a fallen angel, not omnipotent or All-Mighty. Here, in simple universal terms such as these, good is always intrinsically stronger than evil.

But is this view one that accurately reflects the reality we live in?

In this world, each individual basically makes a choice in their life using their own judgment between good and evil, given the basic definitions of these terms by religion, philosophy, ethics and culture, according to circumstance and their desires.

In all the non-Abrahamic religions, there (more or less) is said to exist a perfect balance between equally mighty and opposing dualities of good and evil; in Taoism this is expressed by Yin-Yang, in Zoroastrianism by the two gods Ahura-Mazdha and Ahriman, in Egyptian religion by Sun-rise/daytime and Sun-set/nighttime (sometimes represented by Horus and Set), etc. In paganism, there is the deterministic concept of Destiny & Fate, represented by the gods and various prophecies, which vied for domination and fulfillment from age to age but each time the cosmic balance was upset too much, one aspect was humbled and the balance restored; ensuring no ultimate victory for one side over the other ever occurred. Free will existed only to enable agents of the gods and prophecies to make choices; choices essentially between two sides of the same coin.

But Christianity changed all that; here was the first religion in which the ultimate and final victory of Good over Evil was prophetic canon; an idea the Jews were decidedly not enamored of. Islam picked up this idea and ran with it later, but in terms strictly by their own definition of "Good" (ie. Islamic).

In Christian theology, Good is unambiguously held to be intrinsically stronger than Evil. Whatever the true internal, esoteric teaching of Christianity might be is debatable; this principle is the normal, outer, exoteric teaching that almost everyone picks up when encountering the religion.

My question, given all this (and anything else to do with it that you can think of), is this; in relative terms, we each have our own definitions of "Good" and "Evil", for example Communism to a communist is good, but to a Capitalist it is evil, etc. However, in a universal sense, the question asked is whether or not in reality (ie. the world we live in) Good is intrinsically stronger than Evil, or is there actually a great balance intrinsic to the universe which must be respected (ie. Good and Evil are in their highest expression intrinsically as strong as each other, both are equal; possibly even canceling each other out).

Remember though; if Good is always intrinsically stronger than Evil, and you vote accordingly, then you are suggesting that the natural state of affairs in the universe and the cosmos is one of perpetual imbalance and inequality; the Master-Slave dichotomy, which so fits Christian thinking. Is this so? In point of fact, does it reflect the reality we live in? We should maybe think carefully before answering. Humanity seems to be in constant revolt against this paradigm, both internally in spirit at first, then always externally in revolution later. We are always in our true nature seeking the balance, the perfection of opposites IMO; a personal God who is pure Good and never Evil, however ideal, may be a destabilizing figure in cosmic terms who bares no real reflection of our own true (human) nature.

Poll included.

[clachan]

Human beings,all over the earth,have this curious idea,that they ought to behave in a certain way.They know the law of nature,they break it.These 2 facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.
The rule of law presses on us so much that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it.

The law of human nature.

[zero1]

Human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea,that they ought to behave in a certain way. They know the law of nature, they break it. These 2 facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

The rule of law presses on us so much that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it.

The law of human nature.

But what about human made laws?

[clachan]

But what about human made laws?

well,if man made law is contrary to natural law then eventually it must fail.

Freedom is at the heart of every one of us,rather die fighting for freedom than live the life of a slave.

Natural law can only be surpressed for so long,every great empire eventually falls.The anglo-american empire will go the same way as the Roman one.

Slavery is the exact opposite to natural law.We were born free spirits,and we have been led into captivity,so its inevitable that some day,some how things will crack up.

[zero1]

Here are some questions posed on another forum, and the answers to them that I gave.

If you do believe servitude plays a part in love.

* How much is servitude connected with love? Of course, defining love as it means in your personal lives

* Is servitude proportional to love, in the sense that the more you love something or someone, the more you are willing to serve it in any sort of manner?

* Lastly, why is servitude a part of love?

And what I said -

Yes, we all wonder that in a world where nobody will (or has to) do anything for you without reward; that is, for either love or, more usually, money.

Basically it has to do with 'sacred' principle of hierarchy; intellectually the basic construct of Christian civilization is one with God (Love) at the top of the pyramid, so that we are all in some sense bound to servitude (the Master-Slave dichotomy).

Thus the significance of 'service' is in the creation of authority and ordering of relations between opposites; male and female, master and slave, manager and worker, etc. You're supposed to learn to love this servitude because you benefit from this order; ie. you are rewarded, again by either love (as in marriage) or money (as in work).

