Hey good morning to you too.
Maybe we share a time-zone?
I mean no resentment when describing a person as evil. An evil or wicked person is he or she who does things that are wrong. We are evil in proportion to the seriousness of the wrong things we do, and the good things we could have done but failed to do. We become evil or good by our own choices, thoughts, and actions.
Good Morning P.C.,
That definition must make it a little difficult to discern when one is resentful. Nowadays, whenever I feel like punishing or feel negatively toward someone or some group, I use the words with all of the resentment intact. It’s okay to resent, there is a place for it. I have learned that there comes a time to forgive because the resentment is an anomaly in the “oneness” (wholeness). I do know this: the negativity is an illusion. I only use the words in my mind, so not to encourage resentment in others.
When we are writing, it is very difficult to discern tone. If I write “evil person” using your definition above, people will assume the emotional undertone because that undertone represents the common use of the word.
So, as a result, if I say “that group is evil” I may be initiating or encouraging the thought that the group is one that we should resent. In addition, do evil choices, thoughts, and acts actually make us “become” different? Well, in my observations, no. We are, as you state, born good, and those choices, thoughts and actions, as hard as it may be to believe, come from that goodness. The necessary ingredient in those c,t,&a is that people are either lacking in awareness or have become blinded.
Sure, and he says God is the arbiter of truth and salvation. In order to believe in God we must submit to Jesus (so says the Church). In order to believe in Jesus we must submit to the Church (so says the Church). In order to believe in the Church, I must do violence to my reason and conscience, this I should not do.
Is there salvation outside of the Church? They say: no way. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
That is the universal teaching of the magisterium defined infallibly by several dogmatic councils. It isn’t organic in my opinion, but highly artificial. No other civilization thinks everyone’s children deserve to be punished by god(s) just for being born!
Who are we to believe: the ITC, or Trent? Hans Urs Von Balthasar, or Aquinas? Does she who has the “fullness of truth” contradict herself?.
Here is one constant dilemma: Doctrinal decisions are made by the hierarchy. The hierarchy has to follow the words of Christ, but they are also charged with “tending the flock”, keeping the flock together. Every time that there is a smidgen of doctrinal change, people get totally freaked out and want to leave or divide.
In addition, even the Gospel sends sort of a “mixed message”. I don’t know if it is because of translation problems or because Jesus Himself recognized that people move very slowly from an organic dualistic theology. As long as there are people that the individual has not forgiven, or there are parts of the self that a person has not reconciled with, then there remains a bit of dualism in the individual. If I see parts of myself as inherently “bad”, I will see the cosmos in the same way. That said, I really do think that there is a place for dualism in the spiritual development of the human. Until empathy becomes fully developed, it is functional in the conscience to have a sense of “when I am being good” and “when I am being bad” to motivate my behaviors in the right direction.
cont’d
)
