Both Good And Evil Are Life's Indestructable Forces

I'm sorry, Polar ol' buddy, i'd forgotten that bear-bating is now illegal . . .

0 Replies

I'm feeling more and more like an endangered species lately..... Shocked

0 Replies

B-PB, Set really can't help it, he's just always full of...information. :wink:

I like your theory that George Orwell might be god. Could Old Major have been Jesus? His fiction is certainly as interesting as that in the bible.

0 Replies

Full a somethin', anyway, huh?

0 Replies

Good vs. Evil
Let's get at a different question: are there even such forces as good and evil?
. When you look at it from a more religious point of view you quickly see that good and evil were the basis for such religious books as the Bible and Koran. However, from an atheistic standpoint, one clearly notes that evil is simply a result of misunderstood actions. The extremist muslim who blows himself up in a crowded area in the name of Allah believes he is performing the ultimate good deed, while a victim sees a massacre and defines it as evil. Therefore, actions cannot be considered either evil or good.
. Intentions are also linked to action. The dog is defending his master as a good deed (if you assume that animals understand good and evil), while the mailman sprays mace in the dog's face for protection. Each intends the best but seems evil by the other.
. Finally, even in the most docile, placid community, with all extremes such as good and evil taken away, the inhabitants would still observe good and evil. The spectrum would just be tightened.
. Therefore, we can safely assume that both good and evil don't now and will never exist outside the limitations of our own minds.

0 Replies

Set, you said it. Beyond that, I would add that humans are not capable of evil. Not true evil. And to that end, humans are not capable of true goodness either. The idea that either were created is proposterous. Will is the only thing we were given. Our will lead us to knowledge, which now helps us discern between good and bad. Will allows for either good or bad to happen and God has nothing to do with that. God only helps us fulfill our will once we figure out what that is. Lack of knowledge leads to a lack of will, which seems to some as a presence of evil. However, it is only a life without knowing. Fully capable of doing wrong things, but hardly capable of evil.

Unambiguous evidence and certains aspect of "I don't know" are the very reasons we have such discussions in the first place. If I knew everything for certain, I would be on a crusade to educate the rest of humankind. Meanwhile, because I have not had such a revelation, I'm going to stick with what I think I know from the little evidence I have.

God exists because I find that easier to believe than evolution. Good comes from me choosing God's intervention. Bad is the absence of God's intervention. He doesn't always intervene so that you know the difference.

0 Replies

MichaelAllen wrote:

Set, you said it.

One of the things Set said, was:

Quote:

... i've seen Frank beat his dead horse often enough to be no longer charmed by the exercise.

Setanta has mentioned this numerous times -- and anyone who takes time out to mention something like this as often as he does (regardless of whether or not he tries to put it in a negative context) has to be considered a big fan. I'm not sure if you were agreeing with him on that specific, but if you were, welcome to the club. I'll try not to get to prideful about it.

Michael, you also wrote:

Quote:

Unambiguous evidence and certains aspect of "I don't know" are the very reasons we have such discussions in the first place.

Absolutely! I couldn't agree more.

Quote:

If I knew everything for certain, I would be on a crusade to educate the rest of humankind. Meanwhile, because I have not had such a revelation, I'm going to stick with what I think I know from the little evidence I have.

Do you really "think" you "know it" -- or is it merely a guess or estimate, which is quite different from "knowing?"

If it is a guess or estimate, then a discussion of the "evidence" upon which it is based is in order.

Frankly, I see very, very , very little evidence upon which to base a guess of "there is a God" -- and even less upon which to base a guess of "there are no gods."

But I am always willing to learn. Please feel free to share the "little evidence" you have.

Quote:

God exists because I find that easier to believe than evolution.

More than likely, the question of whether "God exists" -- or "there are no gods" -- has absolutely nothing to do with what you "believe."

Quote:

Good comes from me choosing God's intervention.

I'm sure the folks who crashed those jet liners into the World Trade Center building would agree with that, although I find the notion to be glaringly self-serving.

Quote:

Bad is the absence of God's intervention. He doesn't always intervene so that you know the difference.

Think about what you wrote here! It makes no sense.

0 Replies

Frank,
I was first referring to Set's explanation of good and evil. But, you do seem rather intelligent enough for me to be a fan. I have no problem with that.

Taking apart a person's words isn't really a good strategy when it requires all of them to complete an entire thought. One fraction of what someone says can easily be turned around in any discussion.

Good and Bad are not creations, but choices. We may have to endure hardships as a result of someone else's right to choose bad, or for the purpose of this discussion, evil. We may benefit from someone else's choice to do good. Introducing God to this discussion is only as a matter of will. If you choose God's will, God will intervene on your behalf. If you don't choose God's will, he allows you to experience the results. It's not a punishment. It's more of a grant. And it may not always be what you want, but that's the complexity of it. Some people don't know what they want and they choose wrong. The higher complexity of it is that there is a community will involved as well. I can't have everything my way and you can't have it all your way. We play tug of war until our hands bleed and God finds a will in there somewhere.

