Many times in various forums people have expressed their opinion that this thing or that was "evil", whether it was a person, a thing, or an idea. The concept permeates our politics, our philosophy, and indeed our very lives. When asked "What is evil"?, we are often given anecdotes of dastardly behavior as examples of evil by way of explanation. Some people believe the concept represents an absolute, while others believe the judgement can only be made based on the circumstancial considerations.

What is evil? Is it a tangible thing, or merely a construct to allow us to categorize reality into easily understood segments? Does evil exist on its own, or does it need a host of some kind to exist? Can objects or animals be evil, or is it reserved for men?

I think we all can agree that Frogger is pure evil. I hear he has to file down his horns every night. Can I get an amen on that?

I would think that evil, as often described of beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Existing only as an intangible concept where human judgment is present. Judgment based upon preconceived emotions.

There is no good nor evil. These are relative terms, it all depend on perception.

Many times in various forums people have expressed their opinion that this thing ar that was "evil", whether it was a person, a thing, or an idea.
Evil, if it exists, would be a human trait. The ideas and actions of men are what embody "evil", while nature goes about it's way largely with no choice or reflection upon it's existence or actions.

Some people believe the concept represents an absolute
It is all relative and can be justified in a variety of ways, so it is in the eye of the beholder. Something like killing someone is considered "evil", because it is harmful to humankind, and seen as such by the majority of "beholders" in this case.

It is very odd to have absolutes in human behavior, and forgive my rambling but this statement brings up a lot of thoughts about morality and freedom of choice.

From a moral standpoint, anything that damages human life and development (killing a neighbor, stealing food, lying for reasons of cooperation, etc) could be seen as evil because of what effect it has upon us.

What is evil?
Taking into account the idea that free choice is an active part of our existence, evil is something that could either be:
A) Damaging to humankind
or B) A means to justify the politics and survival of our civilization

In my eyes, evil is a myth, because there is no such thing as freedom of choice. I am not an advocate of "predetermination", but I recognize that man is, like all things, a slave to forces outside his control. We have to be ruled by our emotions, enviroment, past, present, resources, company, and biology which keep us from making conscious, free choices which arguably don't exist in the tangible world. We believe in things such as freedom of choice, God, and morality as a way to justify and bring meaning to our existence outside the plain, pointless existence that the rest of the nature perpetuates. We are but advanced animals in a very simple world.

Some may take issue with that idea, but I find it a very interesting thought to entertain.

There is no good nor evil. These are relative terms, it all depend on perception.

So if someone burglarized your home and robbed you of things that were important to you, you wouldn't cosnider that evil?

So if someone burglarized your home and robbed you of things that were important to you, you wouldn't cosnider that evil?
"These are relative terms, it all depend on perception."
Only in Disney do Evil People consider themselves evil.

We are but advanced animals in a very simple world.
I disagree with this statement. I believe it should be reversed, we're simple creatures in a far too advanced world for us to understand. I also believe we are far too simple to even understand the simplicity of another simple individual.

I disagree with this statement. I believe it should be reversed, we're simple creatures in a far too advanced world for us to understand. I also believe we are far too simple to even understand the simplicity of another simple individual.
Allow me to explain more thoroughly- Our existence (IOW, our "world") is a simple one, perhaps moreso than many would like to let on. I agree that the universe in which we live is quite complex (beyond the realm of human understanding), but as far as our immediate purpose and surroundings here on Earth, we do seem to be advanced creatures in a limited and simplistic world of an existence.

Evil--hurting others because it makes you feel special.

I think we all can agree that Frogger is pure evil. I hear he has to file down his horns every night. Can I get an amen on that?

Don't go to sleep, Borg. I'll be down in St. Pete to visit you. Death and destruction come in on little cat feet just like Carl Sandburg's fog.:lolhit:

There is true evil in the world. While no person is totally evil there are acts that are totally evil.

I think evil is anything a person does against another that is not motivated by love or good intentions for the other person. When a person is jealous or angry with another to the point where they seek to destroy or hurt; either physically, emotionally or verbally, than that comes from a heart which seeks evil against another. When you are angry at a friend and seek their harm; where you lie about them, spread rumors, hinder any good toward them by manipulating others to think bad of them.. than that is evil. It is also selfishness and selfishness is evil. Selfishness seeks your own desires over the desires of others. Evil is knowing you should do good but choose not to.

Just my thoughts anyway
T

I think evil is anything a person does against another that is not motivated by love or good intentions for the other person. When a person is jealous or angry with another to the point where they seek to destroy or hurt; either physically, emotionally or verbally, than that comes from a heart which seeks evil against another. When you are angry at a friend and seek their harm; where you lie about them, spread rumors, hinder any good toward them by manipulating others to think bad of them.. than that is evil. It is also selfishness and selfishness is evil. Selfishness seeks your own desires over the desires of others. Evil is knowing you should do good but choose not to.

Just my thoughts anyway
T
Selfishness is the ultimate virtue. Philanthropy is a vice, though if it makes you happy, then it counts under selfishness and good on you.

On the topic of selfishness, TameVine. Say there are three cartons of milk at the supermarket, and you need milk. One is dated tomorrow, one is dated three days from now, and one is dated next week. Which do you pick?

For the good of my children, I always picked the one that was best for them.

And God said there would come a time when evil is called good and good is called evil.

T

For the good of my children, I always picked the one that was best for them.
Let's say you lived alone. Which would you choose?

And God said there would come a time when evil is called good and good is called evil.

Who did he tell that to? Another one of his puzzles in his little game?

Evil is hard to pin down, typically evil is assigned to acts or behavior, I think evil starts with evil intent. I think it stems from a desire to gain something at the expense of somebody else, even if that something is nothing tangible.

Looking at the word's common usage, I think it certainly is being used to describe actions or intentions that were aimed to harm. The key words are "harm" and "aimed to". If either one is absent, I don't think you can still call the action evil.

Since we all seem to agree that evil exists in the world. Lets ask why evil exists? Is evil a choice? Can we choose to act good and not evil?
When we consciously choose to act in negative ways when its within our power to act good, aren't we agreeing with some outside force that evil is the better choice to make?

