Oh really???

I guess I didnt see the word "Debate" on the title of this forum. Please enlighten me and post where I can find this. Or is it debate because thats what the mob does?

Now why in the world would I need to debate? You don't answer to me and I don't answer to you. I don't need convincing and you've made up your mind. No need to debate. Convincing you that I am right and you are wrong is not my job. My yes means yes and my no means no. Maybe your the one who isnt settled?

T

Yes, your mind is made up on something you can't possibly know, plus what you believe is fairly silly, and my mind is made up that I don't believe in silly things that have no proof nor reason behind them. Seems reasonable.

When you believe something silly & you believe it 100% then it's pretty sad for you if you can't present any reasoning behind such beliefs.

As Borg said - this is a discussion forum. You are welcome to discuss your beliefs but when you act dumb by saying you didn't know this was a discussion forum then it hardly adds any weight to your spectacular claims. You can't blame somebody for questioning when somebody says the moon is made of apple sauce.

Oh really???

I guess I didnt see the word "Debate" on the title of this forum. Please enlighten me and post where I can find this. Or is it debate because thats what the mob does?11. Thou Shalt be Petulant

Hmmmm
I think we are having a failure to communicate and the failure begins with your need to define your terms alot better.

Is it Discussion or is it Debate? They are not the same.

I never mentioned discussion, nor did the person before me mention discussion. He said DEBATE. I said I do not need to DEBATE. He said this was a DEBATE forum.

where pray tell do you see me or him say "discussion".

as tried and true debaters that you all seem to be, I suggest you learn the first principle of debate..

DEFINE TERMS and use them correctly

Drew said this
The problem is TameVine - you don't seem willing to debate much, you prefer to just post absolutes as if they were actually a given fact. If you did care to debate issues & held an open mind you would find more holes in your thinking than a string vest.

I said:Now why in the world would I need to debate?You don't answer to me and I don't answer to you. I don't need convincing and you've made up your mind. No need to debate. Convincing you that I am right and you are wrong is not my job. My yes means yes and my no means no. Maybe your the one who isnt settled?

T

Borg said:
Um, debate is rather the point of this forum.

so your arguement, Drew, As Borg said - this is a discussion forum. You are welcome to discuss your beliefs but when you act dumb by saying you didn't know this was a discussion forum then it hardly adds any weight to your spectacular claims. You can't blame somebody for questioning when somebody says the moon is made of apple sauce. is based on a faulty premise.

Need I say more?


__________________

I notice that nobody has stopped to define terms in this discussion.
The dictionary says that if something is evil, it is "morally reprehensible".
To reprehend is to voice disapproval of.
Morality has to do with principles of right and wrong behaviour.

The real issue here is who determines what is right.
Is right and wrong personal preference or not?
If it is personal preference then what basis is there for justice?
(Don't confuse revenge with justice either)

Blob, the lost little atheist (appropriate epithet) made a statement:
The truth of the matter is that there exist indistructable arguments against a totally relative morality and equally indestructable arguments against an absolute morality.
If you have an absolute argument against absolutes I'd sure like to hear it.

It seems that denial and rejection of reason and logic is the favourite pastime of many here.

- Aslantic

Once again...... Inasmuch as God created man and gave man the choice to obey or disobey, Man by his choice to disobey God set in motion the already defined consequence of that choice. Death Entered in to creation.

Hmm. When God told Adam and Eve not to eat the apple or death would result, how were they supposed to know what that meant since they would have had no prior experience with death?

BTW Tamevine, just because someone doesn't believe the same things you do doesn't mean they haven't read Genesis.

It seems that denial and rejection of reason and logic is the favourite pastime of many here.

- Aslantic

Welcome to allforums aslantic, please elaborate on your condescension. :)

Vilepagan,

An absolute declaration that there are no absolutes is a self-defeating argument.

It is impossible for there exist indistructable arguments against a totally relative morality and equally indestructable arguments against an absolute morality. Both positions cannot be simultaneously correct - and if a position is incorrect, then it is not indestructable.

There you go, further elaboration as requested.

- Aslantic

Vilepagan,

An absolute declaration that there are no absolutes is a self-defeating argument.

I can agree with that statement as presented.


It is impossible for there exist indistructable arguments against a totally relative morality and equally indestructable arguments against an absolute morality. Both positions cannot be simultaneously correct - and if a position is incorrect, then it is not indestructable.

I'll let Blob comment on that statement since he made it.


There you go, further elaboration as requested.

- Aslantic

Actually aslantic, the statement of yours that I previously quoted was the one I wanted you to explain more fully.

Who is in denial, and what are they denying?

Hmm. When God told Adam and Eve not to eat the apple or death would result, how were they supposed to know what that meant since they would have had no prior experience with death?

BTW Tamevine, just because someone doesn't believe the same things you do doesn't mean they haven't read Genesis.


first off Vilepagan.. my son loves your avatar and I think its rather funny.

Now.. just so you know that I have read Genesis.. God never told Adam, let alone Eve, not to eat an Apple.

Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil......

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Nowhere in Scripture is the fruit called an apple. and no where in scripture does it say God told Eve, just incase you forgot what Genesis really said.

