If you need religion to be good

[Derideo_Te]

If God will punish a woman for having an abortion, why do we need a human law against abortion?

If providing contraception under Obamacare reduces the need for abortions aren't those opposed to Obamacare actually guilty of causing abortions?

Sure Derideo_Te,
and if I am not personally in China right now stopping a forced abortion
or adopting a baby myself, I am indirectly responsible by omission
for one more lost child that could have been saved.

I am not the only way to save babies and women from forced abortions in China.

Obamacare is not the only way to provide contraception or prevent pregnancies either!

I was being facetious, Emily.

Likewise I could make the case that the NRA is guilty of the Ebola outbreak because they have blocked the appointment of a new Surgeon General.

The point to highlight here is the ridiculousness of claims as to who speaks for God and decides what is good and what is evil.

A woman making the personal and difficult decision to have an abortion because she cannot afford to care for a child or her health is in jeopardy is deemed to be "evil" by those who claim that they know "God's will". But if she died in childbirth would they take responsibility for what they forced her to endure? If she had the child and had to raise it in poverty would they take responsibility for what the child had to endure?

What was "good" about her dying or her child suffering?

So yes, there is an indirect responsibility for our actions. If we violate the GR by imposing our beliefs on others then that is not good in my opinion. Doing unto others means allowing others the same freedoms that we want for ourselves even if we may not agree with the choices that others make.

 

[emilynghiem]

If God will punish a woman for having an abortion, why do we need a human law against abortion?

The prolife advocates want to prevent people from going through any of that to begin with.

A better question is since all the prolife movement that works to prevent abortion
is all by free choice, and none of their outreach and prevention work is done by bans or force of law,
why can't all abortion and unwanted pregnancy and its causes be eliminated
the same way, by educational outreach and commitment toward prevention
without making it illegal.

None of the prolife advocates need it to be illegal to do their work, which is clearly the most effective deterrent.
Why don't more prochoice people SUPPORT this prolife outreach that makes it possible to prevent free choice
from being abused. None of them abuse their free choice for abortion. They use it to promote life, and it's all by free choice not force of law.

We should respect and support that, and maybe more people wouldn't be so afraid
that the point of free choice is to promote abortion. Why not support free choice to prevent it as well?

 

[emilynghiem]

If God will punish a woman for having an abortion, why do we need a human law against abortion?

If providing contraception under Obamacare reduces the need for abortions aren't those opposed to Obamacare actually guilty of causing abortions?

Sure Derideo_Te,
and if I am not personally in China right now stopping a forced abortion
or adopting a baby myself, I am indirectly responsible by omission
for one more lost child that could have been saved.

I am not the only way to save babies and women from forced abortions in China.

Obamacare is not the only way to provide contraception or prevent pregnancies either!

I was being facetious, Emily.

Likewise I could make the case that the NRA is guilty of the Ebola outbreak because they have blocked the appointment of a new Surgeon General.

The point to highlight here is the ridiculousness of claims as to who speaks for God and decides what is good and what is evil.

A woman making the personal and difficult decision to have an abortion because she cannot afford to care for a child or her health is in jeopardy is deemed to be "evil" by those who claim that they know "God's will". But if she died in childbirth would they take responsibility for what they forced her to endure? If she had the child and had to raise it in poverty would they take responsibility for what the child had to endure?

What was "good" about her dying or her child suffering?

So yes, there is an indirect responsibility for our actions. If we violate the GR by imposing our beliefs on others then that is not good in my opinion. Doing unto others means allowing others the same freedoms that we want for ourselves even if we may not agree with the choices that others make.

Sorry I didn't catch that.
And yes, the prolife advocates I know DO help women and support them case by case
until they can stabilize. And what I hope to see is more prochoice feminists and prolife groups
working together to stop trafficking, rape, abuse and to combine resources and efforts to help more women.

