Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

I think its all well and good to sit at a safe computer and theoretically argue that there is no such thing as evil, saying destroying someones body will only deliver them to god quicker...it almost sounds like they are doing you a favour!! How nice of them for stabbing your girlfriend to death after raping her so she cant identify them to police, she gets to hang out with God sooner.

There was a case in Sydney toward the end of last year where there was a home invasion into an apartment. The guy was tied up, the 2 girls were raped for over an hour in front of him they were then forced  / pushed off the 6th floor balcony, 1 died instantly, I think the guy died a few days later in hospital and you are going to say there was no evil in that?? I think you need to learn to differentiate between theological ideals and the real world.

Robcore wrote:

Malisciousness itself arises only due to ignorance


Why, because you think so? There is no way to prove or substantiate that claim. You make a lot of statements of your beliefs that make them sound like facts, it should read that you believe that Malisciousness itself arises only due to ignorance. Essentially you are saying that if they knew the full consequences of what they were doing, they wouldn't do it, why is that..because they would be punished in hell for doing it? So its fear of a greater evil that should stop them? Well, not doing something that you want to do, just because you think you will be punished doesn't stop you from being evil and wanting to do these things, it might just stop you from acting out on them.

or do you think that upon death everyone is instantly enlightened and becomes the perfect calm rational human...whats the point of life then, don't most religious people believe life is for learning the important lessons? Whats the point then if when you die it doesn't matter what you "learned" in life, you still become enlightened anyway. But that's off topic I guess.


Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

I think its all well and good to sit at a safe computer and theoretically argue that there is no such thing as evil, saying destroying someones body will only deliver them to god quicker...it almost sounds like they are doing you a favour!! How nice of them for stabbing your girlfriend to death after raping her so she cant identify them to police, she gets to hang out with God sooner.

The absence of condemnation is not the same as promotion (forgiveness ends the dream of conflict). And death of the physical body doesn't bring one to God...death of the lower/ignorant/ego self does. (again, one must die unto himself that he may truly live). As for getting to God 'sooner'...since time is an artifact of perception, it is also an artifact of perception that one is not already with God.
When one thinks of it in terms of soon-ness or of cause and effect, one is not being true to the explanation that's been given. Trying to use perception to understand what is beyond the capacity of perception to comprehend is naturally perilous. Perception must be given up, at least long enough for one to discover the essential truth of himself apart from what he perceives...one must be empty of thoughts in order to know the Mind of God. Once this happens, the ego can serve as a medium for explanation, until it is completely dissolved and the explanation simply arises of itself.

There was a case in Sydney toward the end of last year where there was a home invasion into an apartment. The guy was tied up, the 2 girls were raped for over an hour in front of him they were then forced  / pushed off the 6th floor balcony, 1 died instantly, I think the guy died a few days later in hospital and you are going to say there was no evil in that?? I think you need to learn to differentiate between theological ideals and the real world.

Just because something is premeditated does not mean that it does not arise out of ignorance. Why don't you rape and murder people? Perhaps you're afraid of the consequences...but I'd wager that it's more likely that on some level you are simply aware of the beauty of life and the righteousness of its preservation(whether you'd word it that way or not). A murderer is obviously ignorant of that. Murder, whether intentional or not, does not arise out of higher awareness--it arises out of ignorance.

It's like a kid that has the ability to understand mathematics, and actually does well when he goes to class, but out of spite for the fact that he thinks there's no practical use for the math he's learning, he skips class. On the surface, he doesn't appear ignorant, but the justification for doing bad is always an ignorant justification.
The murderer may hear that there are consequences, and that life is good and worth preserving...he has access to all the information...but he's ignorant to some sense of reality, otherwise it would seem an absurd thing to do, don't you think?

I'm curious what you think motivates murderers to maliciously do these things, and how the motivation in any case could possibly be absent of some manner of ignorance?

Robcore wrote:

Malisciousness itself arises only due to ignorance


Why, because you think so?

My understanding of maliciousness is that it is an ignorant thing to partake in. There is no explanation that I have ever encountered where maliciousness was a sane, righteous, and level headed course of action to follow. 

There is no way to prove or substantiate that claim.

Then let it be an axiom! I'm not sure what sane person would make a defense for the righteousness of maliciousness! It is ignorant...and even your belief that it is evil depends on that. Why is it evil? because it is not good! It is ignorant of goodness...it occurs for the sake of something other than goodness, which is ignorant itself! because there is no 'good' motivation for doing 'not good'...it must be due to ignorance.