Because anything you have must be earned or taken from someone else, service comes in two forms; service-to-others or service-to-self. The former is held to be the ideal of love; the latter the opposite of that (selfishness).

A moral judgment (discernment of good and evil) is required to come to any conclusion other than love and service are one and the same thing, really. But then of course, the ultimate consequence of accepting this is that you are not free, and never will be.

To say love & service are "good", as we experience in the world, is to say that the opposite (hate & selfishness) are "evil". But without balance, how can we ever be FREE?

[zero1]

Well, if man made law is contrary to natural law then eventually it must fail.

Freedom is at the heart of every one of us, rather die fighting for freedom than live the life of a slave.

Natural law can only be suppressed for so long,every great empire eventually falls.The Anglo-American empire will go the same way as the Roman one.

Slavery is the exact opposite to natural law. We were born free spirits,and we have been led into captivity, so its inevitable that some day, some how things will crack up.

But then what of Service? Where does service come into the equation of natural law?

With respect, I think you've contradicted yourself a little; first you say that if man-made law is contrary to natural law it will fail, and declare freedom a natural provision of this law; but then you say slavery is the opposite to natural law, even though man-made law is based on the service of one to another, ie. the Master-Slave dichotomy.

This being so, man-made law is directly in contravention to the natural human desire to be free.

Once service is required to survive or thrive, you are not and cannot ever be free.

Do you see what I'm saying? For either love or money, you are subordinate to someone or something in life; always.

[clachan]

But then what of Service? Where does service come into the equation of natural law?

With respect, I think you've contradicted yourself a little; first you say that if man-made law is contrary to natural law it will fail, and declare freedom a natural provision of this law; but then you say slavery is the opposite to natural law, even though man-made law is based on the service of one to another, ie. the Master-Slave dichotomy.

This being so, man-made law is directly in contravention to the natural human desire to be free.

Once service is required to survive or thrive, you are not and cannot ever be free.

Do you see what I'm saying? For either love or money, you are subordinate to someone or something in life; always.

Isn,t service a natural law ?

Love,or rather,unconditional love has no ties,there is no master slave situation.Take a colony of bees for example,does the queen serve the worker,or the worker serve the queen ?Or,to take it further,is the worker a slave to the flower ? Its impossible for one to live without the other,this is not subordination really.If you dont want to play then death is the result.
As you say,balance is required.

If what you are saying is that there is a sacrifice for every thing then yes,ofcourse,thats life.Not even the wind is totally free,everything is relative.

So really,a slave is one who is exploited with no mutual benefit and this is against natural law.Where in nature do we see a master and slave situation ?
Service out of unconditional love is the opposite to slavery.Unconditional love is freedom.
Service is natural law,do our governments serve us ? No,we have become their slaves.

[zero1]

Looks like the old Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry himself, Albert Pike, had an answer to the OP in his letter to the Supreme Council of the Craft dated July 14th, 1889 -

In analogical and universal dynamics one can only lean on that which will resist. Thus the universe is balanced by two forces which maintain its equilibrium, the force of attraction and that of repulsion. These two forces exist in physics, philosophy and religion. And the scientific reality of the divine dualism is demonstrated by the phenomena of polarity and by the universal law of sympathies and antipathies. That is why the intelligent disciples of Zoroaster, as well as, after them, the Gnostics, the Manicheans and the Templars have admitted, as the only logical metaphysical conception, the system of the divine principles fighting eternally, and one cannot believe the one inferior in power to the other.

See here (http://www.freedom-ministries.com/index.php?l=page_view&p=confession_leo_taxilm_and_albert_pike).

[clachan]

Looks like the old Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry himself, Albert Pike, had an answer to the OP in his letter to the Supreme Council of the Craft dated July 14th, 1889 -



See here (http://www.freedom-ministries.com/index.php?l=page_view&p=confession_leo_taxilm_and_albert_pike).

Well yes,even at an atomic level we have protons and neutrons ,positives and negatives otherwise matter would disintigrate,a bit like the concrete and steel from WTC did when struck by an "energy" weapon....

Thing is,in every other aspect of the yin yang principle we can make good sense.But when i hear that a 3 year old boy had his head bashed in by adults who were meant to be there to love him,then i can see not sense in such an evil act of cruelty.To what purpose does that serve in the universe ?

[tannah]

In analogical and universal dynamics one can only lean on that which will resist. Thus the universe is balanced by two forces which maintain its equilibrium, the force of attraction and that of repulsion. These two forces exist in physics, philosophy and religion. And the scientific reality of the divine dualism is demonstrated by the phenomena of polarity and by the universal law of sympathies and antipathies. That is why the intelligent disciples of Zoroaster, as well as, after them, the Gnostics, the Manicheans and the Templars have admitted, as the only logical metaphysical conception, the system of the divine principles fighting eternally, and one cannot believe the one inferior in power to the other.