The men also need to help other men to stop abuses by earlier intervention.
Look at Oscar Pistorius. Whatever happened there, he is trying to give money to the family
and to charities. What if he teamed up with men who admitted their abuses or murders committed,
and did outreach to help stop trafficking and raise money for programs that help rebuild lives affected by abuse?

If the victims or survivors cannot accept money directly from the offenders,
as the family refused the money he offered, by partnering with other
people in similar situations, maybe they can donate to other families indirectly where it doesn't cause problems.

We shouldn't assume that people are hypocrites and will not help.
Why not ask how people CAN give and help others, either directly or indirectly.

Their way of giving may not be what WE think it should be.
But maybe they can give back through someone else who would appreciate the help.

 

[dilloduck]

No "good" deed goes unpunished. Karma is simply magical thinking.

 

[amrchaos]

The Golden Rule!

And no, that is not the property of religion. Besides the fact that it is in every religion it is also the standard by which society operates.

The "fact" that "it is in every religion"?

What the Hell are you talking about

The "Golden Rule" is not in "every religion"

​

Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions

Ethics Of Reciprocity like the Golden Rule and the Wiccan Rede Do Not Work

The Golden Rule The Same In All Religions

There is no "golden rule" in a certain religion--Satanism(American). But they do have a different version of it.

I think the "Golden Rule" in Satanism is

Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you.

 

[ninja007]

If you need religion to be good, a promised paradisical afterlife, threat of hell if you're naughty, you're already evil and screwed.

Humanists like myself know being good IS good. But we don't behave good and proper because we think we'll be rewarded after we die. We know we'll be rewarded while we're still alive. Good begets good, evil begets evil. If you're only good because you think you'll be rewarded, you're a horrible example of your faith. Would you be good without the concept of heaven or threat of hell? Are you that mentally unhinged?

Pride was the cause of Lucifer's fall too.

 

[September]

The Golden Rule!

And no, that is not the property of religion. Besides the fact that it is in every religion it is also the standard by which society operates.

The "fact" that "it is in every religion"?

What the Hell are you talking about

The "Golden Rule" is not in "every religion"

​

Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions

Ethics Of Reciprocity like the Golden Rule and the Wiccan Rede Do Not Work

The Golden Rule The Same In All Religions

There is no "golden rule" in a certain religion--Satanism(American). But they do have a different version of it.

I think the "Golden Rule" in Satanism is

Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you.

Actually

If you are referring to Laveyan "Satanism", their Golden Rule is:

"Do unto others as they do unto you".

But that type of Satanism is so... dull. Most Laveyan Satanists are Athiests, and they are just as law-abiding as their Christian counterparts. There is pretty much nothing Sinister about them, and most of them take no pleasure in practicing genuine Evil actions. Many even try to justify their religion as "good"!

O9A on the other hand... O9A is everything Satanism is supposed to be, in my personal opinion. Everything the Left Hand Path stands for is embraced by the O9A.
​

 

[amrchaos]

The Golden Rule!

And no, that is not the property of religion. Besides the fact that it is in every religion it is also the standard by which society operates.

The "fact" that "it is in every religion"?

What the Hell are you talking about

The "Golden Rule" is not in "every religion"

​

Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions

Ethics Of Reciprocity like the Golden Rule and the Wiccan Rede Do Not Work

The Golden Rule The Same In All Religions

There is no "golden rule" in a certain religion--Satanism(American). But they do have a different version of it.

I think the "Golden Rule" in Satanism is

Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you.

Actually

If you are referring to Laveyan "Satanism", their Golden Rule is:

"Do unto others as they do unto you".

But that type of Satanism is so... dull. Most Laveyan Satanists are Athiests, and they are just as law-abiding as their Christian counterparts. There is pretty much nothing Sinister about them, and most of them take no pleasure in practicing genuine Evil actions. Many even try to justify their religion as "good"!

O9A on the other hand... O9A is everything Satanism is supposed to be, in my personal opinion. Everything the Left Hand Path stands for is embraced by the O9A.
​

yep--thats on page 26

By the way, you can find LaVey's book online at

http://www.thesatanicbiblefree.com/files/Download/The Satanic Bible Ebook.pdf

I wonder if giving a link to the text is considered offensive?