But, I agree with you that just because someone doesnt believe as I do does not mean they have not read Genesis. But .. just because they read Genesis doesnt mean the correctly understand or interpret it ... You didnt. Normally, those who say they read it, and yet do not see it as truth, do not understand it. God has said that His Word is Spiritually discerned. If you dont have the Spirit, you do not have the spiritual understanding of what it means.

anyway.... Thank you for allowing me to continue discussions. I wasnt sure Id be allowed when I was told this forum was for debate.

anyway.... Thank you for allowing me to continue discussions. I wasnt sure Id be allowed when I was told this forum was for debate.
The terms are similar enough, in this context, that they can be used interchangably. And by the way, you asked where you can find the exact word "debate". It's been up there for months; look at the top of your screen right now:

"allForums > Debate Central > Religion & Philosophy > What is Evil?"

Touche!!!

It sure does say Debate Central. I stand corrected.

so now what.. I guess I need to find the non debate area. Ive asked for a Christian forum.. what are my chances?

T

Touche!!!

It sure does say Debate Central. I stand corrected.

so now what.. I guess I need to find the non debate area. Ive asked for a Christian forum.. what are my chances?

T
Not too terribly good. I don't believe any of the administrators of Allforums are Christians, and that's not really what we're about, anyway. Vilepagan said in your "Feedback/Help" thread that Allforums is not for you if you don't want your views to be questioned, and that's absolutely correct. Everything here is up for discussion.

Welcome Aslantic!

I notice that nobody has stopped to define terms in this discussion.
The dictionary says that if something is evil, it is "morally reprehensible".You're right, no one did define it, thank you.

If you have an absolute argument against absolutes I'd sure like to hear it.
...
An absolute declaration that there are no absolutes is a self-defeating argument.I agree and am no relativist. An objective reality exists and statements made about it, such as "a carbon atom is more massive than a hydrogen atom", can be true or untrue.

However a subjective reality exists too and consists of things of the mind such as perceptions (e.g. color, taste) and concepts (e.g. humour, morality). So the phrase "absolute morality" is somewhat oxymoronic just as "absolute humour" would be. Furthermore the evidence we see is for no consensus amongst humanity on the nature of this "absolute" morality.

It is impossible for there exist indistructable arguments against a totally relative morality and equally indestructable arguments against an absolute morality. Both positions cannot be simultaneously correctBoth could be incorrect, or rather, "relative morality" verses "absolute morality" could be an over-simplified dichotomy of subtle and complex issues.

It seems that denial and rejection of reason and logic is the favourite pastime of many here.Now now.

Georg e Bush are "morally reprehensible".
You're saying George Bush's behaviour is wrong?
On what basis?

What makes your version of right and wrong any more important than anybody else's?

- Aslantic

Drew said this


I said:

Borg said:


so your arguement, Drew, is based on a faulty premise.

Need I say more?


__________________

Discussion / Debate - what's the difference in this context. It seems you are getting the idea anyway by debating what debating means. Bravo!

This isn't a Christian forum were we have a "what Bible verse I read today and how it touched my soul" circle jerk type of discussion. There are no doubt many forums out there that provide that.

This is a discussion between people of generally wide viewpoints, which then by default becomes debate. Debate is discussion when the parties do not agree. You will find plenty of that here.

There are many Christians who do post here, from your run of the mill average christian thru to the fire & brimstone types, plus athiests, satanists, muslims, jews, wiccans and so on. All are welcome, but be prepared to discuss your views & WHY you believe them, and be prepared for people to attack your views. Riding a holier than thou horse isn't going to be of much interest to anybody. Religion is not the only forum here - posting in politics, world etc means you probably don't have to get into the whole religion debate if you don't want to.

Also - welcome to allforums.

If you dont have the Spirit, you do not have the spiritual understanding of what it means.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, but you seem to be implying that unless you're a Christian, you can't possibly understand the bible, or perhaps worse, that if you're a Christian, you automatically understand the bible. Despite being one myself, I wouldn't agree with either of those. Especially given that there's no agreement between Christian denomination about what exactly the bible means. For instance, whether it's the literal truth or, as I believe, man's interpretation of the events of the time.

first off Vilepagan.. my son loves your avatar and I think its rather funny.

Thanks TameVine, and thank your son for me. :)


Now.. just so you know that I have read Genesis.. God never told Adam, let alone Eve, not to eat an Apple.

Nowhere in Scripture is the fruit called an apple. and no where in scripture does it say God told Eve, just incase you forgot what Genesis really said.

Quite true, but that's not really the point of my post either.


But, I agree with you that just because someone doesnt believe as I do does not mean they have not read Genesis. But .. just because they read Genesis doesnt mean the correctly understand or interpret it ... You didnt.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Do you have any special qualification or credentials that allow you to discern theological truth?


Normally, those who say they read it, and yet do not see it as truth, do not understand it. God has said that His Word is Spiritually discerned. If you dont have the Spirit, you do not have the spiritual understanding of what it means.

I wasn't making an attempt to determine the meaning a of the tale of the Garden of Eden, I was asking a hypothetical question, namely, when God commanded them not to eat the fruit under pain of death, how were they to know what death was?


anyway.... Thank you for allowing me to continue discussions. I wasnt sure Id be allowed when I was told this forum was for debate.

As has been so well said before me, all are welcome here provided a modicum of civilized behavior is observed.

when God commanded them not to eat the fruit under pain of death, how were they to know what death was?And how did they know death is not good and so worth avoiding?

It does seem the warning was a bit inadequate.

[QUOTE=TameVine
Or is it debate because thats what the mob does?[/QUOTE]
================================================
Actually here the words 'smart mob' apply.

Wikipedia-
A smart mob is a group that, contrary to the usual connotations of a mob, behave intelligently or efficiently because of its expotentially increasing network links.

Example- Essentially, the smart mob is a practical implementation of collective intelligence.