You make a lot of statements of your beliefs that make them sound like facts, it should read that you believe that Malisciousness itself arises only due to ignorance.

Well I apologize. What I share is generally factual according to my experience, and I tend not to think of things in terms of whether I 'believe' something or not...because I don't think beliefs are something to be passionate about...only truth. Belief systems are tools that we use along the way, but ultimately they're rendered useless once their functions have been served.
In any case, if saying that it seems that way would make you comfortable, let that be what I meant then.

Essentially you are saying that if they knew the full consequences of what they were doing, they wouldn't do it, why is that..because they would be punished in hell for doing it? So its fear of a greater evil that should stop them?

No. Knowing consequences doesn't help. I work with kids daily who are not threatened by consequences. Their behaviour changes when they are exposed to love, respect and the truth of their own specialness. Perceived consequences, especially man-made and man-enforced ones do not serve as deterrents. Higher awareness is the key. I don't believe that hell is a punishment doled out after the fact. Hell(absence of God) is the reality within which sin occurs in the first place. Let awareness of the sanctity of life shine, and it simply wouldn't happen.
I do take the sanctity of life to be a fact, and as such, it follows that maliciousness and murder are only possible in accord with ignorance of that fact.



Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

I have to disagree that there isn't such a thing as evil and that there is only an absence of good. In someone who merely has an absence of good, they would be purely self centered and do things ONLY that benefited themselves in some way. They would not however go out of their way to be malicious.

How can you do things to benefit yourself when you don't know yourself? When there's no awareness of the self, even logic and reason fail to guide. Programming and conditioning and instinct take the place of choice making...awareness of self is a luxury. Even 'non-evil people', who you might just think as poor and pitiful make decisions that aren't in the interest of themselves...they're without reason. There are degrees of ignorance, just as there are shades of darkness. Naturally, the greater the ignorance, the less sense we'll be able to make of the things that arise.
The absence of good at that level is akin to an absence of reason too. Self-centeredness would be sensible, if that level were at all sensible. It's not.



Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

paisley1 wrote:

I tend to agree with proteinnerd, Rob, I think a little more application is needed and a little less theory, and you'll soon realize how untenable such a worldview becomes once applied to society.  I wonder what you are answering to Rob, and what consequences can there even be in such a framework?  If there is no evil, then there's no justice, therefore, no consequences, which makes the gradations meaningless.  There's no assurance that anything you're saying is trustworthy, because it's predicated on a false reality that doesn't align with our own; not to mention contextually false assertions of Christ (lies).

I don't think you're off topic at all Proteinnerd, I think the ramifications of this form of justice and love directly relate to the meaning of life and the point of enlightenment.

God is Just...and any degree of the absence of God can fairly be considered 'injustice' though injustice itself is not a thing any more than darkness.

Does that help?



Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

I wonder what you are answering to Rob, and what consequences can there even be in such a framework?

I answer to the limitations of my own level of consciousness. Where I am subscribed to limiting beliefs, I am subject to the consequences. As all the barriers to my vision are removed, there will only be God to answer to.
On the level of the body/form, I answer to the laws of form. On the level of the mind, I answer to the laws of mind. On the level of cause and effect I answer to the laws of cause and effect. On the level of time, I answer to the laws of time. On the level of the absolute, I answer to the absolute.

This may help explain what I answer to and how the gradations work:

When I answer to the absolute, I am in harmony with the laws of love.
When I am in harmony with the laws of love, I am in accord with the laws of reason.
When I am in accord with the laws of reason, I am in acceptance of truth.
When I am in acceptance of truth, I am willing.
When I am willing, I endure pleasures and displeasures with ease.
When I endure pleasures and displeasures with ease, I am courageous.

When I am courageous, I am not necessarily at ease with pleasures and displeasures.
When I am at ease with pleasures and displeasures, I am not necessarily willing.
When I am willing, I am not necessarily accepting.
When I am accepting, I am not necessarily answering to reason.
When I answer to reason, I do not necessarily answer to love.
When I answer to love, I do not necessarily answer to the absolute.

So you see, the level that one is at is the determinant of limitation...of the sorts of sin that one may be prone to(ignorance)...and of what one answers to on the relative level. On the absolute level, there is no lesser self to answer to the lower states...all the lower levels are in harmony according to the higher, but not vice versa.



Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

so.. ok. different levels. so when you said that there's no time or causality, you meant on another level from where we are now? if so, i can sort of understand that. (although it raises the question why the other levels are of interest?)

