[Mb-civic] come on guys...

[Ian]

Cheeseburger:

Thank you for your kind words.  Please see a few brief comments on your response below in blue (hopefully...)

Peace.

P.S.  I did like your Jesus joke...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Cheeseburger" <maxfury at granderiver.net>
To: <mb-civic at islandlists.com>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 3:13 AM
Subject: [Mb-civic] come on guys


Re:  come on guys
Ian wrote:
*snip*
======
Cheeseburger and others are unarguably correct that the vast majority of  mainstream heirarchical organized religion has little if anything to do with what Jesus did, said, preached and taught.  I have never suggested otherwise.  However, it is important to understand the difference - which is not semantic - between the idea that "evil" emanated "from" organized religion, and the understanding that, spirituo-historically, this simply is not, and cannot be, the case, since "evil" and the "dark forces" predate "organized religion."
======
*snip*

Good post, Ian.  You made some good points and I learned something.

One question:  In your above paragraph, there may be an "Evil One" that "spirituo-historically" "sprang from somewhere near" "the beginning" of "everything" for all anyone knows, however, if one considers the Will of "men", that "Original Evil" is not necessarily the origin of such "evil men do", but rather of their own making. 
Whether all "evil thoughts" come from influences of "the original evil", going along with that "spritituo-historic" indication, the part of the equation that appears to be left out of that is that, yes, we *were* given "something" (besides who knows what else we were given), and that was the power "To Choose" and make choices. Whether the "evil" that comes from some aspects of "Organized Religion" and other "establishments" and "Interested Parties" has its base founded by an influence of that "original evil" or is nothing more than Personal Willful Choice, I would have to still sit here and ponder.  Certainly the night air is filled with mystery, however, it's always fun to think about such things, now and then, hehe...

I agree with your parsing here.  My point, which you seem to agree with, was simply that "evil' and "evil" (or "bad") people predate "organized religion."  This would be true even if we are talking strictly about "evil" as a "choice"; i.e., some people "chose" "evil" long before organized religion.  But you are certainly correct that it is always (or at least almost always) a "choice."  As you suggest, "free will" (which, as you and others have pointed out, is not a Scriptural phrase, but is rather "inferred" by certain Scripture) is (ultimately) not only the free will to accept or reject God, but also the free will to accept or reject - or "become" - "evil."  And, of course, this is as true for non-believers as for believers.  Thus, your "broader" perspective in this regard (i.e., not simply vis-a-vis "faith" or "religion") is well taken.  This could lead to a rather intense discussion on the origin and/or "nature" of "evil" - which, although certainly interesting and appropriate, might just cause Civic to implode...LOL
 
Again, as to "Peace".  I like "Peace".  I just seem to remember that Freedom ranks somewhere higher than Peace.  As if one has True Freedom, surely Peace will be present.  If one has Peace, however, in some cases it remains that one is not necessarily free while enjoying it.

I'm not so sure about this, for two reasons.  First, it almost certainly depends on how we define "true freedom."  After all, "true freedom" would include the freedom for me to blow your head off.  That would not bring you much peace.  Nor, in fact, would it bring me much peace, unless I was a conscienceless sadist.  In other words, "true freedom" would, almost by definition, have to include the freedom to do "bad."  In this case, I'm not so sure that "peace" would naturally follow.

However, even if we agree that "true freedom" has something to do with "good" and "doing right," etc., it still would not absolutely follow that "peace" would result - though it probably would in most instances.

Yet let's look at the other: having peace but not have the "freedom " to enjoy it.  This also depends on the definition of "freedom."  If we agree that we are using the idea of "lack of freedom" figuratively - i.e., not in the sense of "bondage" or "imprisonment" et al - you would probably be correct in most cases: that one's "peace" would be at least "disturbed" if not badly damaged, or possibly even negated.

If, however, we define the term "lack of freedom" in the literal sense - i.e., being imprisoned, in bondage, in slavery, etc. - I am not so sure the same rules apply.  There are so many instances in both "spiritual" and "temporal" history in which imprisoned, enslaved, etc. people maintained a very real, very deep sense of peace despite their bondage.  Yes, some, if not most, of these people certainly disliked (a kind word) their imprisonment, bondage or enslavement, and fought to undo it.  But they were nevertheless able to maintain a very real, deep sense of peace despite it.  And in most (though perhaps not all) cases, that peace was an outgrowth of their faith.

In these regards, if you gave me the choice, I would rather have a very real, deep sense of peace while imprisoned (or even just in a "disturbed" situation) than to have "true freedom" (even if that did not include the freedom to do "bad") without it.

Peace.  (The old-fashioned kind...)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20041102/00c6db72/attachment.html