Unquote: Yep, thats us.......... :lolhit: :thumbs:

Wikipedia-
A smart mob is a group that, contrary to the usual connotations of a mob, behave intelligently or efficiently because of its expotentially increasing network links.

Example- Essentially, the smart mob is a practical implementation of collective intelligence.
Oh God, you guys are unstoppable! AHHHH!

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, but you seem to be implying that unless you're a Christian, you can't possibly understand the bible, or perhaps worse, that if you're a Christian, you automatically understand the bible. Despite being one myself, I wouldn't agree with either of those. Especially given that there's no agreement between Christian denomination about what exactly the bible means. For instance, whether it's the literal truth or, as I believe, man's interpretation of the events of the time.

Just for explanation sake: It doesnt matter what you think nor what I think Gods word says. I shall let His word speak for itself and we will let the Spirit judge the correctness of each of our understandings.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The Natural man in this verse is a man unregenerated by the Spirit of God. It is can also be liken to you trying to explain a sunset to a blind man or to discuss nuclear physics to a monument in a park. What the word says cannot be recieved by a Natural man. He only sees the words upon a page and he may even acknowledge them as good childrens stories, yet he does not see the depth of meaning nor does he hear the voice of God speaking into his spirit the truth that the words contain. The natural man cannot lay hold of the truths contain within Gods word unassisted. He needs the empowerment of Gods Spirit to open the revelation to him.

About my credentials. even If I had a PhD, I could not discern the truth of Gods word without Gods Spirit. Education and credentials are worthless.

Now, on the other hand, the man Illuminated by the Spirit of God can discern these wonderful truths, even if he were but an uneducated carpenter, gas station attendant or grandmother. They may never gain a college degree or go to some theological seminary, yet with the Spirit of God, they can discern the depths of Gods truth and understand the deep mysteries hidden to the unregenerate man.

sorry that was not debate but more facts.

Just for explanation sake: It doesnt matter what you think nor what I think Gods word says. I shall let His word speak for itself and we will let the Spirit judge the correctness of each of our understandings.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The Natural man in this verse is a man unregenerated by the Spirit of God. It is can also be liken to you trying to explain a sunset to a blind man or to discuss nuclear physics to a monument in a park. What the word says cannot be recieved by a Natural man. He only sees the words upon a page and he may even acknowledge them as good childrens stories, yet he does not see the depth of meaning nor does he hear the voice of God speaking into his spirit the truth that the words contain. The natural man cannot lay hold of the truths contain within Gods word unassisted. He needs the empowerment of Gods Spirit to open the revelation to him.

About my credentials. even If I had a PhD, I could not discern the truth of Gods word without Gods Spirit. Education and credentials are worthless.

Now, on the other hand, the man Illuminated by the Spirit of God can discern these wonderful truths, even if he were but an uneducated carpenter, gas station attendant or grandmother. They may never gain a college degree or go to some theological seminary, yet with the Spirit of God, they can discern the depths of Gods truth and understand the deep mysteries hidden to the unregenerate man.

sorry that was not debate but more facts.


Which are you?

ahhh , now you want to know my secrets...... hehehe , If you promise not to ask me my age, you can consider me the Grandma.

But call me T. :flowers:

Just for explanation sake: It doesnt matter what you think nor what I think Gods word says. I shall let His word speak for itself and we will let the Spirit judge the correctness of each of our understandings.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The Natural man in this verse is a man unregenerated by the Spirit of God. It is can also be liken to you trying to explain a sunset to a blind man or to discuss nuclear physics to a monument in a park. What the word says cannot be recieved by a Natural man. He only sees the words upon a page and he may even acknowledge them as good childrens stories, yet he does not see the depth of meaning nor does he hear the voice of God speaking into his spirit the truth that the words contain. The natural man cannot lay hold of the truths contain within Gods word unassisted. He needs the empowerment of Gods Spirit to open the revelation to him.

About my credentials. even If I had a PhD, I could not discern the truth of Gods word without Gods Spirit. Education and credentials are worthless.

Now, on the other hand, the man Illuminated by the Spirit of God can discern these wonderful truths, even if he were but an uneducated carpenter, gas station attendant or grandmother. They may never gain a college degree or go to some theological seminary, yet with the Spirit of God, they can discern the depths of Gods truth and understand the deep mysteries hidden to the unregenerate man.

sorry that was not debate but more facts.

It's not facts. It's belief. This is what gets me with some christian types - they have a belief and then they say it's undisputable fact. If it was fact then there'd be no need for faith. Facts have proof - you have no proof apart from some wishy washy statements about "the spirit". Then you go on to say that you can only discern this after you have it. That quite simply doesn't make much sense at all and is intellectually dishonest. Anybody who says they believe in a religious belief 100% without a single doubt is either a liar or is mentally ill & last time I checked being a liar is not something most religions accept as being a virtue. I'm not sure what each religious mindsets view is on mental illness, but I'd hazard a guess it involves being possessed by demons.

Fundamental Muslims, Jews, Christians whatever - they all have a common experience, that experience being a personal belief that what they believe is true & excludes all other groups from being correct. They also all claim to have personal experience in their life of God's "spirit". Given that not every belief can be correct, and either all are wrong, or all but one are wrong, then the only reasonable conclusion is that the cause of this experience lies with the common denominator ie - created by man, and it is then assigned as 'external' concurring with whatever religious beliefs they have sold their mind into. Common sense & logical reasoning is not evil.

sorry that was not debate but more facts.I'd call it generic waffle that anyone could use to describe any religion. Nice dodge of vilepagan's question btw.

