Conference hydra::dejavu

    Is it possible that Hitler, his armies and his 
    "victims" were all in spiritual collusion?
    
    If you accept the theory that each person chooses
    his own time and means of death, then perhaps
    Hitler and those who died under his rule had all
    determined before birth that they had a particular
    (perhaps karmic) lesson to learn, or fulfill, and
    so those who died 'agreed' to die in that particular
    manner, and to have their death 'caused' by that
    individual(s).  
    
    Perhaps Hitler was only fulfilling his karmic destiny.
    Perhaps he was not a monster, but rather simply some-
    one who had a contract to help those people learn what
    they needed to learn, and to die in the chosen manner
    at the proper time.
    
    Is there really good and evil?  Or do events simply oc-
    cur for a reason, to teach a lesson of sorts?
    
    For example (admittedly an extreme one):  Divorce can be
    the most negative, devastating event in an individuals
    life.  Yet, there are such positive lessons to be learned
    from the experience.  By going thru a divorce, you are now
    ready to experience perhaps a new relationship, one that
    would not have been experienced without that painful ex-
    perience, but the new relationship might be the most wonder-
    ful experience of the (current) life...
    
    Am I getting off the track here?
    
    

         re: -.1
          I tend to agree at least in part to what you are saying. 
    Let me suggest some other possibilities:
    I believe that intention on one or several individuals behalf may
    not necessarily be "bad" i.e. maybe he/she/them has a "well-meaning"
    intention that simple gets construed by others as "bad."  If you
    were to be raised constantly getting beatings from your mother and
    simultaneously being told/taught that mother=love, then it would
    be entirely probable that you would associate beatings with love.
    That being the case, you would "love" others by beating them or
    doing similar hurtful acts.  I believe most of us have at least
    a small amount of that type of belief within us.  How do we love?
    Most of us haven't really gotten a very good idea or at the least
    have our ideas screwed up.  And yet virtually every individual you
    can think of wants to BE loved.  So, in a bizarre intrepretation
    of wanting others to "merge with us" we love them in the only way
    we REALLY believe we can...since the strongest love comes from mother 
    (for example) then the best way to show it is by violence, sometimes
    physically, and, even more damagingly (in my opinion,) verbally.
    Being told by one's parent(s) that he/she is the lowliest scumbag
    of life and that success is out of the question is probably more
    damaging than getting beaten with a belt every so often.  
    I think you can "get my drift" here...
      
          Another possibility is that one intentionally causes grief
    simply because of the "attention" that that impact has on others.
    This could come out of a need for domination out of a lack of
    self-respect, self-esteem and self-love (for starters.)  If people
    "respect" you because your the strongest or most daring (in a negative
    sense) then, voila!, your rewards are clear.  
      
          Yet another possibility (and not necessarily at the exclusion
    of the aforementioned) is simply allowing the inner voice (the negative
    ego, as it were) to control and manipulate your reality in satisfying
    ITS fantasies.  Why would one allow this?  I ask myself this all
    the time!  Why, indeed?
      
          As far as the karmic events that you describe, I also believe
    that that too is a probable influence.  Doing it with others who
    also have that particular bent?  Why not?  
      
          Ultimately, however, none of us can judge whether that event
    was good or bad, right or wrong, for that individual...only the
    individual involved would know where to stand there.  Obviously,
    however, we can look at something and decide whether or not 
    it would be valid (helpful or not helpful) for ourselves.
      
    Frederick
    

re: .1
I disagree with (what I think is) your theory.  You're talking about
predestination--what's the point of "learning something" by dying a
predestined hideous death?  Why would anyone choose to be born for
the concentration camp and the gas chamber?  What lessons can be learned
if the answers are known ahead of time (which is what predestination
implies)?

Pardon my vehemence, but this type of explanation really rubs me the
wrong way--it's a case of "blame the victim" rather than "there but
for the grace of God go I".  We are SO DAMNED FORTUNATE in this country
and in this era...let's not glibly write off the vast majority of people
who are/were not so fortunate.

    re .1:
    
    >Is there really good and evil?  Or do events simply oc-
    >cur for a reason, to teach a lesson of sorts?
     
    There is good and evil.
    
    The concept of cultural relativism is one that excuses much.  One
    can innocently participate in what might prove to be an evil act,
    but that does not make the act less evil.
    
    Our Savior, on the Cross, said, "Forgive them, Father, for they
    know not what they do."  By that, He meant that the _act_ was evil
    (a political act; even Pilate found no wrong in Jesus), but He was
    interceding with His Father, because He would emphasize that the
    people calling for His death were unenlightened, and hence innocent.
    
    Sorry; the question (and concept) comes close to what I was talking
    about in the "Rushing In" base note.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    I believe there is good and evil also; what gets problematic is
    the definition of just _what_ is good and evil.  Things seen as
    "good" in one generation may be seen as having produced intolerably
    evil results one to three generations later.  Also problematic is
    the matter of one's personal conscience.  What if, for example,
    a person performed the brave and selfless act of saving children
    from a burning building, at the cost of his/her own life?  What
    if one of the children (s)he saved was--Adolf Hitler?  Did that
    person perform a good act, or an evil act?  I'm sure that, according
    to the beliefs we uphold as good in many societies, that person would
    have been lauded as being good, and indeed would have felt so about
    him/herself.  By the standards of history, however, if such an event
    ever occurred many of the sufferers of WW2 and concentration camps
    et al. would think it better if that person had just walked away 
    from the building.  Given the possibilities of those types of
    occurrences is it any wonder most of us adopt a belief system that
    basically says "can't really tell whether this is ultimately good
    or ultimately evil--the jury's still out"?
    
    Now as far as whether we have unseen enemies or are our own worst
    enemy, I tend to subscribe to the latter belief.  We, as a race,
    have managed to create some rather impressive cultural upheaval
    in the past 3 generations or so.  And we have tended to be, in the
    past, a race that depended (as many living things do) on precedent,
    custom, tradition, an accepted norm, instinct, call-it-what-you-will,
    to guide our behavior.  There's this great slogan you see on T-shirts,
    mugs, et al. that expresses this.  It says, "I'm the Mommy--That's 
    Why!"  Many people have run their entire lives depending on Some 
    Others to give them their reasons for behaving the way they do/should.
    
    But now we've created a cultural situation in which many feel they 
    literally have no guideposts to indicate how they should behave.  So
    they make up their own rules.  Rules that will bring harm to others
    and are therefore, by my definition, evil.
    
    But even when people are making up their own rules, many people I've 
    known would rather say (and believe) "The Devil Made Me Do It" than 
    admit "Of My Own Free Will, I Did It".  Someone "good" is supposed 
    to Tell You What To Do That's Right.  So it's kind of easy to see 
    that many who believe, deep-down, that moral codes of good Come 
    From Others also believe that deviating from those codes Comes 
    From Others too.
    
    I also have great respect for documented cases of demonic (or
    whatever) possession.  I think that such things do indeed exist.
    However, I also think that real cases are _extremely_ rare and should
    never be confused with an individual simply abdicating his/her own
    moral responsibility.  And it takes a highly educated eye to tell 
    the difference.
    
    Marcia

    
    
    re .0
    
    Overall, I tend to think that we are responsible for our own
    experience.  Putting the blame on an "evil spirit" taking over
    us and making us do terrible things is just giving away our
    responsibility.  Not that there aren't spirits around that like
    to cause trouble.
    
    re .1
    
    My thoughts on this have been somewhat different, and have gone
    through my mind many times.  The whole experience of the holocaust
    is too overwhelming for me to grasp, but I always come up with the
    questions, why did it happen? and,  how could we have let it happen?
    If it's true that everything happens for a reason, then what could
    possibly has been the reason for this?  Some speculations that I
    have made are that this experience was a physical manifestation
    of the evil that exists in all of us, and the blatant display of
    man's inhumanity to man.  It stands there fully visible for all
    of us to look at _and to learn from_.  If we miss the lesson, then
    all of those souls would have perished without having touched us
    at all, and that will be the even greater loss.  
    
    I don't know what we have to be hit over the head with before we
    wake up, because very similar things are happening today in many
    parts of the world.
    
    I'll be entering another reply to this note, which is a copy of
    a film review I just read over the USENET.  The film is called
    "Weapons of the Spirit", and it portrays the simple beauty, 
    courage and strength of our spirits when we come from love
    instead of fear and hate.  If anything it shows what we can
    learn from this saddest of human experiences.
    
    Carole
    
    

    re .5:
    
    >                  ....                     What if, for example,
    >a person performed the brave and selfless act of saving children
    >from a burning building, at the cost of his/her own life?  What
    >if one of the children (s)he saved was--Adolf Hitler?  Did that
    >person perform a good act, or an evil act?  I'm sure that, according
    >to the beliefs we uphold as good in many societies, that person would
    >have been lauded as being good, and indeed would have felt so about
    >him/herself.
    
    No human being can know for certain whether the ultimate result
    of any act he or she does is "good."  However, two points:
    
    1) The philosoopher Kant once said, "The only good is the good will";
    meaning, good acts can be taken as "good" because of the inherent
    impossibility of knowing the _ultimate_ outcome of any act.
    
    2) By saying the equivalent of "I can't know the ultimate outcome
    of any act; therefore, no act of mine, no matter what, can be
    categorized as either good or evil," is a cop-out.
    
    Another point:  If there hadn't been an Adolph Hitler, is it _certain_
    that something analogous to World War II wouldn't have happened
    anyway?  I don't (and can't) know that, so the question is, ast
    best, moot.            
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    	Well, I for one do not doubt that evil exists.   The question
    I pose in .0 is what is the primary cause of blatantly evil
    behavior ?     Some Christians I have spoken to seem to believe
    that demons are around us in the air, constantly tempting people
    and inserting bad thoughts in the minds of the unprotected.
    Others, like the writers of .1 and .2 do not seem to see this as 
    plausable, preferring psychological explanations or philosophical
    ideas of predestination.

