rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 04:11 pm
echi wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
RexRed wrote:
If evil is idolatry wouldn't putting what is seen and observed in front of what is unseen be the very definition of science?


Isn't putting what is unseen and unknown in front of what is seen and known the very definition of insanity?


What is unseen is not necessarily unknown.
Science takes measurements of every measurement it takes.


I don't think Rex meant "unseen" in a purely physical sense, and neither did I, which is why I added "unseen AND unknown".
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 04:11 pm
neologist wrote:
RexRed wrote:
neologist wrote:
RexRed wrote:
. . . But to be a purist in science certainly closes the mind to imperceptible truths because our senses are incapable of reaching into the spiritual realm. . .
Not necessarily, Rex. The bible, which you claim to revere, although inspired by our spiritual God, was written in concrete terms so that even ordinary folks could understand it.
. . . And where in your grab bag did you get that idea?. . .
"I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes." (Matthew 11:25)


Thanks for that wonderful quote Neo...

Yes these "things" are hidden from the scientific minded... and revealed to the spiritually minded.

Ro 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 04:12 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
echi wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
RexRed wrote:
If evil is idolatry wouldn't putting what is seen and observed in front of what is unseen be the very definition of science?


Isn't putting what is unseen and unknown in front of what is seen and known the very definition of insanity?


What is unseen is not necessarily unknown.
Science takes measurements of every measurement it takes.


I don't think Rex meant "unseen" in a purely physical sense, and neither did I, which is why I added "unseen AND unknown".


I meant that without the spirit, the five senses are then the ONLY means of deriving information...
0 Replies
 
c logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 04:13 pm
RexRed wrote:
It is not the mind that derives the truth it is the spirit that teaches the mind...


Why is it, though, that so many people have their spirit teach their mind so many different and contradictory things?

Anyway, so you're saying that if you grew up on a deserted island with no human contact whatsoever, you would still believe in THE god, because it's the inescapable truth of your spirit?

If Yes: I don't believe it... The idea of ONE god was not a spontaneous thing... It developed over time, and through "prophets". Why need prophets if "it is the spirit that teaches the mind"?

If no: You must have relied on the teachings in your past to form your beliefs. Different cultures have different teachings, and none of them have any evidence backup whatsoever.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 04:21 pm
c_logic wrote:
RexRed wrote:
It is not the mind that derives the truth it is the spirit that teaches the mind...


Why is it, though, that so many people have their spirit teach their mind so many different and contradictory things?

Anyway, so you're saying that if you grew up on a deserted island with no human contact whatsoever, you would still believe in THE god, because it's the inescapable truth of your spirit?

If Yes: I don't believe it... The idea of ONE god was not a spontaneous thing... It developed over time, and through "prophets". Why need prophets if "it is the spirit that teaches the mind"?

If no: You must have relied on the teachings in your past to form your beliefs. Different cultures have different teachings, and none of them have any evidence backup whatsoever.


Adam and Eve lived on an island so to speak and they still found a way to offend God... They had no written books so to speak to guide them yet they followed/preferred their five senses over the spiritual image and guidance of God.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 04:25 pm
The meaning of "evil" is "the opposite of good", and the meaning of "good" is that it is the opposite of "evil." Beyond that they mean very little.
c logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 04:29 pm
Allright Red - I might continue to chat with you tommorow.
For now... it's time for me to do some unpaid overtime on Saturday.
Now that's pure EVIL! Mad
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 04:30 pm
JLNobody wrote:
The meaning of "evil" is "the opposite of good", and the meaning of "good" is that it is the opposite of "evil." Beyond that they mean very little.


Facts and statistics change so they cannot wholly be relied upon but truth never changes.

1Jo 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 04:33 pm
c_logic wrote:
Allright Red - I might continue to chat with you tommorow.
For now... it's time for me to do some unpaid overtime on Saturday.
Now that's pure EVIL! Mad


Haha Smile

Col 3:23
And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 04:43 pm
Is good the opposite of best?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 05:00 pm
RexRed,

How do you feel the view that believers in "absolute truths" are guilty of providing fertile ground for those who perpetrate evil on the basis of their own absolutism. Could the "bad extremist Nazis" have operated outside an environment of "good moderate Nazis" ?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 05:28 pm
fresco wrote:
RexRed,

How do you feel the view that believers in "absolute truths" are guilty of providing fertile ground for those who perpetrate evil on the basis of their own absolutism. Could the "bad extremist Nazis" have operated outside an environment of "good moderate Nazis" ?


