The Spiritual Science Association LIBERAL, MISSOURI

Interesting article on the The Spiritual Science Association and the Old Spook Hall in LIBERAL, MISSOURI
Intersetingly in tehir petition for incorporation on March 27, 1889.

They stated the following aims/principles now I have seen thses words or very similar elsewhere

the philosophy of a future life, individual responsibility, the immutable law of reward for good and punishment for evil doing, that all crime must be atoned for by the criminal. The science and philosophy of life teaches this, as we understand it, and from this inevitable law of nature there is no escape. Individual responsibility and accountability, when properly understood, is the incentive to a just, upright and virtuous life.

http://www.evermore.imagedjinn.com/home/5656/the-spiritual-science-association-and-the-old-spook-hall-this-strange-town/

[quote="Admin"].

the philosophy of a future life, individual responsibility, the immutable law of reward for good and punishment for evil doing, that all crime must be atoned for by the criminal. The science and philosophy of life teaches this, as we understand it, and from this inevitable law of nature there is no escape. Individual responsibility and accountability, when properly understood, is the incentive to a just, upright and virtuous life.

It does?
Hmmh! A strange one, even seems to be piggy-backing mainstrean Spiritualist philosophy, although unattributed.

The terms 'good', 'evil' and 'criminal' reveals a subjective understanding of material Life, fashioned by strong Christian values.

I'm sure we have all met folk who could fit into any of these ideas, but is it really so? Would the 'evil' person think of themselves as 'evil'. I wonder. Or the 'criminal'?

It would seem that to maintain the Law of Polarity and equal and opposite, it is necessary for some souls to fill these roles in our various societies, enabling theologians to dispense their beloved wee labels.
Would an 'evil' person as defined, also be 'evil' in all societies, all religions in all circumstances, simultaneously? Or are they truly serving a purpose we do not yet understand?
Likewise with 'good'.
Roman Catholicism would have us believe that their path produces all the Saints - easy enough to see why, isn't it if you appoint yourself as sole distributor, though the classification is not universally agreed upon. Strange that, you'd think 'saintliness' would be easily recognisable.
All these terms appear to be no more than bargaining chips, to allow the various outfits to seem more 'holy' than the other one along the road.
All beg the question: why are these designations man-made? It really answers itself as none have the captive divine stamp of approval where they'd prefer their adherents to think it is.

So, Spiritual attainment is self-fulfilling. I don't recall any theologian speaking in agreement.