Philosophy Discussion Forums

Thomas D Flowers wrote: ↑July 24th, 2024, 4:03 am This is a great and relevant question. Initially in my first read, I did not agree with certain concepts in the book. For example, I didn't agree with the concept of "no evil." However, your explanation and questions asked in thought-provoking manner make me see the concept in a new light. And I found myself believing it. Also, I got to understand your life philosophy better.

In the concept of "no evil," I agree that everything that happens and be, once I wouldn't have prevented, it happened because it should, and then I shouldn't considder6it evil. Believing this will allow to let go of the past that we did like, accept and move on so easily.

I still haven't come to see the view presented on "no evil." I understand most of the concept as used in the book by the author. Please share the views you found to understand this philosophical standpoint and how that resonates with you. This is to help me see different angles and understand other people's views and ideologies as regards the term, especially as it is used in the book.

Hi, Tush4Christ,

Thank you for your reply!

Tush4Christ wrote: ↑December 30th, 2024, 7:08 pm

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.

Are you sure that is the very first sentence with which you disagree?

If so, it means you do not believe in God. Is that correct, do you not believe in God?

That's because even earlier on page 127, the following sentence appears, "Logic tells us that if there is an all-loving god, then there would be no evil." And you must agree that sentence if the very first sentence with you disagree isn't until the one you quoted above originally.

In other words, if the very first sentence with which you disagree is the statement, "There is no problem with evil because there is no evil," then you therefore must be an atheist, because you have agreed to such already since such is stated even earlier in the book.



With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

Barab Arzarki wrote: ↑December 29th, 2024, 4:06 am 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)

You posted this in the incorrect topic.

Please instead reply in the following topic and make sure to only quote one sentence and make sure to include the other required info (e.g. your best guess at what it means):

[url=viewtopic.php?t=18593]Did you understand every sentence in the book, "In It Together"? If not, what part did you first not understand?[/quote]



With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

I don't agree with the following quote and found it confusing: "Even a god can accidentally create a hell with a population of one: himself."

If you haven't already, you can sign up to be personally mentored by Scott "Eckhart Aurelius" Hughes at this link.

Nati Jiniya wrote: ↑January 13th, 2025, 12:48 pm I don't agree with the following quote and found it confusing: "Even a god can accidentally create a hell with a population of one: himself."

Hi, Nati Jiniya,

Sorry, I think you posted in the incorrect topic by accident.

Please post your above message in the following topic:

Did you understand every sentence in the book, "In It Together"? If not, what part did you first not understand?

When you post in the above topic, make sure to follow all the instructions in the first post of that topic about what to include (e.g. please provide your best guess(es) about what you think the sentence probably means). Make sure to only post the very first sentence that you don't understand, meaning the one that is closest to the beginning of the book.


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




In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program.

Yes. I agree with most words used as I have been taken by the use of overcommit, over intent, and page 143 the unconditional forgiveness. It was used oppositely it makes sense if you're in a situation undeniably. This is thought-provoking and great advice. I had a personal situation but after reading page 143 everything was understood from a different perspective.
Thank you Scott