 

[Foxfyre]

Fear based religion is a contradiction. They preach about the "love of God" while threatening "eternal damnation" if you don't comply. That is a form of cognitive dissonance. Rational people understand that doing what is right is good and doing what is wrong will have very real consequences in this life. There is no need for any religious threat to make them into "good" people.

But again the question I posed to the OP. How do you know what is good?

When people agree that they want something and it is consistent with what other people want
as the greater good for all.

That is how we decide what is truth, what is true love, what is the right thing to do.
We check with all sources and form the best assessment possible,
based on agreement and consistency with all the given people and factors.

The more people we include in that equation, especially including those most diametically
opposed or even against each other, then when we find what we "agree is true, good, fair and accurate"
WOW it stands out as very obvious.

So that's why we need each other, to check and balance each other's judgment,
and make sure we truly assess all the facts and factors when deciding what is really the best
for our relationships, for society, and for the good of humanity.

We can always make a mistake, so we need to check with all sources!

I would mostly agree with this if we are talking about a typical cohesive modern Christian community.

But where do groups like the Westboro Baptists fit in to your concept? I'm sure their community all agrees that what they do is okay, while the huge majority of Christians would disagree. If you asked the orthodox Puritans in the 18th century what is the proper way to do good and the proper and good way to deal with heretics--think the stocks, the red letter, the banishments, the witch burnings, etc.--I'm sure they all would have agreed on what is good. But who among today's Christians would agree with what they considered good back then? How about the militant Muslim extremists who believe they obey and honor Allah when they behead an infidel? Or when they kill their errant daughter? I'm sure most of them agree on that, but who among us would say it is good?

Think of the orthodoxy of the Pharisees of Jesus' time and their agreement on keeping the Law in every way. Jesus of course didn't agree with them about a lot of that, but should he have conformed to their interpretation of what is good?

Think about how few of us agree on what qualities are good on a message board and what is unsatisfactory. How much more will we disagree on things like prayer in public places, abortion, the death penalty, what is and is not charity, what is a just war, how to deal with people who disagree with us on social policy, etc.?

So I think the answer to what is and is not good cannot always be ascertained by what is customary or socially proper or legalistic or via group think or agreement. I think there has to be some deeper criteria to base it on.

Thanks Foxfyre
The Westboro Baptist have to go through their own process and the part they play in it.
I love the responses by students and groups that used the rallies to embrace their opponents with love,
to do fundraisers for charities that help victims and people in need, and answer the anger with love that is greater.

If you look at the member(s) of Westboro who have had a change of heart and apologized,
we need to support that change and process instead of bashing and rejecting people in whatever stage they are in.

Anger is one stage of grief.
Denial also, which causes rejection and projection as a result of externalizing blame outward.

To understand the full process and stages of spiritual growth,
we can't just punish the two year olds for acting up, or the teenagers for rebelling and going nuts,
saying things in anger against parents they can't possibly mean.

We have to work with each person or group at the stages they are in
and walk them through to a better place. By embracing one another with forgiveness,
we can better make and receive corrections together, so everyone benefits and grows.

so I love and respect the people who have responded with greater love
and believe they have had an impact on humbling and changing others.

We can still use this stage of grief and anger for good purpose.
That doesn't mean we enable wild teenage behavior.
But we can understand it happens while progressing through spiritual stages of growth
and development toward a mature understanding and respect for humanity.

At least one member made that change.

And if you look at any group, from gangs to religious cults,
there are always those members who break free from the negative herd and mob mentality
and use their change to help the next person do the same.

We need to support those people, and the entire group to finish those changes,
to recognize the reforms needed and corrections are mutual and accept our part as well,
and not get so divided that we cannot help each other
to get to a better place.

