Sunday, June 5, 2011
Posted in
Life
,|
Religion
,|
Seth
|
Many people who are religious or spiritual believe that there must be a balance between good and evil in the world. I believed this for a long time. If you've read my other articles, you know that my religious views are based on the readings of various 20th-century psychics, mainly Jane Roberts (a trance medium who channeled a soul named Seth). However, another psychic once made a statement which heavily influenced me: He said that for every atrocity that is committed, a thousand cats are petted. I found that to be such a pithy and compelling maxim that I forgot the things I had learned from Seth, and it became my point of view for many years. The meaning of it, of course, is that an accumulation of many small acts of goodness balances out the larger acts of evil. This doesn't take into account that there may also be many small acts of evil in the world.
But Seth said that is wrong. He said that there is no balance, and that this world -- which is, in a sense, our blank canvas to make into what we want -- can be mostly good. He said that if there were a balance between good and evil, good itself would become tainted because it would always be accompanied by evil. Our hope, of course, would be that the evil would occur somewhere else in the world -- but even if it did, good would still be suspect because it would always bring evil with it. Thus, it would become impossible to believe in the purity of goodness; and with our belief in goodness dashed, there is really nothing else to believe in -- unless, like Christians, we believe that all goodness resides in God, and that people are inherently evil (a sorry point of view given that we are people).
In order to have hope for the world, we need to believe that we are progressing towards something better. But if the progress made in one part of the world is balanced by regression in another part of the world, any progress we make is meaningless.
If there isn't a balance of good and evil in the world, does that mean that the world could become all evil? No, and the reason is simple. Seth said that we are part of God,* and that the essential nature of God is good. Thus, no world that exists within God could become mostly evil. This is also why there is no Hell. Since God contains within him the totality of existence, and since he experiences the life of every individual as it is lived, he would not inflict permanent suffering on any individual because that would inflict suffering on himself. (Not to mention that God wouldn't do that anyway if he is a loving God.)
Seth was very clear about it: There is not a balance between good and evil in the world, and the world can be mostly good. Indeed, since Seth said that evil results from good intentions that have gone awry, the world may already be all good -- but that's a subject for another article.
----------------
* Seth referred to God throughout the readings as "All That Is" because the term "God" comes with a great deal of negative connotations from other religions. However, I prefer the term God because it is shorter and more meaningful to the average reader.
But Seth said that is wrong. He said that there is no balance, and that this world -- which is, in a sense, our blank canvas to make into what we want -- can be mostly good. He said that if there were a balance between good and evil, good itself would become tainted because it would always be accompanied by evil. Our hope, of course, would be that the evil would occur somewhere else in the world -- but even if it did, good would still be suspect because it would always bring evil with it. Thus, it would become impossible to believe in the purity of goodness; and with our belief in goodness dashed, there is really nothing else to believe in -- unless, like Christians, we believe that all goodness resides in God, and that people are inherently evil (a sorry point of view given that we are people).
In order to have hope for the world, we need to believe that we are progressing towards something better. But if the progress made in one part of the world is balanced by regression in another part of the world, any progress we make is meaningless.
If there isn't a balance of good and evil in the world, does that mean that the world could become all evil? No, and the reason is simple. Seth said that we are part of God,* and that the essential nature of God is good. Thus, no world that exists within God could become mostly evil. This is also why there is no Hell. Since God contains within him the totality of existence, and since he experiences the life of every individual as it is lived, he would not inflict permanent suffering on any individual because that would inflict suffering on himself. (Not to mention that God wouldn't do that anyway if he is a loving God.)
Seth was very clear about it: There is not a balance between good and evil in the world, and the world can be mostly good. Indeed, since Seth said that evil results from good intentions that have gone awry, the world may already be all good -- but that's a subject for another article.
----------------
* Seth referred to God throughout the readings as "All That Is" because the term "God" comes with a great deal of negative connotations from other religions. However, I prefer the term God because it is shorter and more meaningful to the average reader.
2 comments:
In Chapter 9 of 'The Way Towards Health' Seth stated: "In terms of earthly life as you understand it, it is overly optimistic to imagine that eventually all illnesses will be conquered, all relationships be inevitably fulfilling, or to foresee a future in which all people on earth are treated with equality and respect."
To me, that does not sound as if the world can be made "all good".
As you pointed out, even Seth didn't say that the world can be all good. I may have taken an extreme view in this article (in order to make my point), but I still believe that the world can be mostly good, and that believing in a balance of good and evil is a counter-productive thing. In light of the passage quoted, I have made a couple revisions to the article.
It bears noting, however, that illness is not an evil thing; nor is it evil if a relationship is not fulfilling. However, a lack of equality and respect could be considered evil.
Post a Comment