If you want to bring our towers into this conversation, it's a tough task to change gears from the direction we were taking. The religous fanatics who flew planes into our WTC thought they were doing good. They hit us exactly where their anger was focussed. Our collective god is money. They attacked it. They think of us as blasphemous idolators. We have a different idea of good than they do obviously. We think we are innocent and we don't actually know how involved we are. We might be the good ones in the scenario. Or we may investigate and find our faults as reaching further than we imagined. If so, that makes us the bad guys. Not exactly on the right side of Good and Evil.

Highlighted in your last reply was a quote from me: God exists because I find that easier to believe than evolution. I only acknowledge two arguments on the subject, evolution and creation. Any attempt to convince me we are a pimple on a rhino's butt is falling on deaf ears. So, after having explored the options I've left myself, I find it infinitely easier to believe that a god could have guided creation according to findings of evolution. But, I can't accept that two molecules just happened to find each other in the vast expansion of the universe without any guidance from some higher power. That's like shooting bee bees at each other trying to make them hit.

0 Replies

Setanta hinted at something which I think everyone should take into account before you vote. There needs to be a clear explanation as to what the definitions of Good and Evil in this exercise will be. Some people say Good and Evil is simply the absence of the other, while others confess, as Setanta mentioned, that Good and Evil are simply words associated with desire and dislike.

For me I believe Good and Evil change with each individual. Their opinion on one or the other is simply determined by the lens from which they view the world. There is no universal or inherent definition of Good or Evil with which is widely accepted. Therefore I believe there is no Good or Evil in the world (i.e. no ethical good or evil) but rather our definitions are manipulated by our Morals. Anyway, after that long winded rambling I voted for the first option. After all Good and Evil are equal in everything and they amount to nothing more than words.

Nothing equals nothing.

0 Replies

Yottos wrote:

Therefore I believe there is no Good or Evil in the world (i.e. no Ethics) but rather our definitions are manipulated by our Morals. Anyway, after that long winded rambling I voted for the first option. After all Good and Evil are equal in everything and they amount to nothing more than words. Nothing equals nothing.

This is rather weird, but my take on things is 180 degrees out of synch with this thought.

It also is my opinion that there is no intrinsic "good" or "evil" in the world. But I think what we consider to be good or evil -- is a function of our ethics. I think there are no established morals in the world.

"Morals", as nearly as I can tell, require a GOD -- and require revelations from that GOD -- TELLING US what is moral and what is not.

For instance, the Christian god tells us that it is moral to own and traffic in other human beings -- that it is okay to own a fellow human being as a slave. But it is immoral for a man to love another man to the point where it becomes a sexual encounter.

So GODS tell us what is moral and what is not.

We determine our ethics on our own.

0 Replies

Quote:

"Morals", as nearly as I can tell, require a GOD -- and require revelations from that GOD -- TELLING US what is moral and what is not.

Morals are derived from society and unfortunately society is largely based on religion. On this point I concede that God(s) indirectly dictate our morals.

I changed my sentence, your quote, slightly. I was too general when I said there are no ethics, but intended it to read there are no "ethical good(s) or evil(s)."

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

For instance, the Christian god tells us that it is moral to own and traffic in other human beings -- that it is okay to own a fellow human being as a slave.

Chrisitanity doesn't support slavery. But, only reports that it happened. Exodus refers to God's delivery of the Jews from slavery. Every time the Jews strayed, God allowed them to suffer for it. Then he provided for their delivery when they realized their wrongs. I'm not sure I would be able to recall any Christian doctrine supporting slavery.

0 Replies

MichaelAllen wrote:

Frank wrote:

Quote:
For instance, the Christian god tells us that it is moral to own and traffic in other human beings -- that it is okay to own a fellow human being as a slave.

Chrisitanity doesn't support slavery. But, only reports that it happened.

Insofar as Christianity depends on the reliability of the Bible -- it does a hell of a lot more than just "report that it happened."

Here is a quote from the Bible -- the Bible that Christians use to establish that Jesus was GOD incarnate:

"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess...such slaves
you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their
hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves." Leviticus 25:44ff

I'm sure you will agree, Michael, that the quoted passage is pretty clear about how the god of the Bible feels on this issue.

Quote:

I would be able to recall any Christian doctrine supporting slavery.

Well, let me offer a few for you to consider.

At 1 Timothy 6:1ff, St. Paul says:

"All under the yoke of slavery must regard their masters as worthy of full respect...Those slaves whose masters are brothers in the faith must not take liberties with them on that account. they must perform their tasks even more faithfully, since those who will profit from their work are believers and beloved brothers."

At Colossians 3:22, St. Paul says:

"To slaves I say, obey your human masters perfectly, not with the purpose of attracting attention and pleasing men, but in all sincerity and our of reverence for the Lord."

At Colossians 4:1, St. Paul says:

"You slave owners, deal justly and fairly with your slaves..."

At Titus 2:9, St. Paul says:

"Slaves are to be submissive to their masters. They should try to please them in every way, not contradicting them nor stealing from them, but expressing a constant fidelity by their conduct, so as to adorn in every way possible the doctrine of God our Savior."