The first step to working with someone is to acknowledge
where they are and that they are right, that things do need to change. There is a reason for why
this is happening, and we do need to work together to uncover and fulfill the higher purpose.

But you see, you are interjecting your concept of what is 'good' or what should happen or what we need to do into the mix. Which is all well and good and at least some of us here would agree with your point of view on that. But what makes your concept of 'good' better than those who hold a different opinion? Why is your point of view superior as a 'good' point of view than those who do not repent and apologize? Again, it seems to me that anybody's interpretation of anything from the Golden Rule to keeping the law to what is popularly considered virtue, morality, or righteousness is going to be countered by somebody's different view and each think their point of view is the 'good' one.

So again, I think there has to be some better way to define 'good' other than by what is popular.

 

[emilynghiem]

Fear based religion is a contradiction. They preach about the "love of God" while threatening "eternal damnation" if you don't comply. That is a form of cognitive dissonance. Rational people understand that doing what is right is good and doing what is wrong will have very real consequences in this life. There is no need for any religious threat to make them into "good" people.

But again the question I posed to the OP. How do you know what is good?

When people agree that they want something and it is consistent with what other people want
as the greater good for all.

That is how we decide what is truth, what is true love, what is the right thing to do.
We check with all sources and form the best assessment possible,
based on agreement and consistency with all the given people and factors.

The more people we include in that equation, especially including those most diametically
opposed or even against each other, then when we find what we "agree is true, good, fair and accurate"
WOW it stands out as very obvious.

So that's why we need each other, to check and balance each other's judgment,
and make sure we truly assess all the facts and factors when deciding what is really the best
for our relationships, for society, and for the good of humanity.

We can always make a mistake, so we need to check with all sources!

I would mostly agree with this if we are talking about a typical cohesive modern Christian community.

But where do groups like the Westboro Baptists fit in to your concept? I'm sure their community all agrees that what they do is okay, while the huge majority of Christians would disagree. If you asked the orthodox Puritans in the 18th century what is the proper way to do good and the proper and good way to deal with heretics--think the stocks, the red letter, the banishments, the witch burnings, etc.--I'm sure they all would have agreed on what is good. But who among today's Christians would agree with what they considered good back then? How about the militant Muslim extremists who believe they obey and honor Allah when they behead an infidel? Or when they kill their errant daughter? I'm sure most of them agree on that, but who among us would say it is good?

Think of the orthodoxy of the Pharisees of Jesus' time and their agreement on keeping the Law in every way. Jesus of course didn't agree with them about a lot of that, but should he have conformed to their interpretation of what is good?

Think about how few of us agree on what qualities are good on a message board and what is unsatisfactory. How much more will we disagree on things like prayer in public places, abortion, the death penalty, what is and is not charity, what is a just war, how to deal with people who disagree with us on social policy, etc.?

So I think the answer to what is and is not good cannot always be ascertained by what is customary or socially proper or legalistic or via group think or agreement. I think there has to be some deeper criteria to base it on.

Thanks Foxfyre
The Westboro Baptist have to go through their own process and the part they play in it.
I love the responses by students and groups that used the rallies to embrace their opponents with love,
to do fundraisers for charities that help victims and people in need, and answer the anger with love that is greater.

If you look at the member(s) of Westboro who have had a change of heart and apologized,
we need to support that change and process instead of bashing and rejecting people in whatever stage they are in.

Anger is one stage of grief.
Denial also, which causes rejection and projection as a result of externalizing blame outward.

To understand the full process and stages of spiritual growth,
we can't just punish the two year olds for acting up, or the teenagers for rebelling and going nuts,
saying things in anger against parents they can't possibly mean.

We have to work with each person or group at the stages they are in
and walk them through to a better place. By embracing one another with forgiveness,
we can better make and receive corrections together, so everyone benefits and grows.

so I love and respect the people who have responded with greater love
and believe they have had an impact on humbling and changing others.

We can still use this stage of grief and anger for good purpose.
That doesn't mean we enable wild teenage behavior.
But we can understand it happens while progressing through spiritual stages of growth
and development toward a mature understanding and respect for humanity.

