Religion of Love




Virtue Doctrine » Negative Virtue Doctrine » EF » Estrangement from L  (Previous | Next)



Estrangement from L

[1755] Among the possibilities to estrange from L, judging and acting against L is the most serious one. Depending on the extent, the consequences are disadvantageous, the more the more is suffered from the consequences of the judging and acting. The punishment by L for this turns out correspondingly high. L punishes according to the extent of the criminal responsibility and to the amount of guilt. The maximum punishment is the solution in substances after passing through a guilt programme.

[1756] Everything that one expected of others, one may experience as long as it pleases L in zis justice, since others are on a par with oneself, regardless of the relative value they have. This is not revenge an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but making oneself realise what one has wreaked. It would not be just, if one atones only a fraction of the guilt, if it is to become aware to the hilt.

[1757] The solution in substances is just, because one, despite zis many abilities, did not prove worthy of them, and has therefore forfeited having them. If it is to expect from any substance that it would make better use of these abilities than oneself, then this substance is to choose over oneself. This means that on is rightfully enqueued behind it. One may again work one's way up in the divine order, if it pleases L and if it is about time.

[1758] Less guilt is settled by less reduction. L exercises neither special leniency nor special severity: just is the experience of the equal and equivalent. Only when ze recognises that the culprit has the necessary insight into zis guilt and justice has been served, L lets up on zer. One may wonder why L does not make such culprits see reason during their lifetime. Answer: They are no isolated case.

[1759] Ze would, for reasons of justice, have also to iron out everybody who supports the individual. There is no selective boundary, but a broad continuum. When a single perpetrator breaks through all limits with the aid of others, L has set, then L has done everything what ze could do within the limits of zis word and the divine order. Every single perpetrator can be stopped by the many. If they do not, they have not deserved zer.

[1760] One cannot grant the many, they did not know better. Each person is able to distinguish evil from good, since it reveals itself at every level by much. The more intelligent can advise the less intelligent of it. It is simply not true that on cannot prevent evil, since every person has the power by L to do so if it matters and ze is (morally) behaving properly.

[1761] No one who instigates a war or another big crime has the chance to conduct or to commit it, if those refuse who are to execute it. Where is not fought there is no war. Passive resistance wears out in the long term any dictatorship. If the forces from the outside bestow only the essentials on it and the forces from the inside organise themselves beyond that, no dictatorship can last long.

[1762] To deny L and to ignore L is in this order less serious but still amiss. Both punish themselves because it denies L to show zis gratitude. For where L is not needed, ze will not impose zerself, because those who do not need zer are content with what they have. If they were not, it would be not far to seek to accept any help, so especially the best possible one, which is doubtless L.

[1763] Who denies L does not even concede existence to zer and is not ready to acknowledge zis activity in the world. L Who ignores L considers zis activity for inessential. More serious than both is to place oneself over L, what happens more often than those who do so want to admit. All three are after all ridiculous. The latter, because it is impossible, considering the magnitude of L, the former, because absolutely nothing is possible without L.

[1764] To whom L is all the same misunderstands zis nature. Who gets only half-heartedly involved with L, did not understand what essentially matters. Half-heartedness halves the result in relation to others. Who wants only the half for others does not love them, since love is aims at the whole. The satisfiable solution of most problems, however, requires the whole effort. To commit oneself wholly is fine, since only this way true fulfilment is achieved for oneself and for others.

© 2006-2009 by Boris Haase


Valid XHTML 1.0 • Disclaimer • imprint • mail@relil.de • pdf-version • questionnaire • bibliography • subjects • definitions • php-code • sitemap • rss-feed • top