Attraction and repulsion cannot work without the dominant neutral center.


Neutral Center

The Neutral Center (NC) is a point or center of sympathetic coincidence. It has many properties. The creation and perpetuation of the NC is predicated on the inflow of the God/Divine Force (Divine Will or sympathetic celestial streams) sets its progressive evolution, as it were, and through the Principle of Regeneration is radiated outward as refracted or differentiated materiality via the Law of Harmonic Pitch, Law of Harmonic Vibrations and Law of Cycles. This process is in other words a ubiquitous (everywhere in all Time and Space) or non-local "Micro Bang" (implosion / cavitation) process that then radiates and manifests as what we perceive as matter, etc. In a word, the Neutral Center is a Compound Interetheric sympathetic force or Undifferentiated Mind. It is this inflow of the Divine Will (sympathetic celestial streams) as CAUSE of materiality I feel needs to be clearly stated. DP


"All the Dominant conditions of nature represent the focal centers towards which like surrounding ones become sympathetically subservient." Keely and His Discoveries (external link), pg 179

"Neutral centers are the focalized seat of sympathetic concordance? for controlling any differentiation that may exist outside, or in the mass that surrounds them." Keely and His Discoveries (external link), pg 255

"Neutral centers are the center of Sympathetic Coincidence." Keely and His Discoveries (external link), pg 220

"A center of introductory action is necessary in all operations of Nature. All structures require a foundation. This neutral center is the foundation.

"Every molecule, every mass, every moving body in space, every solar system, every stellar system, EVERY ROTATORY SYSTEM, is built about a NEUTRAL CENTER. It is the indestructible unit around which all that we recognize as matter is built. Immovable itself, it moves all things. Indestructible itself throughout infinity of time, it creates all things. It produced and preserves the incalculable energy of motion of the entire Universe. It bears the unthinkable burden of the mass of the Universe. It is the most wonderful thing Man has discovered in the Universe since he discovered fire.

"If we should take a planet of say 20,000 miles diameter and should displace a portion of the interior so as to have a crust of say 5,000 miles thickness, and at the center of the planet, place a billiard ball, that small mass, immeasurably smaller than the bulk of the earth, would bear the entire burden of the mass of the crust 5,000 miles thick and would keep it equidistant from itself. No power, however great, could possibly displace this central mass so as to bring it into contact with the crust. Furthermore, to move this central mass in any direction, would require a force sufficient to move the entire mass of the planet, and in propagating or continuing any such motion the neutral center, this billiard ball, will at all time periods remain still in the exact center, bearing the same equidistant relation to its hollow shell. The mind staggers in contemplating the burden borne by this neutral center, where weight ceases."

No less wonderful are other properties of the neutral center.

"It is the cause of the physical Universe. Its attraction condensed that which we recognize as substance. Matter was evolved from the affinity of this neutral center for Sympathetic Streams and since it is immovable, it caused, through negative attraction the formation of nodes? in these streams, where the vibrations thereafter continued to meet in a center of Sympathetic Coincidence causing the permanence of form and matter.

http://pondscienceinstitute.on-rev.com/svpwiki/tiki-index.php?page=NEUTRAL+CENTER

[tannah]

So basically, God Force is undifferentiated, and issues from the neutral. Man has the ability to turn this force into good or evil, through thought and other actions. The force itself is unconditional Love. In that respect good is a better path back to reality. Yet attaching to the good is also blinding to reality.

[clachan]

So basically, God Force is undifferentiated, and issues from the neutral. Man has the ability to turn this force into good or evil, through thought and other actions. The force itself is unconditional Love. In that respect good is a better path back to reality. Yet attaching to the good is also blinding to reality.

Some religious thinkers believe God had to plitt himself in 2 for the manifestation of matter,I think it was Zaroastions.

[zero1]

So basically, God Force is undifferentiated, and issues from the neutral. Man has the ability to turn this force into good or evil, through thought and other actions. The force itself is unconditional Love. In that respect good is a better path back to reality. Yet attaching to the good is also blinding to reality.

Very good, that's a definitive point-of-view indeed.

[zero1]

Thing is, in every other aspect of the yin-yang principle we can make good sense. But when I hear that a 3 year old boy had his head bashed in by adults who were meant to be there to love him, then I can see not sense in such an evil act of cruelty. To what purpose does that serve in the universe?

I don't know. There is no satisfactory answer that does not in some way attempt to justify the unjustifiable.