At least one member made that change.

And if you look at any group, from gangs to religious cults,
there are always those members who break free from the negative herd and mob mentality
and use their change to help the next person do the same.

We need to support those people, and the entire group to finish those changes,
to recognize the reforms needed and corrections are mutual and accept our part as well,
and not get so divided that we cannot help each other
to get to a better place.

The first step to working with someone is to acknowledge
where they are and that they are right, that things do need to change. There is a reason for why
this is happening, and we do need to work together to uncover and fulfill the higher purpose.

But you see, you are interjecting your concept of what is 'good' or what should happen or what we need to do into the mix. Which is all well and good and at least some of us here would agree with your point of view on that. But what makes your concept of 'good' better than those who hold a different opinion? Why is your point of view superior as a 'good' point of view than those who do not repent and apologize? Again, it seems to me that anybody's interpretation of anything from the Golden Rule to keeping the law to what is popularly considered virtue, morality, or righteousness is going to be countered by somebody's different view and each think their point of view is the 'good' one.

So again, I think there has to be some better way to define 'good' other than by what is popular.

Hi Foxfyre: When I "interject" by listening to what each person thinks is good, true, right, consistent,
they don't seem to mind. It seems to be a universal preference to have one's own consent, beliefs
interests and opinions of what each person starts with as their beliefs.

I don't find this interjecting at all.
I just go with each person already believes and work with that.

The worst I come across is if people don't believe I am serious about listening and including them.
But they keep fearing I am "interjecting or imposing" when I am trying to include them equally.
(Or they fear I am "enabling" another person or group to interject, just because I am trying
to include them equally; they fear that bullies will abuse this inclusion to trample others, so
even if they don't think I will do that directly, they fear others will by taking advantage and dominating too much. Even mediation has been abused by bullies, and the consensus process so that people do not trust that it works, but think that I am asking for trouble or the impossible.)

All I can do is TRY to understand where they ARE coming from, and connect where we align or agree. Even if it's only one or two points, that's good enough to start focusing there.
And building a relationship to work out the rest.

I have NEVER met a human being who opposed someone backing up what they
believed or were trying to voice or accomplish.

If I can find out what is their true goal and purpose, they WANT that to be validated, represented and included.

So if you do this with each person, and connect the dots,
you form unique lines. And then use those lines to map out where these lines intersect
and form more points of focus and agreement. And just build from there, respecting
people's limits and areas of agreed intersections, and not cross lines and go out of bounds beyond what
each person consents to.

It's a huge interconnected mapping, but it includes all people and organizes us by where we connect with each other.
It's pretty cool the way it works, like an orchestra with members matched up by section and key and musical parts.
And the point is to find out how to harmonize and get the parts in tune and in balance with each other instead of clashing.

If this is done right, everyone is included playing their part and serving their purpose.
It is NOT imposed from the outside as with interjection,
but comes from inner discovery and exploration to "bring out" in each person what is naturally there
and seeks expression and sharing. We just have to help each other "fine tune" and correct the bad notes,
so we can each play our parts together without conflict.

I didn't write those parts, and can't tell people what their part is.
I'm just trying to "figure out" the parts people bring to the table, like anyone else!

 

[emilynghiem]

No "good" deed goes unpunished. Karma is simply magical thinking.

Hi dilloduck:
Don't confuse the scarcity mentality (where negative attracts negative)
with the abundance mentality (where positive unconditional investment yields growth when we let go and don't try to micromanage it).

When we give with expectations attached YES it will seem as punishment.
When we give with no conditions attached it will not be on us.

If people project negatively because of their own issues or process,
that is not a result of our actions but their own problems they are working out.

so how we see people's responses (as neutral, as punishment, or as their own process, or as positive)
will change depending if we apply the scarcity mentality or the abundance mentality.