Or maybe most of us just speak and do without thinking of alternatives. But that would seem kind of a base thing for thinking beings to do; act beastly or on impulse; without much thought.

T

Perhaps evil is a measure of our own distance from good.

Evil cannot exist without good. Just like Up has no meaning without down.

Yes Drew... our own distance from good is the reason men act evil. How do we close the gap between ourselves and good? And even more; what is good? Is there a standard of good which we as man, could look toward to determine if our goodness is good or just mediocre. What is the ultimate standard of Good?

Is Homer Simpson , good? How about mother tereasa? Has mother Tereasa ever done wrong? Do all people do wrong? If a person does wrong in anyway, can that person be a true measure of Good?

I don't think it has anything to do with distance from Jesus if that is what you are getting excited about.

But that would seem kind of a base thing for thinking beings to do; act beastly or on impulse; without much thought.
Humans are animals and many animals are thinking beings. I'd think that there is nothing abnormal about humans acting "beastly" naturally.
When we consciously choose to act in negative ways when its within our power to act good, aren't we agreeing with some outside force that evil is the better choice to make?
If I decide to rob someone, the most natural motivation would be because I expect it to put me in a more satisfied state than before. (either due to the gaining of money of from the joy of commiting a crime) There is no need to make up imaginary reasons with little evidential backings, such as some "outside force", to explain such things. Occam's Razor.

If I decide to rob someone, the most natural motivation would be because I expect it to put me in a more satisfied state than before. (either due to the gaining of money of from the joy of commiting a crime) There is no need to make up imaginary reasons with little evidential backings, such as some "outside force", to explain such things. Occam's Razor.

I agree with that - it's always a case of somebody thinking that the way to be more satisfied is to get something - whether that something is tangible or intangible is irrelevant.

It certainly isn't the Christian view that there is this Devil directing all this behind the scenes. That's just a fairy tale.

That's just a fairy tale.


It always seems so confrontive to say " Prove it". But as a Christian I am always told by non-Christians to prove why I believe such. I guess whats good for the gander is good for the goose.

How do you know that evil isnt caused by some force ( devil , Satan) behind the scene. How do you know if something is a fairy tale or true? Is it just because you say so? Is it because you've not seen it, touched it, heard it, felt it, tasted it?...

Is it possible that something is true, even if we ourselves have not been party to its existence?

How do you know that evil isnt caused by some force ( devil , Satan) behind the scene. How do you know if something is a fairy tale or true? Is it just because you say so? Is it because you've not seen it, touched it, heard it, felt it, tasted it?...

Is it possible that something is true, even if we ourselves have not been party to its existence?
Sure it's possible. But there's no evidence for it.

Are there other things which exist which we have no evidence to prove?

Are there other things which exist which we have no evidence to prove?

Undoubtedly, and when someone claims specific knowledge about such things they are rightfully dismissed as a crackpot.

The problem with that line of thought is you could just as easily say mans evil acts are controlled by a cat like galaxtic warlord called Zod, or by anything else you care to dream up.

Since we all seem to agree that evil exists in the world...

But you see, I'm not sure we all agree. You seem to be saying that evil "exists". Do you mean that it exists seperate from it's manifestations?

But you see, I'm not sure we all agree.
Good you bring that up, especially since it happens to be true. :D

There is no good nor evil. These are relative terms, it all depend on perception.


Ok, I brought this post from pg 1 of this thread for a purpose. According to this persons post. Evil is relative, depending on someones perspective. Now, let me tell you a true story.

A Father takes his two children to the mall for some shopping. While at the mall his eight year old daughter needs to use the restroom. The Father and her brother wait patiently out in the mall near the restroom for her to return. Time ticks by and she doesnt return.

Turns out that a 21 year old man was waiting inside the ladies restroom and that man brutally raped to death this eight year old girl. ( true story)

Now,

my perception is that This was an evil act upon an child. My Moral stand and my sense of justice for this evil is inflamed and I desire that the man be punished.

But wait.., according to the above quote, Evil is just perception. Maybe this 21 year old doesn't think what he did was evil and since his truth is relative, we cannot judge him for doing what he wants. Its none of my business to inflict punishment upon him for doing what he thinks is good.......... How dare you try to inflict your idea of wrong and right upon me.
_____

Somewhere within each of us is a standard of what is right and what is wrong. We each desire justice for the wrongs against us while at the same time saying we are free ourselves to do what we want without being so judged.

Somewhere, Somehow, we all hold onto a standard outside of ourselves with cries out for justice when we are wronged. We cannot prove its existence with science or with tangible evidence, we can only prove it by the injustice and the indignation we sense when we are wronged.

So tell me, Do we just throw in the towel and say " to each his own, do as you want". Well I am here to tell you that you can spout off as long as you want that there is no right or wrong ( its all your perception) until your the one wronged. Then you demand justice.

If you want to live in a world where your truth is whats most important, ask yourself what you will do when someone else feels the same way and you end up on the downside , being taken advantage of, and you are on the receiving end of such evil.

Now answer me this , Does evil exist?

T

The rapist committed an evil act, but it was his choice - I don't see how any external forces made him do it.

Do we just throw in the towel and say " to each his own, do as you want".
An it harm none, do as thou will.

The rapist committed an evil act, but it was his choice - I don't see how any external forces made him do it.
Well, if you want to get picky, serial rapists are usually going to have a propensity to do what they do based off their perverse sexual drives and other biological factors. But yes, it is a choice that can be avoided by self control.

I think you've all missed the point. When you have to choose something, that means its an addition to you. Its like downloading an addon to a program. Good is a choice, Bad is a choice. WE must choose one or the other. We make these kinds of choices each day.

We are not born good. Good is a choice. Evil is a choice. They are transcendant and outside of our humaness. And if you believe this, as I do. Than you must try to figure out, Where do these two morals ( or lack thereof) come from?

What is it that causes men to concieve in their minds, the evil acts they choose to do? And, what is it that gives some the power to refrain from evil and do good instead? Where does such strength come from? Is it just teaching? Is it environment?

I think we can conclude that evil is not limited to the impoverished or lower class of peoples. Evil runs the gammit of all social and economic classes.