        	A new book I just saw in the bookstore (but didn't buy, and
    I don't remember the title) seems to link "son of Sam" and Charles
    Manson, both as members of a single satanic cult.    There is
    clearly a powerful emotional force that drives the members of
    such organizations to commit acts the rest of us would call evil.
    For many members the motivations certainly must include the
    psychological realities of repression, revenge and so on.   But
    does this account for ALL of the evil demonstrated?    Are some
    of these people posessed by non-human invisible entities ?   Or
    are all cases of posession caused by repressed parts of the
    personality caused by prior psychological damage, as is apparently
    the case in some instances of multiple personality ?
	.5 indicates a belief that some cases of 'possession' are
    caused by genuine external entities.   I think I agree, but I
    still entertain some doubts.
    	This question also relates to the reality of entities that
    deliver "channeled" information through spirit mediums.    If
    some of the apocalyptic scenarios for the next decade are true, 
    then survival may depend on the answer to these questions.
	How susceptible might our leaders be to the influence of
    invisible entities?   A lot of previous generations of humans
    considered such issues quite seriously.  Have we neglected an
    important part of our national defense?
    
    Alan.

    Here's the USENET review I mentioned in .6 - hope it fits into
    the discussion somewhat.  Of course, this is without the persmission
    of the author!
    
    Carole
    
    
    
    Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
    Path: decwrl!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!fluke!moriarty
    Subject: SEATTLE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL: Weapons of the Spirit
    Posted: 19 Jun 87 02:39:01 GMT
    Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
 
    WEAPONS OF THE SPIRIT (USA, 1986)
    Director/Writer: Pierre Sauvage
    Subitled during interviews
 
    This is not a particularly good world, or a good country, or a 
    good era, for idealists to live in.  Cynicism is easily promoted 
    in almost every moral and ethical area involved in our lives: 
    scandals in religion, conflicts of interests in politics, general 
    apathy in dealing with what once were national ideals.  Humanism 
    is also a difficult standard to hold forth on, what with portions 
    the world trying to kill other portions over religious, political 
    or ethnic differences.  Belief in "good" begins to wane after the 
    constant bombarding of reports of mankind's inhumanity to itself, 
    and what little of it comes our way via the media is treated with 
    a healthy dose of skepticism.
 
    Pierre Sauvage lives in this world, and this country, and this era 
    too.  He is a documentary filmmaker, of Jewish decent, and by his 
    own account, a fairly cynical human being.  During World War II, 
    his parents were on the run through France, trying to escape cap-
    ture by the Gestapo or the French sympathizers, the Vichy govern-
    ment.  They were taken in and hidden by a group of farmers in the 
    village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon, where Sauvage was born.  They 
    escaped from there several months later, and left for America; but 
    Sauvage grew up with a great curiosity about the people who had 
    hidden and protected his parents and himself during a period when 
    the rest of France were deporting Jews to the death camps.  His 
    parents did not like to discuss this period of their lives, so 
    Sauvage began doing research on his own.  There was few, if any, 
    documents to go on, but as he progressed he came upon more and 
    more instances of Jewish refugees who had been hidden, fed and 
    sheltered by the villagers of Le Chambon and its neighbors.  Five 
    years ago, he decided to visit Le Chambon and investigate; his 
    documentary, WEAPONS OF THE SPIRIT, is the result of his investi-
    gations.  Sauvage attended the showing of his film at the Seattle 
    Film Festival, and talked about how the history he uncovered had 
    radically changed his life, and how he viewed the world.  No won-
    der; I strongly doubt that anyone who sees this film can go away 
    from it unchanged.
 
    Between the fall of Paris to the Germans, and the German retreat, 
    the lower half of France was ruled by the Vichy government, a 
    French government ruling with the permission of the Nazis.  The 
    Vichy government took it upon itself to label, persecute, and fi-
    nally export Jews to the death camps, unlike other occupied coun-
    tries which refused to collaborate with the Nazis in this task, 
    and forced the Gestapo to hunt for Jews themselves.  However, in 
    the south-east section of France, there was a small community 
    where no Jews were ever exported.  What is more, a large number of 
    Jewish refugees were taken in, fed, housed and hidden from both 
    the Vichy representatives and the Germans.  These people were 
    strangers to the villagers of Le Chambon and its neighbors, fami-
    lies fleeing from various threats and just passing through this 
    part of the country.  Yet they took them in, and took more and 
    more in as the war progressed.  These people were not paid, were 
    given nothing other than help in doing farming chores (when possi-
    ble) and the thanks of people who were, at that time, used to iso-
    lation from those who were not of their religion.  Le Chambon-sur-
    Lignon had a population of approximately 5000 people; and during 
    this period, they had as many as 5000 Jewish refugees hidden 
    throughout their town and province!  That is approximately one 
    Jewish family for every house, farm or apartment in this area.
 
    Sauvage talked to many of the older villagers who were involved in 
    this "conspiracy of kindness", to ask how it was done, how it was 
    accomplished.  He asked one old woman how the refugee support was 
    organized.  "Organized?!", she said. "If it was was organized, it 
    would never have worked!"  No one person was the ringleader, 
    though the parish priest was instrumental in introducing a general 
    moral conviction to his parish, through his sermons; this way, no 
    one person could be interrogated for the information.  Besides the 
    providing of shelter and food -- and this was perhaps the most 
    difficult part, because many of the occupants of Le Chambon were 
    literally peasants -- the villagers also managed to support a cen-
    ter for making forged documents for the Jewish refugees, and 
    schools for their children.  And through all this, they maintained 
    a united, pacifistic front to the Vichy government, and later, the 
    retreating German army.
 
    Throughout it, Sauvage continually asks, "Why?"  Why would they 
    risk the lives of themselves and their families, go hungry at 
    night, spend their money supporting people they had never met, and 
    almost certainly would never meet again once they left Le Cambon?  
    Time after time after time, these quiet, smiling people would an-
    swer back approximately the same thing:  "Why, what else could we 
    do?"  "It was the only thing we could do."  "It was a tenant of 
    our faith."  They all seemed to respond with polite surprise, as 
    if wondering how they could not practice the lessons of the faith 
    that they followed.  Le Chambon and its vicinity is made up of the 
    descendants of the Huguenots, French Protestants who were them-
    selves persecuted for several centuries previous to the turn of 
    the century.  They are a very spiritual community, but tolerant of 
    other faiths; the Hebrew faith was practiced in sod houses and 
    apartments throughout this period, with nothing but respect and 
    deference given by their Christian hosts.  And their history was 
    full of stories of martyrs to the Huguenot faith; decades later, 
    they would find that Le Chambon could still, tragically, produce 
    those who would die for their religious and spiritual beliefs.  I 
    am an agnostic, and have become more and more skeptical of orga-
    nized Christianity over the last several years; but this film 
    shows the caliber of people who practice the Christian faith in 
    their every action; who do not quibble over differences in the 
    letter of their Bible, but try to practice the spirit in which it 
    is written.  I am glad to see such examples of what this religion 
    is capable of; I hope others will remember it, when faced with the 
    latest exploits of those who use Christianity as a vehicle of 
    hate.
 
    What is perhaps most unusual about this film is how it documents 
    the infectiousness of the kindness practiced by these people.  
    While the Jewish population was hidden, they were not being kept 
    in basements or root cellars during this period.  The amazing sol-
    idarity of the entire community made it possible for these people 
    to wander around; if anyone from out-of-town asked, they were told 
    that these people were visiting relatives, or people vacationing 
    from the city.  The falsified documents were provided quickly, and 
    the surrounding countryside became a haven underneath the Nazis' 
    nose.  Moreover, records show that Vichy officials assigned to the 
    area, people who had been assigned to live in Le Chambon from oth-
    er parts of France, regularly overlooked the refugees (they could 
    not have missed them -- many examples of this are given), and sent 
    in reports to their superiors informing them that "no Jewish ac-
    tivity" existed in Le Chambon.  Later, when the Germans retreated 
    through the town, constant examples of the German Army looking the 
    other way with almost clockwork regularity.  It is as if the mias-
    ma of concentrated goodness, of love, overcame much of the preju-
    dice and evil exposed to it, so that many people, soldiers who 
    were butchers elsewhere, seemed to put down their hatred, if only 
    for a time.  Unfortunately, Klaus Barbi, the Gestapo mobster cur-
    rently on trial in France, finally got wind of Le Chambon.  He was 
    not able to flush the Jewish community out, for the Germans were 
    finally being forced to flee from France, but his henchmen broke 
    in, captured and exported several groups of Jewish children, 
    killing the local people hiding them, or shipping them off to 
    death camps along with the Jews.  The parish ministers and the lo-
    cal schoolmaster would have gone to the camps themselves if it had 
    not been for the local Vichy official, who convinced his headquar-
    ters that these men knew nothing about any Jewish encampments in 
    the area (the official definitely knew otherwise).
 
    And then the war was over; the refugees scattered to the four 
    winds, and the villagers of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon went back to 
    their daily world of growing crops and livestock.  They constantly 
    seemed surprised that Sauvage came back to see them; "We didn't do 
    that much -- we did what anyone would have done," says one old 
    man.  I find tears on my face when thinking back on this scene, 
    about this man's modesty and his assurance that the rest of the 
    world has the quiet strength and courage of will that he himself 
    possesses.  Sauvage thinks that may be the most important message 
    that this film can pass on; that it shows people, "ordinary" peo-
    ple, who are heroes in every sense of the word, through their day-
    to-day sacrifice and their refusal to be intimidated into doing 
    what is truly wrong; and to remind us that we, too, have the po-
    tential and the ability to be as heroic as these people are.  What 
    a wonderful world we would have if people such as these were truly 
    "ordinary"!  
 
    As a film, B+.  As an experience that you should not deny your-
    self, A+.  I hope WEAPONS OF THE SPIRIT makes it onto PBS or to 
    your local theater in the near future; I cannot imagine not get-
    ting something positive out of this film.  See it.
 