Yes, at the level of the absolute, there's no time or causality. They are artifacts of perception at a lower level.
There are plenty of people now who aren't even at the level of understanding time or causality...it is demonstrated in people who cannot postpone gratification in favour of greater reward(not aware of time), and in people that don't learn from consequences(inability to comprehend cause and effect). These are reflective of the limitations of their perception.
Just as there are people below the level of causality and time, there are those who are beyond it(though they are fewer in number). These people experience spontaneous fulfillment in all aspects of their lives...as issues come up, solutions spontaneously arise, and their lives are characterized by humility and gratitude for literally everything...to them, life is experienced as a gift, not as a domain of action, but of illuminated experience.
Further yet, there are those beyond time...and their reality is even more difficult to articulate(I'm not there permanently, though I have experienced it during 'peak experiences'). This is the level where someone can relate to the idea of something literally 'being' both the alpha and omega...the beginning and the end. Jesus was surely beyond that level of course; though the quality of timeless being emerges at that level, it also extends beyond it.

"When I answer to the absolute, I am in harmony with the laws of love." isn't this is a pretty random statement? if i said, "When I answer to the absolute, I am in harmony with the laws of apathy." what about the first quote makes it more true than the second? is it the subjective experience you had? because reason won't get you there i suppose?

Well, being in harmony with the laws of apathy is what is when one is answering to the absolute...though clarity comes from the prescribed order...if you look at the second section where it says that to be in harmony with the laws of reason, one is not necessarily in harmony with the laws of love, it also applies that if one is in harmony with the laws of apathy, one is not necessarily in harmony with the laws of love.

I posted the map of consciousness quite a while back...but it is a good reference.

From God/The Absolute
To Love
To Reason
To Acceptance
To Willingness
To Neutrality
To Courage
To Pride
To Anger
To Desire
To Fear
To Grief
To Apathy
To Guilt
To Shame

Looking from the bottom up,
Guilt answers to a larger context than Shame,
Apathy answers to a larger context than Guilt,
Grief answers to a larger context than Apathy,
Fear answers to a larger context than Grief,
Desire answers to a larger context than Fear,
Anger answers to a larger context than Desire,
Pride answers to a larger context than Anger.
And Courage, Neutrality, Willingness, Acceptance, Reason, Love, etc.

Shame is small...self elimination...but guilt sheds some light on the nature of shame via blame.
Guilt is small...destructive...but apathy/hate sheds light on the nature of guilt via its process of denying responsibility.
Apathy/Hate is small...not accountable...but grief sheds light on the nature of apathy/hate via its sense of hopelessness and dejection.
Grief is small...tragic...but fear sheds light on the nature of grief via its conformity to anxiety and withdrawl.
Fear is small...afraid...but desire sheds light on the nature of fear via the programming of craving and its enslaving conditioning.
Desire is small...lacking...but Anger sheds light on the nature of desire via its aggressive nature and inflated views.
Anger is small...retaliatory...but pride sheds light on the nature of anger via its stubbornness and scornfulness.
Pride is small...stubborn...but courage frees us from the limitations of ignorance; seeking for the unknown.

In a context of guilt, shame is diluted.
In a context of Hate/Apathy, guilt is diluted.
In a context of Grief, hate/apathy is diluted.
In a context of Fear, grief is diluted.
In a context of Desire, fear is diluted.
In a context of Anger, desire is diluted.
In a context of Pride, anger is diluted.
In a context of Courage, Pride is overcome.

And the prescribed order is one of least illuminated to most illuminated.
The motivation for growth (ie. the motivation for pursuing the higher states where time and causality dissolve) is the fact that illumination is the pursuit. Once the light is seen, darkness simply does not suffice. One is not motivated by a disinterest in causality or time, but in the truth itself, which renders such belief systems to be unnecessary.
At our level it seems necessary...and perhaps as long as we're at this level they are. Staying at this level though, at least to me, isn't as satisfying as I have experienced the higher ones to be.

...but everything has its place in the grand scheme.


382 (edited by Robcore 2010-04-08 03:05:26)

Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

Grace by faith in Christ sounds simple, but it is not. Simple to you, perhaps, but not to myself.
In fact, a system with no requirements except to 'be' is seemingly simpler than one where there are requirements such as 1)must know Jesus - who he is, what he did; 2)must believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus' body; 3)must believe in the unquestionable authority of the Bible, which has undergone numerous revisions, written by numerous authors, years and years after the fact of the events that they speak of; 4)must believe that the books chosen to be included in the Bible are the correct ones.

and any Christian would be more than somewhat offended by the false assertion it makes of Christ as a tenet of it's framework.