There is something , some force of lawlessness which we allow to control our wills, and some force of goodness/truth that we allow to control our lawless thoughts and desires.

Whom do we give the credit for these things. Certainly not evolution because nothing of which we speak can be proved by scientific tests. The only thing we have to prove its existence is the effect that we can see. LIke the wind, we can't see it, taste it, tell where it's coming from and where it's going. We can only see the effect it has on the trees, and clouds,and waters. we can see the evidence of it, but not the cause.

and so I ramble on,... sorry

Good is a choice, Bad is a choice. WE must choose one or the other. We make these kinds of choices each day.
In your world of choices, there is no neutral ground? What if an action has no ill effects or positive ones?

We are not born good. Good is a choice. Evil is a choice.
There are sections of the populace that are born and raised with biological and enviromental factors that lead to a higher proclivity to commit crime. While they may seek help, the process isn't entirely a choice.

There is something , some force of lawlessness which we allow to control our wills, and some force of goodness/truth that we allow to control our lawless thoughts and desires.

Whom do we give the credit for these things.
We can credit nature, as it is the biological and enviromental cause of all our actions. Free will is a myth, as are the ideas of good and evil.

There is something , some force of lawlessness which we allow to control our wills, and some force of goodness/truth that we allow to control our lawless thoughts and desires.

Eh? No there isn't. People have a choice on what they do. It's their choice. Their choices may be impacted by their upbringing or a thousand other things. That's why there is a direct correlation between poverty & crime. The idea that something is being allowed to control us quite frankly rubbish & is not backed up by either common sense or factual reality.

Whom do we give the credit for these things. Certainly not evolution because nothing of which we speak can be proved by scientific tests. The only thing we have to prove its existence is the effect that we can see. LIke the wind, we can't see it, taste it, tell where it's coming from and where it's going. We can only see the effect it has on the trees, and clouds,and waters. we can see the evidence of it, but not the cause. and so I ramble on,... sorry

Sure I can tell where the wind is coming from, it's speed, direction. It can be measured easily. Bad analogy. What you have written is solid reasoning - but only to prove that your mystery external 'demonic' force does not exist.

The christian view of demonic forces making people do bad things is simply a huge cop out. People make choice, it's their choice, and nobody elses choice. It's their responsibility alone.

Now answer me this , Does evil exist?



No it doesn't. I stick by my previous post. However, you says that lack of a definition of evil includes lawlessness. To me, you and the rest of this board the person you mentioned did something evil, but he might not find his act evil, perhaps he was a looney and the voices told him to do it for the good of this world. Of course he should be punished because he's a danger to society, because he does something that is widely percieved as wrong! However, the point still stands that definitions of "evil" all comes down to perception.

I agree with the general consesus that evil is subjective, i.e. a thing of the mind that does not exist independently of minds. However, 'subjective' does not necessarily mean ultra-relative or non-existant or we would not have a word to communicate the concept of 'evil'.

In general evil is the imposition of needless harm and suffering. It's a pretty simple notion and one that works well in the main.

Turns out that a 21 year old man was waiting inside the ladies restroom and that man brutally raped to death this eight year old girl. ( true story)You no doubt disagree with me and consider that what is evil and what is good must be ordaned from above and to exist absolutely, pre-scribed into the universe by an eternal law giver. So where in the bible is it explicitly stated that paedophilia is evil?

Somewhere within each of us is a standard of what is right and what is wrong.

Except for sociopaths who seem to have no such internal barometer.


We each desire justice for the wrongs against us while at the same time saying we are free ourselves to do what we want without being so judged.

With all due respect Tamevine, that's nonsense. I have no desire to be held to a different standard than I hold others.


Somewhere, Somehow, we all hold onto a standard outside of ourselves with cries out for justice when we are wronged. We cannot prove its existence with science or with tangible evidence, we can only prove it by the injustice and the indignation we sense when we are wronged.

How does a feeling I have internally prove the existence of something outside of me?


So tell me, Do we just throw in the towel and say " to each his own, do as you want". Well I am here to tell you that you can spout off as long as you want that there is no right or wrong ( its all your perception) until your the one wronged. Then you demand justice.

How does my perception of being wronged disprove that being wronged is a matter of perception?


If you want to live in a world where your truth is whats most important, ask yourself what you will do when someone else feels the same way and you end up on the downside , being taken advantage of, and you are on the receiving end of such evil.

An individual's response to being wronged does not prove nor disprove the existence of evil, it merely illustrates their response to being wronged.


Now answer me this , Does evil exist?

Not as a thing separated from the thoughts or actions of Man.

If evil did exist as a separate thing, you'd be able to quantify it in some way that would be universally acceptable to all, and there would be a commonality of perception on what was or was not evil.

The heinous act you described in your post was certainly evil as you described, but only because the reader was left to guess as to the motive of the perpretrator, and lacking any suggestion otherwise we naturally assume he committed this horrible crime for his own perverse sexual gratification.

I submit it wasn't the act itself that was evil, it was his motivation that was evil, and since a motivation is an intangible concept, so is any evil or good label that we might attach to that motivation. The act you described with the motivation of sexual gratification is certainly an evil act, but if you were to learn that the 21 year-old had somehow been coerced into this action, you would probably attach much less evil to his actions than you presently do.

Another reason I believe evil to be an "unreal" concept, is that two people can disagree on whether the same act, for the same motivation, is evil or not. As an example, in another thread abortion is being discussed, and one poster expressed his opinion that all abortions, except in cases where the life of the mother is threatened, are wrong, and hence presumably evil. I personally believe that it's not "evil" for a woman who was raped to seek an abortion, and I suspect he disagrees with that assessment. The only difference here is our relative perceptions of evil. These perceptions change with time, culture, and circumstance, among other reasons.

It is somewhat ironic that a good deal of human conflict hasn't been a clash between good and evil, but rather a clash over what those two things are.

TameVine,

You are arguing from a religious perspective with people who are in the main secular humanists.

You are considering the 'Old Adam' as part of the equation and they are, for the most part, not..

While there is some redeeming quality in everyone there are certain acts that are inherently evil.

The Hutus who killed innocents in their hundreds of thousands were not totally evil but their acts were. John Wayne Gacey was not totally evil but his acts were.

