Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00062)

If I belong to a government that would hold me accountable for something I don't believe in, e.g. the incorporation of the communist government under Mao, I would simply shut my mouth and keep my head low to survive.  I am no martyr for the cause!

The person who kidnaps or abuses children in many cases may be soulless, or may be a victim of abuse themselves.  I do not condone their action, but try to see that there may be reasons for their behaviour which I know little about, and they do not have the strength of character to stop the cycle of abuse.  If we are going to accept Karma, we are going to have to take responsibility for that same action in a previous or current life.   As you sow, so shall you reap.  All victims of child abuse may have abused others in other lifetimes, perhaps in a society that condoned such actions as acceptable behaviour.  The soul (lower self) must learn that as it harms others so it will be harmed, not in a retributive way, but as a learning process to a higher self-imposed morality.

Trying to bind by chains and imprisonment, rather than understand the causes, binds us to further ignorance, and the cycle continues.  As Captain Janeway of the Starship Enterprise says, we are not about extermination we are about rehabilitation.

The Gotcha argument doesn't work for me as I said I struggle with it, which does not necessarily imply that I am carte blanche judgemental, but that as a mother and at an emotional level I struggle with the idea that others force there will on the innocents in the world.

Cass

Vincent <vblaz2004@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Cass-

You wrote:

"I on the other hand hold only myself accountable for my life.  I 
have no jurisdiction over another's actions and have done so since I 
discovered that this is the way of the Churches, to hold people 
accountable to their way of thinking and by making it OK to judge 
others who do not think as they do.  Being on the spiritual path is 
not for the feint hearted it is for the resolute."

I believe first and foremost that we should each hold our own selves 
accountable for our words and actions.  It may be deemed honorable 
to be self-disciplined, yet humiliating to be disciplined by 
another.  Isn't it necessary though for there to exist government 
systems to hold people accountable to things which they don't 
believe in?  Let's take political government.

Hypothetically, let's say an individual possesses the belief that 
it's okay to kidnap and assault little children (something which you 
and I utterly deplore), or to film child porn for internet 
distribution.  I am aware of such a man who was properly 
incarcerated for such behaviors, although I only met him once.  
Shouldn't such a person be forced to act contrary to their own 
belief system through threats of jail sentence made at police 
gunpoint?  Isn't it okay to force someone to violate their own 
belief system against their own free will?

"Doesn't free will mean free will for others to do as they so wish 
without condemnation or judgement?"

No, I don't believe so.  Not always at least.  I believe that we 
should not only bind the free will of others at times, but their 
bodies as well, with chains and prison cells.

"However, I do struggle with non-judgement or condemnation for those 
who perpetuate disgusting offences against children."

Then you believe in judging people as I do, at least in certain 
cases, even though you may idealistically assert a non-interference 
stance regarding the freedom of the will.  You're judgmental, like 
me.

Blessings

Vince

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva  wrote:
>
> I on the other hand hold only myself accountable for my life.  I 
have no jurisdiction over another's actions and have done so since I 
discovered that this is the way of the Churches, to hold people 
accountable to their way of thinking and by making it OK to judge 
others who do not think as they do.  Being on the spiritual path is 
not for the feint hearted it is for the resolute.  Doesn't free will 
mean free will for others to do as they so wish without condemnation 
or judgement?  However, I do struggle with non-judgement or 
condemnation for those who perpetuate disgusting offences against 
children.
> 
> Cass
> cent  wrote: Dallas-
> 
> You provide alot of good thoughts here.  Certainly some things to 
> think about.  I can only say that personally for me, I attempt to 
> hold people accountable in their lives (whether leadership or non-
> leadership without favoritism) if they directly obstruct my path, 
or 
> their actions directly affect me.  On rare occasions, I will step 
> outside of these bounds, but only in vastly extenuating 
> circumstance, wherein bodily injury may become a threat to a naive 
> party such as a child.  Otherwise, I do not chase people down to 
> discipline them.  However, if they approach me directly, they may 
be 
> in for a ride.
> 
> My personal loyalties are not to an organization or even to a 
> person.  I wholly support 'contructive' behaviors, and I detest 
> violent and destructive behaviors.  Also words of compassion and 
> encouragement are superior to words of cruelty, in the context of 
> the communication of universal truth.  It matters not at all to me 
> whether a person be a 'sinner' or a 'saint', a leader or a 
> follower.  Nor do I defer to either groups or individuals.  I 
simply 
> observe the actions and the words, and go from there.
> 
> Blessings
> 
> Vince






 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 





			
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]