At 1 Corinthians 7:17ff, St. Paul says:

"The general rule is that each one should lead the life the Lord has assigned him, continuing as he was when the Lord called him...Were you a slave when your call came? Give it no thought. Even supposing you could go free, you would be better off making the most of your slavery...."

At Philemon, Paul returns a slave (Onesimus) to his master (Philemon) and tells Philemon that although he )Paul) feels he has the right to command Philemon to free Onesimus, he would not do that, but would instead appeal to Philemon to do it on his own.

Nothing here, Michael, indicates any disapproval of slavery by Paul -- and everything here points to Paul considering slavery to be moral.

0 Replies

Translations really throw wrenches into this one. But, slavery is a rather harsh ownership of another person as property. Having people do work for you is no crime as opposed to owning a person as property. A hired servant is an employee. Servants are required by God to do the work they have agreed to for the wages they have agreed upon.

But, those scriptures are quite sickening in their language. That would be a part of Christianity I would not be able to follow.

0 Replies

Good vs. Evil
I completely disagree with Individual's statement.

Just because one cannot see something does not mean that it cannot be present. If you turn your head away from a person so that you cannot see them, they are still there. God cannot be seen or heard yet he is felt all over the world.

Both good and evil can be present without being manifested in any force. Evil is the intent of harm when the person knows that they are doing something bad, good is the intent of compassion and generosity when the person is aware of his own benevolence. Therefore, good and evil coexist and are only a result of the perception of the person who performs the deed.

0 Replies

I'm really surprised as to why certain actions cannot be judged as Good or Evil.I read a definition of Oauspensky on Moral values I find it convincing.He says that morality is universal.It's not dependant on religion,race or culture.It's a judgement we all make in our mind.We all agree that stealing,cheating,lying to get unjustified gain etc., are evils.Every religion or culture accepts this.I personally feel that these are one of the essential factors of all religions and teachings.The rest are all not so important.When I say Evil I only refer to these things only.Let us leave aside debatable actions.

Some of us expressed that "Doer" feels some thing he/she has done as Good while others may feel otherwise.I did not talk about it.When I say that you cannot achieve some big or urgent aim without a contribution from 'Evil',I mean that the "Doer" actually ackowledges that some of his actions are certainly evil(From the abovesaid List or such other actions) but says he/she could not avoid them.For example it's an established fact that in wars and Foreign affairs any evil is acceptable to achieve the purpose.In ordinary Life if you're taking someone urgently to hospital to save his life,you're demanded to jump signals!

This is what I'm putting before you learned members and urge you all to offer enligtening views.I also invite additional options you suggest for voting and I want to know as to how to add those to the voting.

0 Replies

I think we have been offering "enlightened" views.

You seem reluctant to accept them.

I'm not familiar with Oauspensky, but his/her difinition of morals seem way out of touch with reality.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I think we have been offering "enlightened" views.

You seem reluctant to accept them.

I'm not familiar with Oauspensky, but his/her difinition of morals seem way out of touch with reality.

It does not require anyone to be familiar with the author when his view has been clearly enunciated.I'm also eager to know as to how this view is out of touch with reality.Please enlighten me dear Frank Apisa

0 Replies

K.VEE.SHANKER wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I think we have been offering "enlightened" views.

You seem reluctant to accept them.

I'm not familiar with Oauspensky, but his/her difinition of morals seem way out of touch with reality.

It does not require anyone to be familiar with the author when his view has been clearly enunciated.I'm also eager to know as to how this view is out of touch with reality.Please enlighten me dear Frank Apisa

Delighted to accomodate you, dear KV.

You wrote:

Quote:

He (Oauspensky) says that morality is universal.It's not dependant on religion,race or culture.It's a judgement we all make in our mind.We all agree that stealing,cheating,lying to get unjustified gain etc., are evils.Every religion or culture accepts this.I personally feel that these are one of the essential factors of all religions and teachings.

Well, if "...all religions...and cultures..." consider this to be an essential factor -- how the hell does Oauspensky come to the conclusion that it is not dependent upon religion and culture?

And we all DO NOT AGREE that stealing, cheating, lying to get unjustified gain are evil. In the United States, such conduct is often referred to as "doing business."

MORALITY demands a god. NOTHING is moral or immoral unless a god has dictated that it is.

Ethics -- what is ethical and unethical -- is a different can of worms entirely.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

K.VEE.SHANKER wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
I think we have been offering "enlightened" views.

Well, if "...all religions...and cultures..." consider this to be an essential factor -- how the hell does Oauspensky come to the conclusion that it is not dependent upon religion and culture?

And we all DO NOT AGREE that stealing, cheating, lying to get unjustified gain are evil. In the United States, such conduct is often referred to as "doing business."

MORALITY demands a god. NOTHING is moral or immoral unless a god has dictated that it is.

Ethics -- what is ethical and unethical -- is a different can of worms entirely.

The very reason that all religions atheists and even all "isms" accept this morality shows that these are universal.That we're probably born with.

That these "evils" have been classified as business not only in US but everywhere else.That this classification is Universal!
But,I'm still eager to know whether you accept the original Post

0 Replies

Both Good And Evil Are Life's Indestructable Forces

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know