There are no purely evil people but there are purely evil acts.

There are no purely evil people but there are purely evil acts.

My main point is that you can't judge the evilness/goodness of an act without knowing the motivation for that act.

It's not enough to say "murder is evil", because sometimes it is not.

Killing innocent young children is always evil. What Gacey did was evil no matter what the context.

TameVine,

You are arguing from a religious perspective with people who are in the main secular humanists.
===============================================
By religious perspective are you meaning the fact that some believe that evil is created by a being such as satan?

Killing innocent young children is always evil.Not necessarily. In some resource-scarce cultures new-born babies were systematically killed in order to ensure the survival of the group.

"Since women can neither carry nor nurse two infants at once, there is no choice but to establish some form of birth control, and the most common type has been infanticide ... [research suggests] in the not-too-distant past the [group of desert hunter gatherers under study] killed at least 15 per cent of their infants and probably up to 50 per cent.

Killing the infant was the mother's decision and the mother's job ... [her only consolation] was the belief that the soul of the infant would enter the body of another infant some time in the future.
...
Nothing is denied to the children that are reared. Whenever they want food or breast milk, they get it ... mothers rarely spank or punish their off-spring..."

- John Pfieffer, The Emergence of Man, 1973 (dunno much about this dusty old book, it just happens to be on the shelf at my mates house)

So where in the bible is it explicitly stated that paedophilia is evil?Luke 17:2

It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and be cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Killing innocent young children is always evil.

So intent has no bearing on the evil of killing an innocent child?

It has bearing on the person. On the act, no.

Luke 17:2

It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and be cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.Thanks Sedan though that is a far cry from a crystal clear "he who molesteth any child commits evil" or what have you.

Are you sure this is a command to not sexually abuse children? Are you sure "little ones" refers to children and not, say, the powerless and poor or even simply those weak in their faith? And how about the word 'offend' - that seems a rather dubious synonym for "sexually abuse". How do you know it doesn't simply mean, well, offend?

Really, if definitions of evil come down from above and are uncontestably absolute then what and where are these definitions for reference?

It has bearing on the person. On the act, no.

I fail to grasp your meaning.

Thanks Sedan though that is a far cry from a crystal clear "he who molesteth any child commits evil" or what have you.
And that passage on masturbation is pretty murky too. "Thou shall not spill thy seed on the Earth" or however it was phrased. Ahh, the Bible's whacky sexuality. :D

I fail to grasp your meaning.
The act of killing a child is always evil, but the person may not be, as based off their intent.

And that passage on masturbation is pretty murky too. "Thou shall not spill thy seed on the Earth" or however it was phrased.I'm safe from hellfire then. I always use a tissue. :D

Not necessarily. In some resource-scarce cultures new-born babies were systematically killed in order to ensure the survival of the group.
While the intent is to sacrifice the babies to save the tribe, it doesn't take away the fact that killing the innocent babies is an act of "evil."

The act of killing a child is always evil, but the person may not be, as based off their intent.

Hmm...seems to me an uneccessary division of evil.

While the intent is to sacrifice the babies to save the tribe, it doesn't take away the fact that killing the innocent babies is an act of "evil."And yet evil now appears in quotes, and with good reason.

No doubt it is with a heavy heart these women kill their babies - it is not a casual process that leaves them unaffected. But all the same it illustrates how simplistic absolute moral claims such as "killing is evil" just don't cut the mustard.

Thanks Sedan though that is a far cry from a crystal clear "he who molesteth any child commits evil" or what have you.Agreed, but that's the closest I can find, and yes it's open to interpretation.Are you sure this is a command to not sexually abuse children? Are you sure "little ones" refers to children and not, say, the powerless and poor or even simply those weak in their faith? And how about the word 'offend' - that seems a rather dubious synonym for "sexually abuse". How do you know it doesn't simply mean, well, offend?How do you know that the word 'paedophile' doesn't simply mean 'one who loves children' in ancient Greek? In that sense Jesus himself was a self-described paedophile. Semantics aside, I find the verse significant because it's one of the few times in the Bible we see Jesus advocate violence, and he does so in reference to those who would offend (sin against) little ones (children). That indicates to me that he thought it was a pretty terrible crime.

Agreed, but that's the closest I can find, and yes it's open to interpretation.Yes, it's not much of an absolute moral statement about the sexual abuse of children (I don't know if you were offering it as such).

How do you know that the word 'paedophile' doesn't simply mean 'one who loves children' in ancient Greek? In that sense Jesus himself was a self-described paedophile.Er... I'm not sure what that has to do with anything being discussed here.

Semantics aside, I find the verse significant because it's one of the few times in the Bible we see Jesus advocate violence, and he does so in reference to those who would offend (sin against) little ones (children). That indicates to me that he thought it was a pretty terrible crime.I think you're taking a leap of faith to interpret "offend little ones" as "sexually abuse children". I seriously doubt this is the universal or even common Christian interpretation (but I don't know - do correct me if I'm wrong).

My wider point is that Christians argue morality is absolute and must be prescribed from above. Yet it seems many things such as paedophilia are not explicitly included in any divine prescriptions. Why then do Christians consider such things to be evil?

Hmm...seems to me an uneccessary division of evil.
You accidentally killed a girl a few years ago with your car if I recall, while taking her life could be considered evil, you are not, due to your lack of intent to kill. That's hardly an unnecessary division.

I think you're taking a leap of faith to interpret "offend little ones" as "sexually abuse children". I seriously doubt this is the universal or even common Christian interpretation (but I don't know - do correct me if I'm wrong).
While it is cryptic, it is not hard to comprehend that is referring to child molestation. It could be taken other ways, but what do you think it is?

And if it is uncommon, that is probably due to Christ's advocating of violence, highly uncharacteristic of the persona built around Him.

Why then do Christians consider such things to be evil?
If not explicit in the Bible, then it may be contained in the works of the clergy. Or the simple fact that pedophilia is universally disdained.

===============================================
By religious perspective are you meaning the fact that some believe that evil is created by a being such as satan?

Hi Dan, Nice to meet you.