                                        Jeff Meyer
    

    Re .8:
    
    >Some Christians I have spoken to seem to believe
    >that demons are around us in the air, constantly tempting people
    >and inserting bad thoughts in the minds of the unprotected.
    
    Probably not just Christians.
    
    To the extent that _might_ be true, I'd replace the word "unprotected"
    with the word "susceptible."
    
    >A new book I just saw in the bookstore (but didn't buy, and
    >I don't remember the title) seems to link "son of Sam" and Charles
    >Manson, both as members of a single satanic cult.    There is
    >clearly a powerful emotional force that drives the members of
    >such organizations to commit acts the rest of us would call evil. 
    
    Well, if they both were/are Satanists, whether connected or not,
    whatever reason they became so would make them prime candidates
    to commit evil acts.  If we assume that Satan is the Prince of Evil
    (something that's part of the Christian perspective), worship of
    him or any of his minions is a deliberate alignment with evil. 
    The Medieval sorcerers who made pacts with demons tried to put an
    "escape clause" in their act so they could cheat whatever fiend
    they were dealing with.  But note what most of them wanted (unearned
    wealth, power, satisfication of lust): the ends tended to be evil
    and corrupted; therefore no matter how many _Paternosters_ they
    surrounded their acts with, they were inherently sinning.  Even
    Faust, who just wanted to be a sorcerer, according to legend, had
    the chance to repent, but was hooked on a power trip and thus doomed.
    
    Invisible entities need not possess people to get them to do evil;
    people sometimes need little to convince them to sin (with or without
    suggestions from supernatural sources).
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.  

    
    I agree with Steve Kallis - there is good and there is evil.
    
    With this, I'd like to recommend (again) that you read the following
    books by M.Scott Peck:
    
    	'The Road Less Traveled' and 'People Of The Lie',
    
    and when you get through with them, read 'The Different Drum'.
                   
    In 'People Of The Lie', Peck discusses his own encounters with evil
    in his practice as a psychotherapist, and how he, over a long period
    of time, managed to identify characteristics of those people who
    are truly evil and those who are victims of evil (he tells of some
    case histories and also his experience in brief of 2 exorcisms he 
    was a part of).  He also discusses group evil (like the Holocaust 
    and the Mylai Massacre) and how it is possible for people who are 
    not evil to actually be drawn into a mob which as an entity is 
    extremely evil.
    
    Peck writes these books from a Christian frame of reference because
    that is his choice, however he states that up front and does not try 
    to force his personal beliefs onto people reading the books (in my 
    opinion).  Indeed, during the choosing of the exorcism team, he states
    that he would rather work with a truly loving atheist than a lukewarm
    Christian.
    
    With any luck and a little extra time, I hope to be starting a topic
    on Peck's works very soon, so as to prompt some discussion.
    
    In the meantime, if you would like more information, feel free to
    send me a note offline.
    
    Cindy
                                  

    Re: .11
    
    No personal offense...but I would just like to offer another opinion
    of "People Of The Lie".  I bought the book because I was interested
    in learning how to "deal with" people who lie a lot. ;^)
    
    However, Mr. Peck was really talking about evil...and people who
    act evil.  I read the first few chapters and felt that Mr. Peck
    was really focusing on the horror and terror of evil.  He seemed
    to be somewhat excited about the whole subject...almost like people
    are excited to see horror movies.  He also seemed very judgemental
    and condemning in the way he talked to his patients...going on and
    on about how he judged them and what he told them.
            
    I am not putting Mr. Peck down, but I, personally, do not feel that
    the approach he took in the book is the most beneficial method for 
    studying and understanding evil, or anything for that matter.  It 
    sounded more like an excited horror story to me.  
    
    Surely, some people will find value despite that approach.  But I 
    wanted to offer my opinion...which someone considering that book may 
    find useful before making their own decision.
    
    Jerri

    Re: .12
    
    Good point.  
    
    I found 'The Road Less Traveled' to be a 'good' book overall,  
    and found 'People Of The Lie' to be a 'bad' book overall.
    Very contrasting works indeed.   I suspect this was by design, 
    which is why it might be best to read them in sequence.
    
    Now that I'm reading 'The Different Drum', I find that he takes
    the middle ground, pulls the prior 2 works together and applies
    them to situations in the world today (such as the arms race, the
    US Presidency and Government, and the Christian Church in the US).
                                   
    But then, it is just that - my opinion.  I don't interpret opposing 
    views as 'offensive', and probably Dr. Peck doesn't either!  (;^)
        
    Besides, the base note did ask about evil....

    
    
    Though I have not read The Road Less Traveled, I did read
    People Of The Lie.  I did not like it at all.  For a book 
    subtitled The Hope For Healing Human Evil, it came across
    as rather hopeless.  I had heard from other sources that 
    Peck's religious position as a Christian changed dramatically
    between the writing of these two books, and that he had said
    some issues brought up in the first book were based on a lack
    of understanding on his part.  Anyone else hear this?
    
    Carole

    I was given a couple tapes of Peck reading from "The Road Less
    Travelled" for Christmas. I really don't like him.
    
    His tone and demeanor while reading was pompous, high-handed, and
    arrogant. He sounded like a man who had seen it all, done it all, and
    has all the answers. 
    
    There was one point where he was going on about the importance of
    humility, and I broke up in a fit of laughing. Through my giggles, I
    said loudly to the tape recorder, "And what do *you* know about
    humility, anyway?" I was laughing so hard I had to turn off the tape
    because I wasn't listening. Maybe some day I'll turn it on again. 
    
    	Jon

    
    
    I have come to a strong belief in the existance of Evil and of the
    force behind it.I have had many a battle with Him and his influence.
    I believe i can be influenced by good or evil,but i believe i cannot
    be forced to be or do either,but have the free will to choose for
    myself,and accept the responsibility of my choice.I do think i could
    be deceived temporarily,but would soon see clearly.Of course,i am
    speaking only of myself since i believe all of us are in different
    stages of development,and that the real experience is overcoming
    our weaknesses and developing our strenghts.
    
    MIKE

    Re.-1 & -2
    
    Interesting.
    
    Here is a quote from the introduction from 'People Of The Lie':
    
    "This book has been most difficult to write for many reasons.
    Preeminent among them is that it has always been a book in process.
    I have not learned about human evil; I am learning.  In fact, I
    am just beginning to learn.  One chapter is entitled 'Toward a
    Psychology of Evil' precisely because we do not yet have a body
    of scientific knowledge about evil sufficient to be dignified by
    calling it a psychology.  So let me add another note of caution:
    Do not regard anything written here as the last word.  Indeed, the
    purpose of this book is to lead us to dissatisfaction with our current
    state of ignorance of this subject."
           
    Somehow, this doesn't sound like 'a man who as seen it all, done
    it all and has all the answers' - at least to me, anyway.  But then,
    I haven't listened to the tapes either.
    
    On the subject of his change in his religious beliefs - yes, he
    did change, and moreover, I would be quite concerned and less likely
    to be interested in reading what he has written if as a result of
    his life experiences over the span of 10 years between 'The Road
    Less Traveled' and 'The Different Drum' he didn't manage to change.
    He has even admitted that he changed.  Again, I quote from 'People 
    Of The Lie':
    
    'I refered earlier to Jesus as my Lord.  After many years of vague
    identification with Buddhist and Islamic mysticism, I ultimately
    made a firm Christian commitment - signified by my nondenominational
    baptism on the ninth of March 1980, at the age of forty-three -
    long after I had begun working on this book.'  
    
    Now the question - Do I agree with everything he has written?  Yes
    and no.  Some of it I don't fully understand yet, but it has given
    me enough information to be able to start asking the right questions.  
                                                              
    This doubt is the key to spiritual growth, because only when
    we question can we grow.  Otherwise we are stuck in the old frames
    of references with very little chance of getting out.
        
    Cindy                                

    Reply to .1, WOLBACH;
    
    I have friends who have proposed the idea that Hitlers atrocities
    performed upon the Jewish race was a Karmic balancing. That is the
    Jews killed/murdered lots of other whole tribes in their past history.
    One has only to peruse the Old Testament to find examples of the
    Hebrew race utterly destroying man, woman, child and domesticated
    animal belonging to a competing tribe or nation.
    
    I am neither anti-semitic nor a believer in Karma, but if Karma
    is in effect, then I could readily see the balancing aspects of
    Hitlers actions.
    
      Mikie?

    Reply to .3, Connelly;
    
    Although I agree in sentiment with you objection I do still think
    the victim has some part in the crime.
    
    Concerning to the atrocity of .1, if every Jew attempted to take
    a German with them to wherever, many less Jews would have been killed.
    It seems to me that the Jews were victim of their own disbeliefs.
    
    We are all born to die. The art is in choosing where and how to
    die. Admittedly some are better at this art than others. Persons
    such as myself may like to muddle through life to death and see
    where we wind up. B^)
    
      Mikie?

    Reply to .4, Steve;
    
    I disagree. Good and evil are relative to one species and status.
    
    It is thought of as evil if one kills/murders a member of ones own
    species, but this same one also thinks the daily slaughter of members
    of another species normal, a part of life. Carried to its logical
    end one is convinced that to take any life is evil.
    
    Yet if this were the case the balance of Nature view would be
    superceeded by the Manifest Destiny of Life view. I see no indication
    that any life is guarenteed any destiny/fate on this planet.
    
    Lets look at the two most horrible of all relative evils for humans.
    
    o	At some point in the future we could be contacted by another
    spacefaring race. In all likely hood this race will be more advanced
    than we. It could be that members of this spacefaring race will be evil
    or criminal. These members could also be anarchistic or not under the
    control of the "federation". It is readily believable that the first
    contact will be with spacefaring criminals or non-conformants who are
    escaping the "tyranny" of the federation. Just a few of these entities
    with advanced technology might exterminate the human race... just
    for fun. An indeed Karma indicates that something like this will
    happen. We have wiped out many species, maybe ours is just around
    the bend. Again, here, the evil is relative to the species.
    
    o	The ultimate evil that some of us fear is death.. the cessation
    of consciousness or an eternity of suffering in Hell. The cessation
    of consciousness is abhorant to any conscious entity. That a Loving
    Creator will eternaly torment any creature is abhorant to any conscious
    entity. Wolves have no Savour, neither do Dolphins. So I conclude
    that the Evil is relative to species. 
                          
