Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00181)

Personally, I would never ever declare someone to be 'soulless'. I 
view such as a critical error. It is every war soldier or mass 
murderer (not placing you in that class at all) who must first 
declare their victims to be 'soulless', before such a war soldier or 
mass murderer will have the hardness to kill their victims. 
Declaring someone to be 'soulless' simply seems like a self-
desensitization tactic that someone engages in, before hardening 
their heart towards that person.
   
  Cass: I am not referring to phsychological desensitisation of another human being, e.g. naming Viet Cong geeks.  I am talking about souls who have spent countless lives in selfish pursuits (through their personalities) over many lifetimes.  A densitized ego that no longer has the ability to see the godhead within.  Spirit finally detaches itself from that particular monad, to begin a new cycle of evolutionary experiences.  Generally these are the truly despots of civilization, the true serial killers who are bereft of conscience, who take pleasure in tormenting and torturing others.

For example, if I can declare someone to be a 'soulless thing', as 
opposed to a human being of spiritual essence, I am then free to 
perform any atrocity that I wish upon them. For they are no longer 
people to me, if they are 'soulless'. I can kill them at war 
without remorse, or likewise in a backalley somewhere. Declaring 
someone to be 'soulless' is the first step to dehumanizing them, 
which eventually leads to harming them torturously in some way, 
either physically or psychologically.
   
  Cass:  They have dehumanized themselves, however, one can feel great compassion for these individuals who have no link or understanding of morality or goodness.  We cannot know the truly soulless and cannot judge or determine that they are unfit for continued life.  I do not advocate that we murder or exterminate them but for our own safety they must be isolated from the general community and prevent them from continuing to harm others.
   
   
  "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."

I believe in Karma, but I don't really see any basis for the theory 
of reincarnation. At least, not as it is taught in it's present 
forms. I differentiate between karma and reincarnation.
   
  Cass: If one doesn't believe any a series of lives then karma becomes a very unfair judge, and cannot explain why in one lifetime some suffer much and others suffer little.

"All victims of child abuse may have abused others in other 
lifetimes, perhaps in a society that condoned such actions as 
acceptable behaviour."

This statement of yours absolutely shocks me. You are effectively 
saying that all victims of child abuse deserve to be abused. And if 
a child is abused, it is their own fault for something that they did 
in a previous life, and every abused child therefore deserves to be 
abused. Is this what you're saying?
   
  Cass: Yes, I am sure it does, it is a hard pip to swallow.  However, blame doesn't enter into it.  We have evolved from savages who were not necessarily rationally endowed.  We may have committed acts which were sexually driven as we may have not been able to or evolved enough to control the sexual drive or the passions.  The lesson may be  a) to control our sexuality, b) power issues, c) moral issues, what for me is important, is that the cycle ends, that if once I perpetrated this acts against a human being, for moral and psychological reasons I understand that to force one's will on another is reprehensible.  
   
  As I said, "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."

And you're placing this retributive principle on child abuse victims?
   
  Cass: No, if we were fully aware of our actions in a past life, then we would understand the wheel of Karma, unfortunately, for that very same reasons we are protected from our past actions, i.e. facing truths that we have committed immoral acts against others.  The problem with a one-life time thinking is that we do not understand why horrible things happen to us, "why me", "what have I done to deserve this", etc. 

"Trying to bind by chains and imprisonment, rather than understand 
the causes, binds us to further ignorance, and the cycle continues."

Okay, so does this mean that you don't believe in putting pedophiles 
in jail, as per the original example?
   
  Cass: No, absolutely not, all paedophiles should be incarcerated, because it is a violent and immoral action.  I believe that most molesters have been molested, thereby giving themselves an alibi for their disgusting behaviour.  Actually I would cut off their hands and their privates to prevent them from ever doing it again and try to make them understand because it was done to them doesn't morally legitimize morally doing it to others.

"As Captain Janeway of the Starship Enterprise says, we are not 
about extermination we are about rehabilitation."

Do you believe that incarceration and enjailment rehabilitate 
people, or must rehabilitation originate from some other source?
   
  Cass: Yes I am of the opinion that we should try to rehabilitate the fallen, the ignorant of society, we may not succeed, but extermination serves no purpose, if one looks at it from the soul's point of view.

"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,"

I don't believe that you're carte blanche judgmental. I'm just 
saying that we all make judgments on others, often more than we 
realize. Much of it we do subconsciously. We are all judgmental at 
times, but there are also rare instances when we break away from 
this.
   
  Cass: And we must catch ourselves everytime we are being judgemental if for no other reason, than we have never walked in their shoes.  I once felt sorry for myself because I had no shoes, until I met a man with no feet, I think the saying goes.

"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."

And who specifically are the 'innocents' of the world? Earlier you 
seem to state that if a child is abused, it is only because of evil 
which they performed in their past lives. Are abused children now 
innocent all of a sudden? It frankly seems a contradiction.
   
  Cass: No, not evil, ignorance, I was molested, I stopped the cycle. 
   
  Cass

Blessings

Vince

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva wrote:
>
> Vincent, I cannot tell you what is right and what is wrong. If I 
am truly self disciplined then discipline from others will be seen 
as what it is. A reaction on their part and a lack of action or 
reaction on mine. I find nothing humiliating in this concept. It 
should not humble me.
> 
> 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 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
> 








Yahoo! Groups Links










		
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

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