I do not believe satan can create anything. Satan lurks around watching for someone whom he can devour. He watches the way of men and places stumbling block in their way to cause them to do what is evil.

God has said that evil is birth in the heart of man.James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
James 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
James 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

The way a Christian views evil is that when God created all things, He created it and than said it was good. EVERYTHING He created was GOOD.... until satan decieved the women and both the women and the man disobeyed God and did what God told them not to do. When Man sinned against God, All mankind was seperated from Gods presence. From the Fall of Mankind and until the end, all mankind born , are born with a nature which is rebellious to God. Everyone of us rebel against God and sin. We sin and do evil because we are sinful. There is nothing we can do of our own to change that fact. ( there is more to this but I will not go into it now)

It is always Mankind doing what God has said not to do that brings about evil. When Man goes His own way choosing to walk in rebellion to what God has said to do, than sin and evil prevail.
Mankind left to do their own will, is where evil comes from.

T

Er... I'm not sure what that has to do with anything being discussed here.That's just me messing with you. :)I think you're taking a leap of faith to interpret "offend little ones" as "sexually abuse children". I seriously doubt this is the universal or even common Christian interpretation (but I don't know - do correct me if I'm wrong).That's the meaning that suggested itself to me but I don't know if it's common or universal either. Maybe one of the Christians here can answer that for us.My wider point is that Christians argue morality is absolute and must be prescribed from above. Yet it seems many things such as paedophilia are not explicitly included in any divine prescriptions. Why then do Christians consider such things to be evil?I don't think every sin known to man has to be enumerated in the Bible for a Christian to see it as a sin. I mean, once you accept the idea of sin it's pretty hard not to view paedophilia as sinful and therefore evil.

EVERYTHING He created was GOOD.... until satan decieved the women and both the women and the man disobeyed God and did what God told them not to do.
Didn't God create Lucifer, and therefore Satan? Didn't God create man, capable of doing wrong? Didn't God, being omniscient, know what was going to happen with Eve and the apple?

While it is cryptic, it is not hard to comprehend that is referring to child molestation. It could be taken other ways, but what do you think it is?If I came across that verse outside of the context of this discussion I honestly don't think paedophilia or even (general) sinning against children would have sprung to my mind. I guess I might have read it as "don't dis the little guy" or something (but again I don't know).

If not explicit in the Bible, then it may be contained in the works of the clergy. Or the simple fact that pedophilia is universally disdained.Sure. But suddenly it starts to sound like morality has human origins (works of the clergy) or comes about through consesus (univerisally disdained). I see no case for an absolute, pre-ordained morality in all of this.

That's just me messing with you. :)doh! :@@:

That's the meaning that suggested itself to me but I don't know if it's common or universal either. Maybe one of the Christians here can answer that for us.Fair enough. I can of course see your interpretation despite my protestations that it is too vague and generic an condemnation of paedophilia.

I don't think every sin known to man has to be enumerated in the Bible for a Christian to see it as a sin. I mean, once you accept the idea of sin it's pretty hard not to view paedophilia as sinful and therefore evil.Even without accepting the idea of sin it is easy to see what a harmful and destructive thing the sexual abuse of children is.

You accidentally killed a girl a few years ago with your car if I recall, while taking her life could be considered evil, you are not, due to your lack of intent to kill. That's hardly an unnecessary division.

What I mean is that it seems to me that the "evil" of the act occurs because of the evil intent, and lacking intent, there is no evil.

I fail to grasp your meaning.

In my opinion all people have some redeeming feature, even those who commit the most heinous of crimes. That means I don't think anyone can be totally evil. I do think that there are acts that have no redeeming aspect to them what-so-ever and are totally evil. In other words, while particular acts can be totally evil, individuals cannot be.

In my opinion all people have some redeeming feature, even those who commit the most heinous of crimes. That means I don't think anyone can be totally evil. I do think that there are acts that have no redeeming aspect to them what-so-ever and are totally evil. In other words, while particular acts can be totally evil, individuals cannot be.It's music to my ears that you consider there to be degrees of evil and that 'evil' should describe actions and not be a person-label. One thing that bothers me with monotheism is the stark divide between good and evil or god and god's absence or heaven and hell and so on. There is no apparent middle ground; no eternal mediocrity between heaven and hell for someone like me who is not faithful yet is not a rapist of 8 year old children.

The rapist committed an evil act, but it was his choice - I don't see how any external forces made him do it.

He certainly did to choose to act on it, but no-one can honestly say that it was just how he perceives it to be and that there is no such thing as good and evil. What that man did, was wicked. If anyone claims that there is no such thing as good and evil and that it's just his own perception, that they are basically justifying that man.

He certainly did to choose to act on it, but no-one can honestly say that it was just how he perceives it to be and that there is no such thing as good and evil.
I can honestly say that, what now?

What that man did, was wicked. If anyone claims that there is no such thing as good and evil and that it's just his own perception, that they are basically justifying that man.
Justifying rape and saying there is no such thing as evil are not one in the same.

Justifying rape and saying there is no such thing as evil are not one in the same.

Well, there are people on here who claim that it's just how you preceive things to be and it's not really evil if you don't perceive it as evil. Thent hey are basically justifying rape. After all, the guy who committed the crime could say that he doesn't perceive it to be evil. Since rape is a very evil thing to do to someone, those who say there is no such thing as good and evil, would also be saying that rape or murder isn't a bad thing.

So if someone burglarized your home and robbed you of things that were important to you, you wouldn't cosnider that evil?
"These are relative terms, it all depend on perception."
Only in Disney do Evil People consider themselves evil.

Okay, Blibblob, if someone burglarlizes your home, steals valuables from you, are you going to say, " it all depends on your pereception" as to whether the burglar did something evil? I'm sure the burglar himself wouldn't consider himself evil(after all, he's not a Disney character:rolleyes: ), since it caused you harm, you honestly wouldn't be able to tell me that it's all based on perception. When people getted ripped off, they feel violated. There was an injustice done. You would obviously acknowledge that as being evil.

Well, there are people on here who claim that it's just how you preceive things to be and it's not really evil if you don't perceive it as evil.I think rather people are pointing to the subjectivity of evil. For example, to you J-man perhaps abortion is evil; to me a god who condemns me to hell forever would be evil.