    Good and evil are also modulated by status. What is good for the
    landlord is not necessarly good for the tenent, although neither may be
    in a life threatening situation by the good or evil condition.
    
      Mikie? 

    Reply to Alan in .8;
    
    Perhaps I could write briefly about brinkmanship. Those that are
    involved in light try to go as far into the light as they can before
    losing their individuality (control). Those that are involved in
    darkness do the same. In some cases they step over the fine line
    accidently or on purpose. 
    
    In my own exploration of Chaos I can readily see the gray areas.
    Maybe others see different gray areas. Or maybe they can't see at
    all.
    
    Maybe Manson feels that he is justified in his stepping over the line
    into chaotic blackness. I can imagine him saying that he was just an
    insturment of nature, causing return to chaos. I could also hear him
    saying "If it weren't for the so called criminals, where would the cops
    be?" 
    
    Plunging into the chaotic light we sometimes find resource vampires.
    The Jim Bakker types who siphon the lifeblood from the unprotected. How
    many old ladies will live a shorter life because of lack of funds to
    take care of themselves? Also in the chaotic light we find Jim Jones,
    who walked into the light until it consummed him and his followers.
                                 
    I think that no evil exists outside of mans being, likewise no good.
    If the race of Wo/man were not in existence, would there be any Good
    or Evil?
                                                            
    I think possession and channeling are the same thing, differing only in
    degree.  Channeling is sometimes called good. Reiki is called
    channeling. Reiki is involved in healing. Reiki then, must be good.
    Possession on the other hand involves badness, evil. Again,
    brinkmanship is involved. Can the individual handle the channeling? If
    the individual is a good channel and somehow looses it, is an invisible
    evil entity involved? I think not. I know many Wiccan priestesses who
    channel the Goddess every full moon. I know of some Wiccan priests that
    channel the God every new moon. The Christians would call this
    possession, I call it channeling. It that evil? Only if the individual
    cannot retreat from the chaos to normal reality. 
                                                          
    There seems to be a level of existance that admits so called demons.
    My personal experience is that these entities are excess energy
    catchers. Their prime function, if they have one, is to feed upon
    loose and excessive energies much like roaches. Because of their
    vampire-like existance we view them as demons. If one is even partially
    balanced or well protected these demons disappear and go elsewhere
    to find their energy munchies.
    
    Come to think of it we may have neglected our defences, but not just as
    a nation. Probably on the plane-etery scale we are hosts to energy
    parasites. But since we develop in such a way as to view this as normal
    we don't notice.    
    
      Mikie?
                                           

    I really like this topic because I have been going through a phase
    in my life that balances out light and darkness.
                                 
    Having divorced right and wrong from good and evil and from light and
    darkness I have come to the conclusion that Good and Evil do not exist
    except as concepts in human minds. What seems to exist are things that
    serve me (or the species) well and that which dosen't.  In short we get
    hypnotized by the concepts of good/evil/friend/enemy and fail to
    remember that the concept is NOT the reality. 
    
    As for invisible enemies, that is a concept in my mind also. Probably
    what exists is the eco-system of all energy beings. A galactic family
    of eco-systems would also exist in this model. What seems really close
    to me is plane based eco-systems where the demon serves the same
    function as the mushroom. If I don't want a leach on my leg while
    walking through a swamp maybe I need to protect myself by wearing long
    pants and tying the cuffs. If I don't want the energy leach perhaps I
    should protect myself so as not to attract them or allow their
    continual attachment. But then again, I might not realize their
    attachment. It might be normal. 
                            
    Again relative degree would be involved. Maybe I'm an energy brute and
    have a vast excess of energy to leak. Perhaps I'm a physical brute and
    leaches don't bother me. Maybe I have a death wish and don't want to
    live any longer. Perhaps I need no longer live because I have learned
    and experienced all that I planned for myself. PURE SPECULATION. Yet
    speculation that needs to be taken into question. 
    
    The abstract concept of good and evil along with friend and enemy are
    relative only to Mikie? Do they exist? Yes. But mine is different from
    yours. (Or at least I'll bet that's the case.) 
                                                     
      Mikie?
                                   

    I have a question to toss out about the definition of evil.  I'd
    be curious to hear the many answers.
    
    Is it the _intent_ or _results_ of an action that renders it "good"
    or "evil"?
    
    Marcia

    Re .21:
    
    >I disagree. Good and evil are relative to one species and status.
    
    I suspect there are trans-species evils.  But, Mikie?, for the sake
    of argument, even if that view would be correct, then good and evil
    would be species-related, and unless one divoeces oneself from one's
    species, the concept of good and evil would be valid.  I cannot
    stop being a human being, ergo, I must act on the basis of being
    one.  I am concerned with the addition "...and status," however;
    what does "status" have to do with it?
    
    >It is thought of as evil if one kills/murders a member of ones own
    >species, but this same one also thinks the daily slaughter of members
    >of another species normal, a part of life. Carried to its logical
    >end one is convinced that to take any life is evil.
    
    Respectdfully disagree.  If one kills a member of one's own species
    _in defense_, it's not considered evil by most people in most cultures.
    Similarly, it might not be pleasant to kill other animals; however,
    here _intent_ plays a role.  Do you intend to kill this animal for
    food?  For sport?  For pleasure in watching it die?  There's a big
    difference in these three perspectives.  And if you slaughter something
    for food, the ideal thing to do is to do it humanely.
    
    >                           ...  Just a few of these entities
    >with advanced technology might exterminate the human race... just
    >for fun. An indeed Karma indicates that something like this will
    >happen. We have wiped out many species, maybe ours is just around
    >the bend. Again, here, the evil is relative to the species.
     
    If they're criminals of their own species, wouldn't that species
    consider them evil, too?  And whether or not they consider themselves
    to be evil, _we_ would consider them to be evil to us (I doubt that
    any sane entity goes around figuring out how to be evil, in a
    JudeoChristian perspective, for instance, see The Book of Job).
    
    >Wolves have no Savour, neither do Dolphins. So I conclude
    >that the Evil is relative to species. 
     
    Maybe wolves and dolphins don't _need_ a Savior.  Do you consider
    at attack of a wolf pack _evil_?  I don't.  You have to understand
    what it is to be evil to do evil.  It's a matter of intent.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.       

    Re .24:
    
    (I was doing .25 when this came in)
    
    >Is it the _intent_ or _results_ of an action that renders it "good"
    >or "evil"? 
    
    I'd say intent rather than result.  Suppose a person has a dislocated
    leg.  Now you come along and think, "There's no anmesthetic.  It'll
    hurt, but I'll pull on this leg to reseat the joint.  Though it will hurt,
    the person will heal."  You act; the person feels pain, even screams,
    but the problem's solved.
    
    Now suppose the same situation.  But this time you're a person who
    thinks, "That person's helpless.  If I pull on that leg, I'll cause
    pain."  You act, causing the person to suffer, scream.  However, in your
    action, you accidentally reseat the joint.  You leave, but the person's
    dislocation has been taken care of.
    
    In the first instance, regardless of pain, the act was good.
    
    In the second instance, regardless of "cure," the act was evil.
    
    In both cases, the medical result was identical.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 
    

    Re: .26
    
    But in each case, the result was "good", that is, the injured person's
    problem was corrected.
    
    What if, with the highest of intentions, the original problem is
    not corrected, but is instead, exacerbated?  Or produces another,
    more terrible long-term result?
    
    Marcia

    Re .27:
    
    Marcia, I think you're confusing "intent" with "result."  A dislocated
    bone, say, isn't "evil" or "good."  It's a condition.  It could
    have been caused by an accident or by deliberate intent. Once the
    condition exists, it should be dealt with.  And the way it's dealt
    with is, again, intent.  In my first case, the _intent_ was to heal.
    In case 2, the _intent_ was to inflict pain.  The resolution of
    the condition (as described) required pain; however, in the first
    case, it was a byproduct; in the second, a product.  And there,
    in a nutshell, is the difference.
    
    >What if, with the highest of intentions, the original problem is
    >not corrected, but is instead, exacerbated?  Or produces another,
    >more terrible long-term result?
     
    That would be unfortunate; but if the intent was good, the act wouldn't
    be evil.  It would only be evil if the _intent_ would be to excaserbate
    the problem or to produce another, more terrible result.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

re: .19,.20
    
    Is someone who condones evil guilty of evil?  Or is this a different
    level of evil?
    
    It is at least a great injustice to attempt to somehow attach blame
    (i.e., whether explictly stated or not, moral responsability) to
    the victim of a crime.
    
    Certainly it is the prevalence of such beliefs that allow certain
    evil people to flourish; since to blame the victim is to, in part
    at least, to excuse the criminal (I use the term in the moral rather
    than legal sense).  One may council wiser behavior in an imperfect
    world without making the victim responsible, but too often the attitude
    is "... he was carrying too much money around so he deserved to
    be robbed".
    
    One of the amazing things about bigotry is the ease with which people
    can hide it from themselves.  Otherwise good, honest people seem
    to feel completely comfortable condeming a group as whole for
    stereotypes which apply, at most, to a few.  Mikie?, how would you
    react, for example to a statement like, "I'm not prejudiced against",
    say, "the Irish, but I can understand how their universal dishonesty
    and drunkeness would turn some people against them."  (Just so there
    is no misunderstandings, I am deliberately making use of some
    widespread stereotypes which I do *not* subscribe to myself).
    