That is indeed a hard but welcome question...

My latest campaign (sounds like a broken record and I am sorry about the, purposeful on my part, repetition.) has been "liberty".

Yet liberty can be abused if it is not seasoned generously with love and consideration of God and others. But to season liberty with law is not liberty but a wolf in sheeps clothing. To dictate liberty and love is another law. So absolute truths need to produce the ultimate goal of sweet harmony and unity within civilization.

So yes I believe there is an absolute truth somewhere in "liberty" ONLY THOUGH when it is under the auspices of love for others, as in the "golden rule".

To love liberty (God) and cherish with all your heart mind soul and strength the "golden rule" is to harmonize with the simple and unrestrained will of God.

This is really a good question and I am also sorry to you and Neo and others that I overlooked it..

I am not the best at focusing on where the true direction of a tread is going. Sometimes (maybe even often) I just barrel in and obliterate the discussion with religiosity. I am aware of this and please try and keep me on topic whenever necessary.

I certainly do not like a discourse with myself.. That is equally insanity...

I need some time to think about this... Love, grace, mercy, forgiveness, kindness, temperance, goodness, faith, forbearance (which is acceptance) are all part of this liberty. I consider liberty a natural progression of the absolutes of am imageless God and his gift to the world...

I believe an active guide is an absolute as opposed to a static guide...

An active guide requires an aggressive, scientific, ethical and compassionate mind to "try" the spirit and determine it's source and worthiness...

The spirit doesn't not negate science as science negates the spirit but contrarily the spirit (when tested) augments science...

Science without true spirit is contrary to life and God. That is your absolute. Evil is the product of science devoid of the one true God.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 08:04 pm
Are people evil or their acts or both?

Is it the person or their behavior that is "evil"?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 08:11 pm
It seems to me that I do not see good or evil; I THINK them.

Also best is, in our language, the opposite of worst.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 08:18 pm
JLNobody wrote:
It seems to me that I do not see good or evil; I THINK them.

Also best is, in our language, the opposite of worst.



Thanks Lash,

I think both can occur, a person can entomb the very essence of evil (which is very rare) but more so that egocentric behaviors can be rightfully labeled evil.

Also
Good, better and best are subtle degrees of the same construct...
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 09:24 pm
Whatever it is that Moses was referring to when he recorded these words of Satan: ". . . God knows that in the very day of YOUR eating from it YOUR eyes are bound to be opened and YOU are bound to be like God, KNOWING good and bad. . .", it is quite obvious that we have in no way been bestowed with that knowledge.(Genesis 3:5)
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Oct, 2006 02:42 am
Ga 5:1
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Oct, 2006 03:45 am
Numbers 24:12 And Balaam said unto Balak, Spake I not also to thy messengers which thou sentest unto me, saying, 13 If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the commandment of the LORD, to do either good or bad of mine own mind; but what the LORD saith, that will I speak? 14 And now, behold, I go unto my people: come therefore, and I will advertise thee what this people shall do to thy people in the latter days.


Comment:
Can anyone explain this story in the scripture?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Oct, 2006 05:28 am
RexRed,

You answered my question about "the Absolute" in terms of spirituality rather than religiosity. Since spirituality is generally considered to be ineffable (i.e. inexpressible in words) does it not follow that adherence to "the word" is bound to lead to equivocal or corrupt interpretation which might give rise to "evil"?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Oct, 2006 05:43 am
fresco wrote:
RexRed,

You answered my question about "the Absolute" in terms of spirituality rather than religiosity. Since spirituality is generally considered to be ineffable (i.e. inexpressible in words) does it not follow that adherence to "the word" is bound to lead to equivocal or corrupt interpretation which might give rise to "evil"?


2Ti 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Comment: Been up all night got to get some sleep. Smile

Feel free to express your opinions here I will read them and comment at length after I get some rest.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
Family files lawsuit against school over Jesus - Discussion by Baldimo
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Define "Evil"...
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 08:15:53
▲ ▼