Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Amy Jackson]

I'm sorry I don't agree with everything I the book.
One statement I don't agree with is: "There is no problem of evil because there is no evil."
I believe we don't have a problem with evil because we are greater than any evil, not because it doesn't exist.
Evil exists because I've come face to face with it. I've seen it intentionally and wickedly hold people in bondage. And I've seen it's grip literally removed and the person set free. Evil is spiritual, and can only be spiritually discerned. Logic can't make sense of it.
With what we have inside of us, we can get rid of evil and make no room for it. When we rise up and shine, there'll be no darkness.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I'm sorry I don't agree with everything I the book.
One statement I don't agree with is: "There is no problem of evil because there is no evil."
I believe we don't have a problem with evil because we are greater than any evil, not because it doesn't exist.
Evil exists because I've come face to face with it. I've seen it intentionally and wickedly hold people in bondage. And I've seen it's grip literally removed and the person set free. Evil is spiritual, and can only be spiritually discerned. Logic can't make sense of it.
With what we have inside of us, we can get rid of evil and make no room for it. When we rise up and shine, there'll be no darkness.

Hi, Amy Jackson,

Thank you for your reply!

Since you believe that evil (a.k.a. should-not-have-ness) exists, please reply to each of the ten questions in the following topic:

Ten Questions for People Who Believe Should-Not-Have-Ness [a.k.a. evil] Exists


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

[Lauren Victoria]

First off, I think any good book that talks about the human experience and self-help should never be read through with complete agreement. So, the more posts that are here the more the work actually did something!

I'd first like to quote "You are the source of infinite invincible inner peace, of unconditional love and forgiveness, of true timeless meaning and purpose, of unpossessive appreciation." This right here I completely agree with this, but then there is this quote "There is nothing to forgive," which takes away that amazing first quote that I read and thought, yeah that's so true and amazing. I am a source of all those things.

If there is nothing to forgive then how or why are we a source of forgiveness?

Furthermore, take this quote, "If you were fully in their shoes, you would do exactly as they do, so there is nothing to forgive." Here I have trouble agreeing with it because there are so many studies done on crimes, where someone who was raised with the same circumstances, the same privileges, and the same sort of nurture goes on to do despicable things while their counterpart on a very similar path does not do those things. Some choices have to be made and yet, to say that in someone's shoes, you would do the same thing takes away from the same hungry person on the street choosing not to steal while another might.

I enjoyed that there was so much in here that one could agree or not agree with because it's questioning those things that opens up the mind to other possibilities. Good work here.

[AmySmiles]

I'm not a very philosophical person and often not sure what I believe about certain things. I don't feel like people have to agree with everything other people believe. I don't really want to argue points. I enjoyed the book, didn't understand everything and don't agree with everything but that's not too say that I can't gain anything from it. I did and will continue to do so.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Lauren Victoria,

Thank you for your reply!

I'd first like to quote "You are the source of infinite invincible inner peace, of unconditional love and forgiveness, of true timeless meaning and purpose, of unpossessive appreciation." This right here I completely agree with this, but then there is this quote "There is nothing to forgive," which takes away that amazing first quote that I read and thought, yeah that's so true and amazing. I am a source of all those things.

Are you sure that the sentence, "There is nothing to forgive," (page 155) is the very first sentence with which you disagree?

For instance, the sentence right before it is: "However, when you really and completely practice the acceptance of reality as it inexorably is, and thus accept others as they are and accept the choices of others as they are, then there is no need for forgiveness at all."

So you are saying you do agree with that sentence which says in part "there is no need for forgiveness at all" but then don't agree with the next sentence which says there is nothing to forgive?

If so, I suspect it might be you, not me, who has made the contradiction.

I look forward to hearing back from you and to getting to the bottom of this. I'm sure it will help in tweaking the in-progress third edition of the book.


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

[Bethel Saint Bright]

Apparently, I can only speak for myself. Even though there were concepts I encountered that I did not know about before, I cannot point a finger to anything I disagree with in the book. As a matter of fact, I am re-reading the book to gain better insights into the concept of the "Two Yous." I found it fascinating in my first read.

[Nada Renno]

Although I wouldn’t consider myself a deeply philosophical person, I do enjoy exploring philosophical ideas to some extent. That said, I truly enjoyed this book and found it awesome! Yet, I have a couple of lines to which I have other views.

(1)

But of course it is only one of the two Yous that is not human. The "You" we have called..

Page (32), Paragraph (5).

At the beginning of this section, I found myself aligning with the author’s concept of the two “yous.” I also understand his perspective in differentiating between them: the (spiritual you) representing the abstract, intangible aspects of life, and the body you embodying the material, physical part - please correct me if I misunderstood that.
However, I disagree with the quoted sentence till the end of the paragraph. I believe that the soul, spirit, and consciousness are what fundamentally distinguish humans from all other species and creatures in the universe.