    The ancient Hebrews were a relatively weak, mostly nomadic group
    which acted much as other such groups have always done, and still
    do to this day.  Their actions were, by "civilized" standards, extreme.
    I do not condone this, but it is no different than the individual
    who has to grow up tough in a tough neigborhood, who has learned
    to take swift and hard vengence on anyone who slights him/her so
    others will think twice about doing the same.  In other words, note
    .19 suggests the Holocaust was because they acted in a certain way,
    while note .20 suggests it was because they *didn't* act that way.
    
    I know of three ways that the ancient Hebrews differed from their
    similarly acting neigbors.  1) The propagated the important,
    sophisticated, almost universally misinterpreted, moral dictum of
    "an eye for an eye".  Rather than setting a requirement for vengence
    it sets a limit to the amount which can be taken.  Triple damages
    are not morally justified by this law.  2) They were literate and
    so recorded their vengences.  3) Their writings became the basis
    of a religion which spread throughout Europe and so became familiar
    to your friends.
    
    In part the Jews acted much like any other group who place a high
    premium on peace would have.  In part, the Nazis manipulated the
    Jews to put up no resistance, using shock, hostages, brutal force,
    dispair, starvation and misinformation (e.g., work camps, delousing
    stations) to do their tasks.  In part, they took advantage of the
    lesson which had been learned by the Jews over centuries of
    persecution: that for individuals to protect themselves in time
    of persecution was to invite extreme retribution on the Jewish
    community as a whole.  This served the Nazis up to the time when
    the Jews realized that the community had already been condemned.
    
    And, most importantly, the Jews *did* fight back, and hard, and
    caused the Nazis great discomfort.  The Nazis and their appologists
    have long propogated the myth that the Jews went almost willingly
    to their deaths.  The Warsaw Ghetto uprising, where a few hundred,
    literally starving, literally almost unarmed, Jews fought the Nazis
    to a standstill for days until bombarded to complete helplessness,
    makes the defense of the Alamo look trivial.
    
    There are few things I would say this about but I cannot really
    feel that anyone who has not seen the amazing documentary "Shoa",
    all 9.5 hours of it, is really educated about the modern world.
    It is at times a bit one-sided (no one watching it would ever know
    that other groups, such as the Romany, were also sent to the death
    camps, for example) but what it documents it documents well.  Even
    someone who knew every "fact" presented in the film could understand
    what happened quite as well as someone who has watched the survivors,
    from both sides, describe it in their own words.
    
    					Topher

Reply to Topher in .29,
    
    In no way do I condone what either the Hebrew, their neighbors nor
    the Nazis have done.
    
    I generally try, to the best of my ability, not to judge people
    or their actions. Instead I find it more useful trying to understand
    how and why something did happened.
    
    The following is a metaphor;
    
    Along the lines of Toaist Yoga I find satisfaction in seeing a balanced
    human as having three legs. The three legs of this stool are aspects of
    the human life. The first leg is the Healer, the second is the Warrior
    and the third is the Priest. If a human or society lacks anyone of
    these legs they can become extremely unbalanced. Now the unbalanced
    Warrior will prey upon the unbalanced Priest and Healer because he has
    no compassion. Likewise a victim is perceived as a victim because of a
    lack of something the agressor would rather _not_ face.
    
    Here I am avoiding the emotional action of placing blame where blame
    is _thought_ it should be placed. I am looking at why an evil is
    perpetrated upon a person.  In the model presented by Nature there
    are the strong and the weak. Generally the fittest do survive. Again,
    avoiding the emotional aspects, the week must get smarter. There
    is no Evil here, just ignorance and imbalance.
                
    Now I understand that some Jews did fight back. Movies are nice
    and can sometimes teach us much. I think we should get over our
    crying about the Holocaust and prepare ourselves against comming
    Holocausts. The time for crying is over by some 35 years. We could
    cry about this forever. Never again should it be said "We couldn't
    believe it was happening to us. Not us!" It can and probably will
    unless some Utiopia is found.
    
    Taking a different view about WW2 I see the German, Italian and
    Japanese ants fighting the British, French, Russian and American ants.
    In this brawl many ants die and are carried away to feed the others
    young. This allows me to disassociate for a minuite. The living
    eco-system of the planet has no concern in this brief brawl. The scars
    placed upon the earth will last but a few years. Even the nuclear scars
    will subside with time. A brief flash in the pan. In a few human
    generations all of the ants will repopulate their prospective areas.
    And, if they are smart, they won't fight that battle again. 
                             
    The same happens upon the different planes of reality. Many have
    stated a fear of what those planes could face us with.  The Invisible
    Enemy that Alan postulates could be considered the Nazi Ants, others
    the Russian Ants. Is this evil? Are we so species centered that
    anything that threatens "us" is evil?
                                 

    Reply to Steve (No Cabbages Alowed) Kallis in .25,
    
    Please accept my apologies for having missed making an important
    statment and missing your point. 

    So let me make up a few new expressions and explore this further;
        
    I am arguing against an ABSOLUTE EVIL/Good. And I'm arguing that the
    word evil is misleading entirely. I don't know what the word is that I
    am searching for. The word I need to replace evil with includes
    ignorance of ones nature and envoriment coupled with a general lack of
    compassion for oneself, others (including other species) and the related
    enviroments. I'll just call it "X".
    
    Transpecies evil could be replaced with transpecies "X". One doesn't
    have to be a criminal to be transpecies "X" or commit a transpecies
    crime. This could also include transplanar "X" and transplanar crimes.
    I think that the words Good and Evil are tainted with clostered
    thinking. They are round pegs that need to be taken apart, cleaned up,
    reevaluated, and generally squezzed into the square hole of our ever
    expanding model of reality.
         
    Also I fully agree with your intent/result line of thinking.
    
    Let me explore another line of thought just briefly. I heard it
    said many times that "I can be only what I am." I've even said that.
    
    I think we are approaching Graduation Day (at least sometime within
    the next 10 million years) and are discovering that the old models
    don't fit the new reality. In short we are selling ourselves short
    by continualy viewing ourselves as "just human". I think we are
    more than we are taught to believe ourselves to be.
    
    In older times the Invisible Enemy was the spy, in the Dark Ages the
    Invisible Enemy is the Devil and his Minions, in the Cold War the
    Invisible Enemy are sattalites and covert actions. Today the Invisible
    Enemy is Malaria, Cancer, Herpes, Heart Disease and AIDS.  The
    Invisible Enemy changes for the time, culture and the technology.
    
    I am proposing that Evil and Good, Invisible Enemy and Visible Friend
    are archaic. I guess we all like archaic things or they wouldn't
    be around long enough to be archaic.  I am proposing that we be
    Natural (whatever that means). I am proposing that we respond to
    the input/influences of our enviroment with knowlegde and compassion.
    I propose that we attempt to define "X" and avoid it like Crystal
    Cabbage. 
      
    Are we agreeing at different levels?
                                       

    Who said anything about crying about the past (although the idea
    of setting a time limit of grief of 4 or 5 years on the brutal torture
    and systematic murder of 8 million innocent human beings strikes
    me as rather unfeeling, to understate the case).  I did not live
    through the Holocaust and so I knew no one who perished.
    
    I do not believe in an absolute good and an absolute evil.  I do
    believe in cultural health and ill-health.  These are determined
    by the culture.  A healthy (or if you prefer, a "fit") culture is one
    which has the potential for long survival.  An unhealthy culture
    is one which caries the seeds of self-destruction.  Unhealthy cultures
    frequently trade short-term gains against long-term costs.
    
    We have, however much some would like to deny it, a world culture.
    It has within it many subcultures, some of which are nationally
    oriented.  There are standards of health within that world culture.
    
    The Nazis also liked to talk of survival of the strongest as a
    justfication for their actions.  "If I can kill you I am more fit
    and therefore by natures law better than you."  Nonesense -- this
    makes the shopping center sniper superior.  (S)he is not.  Evolution
    operates only on short term advantages, and as creatures capable
    of reason, we can do better.
    
    The lesson of the Holocaust is not that the Jews were weak and so
    they died so we should emulate the Nazis and place strength above
    co-operation.  The lesson is that the world culture was sick enough
    to allow a Hitler to rise to power by means of torture and murder.
    Part of its sickness was a tendency to blame the victim for the
    crime.  I have seen little change.
    
    Of *course* the point is to avoid future Holocausts.  This is not
    done by saying "the victim was weak, so next time I'll be strong
    and therefore not a victim."  It is by realizing that everyone who
    contributes to the type of thinking that allowed Hitler to become
    strong was the cause, and that that type of thinking is culturally
    sick (or evil, if you will) and cannot be allowed to survive.
    
    					Topher

    Reply to Topher in .32;
    
    I don't think anyone can outlaw thoughts along the line of "The
    strongest survive". That model of reality works, just as other models
    of reality do.
    
    I agree with your world culture statement. Also I agree with the
    nonsense of the Shopping Center Sniper not being superior. While
    the theory of evolution seems to value short term advantages over
    longer term ones it would also seem that the theory would also advance
    the more intelligent over the lesser intelligent. 
    
    I have detected a silver thread which I think could be explored under
    this topic. Were all the things the Nazis did Evil? Or is that our
    propagandized reality? Were all the Nazis evil? I imagine there were
    many good German people, some of whom may have been members of the Nazi
    Party. Where is the Invisible Enemy here? Weren't the Nazis just like
    one group of ants that wanted another ant popluation's property and
    wealth?  Wouldn't compassion and knowledge benefit the political
    groups involved here? I don't really see absolute Evil involved
    here. I see much greed, strife, grief and that which doesen't serve
    us well.
    
      Mikie?

    Re .31:
    
    >I am arguing against an ABSOLUTE EVIL/Good. And I'm arguing that the
    >word evil is misleading entirely. 
    
    ...
    