Lets hear what those false assertions are again, and I might be able to clarify and elaborate on my understanding.

I question the predication of your truth claim.

Naturally you question the justification of my world view as you haven't subjectively experienced it.

Who presupposed this framework? It didn't just happen.

The map is not the territory. The territory(reality) was always there, and the framework/map is really an interpretation/approximation/representation of it. Who relayed the map you ask? Subjectivity itself.

Are those who experience "spontaneous fulfillment" not also capable of experiencing it's antithesis(whatever that may be)? What is "spontaneous fulfillment" anyway, other than an ambiguous claim of authority not unlike a false positive?

Everything arises spontaneously of its own...causality is only real on the level of the mind. As for experiencing its antithesis...do you mean...intentional ignorance?
As for the claim of authority and your unclear reference to false positives...the authority is in the experience itself...not in the claim of it or the description of it. Even a false positive is a phenomenon that demands explanation, right? We don't just concede that 'for whatever reason, our test produced a result that was totally opposite to reality'...as such, with my experience, I'm sure it is a real experience...because I subjectively experience it! Whether it is false or not is a matter to investigate...but to me, so far, your questions have not uncovered any incongruities except where language fails as a descriptor of nonduality(just as language fails to explain how the trinity is both one and three).

Apart from the obvious inconsistencies your worldview has with reality, like the absurd claim of an infinite past

There's no claim to an infinite past; only to an infinite present. Time is an artifact of the mind...Stillness is reality.

it redefines terms and concepts with such complex ambiguity (like the dilution of shame in the context of guilt) that it defies comprehension to the point of disproving it's own authority.

There's more integrity in feeling guilt than there is in feeling shame. Shame is an experience of humiliation and self-destruction, while Guilt is an experience that includes those, while lessening their impact through the appropriation of blame(on the self). Guilt enables us to do something about feeling shame, see? not yet in integrity...but more functional than the mere despair of shame itself.

I can make the case for any of them, but the example I'll use is that out of love you can feel anger against an untruth, as love delights in the truth.  Love is the truth, so injustice and anger are rightly synonymous, for why else would anger exist if not as a reaction of our ability to violate love?  It would be completely contrived, but you'd need to redefine the concept of anger, or any of those concepts, to make their dilution tenable.  Ambiguous self-refuting or self-referentially incongruent answers are just delusory.

Are you actually making a case for Love and Anger being equally righteous?
In standing for truth, love does not have to stand against injustice, any more than light has to stand against darkness in order to illuminate. Love's very essence undoes injustice.
What happened to Christ on the cross was injustice, and was it met with anger? no. It was met with forgiveness.

You're stuck in a dualistic mindset...where to be pro-truth you must be anti-falsity...or to be pro-peace, you must be anti-war.

Perhaps you could explain better how injustice and anger are synonymous...synonymous with what?
If I see a child steal a candy from another child, must I feel anger in order to recognize the injustice? Hardly.



Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

a little off topic but I love the opportunity that this thread provides in discussing theological beliefs.

I've always wondered how mental illness plays in or is explained/rationalized by religion in the context of being judged in the afterlife.

I've always been curious about this. Many if not all people with a mental illness have either some sort of structural anomaly of the brain..either by birth defect or physical trauma,  a chemical imbalance of various neurotransmitters or have been subjected to some intense psychological abuse. All of these situations can have a profound effect on one's personality or behaviors and can easily cause someone to act in a manner that is considered evil.

Take a psychopath - so someone with a mental illness that shows next to no empathy and displays strong amoral conduct. These people are capable of horrendous acts with no remorse (the very definition of evil?). Would someone like this that commits murder, rape etc due to a physical characteristic of the structure of their brain be held responsible in the afterlife of their actions?

This thought always leads me to wonder then, I have always considered our personalities to be our very essence, our individuality, it would essentially be the same as our soul. If this can be often manipulated by purely physical factors (brain trauma, neurotransmitters etc] how can our soul be judged by our actions or thoughts if our very thoughts can be drastically changed by physical circumstance?

So as an extreme example, is a murdering psychopath given a free ticket to redemption because of his mental illness? or was he cursed from birth to suffer in hell?


Re: Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion)

All the terms used within that make sense with reality, whereas the terms you use have to be redefined in order to be understood.