We live in a dualistic World or Universe, and in order to understand one thing we need to know the opposite, if one doesn't know the opposite of good, how can one understand what is good, perhaps that is why some people do things in some cultures and others simply don't understand how they did such thing considered bad or evil in their culture. One doesn't know what is light is one doesn't have dark... Love and Evil are there, and we only know about them when we experience them.
EVIL is the extreme of anything bad when compared to GOOD.

================================================== ====
You mention the fight or flight response. A dog or cat may run away when the wind blows a piece of paper noisily across the grass. Possibly the animal did not run from the paper, but from an imaginary attacking adversary. We might rationalize that there was no need to run, yet in darkness, on a lonely road, we might run from the same piece of paper. Later, describing a near encounter with a wild animal. Imagination comes into play. An attempt to explain our fear.
Avoiding the nighttime because you know it to be full of predators seems rational, compared with an irrational fear of the dark. The survival skills of the rest of the animal kingdom seem to better equip them, sooner rather than later, to distinguish between the wind blowing a piece of paper noisily across the grass with an attacking adversary, even if our imagination confuses our own judgement. Nevertheless, how many dots would need to be connected to get from this piece of paper being described as an encounter with a wild animal to: Evil would have been considered a tangible force, lurking in the dark, awaiting a summons by the fact that its very name was mentioned. If you were suggesting in your earlier post that evil may be, at times, a presence with a name (and I would agree), then blowing off all superstitions as being the result of an undisciplined imagination seems an oversimplified explanation.

We live in a dualistic World or UniverseWell said. When a dichotomy is presented it's always worth pausing to ask if it is better described as a duality, a single coin with two sides. I know you're talking about the duality of good-evil (an idea with merit but I remain unsure as to whether it is true) but I think it applies interestingly to the dichotomy of relative vs. absolute morality.

When people argue for an absolute morality they provide examples of that deemed evil by most people irrespective of faith or culture. These are what I believe lawyers call malum in se and are murder, rape, theft and so on. They're easy to spot because the words themselves are defined as crimes (c.f. killing, sex, acquisition).

When people argue for an ultra-relativist morality they provide examples of what lawyers call malum prohibitum. These are culturally relative and include contentious issues such as homosexuality, drug use and abortion. The wording is generally neutral (c.f. buggery, drug abuse, infanticide).

So it is not absolute vs. relative, it is noticing what is similar "vs." noticing what is disparate about morality in all it's forms.

sorry that was not debate but more facts.

The problem with your facts is that two people equally full of the spirit with two different interpretations can't both be right.

If you were suggesting in your earlier post that evil may be, at times, a presence with a name (and I would agree), then blowing off all superstitions as being the result of an undisciplined imagination seems an oversimplified explanation.
==================================================

I have seen no evidence that evil is a tangible presence with a name.
I believe it is the undisciplined imagination of man. The mis-interpretation of events/occurrences.

I find it very interesting that man seeks justification of the unknown with intangible gods and devils.

Please elaborate on your statement or belief of evil with a presence/name.

The problem with your facts is that two people equally full of the spirit with two different interpretations can't both be right.

That is a problem. One of the two, or both could be wrong. The way to solve such a problem is understand that truth is transcendant.

You might call it a "Law". The Law being the standard that both parties must conform. The next problem is, which Law is truth? God says He is truth.
He is also the Authority and the Righteous Judge. In order for us to be considered correct, our understanding must conform to His truth.
No matter what you or I feel, or think, if its not founded on His truth, than what you believe is a lie.
T

Just for explanation sake: It doesnt matter what you think nor what I think Gods word says. I shall let His word speak for itself and we will let the Spirit judge the correctness of each of our understandings.........
...sorry that was not debate but more facts.
================================================== =

TameVine, I respect the fact that you have beliefs.
My problem is that what you call facts are merely quotes from the Bible that was written by men that claimed to have guidance from god.
What you quote as 'His word' was the words of men.
Your belief is that it was the word of god. This in no way proves it to be factual. There is no proof. Any attempt at proof will only lead to more fancy scripture quotes.

================================================== =

Any attempt at proof will only lead to more fancy scripture quotes.

I Thessalonians 5:21

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Sorry Dan :D

I Thessalonians 5:21

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Sorry Dan :D
===============================================

That which is good for the goose, may not be good for the gander. Dan 1:01
The proof may not be in the pudding. Dan 1:02

That is a problem. One of the two, or both could be wrong. The way to solve such a problem is understand that truth is transcendant.

You might call it a "Law". The Law being the standard that both parties must conform. The next problem is, which Law is truth? God says He is truth.
He is also the Authority and the Righteous Judge. In order for us to be considered correct, our understanding must conform to His truth.
No matter what you or I feel, or think, if its not founded on His truth, than what you believe is a lie.
T

Yes, but Muslims for example would say a similar thing with equal conviction. You can't both be right. It seems your mind is completely closed off to any rational thought.

In a fashion, you are correct. You see I have been where you, and others here on this board are now. I've already tried understanding my existence, truth, love, evil, sorrow... the whole gammit of things men try to rationalize. Been there, done that... and I still came up empty. Nothing the world offered me fulfilled the longing inside. Nothing lasted.. I was always on to some other thing trying to find truth. It wasn't until I found Jesus, that the longing ceased and the empty longings went away.

I know that What I have found is authentic.. why would I want to return to beggerly things?

that would be totally irrational.