    >I am proposing that Evil and Good, Invisible Enemy and Visible Friend
    >are archaic. I guess we all like archaic things or they wouldn't
    >be around long enough to be archaic.  I am proposing that we be
    >Natural (whatever that means). I am proposing that we respond to
    >the input/influences of our enviroment with knowlegde and compassion.
    >I propose that we attempt to define "X" and avoid it like Crystal
    >Cabbage. 
    >  
    >Are we agreeing at different levels?
        
    In part.  At one level, we can define good and evil as we can perceive
    them (my "intent" approach is what I use).  In that sense "evil"
    is still a valid term.  On what constitutes _absolute_ good or evil,
    one would have to be nearly omniscient to understand that.  From
    day-to-day existence, however, we still have to contend with condi-
    tions as thex exist and species-oriented "evil" is still valid,
    not archaic (select any newspaper at random; you're sure to see
    one or more examples of evil actions being reported).
    
    Maybe we're about to "graduate," but we'll be able to do so only
    if we've passed the courses so that we deserve that diploma.
                                         
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .34
    
    If you believe in an actual embodiment of evil either as substance
    or entity, then you believe that there is a clearly definable, absolute
    evil.  People act evil, whether they are aware of their evil or
    not, whatever their reasons, when they have been manipulated into
    serving the entities ends or when they have engested somehow the
    substance of evil.
    
    If you believe in an absolute, unambiguous set of rules as embodying
    "good", as many do, then there is an absolute, unambiguous definition
    of "evil".  Violation of those rules.  If you don't violoate the
    rules, then you are not doing evil -- whatever the consequences
    and whatever your motivation.
    
    Since I don't believe in any of the above, I don't believe in absolute
    evil.  In a sense, I don't believe in "evil".  Rather I believe
    that a sense of "extreme wrong" is one of the social forces that
    are used to build large, stable social groups.  Since I belong to
    a number of such stable social groups I emotionally support a set
    of behavioral norms which I feel outraged at when they are violated.
    I try hard to judge those norms, and thus my outrage, against what
    is actually in the long term good for this society as it has become.
    Some of the norms are designed to stabalize a culture which no longer
    exists, and as such have a good chance of being destructive to the
    culture as it exists.
    
    					Topher

RE: .33
    
    Given the ability of "outlawing" thoughts against "the strongest
    survive" I would apply that ability only under the most extreme
    circumstances.  That would be a "strongarm" tactic and is exactly
    what I want to get rid of.
    
    Rather I would produce, if I could, a climate where the absolute
    idiocy of that statement were obvious to everyone.  The equation
    of "fitness" with "strength" is a falacy which a culture such as
    our own (and by this I mean the world culture of which the American
    and European cultures are important components) cannot long survive.
    
    It was one of the important factors which lead to the Nazis, and
    since they had to demonstrate their strength and explain their past
    failures, it lead to the death camps.  It leads to policies of MAD.
    It leads to policies such as "mutual disarmament can begin as soon
    as we have clear superiority in strength" (a policy which, I am
    glad to say, the current administration has backed down on).  It
    leads to Rambo thinking -- which leads to the shopping mall sniper.
    
    This is not a word game, the verbal equation of strength with fitness
    reveals, I think, an association at the level of fundamental thought
    processes.  It seems "right" that the word denoting ability to apply
    large quantities of physical force, especially in personal combat,
    is "synonymous" with health and survival.  This fundamental equation
    *must* be changed, or there will be rather large mushrooms growing,
    for a short while, in our cities.
    
    					Topher

    Re .35:
    
    I don't think we're disagreeing, Topher.  I said that one would
    have to be nearly omniscient to understand absolute evil.  You're
    defining it, which is a bit different.
    
    Yes, if there is a God (as I believe) and if "He" [loaded term,
    but it'll do] has set down Rules that if I don't infract, then I
    know how to avoid being evil (in the absolute rather than the relative
    sense).  But that doesn't mean I understand why, in absulute terms,
    breaking one of those Rules is _evil_, just that I shouldn't do
    it.
    
    There was once a story to the effect that the only unforgivable
    sin was trying to find an unforgivable sin.
    
    In the meantime, until/unless I know what really constitutes Absolute
    Evil, I'll muddle along as best I can with the relative stuff I
    do understand.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re .19
    
    Tread carefully. This notion of "Karmic Balancing" when applied
    to an entire race, or kith sounds strangely like the blood guilt
    for the Death of Christ, which Christians (in the past) 
    have placed on Jews.
    
    This notion is balderdash, nonsense and dangerous nonsense at that.
    Since when do groups of people have Karma. It thought that the notion
    applied to individuals?  If we are going to rationalize the killing
    of a people, let us do it for clear reasons, such as grabbing their
    land, or stealing their wealth.
    

    "Karma" does apply to individuals.  This does not mean
    that groups of individuals cannot have common karmic
    goals.  If one individual has decided, before entering
    his/her physical body, that one of the possible events
    in his/her life will be to suffer greatly and to die a
    grisly death, another soul may 'conspire' with the first
    to work out this drama.  Perhaps it was more efficient
    for a number of individuals with a particular lesson to
    be learned to work as a team.
    
    It is my understanding that life as we know it is one
    great drama.  It's a well-written play, or series of
    plays, or perhaps collection of plays.  That is why a
    psychic can never tell you precisely what is going to
    happen to you.  A psychic can tell you the POSSIBLE
    events, the forces at work around you, but only YOU
    choose what path(s) you will ultimately follow.  If
    you have to possible futures (and each having a lesson
    to teach), then you may choose one future this life-
    time, and save the other lesson for another lifetime.
    
     

    Definitions:

    	*Evil* exists.  Doubting this is plain foolish.   There are
    dangerous forces loose in the world.   The word "evil" apparently
    is often used to refer to the motivations behind acts that seem
    inherintly contra-survival or abhorrent.   I agree that a
    truly *evil* act must be intended, accidents are not evil in
    this sense.   The word "evil" is apparently a meaningful category
    that people use to refer to _something_Really_Bad_.    As we
    use it today, it is a vague word.  Eytemologially it seems
    to derive from roots referring to something which "came up from
    under".  In the past the use of the word may have automatically
    implied a invisible spiritual influence.   Today people often
    assume that evil has only a psychological source, and no
    external source.   Is this a safe assumption?

       	What my real inquiries are here are as to
    the nature of the motivation of a clearly *evil* person.
    Is there some demarcation line between people, beyond which
    a person could be medically diagnosed as *evil*?
    	Scott Peck seems to say that if a person is utterly
    unwilling to become a patient, or is somehow uncurably
    morally abhorrent, then that is "evil".   This is somewhat
    reminiscent of Wilhelm Reich's "pestilent character"
    definition.  (Reich noted that Hitler and Stalin were in
    this class...)
    	I, for one, would like to see a clear strategy for
    identifying this type of person.  I want to know for
    the simple and practical reason of knowing who and who
    not to invite into my home.  (or vote for!)
    
  As for the victim taking part of the blame for evil?  ;
    
    	I don't buy it.   The victim does not cause the evil.
    
    	I think if people are incarnating here deliberatly, they
    all (each and every one) just want to have fun.   Now, fun
    is a lot of different things to different people: sports,
    learning, evolving, fighting, sex, ect...    But do you
    really believe people come here to be victimized?   The
    people who think fighting is fun, can be nice people who
    have a sports approach, or can be wierdos who are into
    torture.   Even masochists are pursuing 'fun' of a sort,
    through their confusion of pleasure and pain.   No one I
    have ever met was really into becoming an out and out victim.
    	This is also the essence of my disagreement with the
    "Seth" (Jane Roberts) material.   To use the astrological
    categories: cardinal, fixed and mutable; Seth is all Cardinal,
    and contains no fixed or mutable traits.  We humans are
    not so one sided, and can occasionally be forced to
    accept conditions imposed from outside (mutability).
    Perhaps Seth is the biggest in his neigborhood, (or simply
    the cardinal aspect of Jane's personality) or has only
    friendly neighbors, but we humans do not have his option
    of always being able to create our own realities.  Sometimes
    a person can be 'out created', having a reality imposed
    on them.    Victimised.

       	We each have the power of decision, and some limited range
    of free will, I believe.    If an adult tortures his/her (its?)
    own child, or if a leader wages war on the citizens of his/her
    (its?) own country.....    at some point the line is crossed,
    and we are in the land of events commonly referred to as "evil".

    	From where did this come?   Will evil as we know it
    vanish when child abuse is no longer a problem?   Or even then
    will people still be in danger of posession?   If posession
    is truely caused by something external to humanity, are there
    instruments which can detect this?   
    	The "I Ching" says, 'The wise man takes the proper precautions.'
    But since our culture seems to have forgotten the nature of the 
    beast, are our precautions all too often ineffectual?
    
    Alan.

      RE: .40
    
      >  	This is also the essence of my disagreement with the
      >  "Seth" (Jane Roberts) material.   To use the astrological
      >  categories: cardinal, fixed and mutable; Seth is all Cardinal,
      >  and contains no fixed or mutable traits.  We humans are
      >  not so one sided, and can occasionally be forced to
      >  accept conditions imposed from outside (mutability).
      >  Perhaps Seth is the biggest in his neigborhood, (or simply
      >  the cardinal aspect of Jane's personality) or has only
      >  friendly neighbors, but we humans do not have his option
      >  of always being able to create our own realities.  Sometimes
      >  a person can be 'out created', having a reality imposed
      >  on them.    Victimised.

     Just some thoughts around this paragraph.  _If_ you are coming
     from the point of view that we each choose to be born, than our
     astrological maps or blueprints are part of that choice.  If 
     this is so, and we come into this world with a predominance of
     mutable energy, than have we not created this reality?  Until
     we come to understand ourselves, many of us operate from sub-
     conscious promptings - however this does not negate the fact 
     that we are still responsible for our choices.  By understanding
     ourselves, we have more to say about what these choices are,
     _consciously_.

     Carole

                 
    It looks like we all may be stuck trying to define/explain the following:
    
    	1. Does evil exist, and
    	2. If it does, what is it?
    
    I'd like to take a slightly different approach and try to define
    what evil isn't (with the hope that a logical definition of what
    evil is might fall out of this approach).
    