There are those things people can generally agree on to be wrong such as rape, murder and so on. And there are those things people can never agree about such as homosexuality, animal testing and so on. It seems to me there are aspects to evil things which are universal to humans and other aspects which are relative to the individual.

Well, there are people on here who claim that it's just how you preceive things to be and it's not really evil if you don't perceive it as evil. Thent hey are basically justifying rape. After all, the guy who committed the crime could say that he doesn't perceive it to be evil. Since rape is a very evil thing to do to someone, those who say there is no such thing as good and evil, would also be saying that rape or murder isn't a bad thing.

Blob was right in that no one here is trying to "justify" crimes committed by anyone.

The point I was trying to make is that murder is evil because we perceive it to be, not because of some inherent quality of the crime. Murder is just kiling after all, and we do allow for killing another under the right circumstances.

In the US if I were to catch you stealing from my store and I cut off your hand as punishment, I would be seen as evil. In other countries I would be given a parade and the key to the city.

The point I was trying to make is that murder is evil because we perceive it to be, not because of some inherent quality of the crime. Murder is just kiling after all, and we do allow for killing another under the right circumstances.It's also interesting to note that those things we can all agree to be evil such as murder or rape are so by definition of the words murder (unlawful killing) and rape (forced sex). As soon as neutral words such as killing or sexual intercourse are used the issues become much fuzzier.

The truth of the matter is that there exist indistructable arguments against a totally relative morality and equally indestructable arguments against an absolute morality. My personal solution would be the pragmatic step of declaring evil as unnecessary harm - inflicted deliberately or not. It sure ain't perfect and it sure don't pretend to resolve the paradoxes of moral values but it's a reasonable start.

My personal solution would be the pragmatic step of declaring evil as unnecessary harm - inflicted deliberately or not. It sure ain't perfect and it sure don't pretend to resolve the paradoxes of moral values but it's a reasonable start.Rather than abolish the term, I would take the more Platonic view that pure Evil exists as a concept, but can only be viewed subjectively in the world of sensation. Much the same way that a perfectly straight line can exist in geometry but not in the 'real' world, we perceive the manifestations of Evil, not Evil itself.

Rather than abolish the term,heh - well I wouldn't seek to abolish it but at the same time it is a word I tend to use sparingly.

I would take the more Platonic view that pure Evil exists as a concept, but can only be viewed subjectively in the world of sensation. Much the same way that a perfectly straight line can exist in geometry but not in the 'real' world, we perceive the manifestations of Evil, not Evil itself.I don't think that's entirely incompatible with my view. Indeed, in everyday language and thought I think and act as if a thing called evil really does exist.

Where we perhaps differ is that upon philosophical reflection I do not take this to imply its actual existence. Indeed what is the difference between a thing said to exist but cannot be known and a thing that does not exist? To all practical intents and purposes there is no difference. As a philosphical point it is unresolvable.

I think evil is perhaps our human intellectualisation of feelings of disgust and fear and physical suffering and the like. Those feelings are so real and so profound that surely they are due to a malevolent evil out there! We like to have a clear enemy we can blame for all that is disgusting, fearful and painful.

heh - well I wouldn't seek to abolish it but at the same time it is a word I tend to use sparingly.Oops! I completely misread your sentence, sorry.Where we perhaps differ is that upon philosophical reflection I do not take this to imply its actual existence. Indeed what is the difference between a thing said to exist but cannot be known and a thing that does not exist? To all practical intents and purposes there is no difference. As a philosphical point it is unresolvable.Justice is a concept that does not physically exist yet that does not mean we should not seek to achieve it. And it is emminently practical to believe in its existence, as without that belief we'd not have any at all, however imperfect it may be.

I wonder if the concept of evil gets filtered through changing generational priorities and fears? Sitting around a campfire, 500 years before Al Gore invented the internet, how different would this conversation be? Whether created or learned, (http://www.underview.com/2001/friends/DanandRichard.jpg) isn't evil simply perverting that which should be beneficial?

Evil-running out of gas, beer, marijuana & money all at the same time.

The Problem of Evil
***************

First, it's important to distinguish between two kinds of evil: moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil results from the actions of free creatures. Murder, rape and theft are examples. Natural evil results from natural processes such as earthquakes and floods. Of course, sometimes the two are intermingled, such as when flooding results in loss of human life due to poor planning or shoddy construction of buildings.

It's also important to identify two aspects of the problem of evil and suffering. First, there is the philosophical or apologetic aspect. This is the problem of evil approached from the standpoint of the skeptic who challenges the possibility or probability that a God exists who would allow such suffering. In meeting this apologetic challenge we must utilize the tools of reason and evidence in "giving a reason for the hope within us." (I Pet. 3:15)

Second is the religious or emotional aspect of the problem of evil. This is the problem of evil approached from the standpoint of the believer whose faith in God is severely tested by trial. How can we love and worship God when He allows us to suffer in these ways? In meeting the religious/emotional challenge we must appeal to the truth revealed by God in Scripture. We will address both aspects of the problem of evil in this essay.

It's also helpful to distinguish between two types of the philosophical or apologetic aspect of the problem of evil. The first is the logical challenge to belief in God. This challenge says it is irrational and hence impossible to believe in the existence of a good and powerful God on the basis of the existence of evil in the world. The logical challenge is usually posed in the form of a statement such as this:

1. A good God would destroy evil.
2. An all powerful God could destroy evil.
3. Evil is not destroyed.
4. Therefore, there cannot possibly be such a good and powerful God.

It is logically impossible to believe that both evil, and a good and powerful God exist in the same reality, for such a God certainly could and would destroy evil.

On the other hand, the evidential challenge contends that while it may be rationally possible to believe such a God exists, it is highly improbable or unlikely that He does. We have evidence of so much evil that is seemingly pointless and of such horrendous intensity. For what valid reason would a good and powerful God allow the amount and kinds of evil which we see around us?

These issues are of an extremely important nature--not only as we seek to defend our belief in God, but also as we live out our Christian lives.