T

In a fashion, you are correct. You see I have been where you, and others here on this board are now. I've already tried understanding my existence, truth, love, evil, sorrow... the whole gammit of things men try to rationalize. Been there, done that... and I still came up empty. Nothing the world offered me fulfilled the longing inside. Nothing lasted.. I was always on to some other thing trying to find truth. It wasn't until I found Jesus, that the longing ceased and the empty longings went away.

I know that What I have found is authentic.. why would I want to return to beggerly things?

that would be totally irrational.

T
================================================== ==

I was once where you are also. You do not have a monopoly on what you are experiencing.
But, upon further investigation and many disappointments I am now happy and free of guilt. No fear of the unknown. No church to support. Free Sundays. Completely fulfilled and totally responsible for my own actions.
I have no need of any of the hundreds of man-made religions.

You are correct in your statements that to accept religions one must stop seeking the truth thru rationalization.

I chose not to blindly accept, as truths, the handed down information furnished by others in a religion.

It wasn't until I found Jesus, that the longing ceased and the empty longings went away.

I know that What I have found is authentic.. why would I want to return to beggerly things?

that would be totally irrational.

T

I'm very happy for you, but what makes you think this would hold true for someone else?

In a fashion, you are correct. You see I have been where you, and others here on this board are now. I've already tried understanding my existence, truth, love, evil, sorrow... the whole gammit of things men try to rationalize. Been there, done that... and I still came up empty. Nothing the world offered me fulfilled the longing inside. Nothing lasted.. I was always on to some other thing trying to find truth. It wasn't until I found Jesus, that the longing ceased and the empty longings went away.

I know that What I have found is authentic.. why would I want to return to beggerly things?

that would be totally irrational.

T

If that works for you then that is great - I'm not suggesting you drop it. There are clearly some valuable things in most religious teachings. My point is that once you start saying your experience is the only true experience then it starts to become a bit weird. There are billions of other people who would make exactly the same claims about their experience with their religion. It's all valid for them. Sensibly looking at that means that this practically proves that such experiences can come from many different places and to say 1 way is correct exclusively is seriously flawed thinking.

What tends to happen is people get in a mindset, they wrap their lives around it, it defines them. To question it would seriously uproot their world, it's a big time crutch in their lives - so they prefer to blindly stick with "my way is the only way..." Quite often this just masks more serious problems that have never been addressed. It's no coincidence that evangelical christian groups attract a much greater % of unstable borderline mentally ill people than you would find in the general population.

In a fashion, you are correct. You see I have been where you, and others here on this board are now. I've already tried understanding my existence, truth, love, evil, sorrow... the whole gammit of things men try to rationalize. Been there, done that... and I still came up empty. Nothing the world offered me fulfilled the longing inside. Nothing lasted.. I was always on to some other thing trying to find truth. It wasn't until I found Jesus, that the longing ceased and the empty longings went away.

I know that What I have found is authentic.. why would I want to return to beggerly things?

that would be totally irrational.

T"I used to be open-minded but now I'm closed-minded and it's much easier that way."

"Blob"

Nice quotes....

Is it your personal policy to Quote someone without giving proper credit to the author? Or was that just for dramatic effect?....lol

:comphit:

T

I'm a bit late but to me

Evil = Aggression

Self denfence and forgiveness are the way to peace and peace = good.

Is it your personal policy to Quote someone without giving proper credit to the author? Or was that just for dramatic effect?I was paraphrasing, not quoting.

What is evil?

To me evil is when you make a concuss effort to cause or do harm. Is it reserved for one genre, NO. Any one or any thing can be evil, some might even think they are born that way! I don't believe that concept, Evil is a state of mind or being. You can choose to be evil or not to be evil.

What is evil?

To me evil is when you make a concuss effort to cause or do harm. Is it reserved for one genre, NO. Any one or any thing can be evil, some might even think they are born that way! I don't believe that concept, Evil is a state of mind or being. You can choose to be evil or not to be evil.
==================================================

Do you think that when a person does harm to one, to help another, that this action of harm for protection can be viewed as evil?

I can't believe I missed this thread.

Did anyone point out evil yet?

==================================================

Do you think that when a person does harm to one, to help another, that this action of harm for protection can be viewed as evil?

I was mugged two weeks ago. Most exciting thing to happen to me in years.

Me and 2 other people were aproached by 4 guys, 2 with guns. We had no money and nothing was taken but after the muggers left us they put another guy in the hospital with a baseball bat.
I sometimes wonder if we had gotten violent with the muggers would the other man had gone to the hospital or would we just be shot.

I have seen no evidence that evil is a tangible presence with a name.
With all due respect, Dan, what evidence would you accept? Your worldview rejects the possibility of the supernatural, could it be that you do not see what you do not seek?
I find it very interesting that man seeks justification of the unknown with intangible gods and devils.
I don't see the process as seeking justification of the unknown, simply trying to establish an equal footing with it.
Please elaborate on your statement or belief of evil with a presence/name.
My statement was "that evil may be, at times, a presence with a name." At some point, I reached a similar conclusion that Carl Sagan had before me:
"If the Universe really made for us, if there really is a benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient God, then science has done something cruel and heartless, whose chief virtue would perhaps be a testing of our ancient faiths. But if the Universe is heedless of our aspirations and our destiny, science provides the greatest possible service by awakening us to our true circumstances. [I]In accord with the unforgiving principle of natural selection, we are charged with our own preservation--under penalty of extinction." --Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors p.413
Natural selection may allow for, and even encourage, the acts of evil mentioned throughout this thread: murder, greed, cold-heartedness, etc. But I am not convinced that evolution alone has taught humans to embrace schadenfreude (http://www.deplicque.net/image/blackman_burnt.jpg) as an animal kingdom preservation quality. In looking at the faces in that crowd, particularly the child on the left, the joy in being there is not easily explained. Survival of the fittest may awkwardly explain the evil of racism, but that joy is irrational to the point that I cannot believe it originated in the mind or heart of a human being. The process of elimination leaves me one option: evil may be, at times, a presence with a name.