    Good vs. Evil  
    -------------  
    Evil is defined in the (American Heritage) dictionary as follows:
    'Morally bad or wrong; wicked.  Harmful; injurious.  Something that
    causes misfortune, suffering, or difficulty.
    
    Good (I'm going to define this myself instead of using the dictionary)
    = Love, where love is defined by Peck in "The Road Less Traveled"
    as the will to extend one's self for the purpose of nurturing one's
    own or someone elses spiritual growth.                          
    
    (Please - those of you who are not Peck fans, don't stop reading
    because of your current opinion that Peck is [whatever].)
                                                                       
    Spiritual growth I will also take the liberty of defining as not
    religious in nature, but rather personal growth and a positive sense 
    of self and well being.
            
    Therefore, it now becomes possible to recognize what evil is not,
    and that is the definition of Love.
    
    With this in mind, stop to think of some act which you are not quite
    sure if it is evil or not evil.  For purposes of discussion, I'll
    put forth 2 examples here:
         
        1. A parent sexually abusing a child 
    	2. Nazis and WWII
           
    In both cases, it can be said that Love was not present because the
    people 'in charge' were not extending themselves in the way Love
    is defined above.
                                                           
    Therefore, I would conclude that evil was present in both cases,
    though the second example clearly affected more people than the
    first example.
    
    Does that make a case for 'relative' states of evil - where some
    people/situations are more evil than others?  I would say no, because
    if Hitler had not been in a position of power then he, at worst, would
    have probably performed evil deeds on a small scale however history would
    not show them because they weren't significant enough to be written
    about.  Similarly, if the parent in example 1 had more power and
    more control over other people's lives (like owning a daycare center), 
    that parent then might do more damage to many children as opposed
    to just one child.  Then when the acts are discovered, the actions
    of that person might be documented in history (court records).
    
    As for the 'victims', the problem I see is that 'right-thinking'
    people really have a difficult time believing that there are people
    in the world who would commit such atrocious acts (in either example).
    Peck states in 'People Of The Lie' that when 'good' people encounter
    evil, they become confused.  
    
    I would take this even further to say that the 'good' people then
    think to themselves "How could this have happened??  No
    'right-thinking' individual would ever do such a thing (which is true 
    in their reality.....but the problem is that the individuals above are 
    not 'right-thinking' individuals but the 'good' people do not
    understand that not everyone is like them and shares their same
    'moral' views).   Hence it becomes easier to blame the victim,
    thinking that the 'evil' person must have had a good reason to commit 
    the crime (the victim *must* have done something to ask for this 
    treatment).    
    
    The problem is though, that the victims might also fall into the
    category of 'good' people and when the events take place, they also
    become totally confused and for a time are in shock and disbelief
    that the 'crime' is actually happening to them and feel "What have
    I done to deserve this?????", when in reality they have done nothing.
    This belief is reinforced and becomes a nightmare when the people
    of the jury also ask the question of the victim, "What did you do
    to provoke this?" and proceed along this line of questioning, even
    though it should be the other way around (innocent until proven
    guilty).
    
    Therefore, I would say in conclusion that 'evil' or 'an evil act'
    (conscious or unconscious) can be defined as anti-love or imposing 
    one's will onto someone else in such a way to not nurture one's own 
    or someone elses spiritual (personal, etc.) growth, for whatever reason.
    
    Comments are welcome.
    
    Cindy 
    
       
    
    
    
    
    
    

    
    Now that we have all caressed our selves (i.e. ego's) endlessly,
    let's stop and think for a minute. DEE DEE DEE DUM. O.k. the only
    evil and the only cause of evil is ego. Trying to place the blame
    on spiritual entities (as agents of causation) is a dangerous and
    immature way of dealing with a serious topic. End ego and you end
    evil while ushering in true selfless love (the love of 1 Cor 13),
    for without ego, evil is impossible 

    Re .43:
    
    >                     ...                 the only
    >evil and the only cause of evil is ego.  
    
    Whup!  That depends upon your definition of "ego."  If "ego" means
    "identity," then you argue that individuality is evil.  Sorry, if
    that's what you're saying, I can't agree.
    
    There are two questions here:
    
    	1) What's evil (or defines it)?
        2) are spiritual instigators responsible (in whole or part)?
    
    These have been getting mixed up.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

     RE .43
    	Well, if you are right, ok, and I breathe a sigh of relief.
    On the other hand, if you are wrong;
    
  >                                         Trying to place the blame
  >  on spiritual entities (as agents of causation) is a dangerous and
  >  immature way of dealing with a serious topic.
    
    	If there is a devil, he will laugh all the way home when he
    hears this.   If there is not, no problem....
    
  > The only evil and the only cause of evil is ego.
    
    Sounds like you have a pretty oversized ego there.   With such
    knowledge and certainty you must be a great spiritual teacher?
    
    

    RE: .45 Good. What I said provoked someone.
    
    First, I never claimed to be a teacher. If I did, I would of course
    be a lying charlatan. Second, there is a big difference between
    knowing that something is true and putting this knowledge into action.
    Third, I agree with you. I do have an oversized ego, as we all do.
    That is why there is so much evil around, if you have to label it
    evil. And, always remember Occam's razor when positing the existence
    of something (in his case, the existence of universals, but, here,
    the existence of a devil): " Multiplicity should not be posited
    without necessity. " Basically, in this instance, I would argue
    that there is no good *reason* to believe that some evil agent exists
    and that there are in fact simpler explanations to the problem of
    evil. Thus, go with the simpler explanation. Just because I MIGHT
    be wrong and the devil MIGHT be laughing all the way to hell is
    no reason to believe that the devil exists. And why does anyone
    believe in the devil at all- because some ancient prophet said so?
    Or because they have seriously thought about the matter carefully,
    inspecting both their lives and the evidence around them.
    
    				John N.
    
    P.S. By the way, how do you know the devil is a he?
    P.S.S. Come and get me Satan, if you can!

    
    (Skipping over .44-.46)
    
    RE.43 and the reference to true selfless love
                   
    Yes, I agree with you on the placement of blame on spiritual entities
    for evil in the world.
    
    I also believe that to credit good works to spiritual entities would
    also be a mistake.  
    
    What about the possibility of people acting as 'channels' for such
    acts?  (Just throwing the question out as I'm not very familiar 
    with this area.....).
    
    It is beginning to sound like the key to this might be that if all
    people were to assume responsibility for their own actions (as opposed
    to blaming other people or groups of people or 'entities') and only 
    acted toward others in true selfless love, then this would end evil.
                       

    Reply to .46; Survey;
    
    Great! That's was what I was trying to express, but in too many words.
                                                   
      Mikie?

    Re: 43, ego et al.
       GOOD!!  Stay with those ideas; I think they are valid.
    I've tried to postulate on the ego (negative ego as opposed to
    the less frequently expressed positive ego) throughtout 316 and
    358, but apparently many of the respondants here choose to hang
    onto the primitive concepts you describe (in .46?)  And, as Cindy
    points out in .47, none of this exists at all unless you allow it
    or create it in the first place.  In any case, any reference to
    a devil can certainly be relabeled as negative ego with the same
    but less immature impact.  Taking responsibility is the key to 
    our reality creation...those who refuse will continue to be
    "victimized" by a negative reality.  And, yes, we all have an
    ego "problem" and will continue to have it throughout our physical
    reality.  We can, however, shrink it down to a helpful rather than
    hurtful component.
      
    Frederick
    

    RE: .43, .46

	First, in reply, I have never said that I believe in the
    existence of the devil.   In .0 I am asking what others think may
    be an adequate explanation for events we commonly refer to as "evil".

	In .43 you say that having an ego causes evil to exist.  
    Not knowing your definition of ego, I won't argue with this,
    but I will ask;   Does this account for ALL types of evil,
    or may there be less frequent events not due to human action/inaction?

	You seem to argue that the experience of evil can be
    entirely explained by psychological causes;  that the enemy is
    not external.   This is a view I have seriously considered, I 
    mention in .0 that Alice Miller makes a good case in "For Your
    Own Good" for Hitler's evil being derived from known psychological
    mechanisms.    I would agree that most of the evil in the human
    race may be due to our own psychological turmoil, yet may there
    not also be a catalyst pushing us on?

	Consider the existence of physical diseases which can
    cripple a person's mind.   Many people have been taught that
    their symptoms were their own fault, when the nature of their
    disease was unknown.   Finding knowledge of external factors
    freed these people from guilt and allowed them to be healed.
    If there are any external factors here, they can only be
    discovered by approaching with an open mind.

	Citing Occam's razor you say;

>	 Basically, in this instance, I would argue
>    that there is no good *reason* to believe that some evil agent exists
>    and that there are in fact simpler explanations to the problem of
>    evil. 

	Which you follow by pointing out the types of evidence you reject;

>    		And why does anyone
>    believe in the devil at all- because some ancient prophet said so?
>    Or because they have seriously thought about the matter carefully,
>    inspecting both their lives and the evidence around them.

	Apparently you do not take legends and long lived religious
    beliefs that seriously.   I do.   I consider the existence of these
    stories and beliefs to be one more fact to be weighed when I ponder
    where the truth lies.
	Actually I have seen little evidence in my own near surroundings,
    of the reality of evil.   If I went by my own perceptions only, I have
    lived a comfortable life in a good economy, and I would not see much
    evidence.   I have however made a hobby of reading reports of unusual
    or anomalous events, and have learned that the world contains a wide
    variety of strangeness, and many events seem to strain the limits of
    known causes.    
	People who consider only what they have themselves
    seen or known, must remain narrow in their education.   If you refuse
    to credit the possible truth of a man's story, when he tells you of
    events outside your experience, then you remain limited by your own
    experience.    If many travelers report the same distant land to
    me, I can reasonably verify it's existence without direct personal
    experience.   By the same means, I have come to suspect that there
    is some truth behind tales of "demons" and "devils", since they are
    in fact quite prevalent tales with recurring similarities.   I have
    not personally experienced such events, and would not wish such
    experiences on anyone.    I am not referring to the "garden variety"
    of sins and evil here, but to the truly abhorrent an anomalous events
    that seem to defy conventional explanation.
	I have not finalized my own beliefs yet, but I don't think it's
    wise to toss out all the words of "some ancient prophet" or other 
    anecdotal evidence that people have seen fit to preserve for generations.