NOTE: Karma basically refers to cause and effect.
Again this works both ways:
If you go around expecting to be punished for good deeds and resenting when this happens,
then you attract more of the same: unforgiveness begets unforgiveness until we break this pattern

If you go around expecting either good or bad to come, because people are in different stages of growth
and can project either way, beyond our control,
but generally invest in others unconditionally because it is good in itself (and will pay off in the long run
by healing and breaking out of the negative patterns by applying positive/forgiving/unconditional energy)
Then this positive energy and interaction tends to attract the same, over time, even if not right away.
It has to be done unconditionally or it gets caught up in the old patterns of expectations that can be manipulated.

Pure giving for the sake of itself is harder to manipulate; it tends to invoke respect
so people are less likely to mess with it.

But if you attach emotions, expectations, etc. that invites people to TEST it, and can make huge messes.
That is just the human learning curve.

I have a very close loved one going through this right now, sees his undeserved treatment as one-sided only,
but in fact, he is also having to learn to let go. So part of the process was for his growth even though
logistically, yes, he was used as the scapegoat and it wasn't fair but completely baseless what he went through.
His job is to truly let go and not hold on to any emotions about what "other people did beyond his control."

So it is still wrong what happened, but he has his spiritual part to work on because of that.
Because he didn't deserve to be blamed and scapegoated, he shouldn't carry a bit of the burden from it;
so if he is still carrying something, that is his job to let go of what isn't his burden and was the garbage of the other person.

So even if the literal actions were not attributed to him as the cause,
the PROCESS of letting go and getting out of the control game going on between the parties,
WAS THE REASON for the conflicts to erupt. there was a higher purpose,
and no, it wasn't to punish anyone especially not him, but to learn to avoid this whole trap to begin with.

Sorry if that wasn't explained clearly or precisely.
Maybe someone else can do a better job of it!

 

[emilynghiem]

The Golden Rule!

And no, that is not the property of religion. Besides the fact that it is in every religion it is also the standard by which society operates.

The "fact" that "it is in every religion"?

What the Hell are you talking about

The "Golden Rule" is not in "every religion"

​

Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions

Ethics Of Reciprocity like the Golden Rule and the Wiccan Rede Do Not Work

The Golden Rule The Same In All Religions

There is no "golden rule" in a certain religion--Satanism(American). But they do have a different version of it.

I think the "Golden Rule" in Satanism is

Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you.

Actually

If you are referring to Laveyan "Satanism", their Golden Rule is:

"Do unto others as they do unto you".

But that type of Satanism is so... dull. Most Laveyan Satanists are Athiests, and they are just as law-abiding as their Christian counterparts. There is pretty much nothing Sinister about them, and most of them take no pleasure in practicing genuine Evil actions. Many even try to justify their religion as "good"!

O9A on the other hand... O9A is everything Satanism is supposed to be, in my personal opinion. Everything the Left Hand Path stands for is embraced by the O9A.
​

Hi Goddess_Ashtara:
Doing unto others as they do unto us
can be applied different ways and have a different spirit and outcome
A. Conditional interaction
1. Only doing positive to those who are positive,
2. Otherwise doing negative to those who are negative
B. Unconditional interaction
Working as positively with people as possible
regardless if they treat us positively or negatively
(because we also want to be treated "unconditionally"
and NOT conditionally as in A)
C. treating others as THEY want to be treated
So doing whatever version of this that THEY want, not us.

The trouble with "conditioned" interacting,
what if someone only loves themselves "conditionally"?
They love when they do good or right, but can't forgive when they mess up.
So when it comes to other people, they PROJECT this limited or conditioned
ACCEPTANCE that DEPENDS on meeting expectations.

So when people have different expectations, they reject each other for not meeting them.
Sure, to treat all people the same, we ALL end up doing this, and imposing conditions on each other that fail.

Is this helping?
To reject and punish each other for failures because we are treated that way by others?
This goes round and round in retribution.

You can see the wars and suffering in broken relations this causes.

So that is where Forgiveness helps change that paradigm.