==================================================

Do you think that when a person does harm to one, to help another, that this action of harm for protection can be viewed as evil?

Dan:
No, In the instance of trying to protect some one or some thing that is not an act of evil.
The act of hurting or killing someone in the act of self defense that is also not evil too me. I would fight tooth and nail for my loved ones and partner. There is nothing more precious then the love or nurturing of that.
What is evil is when some one sets out to deceive and hurt another by not reveal the whole truth and hurts you in the process of feeding their own ego.
Evil is a malicious act of hatred and immoral belief that they are better then the rest and therefor can reak havoc on the world and people in it. Right now that is my definition of most men. Sorry
OK there are some really good guys and have dealt with a few lately but there are some real dogs out there.

Considering the number of deaths as a result of it, I would say religion is evil.

Natural selection may allow for, and even encourage, the acts of evil mentioned throughout this thread: murder, greed, cold-heartedness, etc. But I am not convinced that evolution alone has taught humans to embrace schadenfreude as an animal kingdom preservation quality. In looking at the faces in that crowd, particularly the child on the left, the joy in being there is not easily explained. Survival of the fittest may awkwardly explain the evil of racism, but that joy is irrational to the point that I cannot believe it originated in the mind or heart of a human being. The process of elimination leaves me one option: evil may be, at times, a presence with a name.
That is illogical in the extreme. Merely because you believe that that supposedly irrational joy could not have originated from humans you therefore also believe, and believe that this was deduced logically, that evil may be a presence with a name? I think you are wrong in your original presumption, that everything a human does is in some way based off of the need for species survival, which is what the idea of natural selection is for. That most certainly was not Carl Sagan's point. All individual animals, human or otherwise, primarily base their decisions off of individual survival, thaought of the species only coming into play when the biological clock says so. An individual most certainly would have the aptitude to knowingly exterminate the human race. There is no reason to conclude that whether that individual actually will or not has anything to do with a named evil, but more logically the way the brain works.

An individual most certainly would have the aptitude to knowingly exterminate the human race.
Could you please give me an example of genocide from the non-human animal kingdom? Do you think the words knowingly and willingly are interchangeable in your sentence?

Could you please give me an example of genocide from the non-human animal kingdom? Do you think the words knowingly and willingly are interchangeable in your sentence?
Your questions make no sense. I never mentioned anything about other species beyond defining natural selection and stating that humans are unlike other species. For the second part, are you insinuating that if a human knows he is commiting genocide that he is not doing so willingly, he is instead being forced to by something else?

I never mentioned anything about other species beyond defining natural selection and stating that humans are unlike other species.
Exactly. Within the context of the title of this thread, why are we unlike other species?
For the second part, are you insinuating that if a human knows he is commiting genocide that he is not doing so willingly, he is instead being forced to by something else?
No, I'm trying to fit your sentence: An individual most certainly would have the aptitude to knowingly exterminate the human race. into this discussion. Are you suggesting that the aptitude to knowingly exterminate the human race is the logical conclusion of natural selection? If so, then I would submit that this is illogical in the extreme. If not, then you should be open to the possibility that this magnitude of evil may have, at times, other origins.

Exactly. Within the context of the title of this thread, why are we unlike other species?
We're, um, sentient? I think that's fairly obvious.

I guess evil is a term that everyone thinks of differently. I think society as a whole can agree on whats "bad" or "good". (crime being bad and ice cream being good lol).. but evil is much harder to give specific values to.

We're, um, sentient? I think that's fairly obvious.
Consciousness and sense perception is all that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom? When I read the headlines, I'm not so sure. Besides, how does that explain this sentence:
An individual most certainly would have the aptitude to knowingly exterminate the human race.

A far greater percentage of the brain is devoted to the prefrontal cortex in humans than in any other animals. This is generally where the majority of cognitive thought comes from. Therefore, while most animals are slaves to natural selection and primary intrests such as "food now", "sleep now", "poo now", "procreate now", humans can choose "create now", "think now", "reason now", or a stark contrast to any other creature except dolphins, "sex now". Other animals are conscious, they see, they react to their enviroment, they feel. However, they do not reason. No dog thinks, "Why do I chew the couch? What reason is there to do so other than for fun?" No dog is going to create a religion that *gasp* bans couch chewing, bans certain things that are very very fun to do. No dog is then going to follow this and come up with logical deductions of why they choose not to chew.
We choose to go against what nature clearly designed for us. We choose to do things contrary to what logic would dictate we should do. We can choose to eliminate a large portion of our race. We can choose to wontonly exterminate things, it doesn't really matter what it is. No other creature does this. Chimpanzees wage war, but not for the reasons we wage war. They fight just like any other animal, just with more complex strategies. We fight for abstract concepts such as "freedom". War is not a good thing for our survival. However, war is not always defined as evil. War is not always for evil reasons. It is still as atrocious, if not more so, than any other evil action. It's reasons are just as obscure and irrational as the vast majority of what humans do. This statement: "When I read the headlines, I'm not so sure", is a perfect example. You don't think we're so special because what we do is irrational, the opposite, however, is true, we're special because we're irrational. Evil is another component of our cognitive thoughts. Evil is not definite, it is not definable, and it only exists in a human's mind. There is absolutely no reason that this segment of our thoughts ties into something other than what's in our heads.