Unless, of course, the author is suggesting the existence of a third dimension of “you”—a third “you” that emerges from the spiritual you but is not inherently human. This would be the ethereal you, or an unearthly you, as the author may imply.

(2)

You are not your name

Page (39), Paragraph (4).

The author refers to a person's name as one of the "figurative clothes," suggesting it doesn’t define their humanity. However, I believe a name, particularly the first name given at birth, plays a significant role. It reflects a prominent part of a person’s identity and characteristics, as individuals often carry qualities their name implies or reveals.

Unless, of course, the author is referring to a person's full name as a "figurative cloth", which indeed doesn’t define a person or their humanity.

Thank you

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Although I wouldn’t consider myself a deeply philosophical person, I do enjoy exploring philosophical ideas to some extent. That said, I truly enjoyed this book and found it awesome! Yet, I have a couple of lines to which I have other views.

(1)

But of course it is only one of the two Yous that is not human. The "You" we have called..

Page (32), Paragraph (5).

At the beginning of this section, I found myself aligning with the author’s concept of the two “yous.” I also understand his perspective in differentiating between them: the (spiritual you) representing the abstract, intangible aspects of life, and the body you embodying the material, physical part - please correct me if I misunderstood that.
However, I disagree with the quoted sentence till the end of the paragraph. I believe that the soul, spirit, and consciousness are what fundamentally distinguish humans from all other species and creatures in the universe.

Unless, of course, the author is suggesting the existence of a third dimension of “you”—a third “you” that emerges from the spiritual you but is not inherently human. This would be the ethereal you, or an unearthly you, as the author may imply.

(2)

You are not your name

Page (39), Paragraph (4).

The author refers to a person's name as one of the "figurative clothes," suggesting it doesn’t define their humanity. However, I believe a name, particularly the first name given at birth, plays a significant role. It reflects a prominent part of a person’s identity and characteristics, as individuals often carry qualities their name implies or reveals.

Unless, of course, the author is referring to a person's full name as a "figurative cloth", which indeed doesn’t define a person or their humanity.

Thank you

Hi, Nada Renno,

If you don't agree with every single sentence from the book, please post a verbatim quote of the very first sentence in the book with which you disagree, meaning the sentence closest to the beginning of the book.


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

[Nada Renno]

Hi Scott
I already did that.

[Meghan Sica]

Page 128. "There is no problem of evil because there is no evil."

I don't agree. I believe there are many people in this world that are just plain evil. The evil within them shows through violence, aggression, dominance, hatred, narcissism, etc. I am not a very religious person, but I do believe in good and evil. In order for the universe to have balance, there must be good and evil.

[Brooks Maine]

I found the book to be extremely well written and I agree with everything in it. I congratulate the author for such a masterpiece

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Page 128. "There is no problem of evil because there is no evil."

I don't agree. I believe there are many people in this world that are just plain evil. The evil within them shows through violence, aggression, dominance, hatred, narcissism, etc. I am not a very religious person, but I do believe in good and evil. In order for the universe to have balance, there must be good and evil.

Hi, Meghan Sica,

Thank you for your reply!

Since you believe that evil (a.k.a. should-not-have-ness) exists, please reply to each of the ten questions in the following topic:

Ten Questions for People Who Believe Should-Not-Have-Ness [a.k.a. evil] Exists


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi Scott
I already did that.

No, you didn't. You posted multiple different sentences.

Please post only the one very first sentence with which you disagree, meaning the sentence closest to the beginning of the book.

[Barab Arzarki]

Please explain this point in simple and summarised terms:

The discontent person lacking inner peace will be discontent while drinking and while sober, and hence they are likely to bounce between the two in a cycle of misery. The discontent person lacking inner peace will be discontent while binge eating and while sticking to their diet; thus they are likely to bounce between the two in a cycle of misery, desperately trying to find the key to happiness or at least something to self-medicate them with a bit of comfort in their persistent misery, the misery of not having inner peace, of not being in a truly loving relationship with their selves over time and across space built on true conscious love. (Page 191)

[Tush4Christ]

Code: Select all

“There is no problem with evil because there is no evil.”

Page 127/128 has this and I disagree with the statement.

However, I have come to think that the phrase "there is no problem of evil" might be more appropriate for the context described in the book, as it would better validate the author's standpoint. The author used the story of children starving and having no one to help them to illustrate this perspective.

In contrast, using the phrase "there is no problem with evil" suggests that the author expects people to coexist peacefully with evil and refrain from complaining. This interpretation would make the statement not just thought-provoking but also fundamentally untrue.

Since this is a philosophical statement, it can be argued that nothing is entirely untrue; it is merely a matter of perspective. I would like to understand your perspective on the statement and how you have come to draw that conclusion from your own viewpoint.