People who can Forgive their limits and biases in judgment
are more apt or able to reach out and forgive other people, too.

So this starts a Positive cycle where people treat each other with
respect and forgiveness for differences, and quits this negative projection back and forth.

Now Goddess_Ashtara, you say you do not believe in the Golden Rule as being inherent
law of human nature or universal to affecting humanity.

Do you have a different term or description of something similar?

Some people call this the
* law of cause and effect / karma / reaping what we sow
* interconnectedness of life and humanity
* law of attraction or abundance mentality vs. scarcity mentality
* justice (that you get the justice you give)
under which there is retributive justice and restorative justice or both
* pleasure / pain principle (similar to fight or flight,
how we respond to choices of yes/no, true/false, lead/follow, right/wrong, good/bad
whatever we call the choices we make by conscience)

Since you do not relate to this Golden Rule of Reciprocity,
what do you call the process that you follow in life?

What do you call choosing one action to beget ____ result.
And avoiding another option to avoid ___ result.

Do you follow true vs. false?
How do you describe the decisions you make by conscience?
by reason and intuition?

Thank you, Ashtara!

 

[dilloduck]

No "good" deed goes unpunished. Karma is simply magical thinking.

Hi dilloduck:
Don't confuse the scarcity mentality (where negative attracts negative)
with the abundance mentality (where positive unconditional investment yields growth when we let go and don't try to micromanage it).

When we give with expectations attached YES it will seem as punishment.
When we give with no conditions attached it will not be on us.

If people project negatively because of their own issues or process,
that is not a result of our actions but their own problems they are working out.

so how we see people's responses (as neutral, as punishment, or as their own process, or as positive)
will change depending if we apply the scarcity mentality or the abundance mentality.

NOTE: Karma basically refers to cause and effect.
Again this works both ways:
If you go around expecting to be punished for good deeds and resenting when this happens,
then you attract more of the same: unforgiveness begets unforgiveness until we break this pattern

If you go around expecting either good or bad to come, because people are in different stages of growth
and can project either way, beyond our control,
but generally invest in others unconditionally because it is good in itself (and will pay off in the long run
by healing and breaking out of the negative patterns by applying positive/forgiving/unconditional energy)
Then this positive energy and interaction tends to attract the same, over time, even if not right away.
It has to be done unconditionally or it gets caught up in the old patterns of expectations that can be manipulated.

Pure giving for the sake of itself is harder to manipulate; it tends to invoke respect
so people are less likely to mess with it.

But if you attach emotions, expectations, etc. that invites people to TEST it, and can make huge messes.
That is just the human learning curve.

I have a very close loved one going through this right now, sees his undeserved treatment as one-sided only,
but in fact, he is also having to learn to let go. So part of the process was for his growth even though
logistically, yes, he was used as the scapegoat and it wasn't fair but completely baseless what he went through.
His job is to truly let go and not hold on to any emotions about what "other people did beyond his control."

So it is still wrong what happened, but he has his spiritual part to work on because of that.
Because he didn't deserve to be blamed and scapegoated, he shouldn't carry a bit of the burden from it;
so if he is still carrying something, that is his job to let go of what isn't his burden and was the garbage of the other person.

So even if the literal actions were not attributed to him as the cause,
the PROCESS of letting go and getting out of the control game going on between the parties,
WAS THE REASON for the conflicts to erupt. there was a higher purpose,
and no, it wasn't to punish anyone especially not him, but to learn to avoid this whole trap to begin with.

Sorry if that wasn't explained clearly or precisely.
Maybe someone else can do a better job of it!

Doing "good" will not necessarily be rewarded and doing "bad" will not necessarily be punished. It's purely coincidence and magical thinking.

 

[Blackrook]

Delta, you claim to be as good as any Christian, but I'm guessing that you have no problem with abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, assisted suicide, euthanasia, and stem cell research where the stem cells come from aborted fetuses.

 

[ninja007]

All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. (Is 64:6)