The Logical Problem of Evil
We have noted that there are two aspects of the problem of evil: the philosophical or apologetic, and the religious or emotional aspect. We also noted that within the philosophical aspect there are two types of challenges to faith in God: the logical and the evidential.

David Hume, the eighteenth century philosopher, stated the logical problem of evil when he inquired about God, "Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?" (Craig, 80). When the skeptic challenges belief in God on the basis of the logical problem of evil, he is suggesting that it is irrational or logically impossible to believe in the existence of both a good and all powerful God and in the reality of evil and suffering. Such a God would not possibly allow evil to exist.

The key to the resolution of this apparent conflict is to recognize that when we say God is all powerful, we do not imply that He is capable of doing anything imaginable. True, Scripture states that "with God all things are possible" (Mt. 19:26). But Scripture also states that there are some things God cannot do. For instance, God cannot lie (Tit. 1:2). Neither can He be tempted to sin, nor can He tempt others to sin (James 1:13). In other words, He cannot do anything that is "out of character" for a righteous God. Neither can He do anything that is out of character for a rational being in a rational world. Certainly even God cannot "undo the past," or create a square triangle, or make what is false true. He cannot do what is irrational or absurd.

And it is on this basis that we conclude that God could not eliminate evil without at the same time rendering it impossible to accomplish other goals which are important to Him. Certainly, for God to create beings in his own image, who are capable of sustaining a personal relationship with Him, they must be beings who are capable of freely loving Him and following his will without coercion. Love or obedience on any other basis would not be love or obedience at all, but mere compliance. But creatures who are free to love God must also be free to hate or ignore Him. Creatures who are free to follow His will must also be free to reject it. And when people act in ways outside the will of God, great evil and suffering is the ultimate result. This line of thinking is known as the "free will defense" concerning the problem of evil.

But what about natural evil--evil resulting from natural processes such as earthquakes, floods and diseases? Here it is important first to recognize that we live in a fallen world, and that we are subject to natural disasters that would not have occurred had man not chosen to rebel against God. Even so, it is difficult to imagine how we could function as free creatures in a world much different than our own--a world in which consistent natural processes allow us to predict with some certainty the consequences of our choices and actions. Take the law of gravity, for instance. This is a natural process without which we could not possibly function as human beings, yet under some circumstances it is also capable of resulting in great harm.

Certainly, God is capable of destroying evil--but not without destroying human freedom, or a world in which free creatures can function. And most agree that this line of reasoning does successfully respond to the challenge of the logical problem of evil.

The Evidential Problem of Evil
While most agree that belief in a good and powerful God is rationally possible, nonetheless many contend that the existence of such a God is improbable due to the nature of the evil which we see in the world about us. They conclude that if such a God existed it is highly unlikely that He would allow the amount and intensity of evil which we see in our world. Evil which frequently seems to be of such a purposeless nature.

This charge is not to be taken lightly, for evidence abounds in our world of evil of such a horrendous nature that it is difficult at times to fathom what possible purpose it could serve. However, difficult as this aspect of the problem of evil is, careful thinking will show that there are reasonable responses to this challenge.

Surely it is difficult for us to understand why God would allow some things to happen. But simply because we find it difficult to imagine what reasons God could have for permitting them, does not mean that no such reasons exist. It is entirely possible that such reasons are not only beyond our present knowledge, but also beyond our present ability to understand. A child does not always understand the reasons that lie behind all that his father allows or does not allow him to do. It would be unrealistic for us to expect to understand all of God's reasons for allowing all that He does. We do not fully understand many things about the world we live in--what lies behind the force of gravity for instance, or the exact function of subatomic particles. Yet we believe in these physical realities.

Beyond this, however, we can suggest possible reasons for God allowing some of the horrendous evils which do exist in our world. Perhaps there are people who would never sense their utter dependence on God apart from experiencing the intense pain that they do in life (Ps. 119:71). Perhaps there are purposes that God intends to accomplish among his angelic or demonic creatures which require his human creatures to experience some of the things that we do (Job 1-2). It may be that the suffering we experience in this life is somehow preparatory to our existence in the life to come (2 Cor. 4:16-18). Even apart from the revelation of Scripture, these are all possible reasons behind God's permission of evil. And at any rate, most people agree that there is much more good in the world than evil--at least enough good to make life well worth the living.

In responding to the challenge to belief in God based on the intensity and seeming purposelessness of much evil in the world, we must also take into account all of the positive evidence that points to his existence: the evidence of design in nature, the historical evidence for the reliability of Scripture and of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In light of the totality of the evidence, it certainly cannot be proven that there are no sufficient reasons for God's allowing the amount of evil that we see in the world...or even that it is improbable that such reasons exist.

The Religious Problem of Evil - Part I
But the existence of evil and suffering in our world poses more than a merely philosophical or apologetic problem. It also poses a very personal religious and emotional problem for the person who is enduring great trial. Although our painful experience may not challenge our belief that God exists, what may be at risk is our confidence in a God we can freely worship and love, and in whose love we can feel secure. Much harm can be done when we attempt to aid a suffering brother or sister by merely dealing with the intellectual aspects of this problem, or when we seek to find solace for ourselves in this way. Far more important than answers about the nature of God, is a revelation of the love of God--even in the midst of trial. And as God's children, it is not nearly as important what we say about God as what we do to manifest his love.

First, it is evident from Scripture that when we suffer it is not unnatural to experience emotional pain, nor is it unspiritual to express it. It is noteworthy for instance that there are nearly as many psalms of lament as there are psalms of praise and thanksgiving, and these two sentiments are mingled together in many places (cf. Pss. 13, 88). Indeed, the psalmist encourages us to "pour out our hearts to God" (Ps. 62:8). And when we do, we can be assured that God understands our pain. Jesus Himself keenly felt the painful side of life. When John the Baptist was beheaded it is recorded that "He withdrew to a lonely place" obviously to mourn his loss (Mt. 14:13). And when his friend Lazarus died, it is recorded that Jesus openly wept at his tomb (Jn. 11:35). Even though He was committed to following the Father's will to the cross, He confessed to being filled with anguish of soul in contemplating it (Mt. 26:38). It is not without reason that Jesus was called "a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief" (Isa. 53:3); and we follow in his steps when we truthfully acknowledge our own pain.