	I really don't know if any real Devil exists, but I
    think you are a fool to dare "Come and get me Satan, if you can!".
    Something out there may in fact hear you and take you up on that
    dare, but for your sake I hope not.   

	Consider again;  I agree that many (even most) terrible events are
    due to psychological causes.   But does this mean that there
    are *no* external evil spiritual influences?    (Even the word 
    "influence", in it's roots, contains the metaphor of a spirit which 
    is breathed in.)   Perhaps some external causes should not be
    personified, like diseases caused by germs once were once personified
    as demons.   Are there any other species (perhaps now "undiscovered")
    which can cause humans to act "evil"?
	To state my question more abstractly;  Is mankind's evil
    ever increased/promoted by external causes?
   
         Alan.

      Well i am going to go out on a limb here and some of you may think
    that i am nuts or something,but for some reason i feel a responsibility
    to try to pass some information and personal knowledge along in
    hopes that someone might be enlightened by it.I'm sure that in a
    different setting i might be considered wacko.
      Here goes.First,the existance of the devil.Yes,he does exist.How
    do i know?I've spoken to him through the Ouija board.Only briefly
    for about a paragragh.He was very serious about his position and
    the control that can be exercised over the weak.He warned me to
    stop trying to help people using the board.We can do evil through
    our free will,but,cannot be forced to.So the responsibility is on
    us and no other force.Outside forces may try to get us to do things
    that are evil in nature by playing on our weaknesses,but,we are
    the ones who choose to do it or not and cannot blame something else
    for our own choices.
      You may or may not believe what i say is true.If you want to find
    out then investigate as i have.The truth is there if you seek it.Just
    proceed with caution and use protections to strenthen yourself.
    
    
    MIKE

    	There was a scene in the 1977 movie, OH GOD!, where the character
    played by John Denver asked God (played wonderfully by George Burns)
    why God allowed so much evil and suffering in the world, and God
    came back with the best answer I have ever heard to this timeless
    question:  God doesn't allow it, PEOPLE do!  
    
    	I do believe in a sort of predestined existence for everyone
    and everything, but we as a race are most certainly the ones who
    can be either our best friends or our worst enemies.
    
    	Larry
                                                    

    Re .46, et al.:
    
    >And, always remember Occam's razor when positing the existence
    >of something (in his case, the existence of universals, but, here,
    >the existence of a devil):   ...
    >there is no good *reason* to believe that some evil agent exists
    >and that there are in fact simpler explanations to the problem of
    >evil. Thus, go with the simpler explanation. Just because I MIGHT
    >be wrong and the devil MIGHT be laughing all the way to hell is
    >no reason to believe that the devil exists. 
    
    Hmm.  You quoted Corinthians; yet note Matthew 4:1-11, where Jesus
    encountered Satan, or Luke 8:27-33, where devils were driven out
    of a man.  Now, my point is that if one wishes to utilize a part
    of a book to bolster one's opinion, one should not pretend the rest
    doesn't exist.  If you're outside the Christian belief system, that's
    one thing; if you're inside it, the message of Matthew 4 is clear:
    _you_ make the decision, but Satan or lesser devils put temptation
    in your way.
    
    >P.S. By the way, how do you know the devil is a he?
    According to Medieval tradition, Satan could take in either masculine
    or feminine forms, so the question might be meaningless.  "He" is
    a more convenient pornoun for most than "it" would be.
    
    >P.S.S. Come and get me Satan, if you can!
    
    First of all, that should be "P.P.S." :-)
    Secondly, _that_ is the kind of thing a tempter likes to hear. 
    I echo other comments (assuming you're in a tradition that acknowledges
    the existence of Satan) that it's a dangerous statement, and I hope
    nothing comes of it.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    

    
    The Starship Enterprise (I know - wrong conference, but please bear
    with me for a moment):
    
    Does anyone remember the episode where two crews were pitted against
    each other to fight for all eternity?  Eventually, both sides realized 
    that they were simply being used as pawns and that in order to rid
    the place of the 'external negative force', it was necessary for
    them to take responsibility for their own actions and choose to
    live in peace instead of constant war and mistrust. It took a lot
    more work for the people to think on their own, but it was done
    here (in the script) and it can be done in the real world....but
    that means a lot of people will have to do a lot of hard work and 
    pride-swallowing.  Egos (for lack of a better word) tend to get in 
    the way of these sorts of things which is why the world is at where 
    it is at today.  (Note that this episode was a thinly disguised 
    political statement of the situation which exists between many nations 
    today.)
    
    In "People Of The Lie", Peck describes 2 exorcisms where the patients
    were truly 'inhabited' by an external negative force.  His guess
    as to how this happened was that both people were very lonely and
    sold out to Satan so as not to be alone anymore.  In other words,
    they consciously made the decision to welcome Satan into their lives,
    and the invitation was accepted.  Peck also states that while the
    exorcist team is necessary to 'help' rid the person of the unwanted
    external negative force, in the end it is really the person who
    makes the conscious decision to get rid of the force and then proceeded
    to do so.  The team provides the love, support and acceptance (in mega
    quantities), but that is really all.
                                                                 
    The message above as I see it is to take time to listen and to care
    about people whenever you can.  With so many of us around, it
    shouldn't be so that people need turn to 'external forces' in hopes
    of finding friendship, love, caring, understanding and acceptance.
    Who knows, you might even save a life.
    
    Cindy
      

    
    
    REF. .54
    
    That is a very good example and point you made.Being a trekie i
    remember it well.
    That is why many people have bad experiences with the Ouija board.If
    you invite forces of unknown intention or of known evil in,then
    you have opened the door and it may be difficult to get rid of it.
    We can be used and manipulated.Learn to reconize it and act to rid
    ourself of it.
    
    MIKE
    

    Assumming that evil does exist as an separate entity...do we play
    a cause or an effect role in the existence of evil.  In other words
    have we generated enough evil to cause the existence of a
    self-perpetuating entity or does a pre-human entity feed from the evil
    generated by mankind.  How could evil have existed prior to the
    development of mankind since evil is defined by the observation
    of man?  Is there an evil that exists outside of the experiences of
    man, inherent in nature?  

    
      I see mans' identification of anything simply a way to relate
    to his invironment and to each other.I see an infinate universe
    with invinite possibilities and "EVIL" to me is a force,an energy
    that can effect us if we allow it.As far as identifying an entity
    such as Satan,well, we have GOD who represents the good force and
    we have Satan who represents the EVIL force.My belief is that they
    do exist.
    
    
    MIKE

    But God is everything right?  So God must be the sum total of both
    good and evil right?  So God CHOOSING to be good must represent
    good and God CHOOSING to be evil must represent evil right?  Isn't
    that why the will is so important? "Do what thou will be the whole
    of the law"  We (collectively) can make things the way we want them
    to be by the choices we make .... (or is it that God can make things
    the way He wants them to be by the choices we make...)  
    					this is getting confusing

    
    re: .-1
    
    I agree that God (if that's what you choose to call it) is everything.
    However, I don't agree that differentiating between "good" and "evil"
    is correct. I think that the concept of good and evil is strictly
    a human fabrication; events occur, and they are neither good nor
    evil, they just occur. Certainly "bad" things may happen to us as
    a result of these events, and we may experience physical pain or
    mental hurt, but it's not the fault of the event. 
    
    Mary hit it on the nose with "We can make things the way we want
    them to be by the choices we make." We can even say that killing
    another human (normally considered "evil") can be "good" in certain
    circumstances (euthanasia). It's pretty obvious that our concept
    of good _vs._ evil is quite a relative thing.
    
    Perry/Tananda
    

    Re .58:
    
    >But God is everything right?  
    
    Not necessarily.  God, in many belief systems is _beyond_ good and
    evil.   
    
    >    . . ..                     So God must be the sum total of both
    good and evil right?  
    
    Again, not necessarily.  To God, good and evil might be necessary
    to His universe-construct, but not necessarily outside of it.
    
    >     ....               So God CHOOSING to be good must represent
    >good and God CHOOSING to be evil must represent evil right?  
    
    No, it isn't God "choosing" anything.  God makes the rules rather
    than abiding by them; however, having made the laws, say, for us,
    God would expect us to abide by them if we are to be "good."  The
    problem for theologians is determining how one complies with the
    regulations properly.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.: "Do what thou wilt will be the whole of the law," has itself
    been interpreted in more than one way.
    
    Please also check the note "Rushing IN," which as I recall is #12.
    

    Reply to 1033.11
    
================================================================================
Note 1033.12                 DREAM LEVEL 1,2,3 ETC.                     12 of 12
NEXUS::MORGAN "All Hail Informatia!"                 19 lines  21-APR-1989 15:22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reply to .11, Suz,
    
    Well yes and no depending upon when and where you live.
    
    IMHO the problem of Evil is a joke. And a very poor joke at that. Why?
    Because evil is more superstitious than chaos. In other words,
    "Evilists" don't want to understand the processes of order and
    disorder, they just want to blame something external. This is my great
    battle with the Christian faith. 
                                                  
    The real problem is order in the midst of chaos. It is fairly evident
    that our little ordered planet is an aberation in the natural
    disordered status quo. Why? You tell me... B^)
    
    Anyway, sometimes our corner of the universe is more ordered, sometimes
    more disordered. It balances, which I presume was your point, but it
    may not balance in a year, in a lifetime, nor in a nations lifetime.
    The greater the aberation the greater the variation from stability, the
    greater the time to return to a sembalance of balance.