Good post, blib.

I agree with Lionel, Blib.

That was a good post.

The most trenchant portion was the comments about humans being so "smart" that they will go against their own nature.

No other animal suffers from such a mental imbalance.

""No dog thinks, "Why do I chew the couch? What reason is there to do so other than for fun?" No dog is going to create a religion that *gasp* bans couch chewing, bans certain things that are very very fun to do. No dog is then going to follow this and come up with logical deductions of why they choose not to chew....We choose to go against what nature clearly designed for us. We choose to do things contrary to what logic would dictate we should do......No other creature does this.""

And the area where humans are most prone to psychotic behavior is the area of sex......only the human species has gone so insane as to tell himself that the perfectly natural act of sex is somehow "evil"; only the human species has invented some unseen metaphysical entity who he imagines is "watching" him and dissaproves when he has sex in the "wrong" way.......only the human species has become so self-deluded as to deny themselves what they truly want -- to experience sex.

It was, Blibblob, a very good post.
We choose to go against what nature clearly designed for us. We choose to do things contrary to what logic would dictate we should do. We can choose to eliminate a large portion of our race. We can choose to wontonly exterminate things, it doesn't really matter what it is. No other creature does this.
We see the same effect. In discussing the cause, I'm surprised you objected to my use of Carl Sagan's concern for our own preservation, under penalty of extinction, in accord with the unforgiving principle of natural selection. The conduct you describe not only violates the principle of natural selection, it is also at odds with Darwin's (http://www.thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/capsules/outil_bleu10.htm) belief that behavior, not just biology, were subject to these unforgiving principles. From that link:
The process of natural selection may be summarized as follows:

organisms display certain variations in all aspects of their biology and behaviour;
these variations are hereditary; individuals inherit them from their parents and pass them on to their descendants;
these hereditary variations can have positive or negative effects on survival and reproduction, depending on the environment in which the organism lives;
those individuals that display the variations that are the most favourable in their environment will live longer and leave more descendants who also possess these variations;
after many generations, these favourable variations will be found in all individuals in the population.

I agree with you that most humans are not slaves to natural selection and primary interests, as the lower animals are. And yet, free will can still operate within positive or negative parameters, the negative being less likely to be passed on. Self destructive behavior, particularly on the global scale you describe above, should be recognized as an unfavorable variation not only for its evil effects, but for the weeding out process we should be able to measure in the passing of generations. As the principle is unforgiving, the results should be obvious. And yet, after many generations, these favorable variations are not found in all individuals in the population, nor do I believe we are evolving in that direction.
Evil is another component of our cognitive thoughts. Evil is not definite, it is not definable, and it only exists in a human's mind. There is absolutely no reason that this segment of our thoughts ties into something other than what's in our heads.
Perhaps. I can see nature teaching war over territory and resources (remember Moonwatcher?), but human imagination doesn't explain genocide. I can see nature singling out the weakest member of the herd for exploitation, but human imagination doesn't explain racism. I can see nature allowing for the elimination of your rival's offspring, but human imagination doesn't explain partial birth abortion. At some point during our evolution, something evil began whispering in our ears. And we listened.
only the human species has invented some unseen metaphysical entity who he imagines is "watching" him and dissaproves when he has sex in the "wrong" way
I have no idea what this has to do with the topic at hand.

I agree with Lionel, Blib.

That was a good post.

The most trenchant portion was the comments about humans being so "smart" that they will go against their own nature.

No other animal suffers from such a mental imbalance.

""No dog thinks, "Why do I chew the couch? What reason is there to do so other than for fun?" No dog is going to create a religion that *gasp* bans couch chewing, bans certain things that are very very fun to do. No dog is then going to follow this and come up with logical deductions of why they choose not to chew....We choose to go against what nature clearly designed for us. We choose to do things contrary to what logic would dictate we should do......No other creature does this.""

And the area where humans are most prone to psychotic behavior is the area of sex......only the human species has gone so insane as to tell himself that the perfectly natural act of sex is somehow "evil"; only the human species has invented some unseen metaphysical entity who he imagines is "watching" him and dissaproves when he has sex in the "wrong" way.......only the human species has become so self-deluded as to deny themselves what they truly want -- to experience sex.


I am a Christian, if thats what you mean by "unseen metaphysical entity"
and I have nothing against sex.
I think if you are trying to find the source of evil or what mankind may consider the source of evil, you should define having sex in the "wrong" way.

I understand humans have a purpose so to speak. To reproduce.
I think there are a few more words to help with the description of a humans purpose but from what I understand reproduction is right up there with the rest of those words.

To go against our own nature would be in fact not to reproduce?
I would think anyway. I could be wrong and I wont argue if someone says I am.
However our sexual organs seem to serve a very small variety of options.
Urination, pleasure and reproduction.
Its right there in the manual, reproduction. Even in the pleasure part we are reminded of the reproduction part.
So if we were to use sex as an example of how man can be evil we should look at all the ways we go against our own natural order when it comes to sex.
We should also look at how we react to the many ways we use sex.

Let me paint a picture and hope no one is upset by what I am about to say.
Please don't be I am just trying to point out why I think we are losing track of what is evil.

If farmer Ted is having sex with animals something is wrong with the man and he needs help.
I think anyone in their right mind would agree.
It isnt normal sexual behavoir. It surely isnt our natural order.
We would be considered kind to help farmer Ted with his problem.