All the terms of a dualistic language(one based on subject/object duality) make sense within the reality of a dualistic application. I have repeatedly explained the limitations of language and how they uphold the false sense of reality that duality maintains.

All speculation as to the historical veracity of the Bible can be proved with less inconsistency than any other ancient text in the world.

The term 'proved' is not used correctly there. If it were, you wouldn't need to qualify it with a phrase like "with less inconsistency". Perhaps it'd make sense if you said 'substantiated'...however, if you concede that you haven't got 'proof' only 'reason to believe' then your counter claims to my belief are matters of opinion and not of fact. You've got no grounds for saying that my beliefs are based on lies, except that you are more persuaded by other explanations which, while convincing to you, are not unquestionable or perfect by all means.

The new testament was found within the lifetime of the original authors which is amazing considering the time period, and copies have been made throughout the years because books decay.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'found'. Such implies that it would have to be lost, does it not? If not, then who was it found by? how was it assembled? was it canon before the rest of the bible was canon?
Sure, copies have been made...but is there any accounting for anomalies in them?

The false assertions your worldview makes of Christ and scripture I've discussed throughout this argument, like, your assertion that scripture is not God breathed nor inspired

Some of it is, not all of it. I wouldn't expect this from you, as it'd be a tremendous amount of work, but to really make my claim false as more than just a matter of your opinion, you'd have to at least substantiate why each and every book in the Bible was implied to be the word of God and not the word of its author (in fact, even in some of the books that I do consider to be divinely inspired, the authors speak of their own experiences and attitudes concerning God). Mere inclusion in the bible isn't satisfactory to prove your case as far as I can tell.

then using some of those scriptures out of context to support your worldview which is errant in the first place and becomes a perversion of the Christian faith.

Out of context how? and that my view is errant is your opinion only.

I've already discussed Psalm 46:10 and what the Psalmist meant by "stillness"

Not to my satisfaction you haven't.

and I've discussed the difference in what Jesus meant in dying to 'oneself' in order to live within the Spirit as opposed to dying to the 'self' and living for an infinite context.

When I use it, I mean simply, 'dying unto one's personal self' that one may live according only to God's will, without the persistence of a personal will(if it persists, it's not dead). If that is what living according to the Spirit means, then I have not used it out of context.
Also, it may serve to remind you that I do not maintain that infinite context is separate from anything...you cannot live any more 'for' it than you can live 'apart' from it. 'Truly Living' to me, is to experience the Absolute...I can see no other apt way to describe 'truly living'.
What we differ is on what we believe the nature of the Absolute to be. You believe it is a moving(from moment to moment with us as we experience life), dynamic(responding differently to man throughout the ages, as in the age of floods vs. the age of Christianity), emphatically personal 'entity' (I think?) and I believe that it is unmoving, unchanging, neither personal or impersonal and simultaneously both.

Reading into scripture is simply lying about the context.

Context is not spelled out for us. In order for you to think you know any context you have to read into it, or refer to other historical sources. You can't know for certain whether Genesis is allegorical or not without reading into it and considering a context that isn't spelled out for you on the page. It is those who take the words only at face value that actually believe the world was created in six days.
You make this claim frequently without being able to really illustrate what it means...and all I can gather is that it means that I interpret it in a different context than you do. The context that you refer to doesn't seem to be any clearer on the pages than the one that I refer to.

As well, throughout our discourse, you've shown a great deal of skepticism about the validity of Christian origins and those who believe in the early writings, and then claim authority in Aramaic scriptures that Christianity holds as uncanonical and history holds as less authentic than the ones used by Christians.

Well, as historical accounts, the OT are fine...it is only when they go about describing God and spiritual laws that I question their validity. I believe that Moses was enlightened, but not that his teachings or experiences were recorded with the precision or accuracy that such important information warrants. Thus, as a foundation for my own Christian experience, I do not find it a reliable source for spiritual teaching(though there are gems sprinkled sparingly throughout). I do not find a jealous, angry, vengeful, bargaining God that can be won by animal sacrifice to be at all in accord with my subjective experience of God. I make no apology for that.
As for my belief in Aramaic primacy, I have read both Greek and Aramaic translations...and the Aramaic ones are mostly the same except in a few key areas...though those areas are considerably important to, well, consider.
If you'd like, I can present the arguments for Aramaic primacy, though if you're to assume that they're false by virtue of the fact that the Greek translations are canon, it'd be a waste of my efforts.

