THE RECONCILIATION OF 'GOOD' AND 'EVIL' (Judge not lest thou be judged) In response to an article I had written and published elsewhere (on the fact that GOD DOES NOT JUDGE US), some readers raised questions about the reconciliation of the concept of good and evil with the omniscience of God in the face of today's turbulent world. While noting that no amount of space would be enough for a discourse of this nature, I will attempt to address the issue within the limitations of words and the challenges of differing perspectives. The words 'good' and 'evil' are mere nomenclatures for the impressions of cause and effect in the lower world (earth). There is hardly a universal agreement as to a single standard of what is 'good' or 'evil,' hence I would prefer to look at it from the perspective that there is always a reaction to every action, an effect to every cause, and that freedom comes with responsibility while each individual is liable for his act, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS 'GOOD' OR 'EVIL.' Such is the omniscience of God. It is an infallible and impartial test. The concepts of what constitutes sin, virtue, evil, or good, are as variable as there are tribes, cultures, nations, races, genders, political parties, etc. That informs why some individuals would think it is right to fly a plane into a landmark building like the World Trade Center and kill over 3000 unarmed civilians, while others would think it is terrorism, barbaric, horrendous and heinous. Some would believe that by killing others (non-believers of their religious tenets) they would automatically earn a one-way ticket to heaven while others believe that such people would end up in hell. Some would think that an artwork showing a nude Jesus or an exposed Virgin Mary is a good work of art while others would think it is a sacrilegious. Some would see Salman Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses,' as an example of the freedom of expression, while others would think it is blasphemous, and some would even pass a death sentence on the writer for insulting Islam. I can go on and on, but you must have your own list. This is why it is very tough to successfully carry out a crusade of good over evil on earth. The battle is continuous and the victory has to be won over and over again. According to a great Tibetan Monk, "the Kingdom of God has to be won over and over again." It follows that less will be achieved if emphasis is only placed on the assessment of things from the external perspective rather from within, or on the effect of things rather than the cause of things. Everyone (or group) is entitled to a set of moral principles and spiritual belief, however it becomes complicated when an individual (or group) begins to impose a belief on another. This problem arises because it is hardly possible to come up with what should be an acceptable standard on spiritual (or moral) issues. Every individual has the freedom to decide what is right for himself, but that freedom must be checked by responsibility, hence a person's right must end where another's right begins, for the purpose of coexistence. If a societal law is broken, the culprit should face the consequences, but no one has the right to decide the spiritual consequence of another's action. In any event, what we think about another person's spiritual belief or behavior, is immaterial since the spiritual laws will apply strictly to each one regardless of what is the belief of the next person. The emphasis should rather be on self-realization first, and that was why Socrates said, "Worship the gods if you will, but first, know thyself." In ancient Greece, though Socrates was sure he spoke the truth of life, and that he was not a blasphemer as the authorities that tried him claimed, he refused to adhere to the admonitions of his disciples to challenge and fight the death sentence passed on him. Instead, he insisted that the law that has been set up by and for the society of man must take its course. Just like Jesus the Christ said, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's." Socrates went ahead and willingly took the hemlock (poisonous drink), which later killed him as the sentence of the State required. However, he did point out the fact that there was a higher law, to which he was innocent, and that the death the Greek authorities seek of him will only affect the flesh but unable to touch the soul. The point? It is important to differentiate between the laws of society (which is not perfect) and the laws of God, which is impartial, infallible and non-partisan. Man can only impart the justice of man. "In the beginning was the word, and the word was God." The justice of God (or Spirit) is according to the omniscient infallible law, which was in the beginning. God is love and does not have a war. Assuming God does have a war, is it not mistaken for man to think that he could think for God or fight God's war for God? Is God not omnipotent? It will do man good to look within and improve his consciousness rather than dwell on the misconceptions of external impressions. Great men like The Tibetan Monk, Jesus the Christ, and Socrates have said it in various ways, some of which I have quoted above. Let us consider a few more quotes. (1) "Let the thoughts of other people fail to move thee, instead, learn to listen to the Voice within thy own self." (2) "You have to remove the pebble in your own eye before you can be able to (see well and) remove the pebble in another's eye." (3) "Physician, heal thyself." (4) "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." (5) "Judge not lest thou be judged." Need I say more? |