It doesn't matter if you are Atheist, Satanic, Wiccan, Christian, Jewish and so on. If you are not insane you will see that farmer Ted isn't in his right mind for sleeping with animals.
It isnt what clear minded men do.

We still see farmer Ted as someone with emotions but we feel its best to help farmer Ted to stop sleeping with animals.

Now what if Ted found a guy named John and slept with him.
Would that be ok?
By the way John has a dog that Ted really likes. Just kidding :D

If it isnt part of our natural order then it's wrong, isn't it?
If it is or if it isn't, when does it become evil?

When we get so lost in what we want to be right or wrong that we get lost completely.
What if a scientist somewhere said, I figured out what makes people gay and I can fix it?

Would that scientist be evil?

Lets turn it around.
Scientist says, I figured out that we are all actualy gay and I can make it so we will all be the way we were meant to be.

Are those scientist evil or the source of evil? Or is it just what goes through our head as we think about it?

Your arguments appear to be at one end of the nature versus nurture spectrum. Modern psychologists nearly all agree that human behaviour is a combination of about equal part nature and equal part nurture. While it is quite illogical for the idea of systematic murder to be in our genes, it is possible for a human to have thought of it.

We can examine a few human rationales for evil things. How about racism since it is by far the easiest. For the most part racism was nonexistant until the slavery of Africans. The origin of their slavery doesn't even have anything to do with racism, it was simply that it would be nigh on impossible for a black person to escape and hide in a place where blacks were only slaves. And then the racism started. I would think it would only take about a generation of slavers before they started to not even consider slaves to be human, they had been in complete control of them their entire lives, they were below them and not worthy of recognition. Every ounce of logic would inform them that that was wrong, yet it was far easier just to ignore that. Racism was then adapted to whomever didn't fit in, just like the slaves didn't. It doesn't make much sense that something told people to be racist, it appears more like it just evolved into being.
Genocide is an extreme form of racism. In Nazi Germany, Jews were scapegoats, life would run smoother without them. I can see where an emotionless human would get the idea to just eliminate them. After wars, the systematic slaughter of the conquered nation. Actually, Machiavelli explained this as one of many options to easily occupy a nation. It often works and sometimes is the easiest way.

Evil is of course not part of a biological evolution of the human. It does however appear to be part of the evolution of the human mind, from generation to generation, not the genes being passed, but ideas. Bad thing after bad thing builds over generations until it is atrocious.
I think from my examples it is far easier to see that evil can be explained in a relatively logical way(logical to the human brain that is), and without definite proof of "something" that taught us evil, quite disproves it.

Your arguments appear to be at one end of the nature versus nurture spectrum.
Perhaps. I was wondering if you were a creationist, as yours appear to be at the other end. I base that, in part, on this:
Evil is of course not part of a biological evolution of the human. It does however appear to be part of the evolution of the human mind, from generation to generation, not the genes being passed, but ideas. Bad thing after bad thing builds over generations until it is atrocious.
In nature, bad thing after bad thing doesn't build over generations, if unsuccessful or self-destructive, it is gradually eliminated over generations. Bad things and bad ideas, with their negative impact on nurturing, should (at least to a larger degree than you're allowing) be subject to the same unforgiving principles of natural selection that Sagan referred to, as bad hunting tactics, bad camouflage, bad adaptation, etc., would be. But, where human bad ideas and bad nurturing continues to succeed and even seems to be rewarded, in contrast with the rest of the animal kingdom, I wonder if you believe there is a supernatural umbrella (of sorts) over humanity, protecting himself from himself, and the rules everything else is subject to. If so, isn't the supernatural at least a step towards the possibility of evil being (at times) a presence? If not, I don't understand how you continue to insist that human ideas and behaviour are not subject to any of the other laws of nature, unless you are a creationist.
I would think it would only take about a generation of slavers before they started to not even consider slaves to be human, they had been in complete control of them their entire lives, they were below them and not worthy of recognition. Every ounce of logic would inform them that that was wrong, yet it was far easier just to ignore that.
This may be why we disagree. Prior to the passing of that first generation of slavery, I would think that every ounce of logic would already inform slavers that raiding villages to kidnap men, women and children would be wrong. I would think that every ounce of logic would already inform slavers that dragging them, in chains, to the coast was wrong. I would think that every ounce of logic would already inform slavers, during the trip to America, that using the women as 'belly warmers' (the term Ed Asner used in Roots) was wrong. I would think that every ounce of logic would already inform slavers that beating and whipping slaves into submission was wrong. And I would think that every ounce of logic would already inform the rest of the South that creating a breeding ground for the KKK maggots was wrong. In other words, there was never a time when human logic prevailed during the abduction, selling, purchasing, and exploitation of human captives, or the very, very bad idea that they were less than human. It wasn't that the slavers found it easier to ignore their deeds, they didn't consider what they were doing to be wrong! Now, taking your theory
Evil is of course not part of a biological evolution of the human. It does however appear to be part of the evolution of the human mind, from generation to generation, not the genes being passed, but ideas. Bad thing after bad thing builds over generations until it is atrocious.
backwards in time, I simply can't imagine the first moment in history when a sentient being considered another sentient being and thought, of his own accord, this thought, "That is less than [human], I can do whatever I wish." You must believe it happened somewhat this way, so that the evolution of bad ideas, and bad nuturing, prevailed against all of nature. I think from my examples it is far easier to see that evil can be explained in a relatively logical way(logical to the human brain that is), and without definite proof of "something" that taught us evil, quite disproves it.
There is nothing logical about evil, using logic to explain it is self-defeating. Evil is illogical to the point that there must be some other way to explain it.