It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
XsweetNspiceyX
LittleByLittle
Jarring
reply to post by XsweetNspiceyX
i understand your peception of duality, but it is theoretically possible for good to exist independent of evil.
Bingo. And I make the good as defined by "Service to all without to much sacrifice off self" and evil as "Service to self=ignoring the sacrifice of others". Funny how many people are deluded to believe otherwise.
So your for self preservation in that not sacrificing too much.
And yet rival self preservation in not getting caught up in everyone elses sacrifices?
So then how do you live if you are championing giving little and taking so much!
Jarring
reply to post by LittleByLittle
i'm surprised you can deduce this train of thought. props
Jarring
reply to post by LittleByLittle
the flood.. it can't happen again.. or rather, it can only happen once per soul. it reminds me of what i said earlier in another thread.
most things are sin, or are the result of sin. everything else is God's work.
metalholic
Let's be technical:
There is no glass to be half empty or half full because it's just an illusion created by the mind.
There is no good or evil because they are just irrelevant perceptions in the face of destruction.
metalholic
reply to post by Jarring
Well if a rapist was the only man in the world that could save mankind if I gave primitive mind sets ie good/evil the dominant perception over my logic and reasoning because of the emotion sentimentalism of he's supposed to be a bad guy.
Then not only did I miss out on advancing the primitive mindset to choose the lesser evil in this case the rapist over the higher evil in this case the extinction.
I also did not allow myself to advance to a higher understanding of experience/sacrifice.
Technically the guy is not evil because if he was he would not be coincidentally the one to save us.
So yes and no and both and neither. Were square and were there.