Also, if you think that those who use Aramaic translations are not Christian, you have a pretty narrow view of what being a Christian is.

Children stealing each others candy is not a very self-affecting example of anger.

Intentionally so. The point was to illustrate that injustice and anger are not synonymous. Recognizing the injustice does not require anger.

Anger is the result of injustice, and as dictionary.com describes it, anger is "a strong feeling of displeasure and belligerence (hostility) aroused by a wrong."

Anger is the result of perceived injustice...it is a 'feeling' of having been wronged...not necessarily an innate response to wrongdoing or injustice.
If you wish to say that it is as righteous as Love, then you must explain why it is or is not appropriate in the case of a child stealing candy. An injustice is an injustice.
Even with a big injustice like murdering Christ, Christ wasn't angry! He forgave them whilst recognizing that they were committing a wrongdoing.

(It actually admits to wrongdoing to describe the term which your worldview does not do, which is why I find your use of the term angry to be a misnomer because you can't use the term within your worldview because there is no falsity; anyway...)

The definition is clearly lacking in accuracy. Surely you have been angry over things that didn't turn out to be the case before, right? No wrongdoing is necessary...whatever anger chooses as its target is deemed to be a wrongdoing, whether it is or not!

Everyone gets angry with that which violates what they hold to be true

Not everybody. Christ didn't get angry with his murderers. He forgave them.
You might say that he viewed what they were doing to be necessary...but then, we could view any wrongdoing to be a 'necessary' consequence of any number of factors.

so the question is 'what is true' and 'what is false', so we can describe what we can get angry at.

We should only get angry when anger poses an advantage to dealing with a situation appropriately. Anger is not a positive or clarity-providing way to look at things, so generally it doesn't appear as though anger serves anything except to dilute the frustration of our desires just an itty bit.

Everyone gets angry for what they believe to be a violation of truth and someone can be angry for all the wrong reasons, because they aren't your reasons.  We get angry at a lack of justice (injustice)

Lack of justice and injustice aren't necessarily the same. If I forgive someone for stealing from me, I'm not doling out justice, nor am I maintaining an injustice.

because a violation of a truth (law, worldview, highest good, love) has been made.  If someone beat your wife, raped her, and then killed her in front of you, out of the truth that rape and murder is wrong, you would be angry against those who violated that truth and demand justice as it affects you directly.  What they'd have done to her would be wrong (truth vs. falsity not truth vs. less true) and you would be right in your anger.

My anger would be more just than the murder and rape was...but not helpful or empowering or anything resembling righteous. The dualistic error comes in thinking that anger is righteous because rape is bad. Anger is less unrighteous than rape...but both lack integrity. We'd sooner forgive the angry response than the murderous act though...because it's easier to forgive less unrighteous things.

Forgiveness admits something to be forgiven

No, lack of forgiveness admits something to be forgiven. Forgiveness has already let it go, that there is nothing left to forgive.

not to fatalistically let someone get away with a crime and an injustice, but to admit that an injustice has happened and then pardon them from the consequences they deserve.

See, I can forgive a criminal without pardoning him from his jail sentence. Forgiveness isn't about pardoning other people from consequences...it's about pouring love on a circumstance that we would otherwise struggle to be compassionate with...letting go of the inner consequence of holding a grievance is what forgiveness is.

For Christians, Christ has won that battle on the cross.  Christian's do not seek Christ's forgiveness because of God's mercy but because of God's justice.  They seek forgiveness because they admit they are in the wrong and in need of forgiveness and that God has every right to be angry with them, but instead of paying the penalty themselves, Christ paid it.

God as a simplistic legal system just doesn't appeal to me at all. What advantage would God have to being angry with me in the first place? When I make peace with myself over the wrongdoings that I commit, I accomplish the same ends, don't I?

By telling me that I'm in a dualistic mindset, you are conceding to being in one yourself, that there actually is a difference within truth, in that it is not pro-truth=anti-falsity or pro-peace=anti-war, etc.  In implying I'm wrong and that you're right, you're conceding to a duality, which is a self defeating statement given you're arguing for nonduality.

the dualistic perspective is what it is...neither right nor wrong...just limited in its capacity to understand the Absolute. The context of my claim was that you insist on viewing wrong vs. right rather than as degrees of rightness...and you even project that onto my statements. you infer that I imply that you're 'wrong' and I'm right, because you view even this exchange as duality...me vs. you...who will reign supreme!?
Being stuck in a dualistic mindset, you mix levels...looking at nonduality in the context of duality simply doesn't work.