We cross the line, however, from sorrow to sin when we allow our grief to quench our faith in God, or follow the counsel that Job was offered by his wife when she told him to "curse God and die" (Job 2:9b).

Secondly, when we suffer we should draw comfort from reflecting on Scriptures which assure us that God knows and cares about our situation, and promises to be with us to comfort and uphold us. The psalmist tells us that "the Lord is near to the brokenhearted" (Ps. 34:18), and that when we go through the "valley of the shadow of death" it is then that his presence is particularly promised to us (Ps. 23:4). Speaking through the prophet Isaiah, the Lord said, "Can a woman forget her nursing child, and have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, but I will not forget you" (Isa. 49:15). He is more mindful of us than is a nursing mother toward her child! It is of the One whom we know as the "God of all comfort and Father of mercies" that Peter speaks when He bids us to cast our anxieties on Him, "for He cares for us" (1 Pet. 5:7). Our cares are his personal concern!

The Religious Problem of Evil - Part II
We noted that when suffering strikes it is neither unnatural to experience emotional pain, nor unspiritual to express it. But we also noted that when suffering strikes, we must be quick to reflect on the character of God and on the promises He gives to those who are enduring great trial. Now we want to focus on one of the great truths of God's Word--that even in severe trial God is working all things together for the good of those who love Him (Rom. 8:28). This is not at all to imply that evil is somehow good. But it does mean that we are to recognize that even in what is evil God is at work to bring about his good purposes in our lives.

Joseph gave evidence of having learned this truth when after years of unexplained suffering due to the betrayal of his brothers, he was able to say to them, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good" (Gen. 50:20). Though God did not cause his brothers to betray him, nonetheless He was able to use it in furthering his good intentions.

This is the great hope we have in the midst of suffering, that in a way beyond our comprehension, God is able to turn evil against itself. And it is because of this truth that we can find joy even in the midst of sorrow and pain. The apostle Paul described himself as "sorrowful, yet always rejoicing" (2 Cor. 6:10). And we are counseled to rejoice in trial, not because the affliction itself is a cause for joy (it is not), but because in it God can find an occasion for producing what is good.

What are some of those good purposes suffering promotes? For one, suffering can provide an opportunity for God to display his glory-- to make evident his mercy, faithfulness, power and love in the midst of painful circumstances (Jn. 9:1-3). Suffering can also allow us to give proof of the genuineness of our faith, and even serve to purify our faith (1 Pet. 1:7). As in the case of Job, our faithfulness in trial shows that we serve Him not merely for the benefits He offers, but for the love of God Himself (Job 1:9-11). Severe trial also provides an opportunity for believers to demonstrate their love for one another as members of the body of Christ who "bear one another's burdens" (1 Cor 12:26; Gal. 6:2). Indeed, as D.A. Carson has said, "experiences of suffering... engender compassion and empathy..., and make us better able to help others" (Carson, 122). As we are comforted by God in affliction, so we are better able to comfort others (2 Cor. 1:4). Suffering also plays a key role in developing godly virtues, and in deterring us from sin. Paul recognized that his "thorn in the flesh" served to keep him from boasting, and promoted true humility and dependence on God (2 Cor. 12:7). The psalmist recognized that his affliction had increased his determination to follow God's will (Ps. 119:71). Even Jesus "learned obedience from the things He suffered" (Heb. 5:8). As a man He learned by experience the value of submitting to the will of God, even when it was the most difficult thing in the world to do.

Finally, evil and suffering can awaken in us a greater hunger for heaven, and for that time when God's purposes for these experiences will have been finally fulfilled, when pain and sorrow shall be no more (Rev. 21:4).

© 1996 Probe Ministries

Source: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/evil.html

Evil-running out of gas, beer, marijuana & money all at the same time.
Evil, or just not planning ahead? Maybe you need to hook up with DrewM's e2doList!!!

The devil kept me from going to the bank while it was open.....!

Evil-running out of gas, beer, marijuana & money all at the same time.

Funny. That damn Satan. Who's side is he on anyway?

The Problem of Evil
***************

First, it's important to distinguish between two kinds of evil: moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil results from the actions of free creatures. Murder, rape and theft are examples. .....

hot tip - it's pointless posting a long essay, nobody is going to read that. Post the link with some points & Your opinion, not the copy&paste opinion of some dimwit website where you get your ideas from.

A very wise person once said, " it is better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt".

T

Your opinion, not the copy&paste opinion of some dimwit website where you get your ideas from.It is the history of Christianity that wisdom be handed down, whole and intact, from above. We see this in the forbidden fruit (total knowledge of good and evil obtained through a single bite) and the stone tablets handed to moses (total rules for living obtained through a few seconds reading). The idea that knowledge is a precious and valuable thing that must be worked for, strived for, struggled for, refined, worked on, questioned, critiqued and so on, rather than handed down effortlessly on a plate, is not known to Christianity.

Despite what Drew said, I did read the thing, and to be frank I think the author lost all credibility when they wrote:


But what about natural evil--evil resulting from natural processes such as earthquakes, floods and diseases? Here it is important first to recognize that we live in a fallen world, and that we are subject to natural disasters that would not have occurred had man not chosen to rebel against God.

If these disasters are the result of God's handiwork, how are they "natural disasters"?

Despite what Drew said, I did read the thing, and to be frank I think the author lost all ctredibility when they wrote:



If these disasters are the result of God's handiwork, how are they "natural disasters"?

first off, Disasters are NOT the result of God's handiwork. Disasters are the result of MANS handiwork.

I'd direct you to the book of genesis if I felt you were inclined/open to what you'd find there. But your preception would cause you to only read into what it says, your own understanding, when you have to read it from the perspective of the Author.

T

I wonder if the concept of evil gets filtered through changing generational priorities and fears? Sitting around a campfire, 500 years before Al Gore invented the internet, how different would this conversation be? Whether created or learned, (http://www.underview.com/2001/friends/DanandRichard.jpg) isn't evil simply perverting that which should be beneficial?
================================================== =

I would think that, 500 years ago, a discussion of evil around a campfire would not have occurred.
Evil would have been considered a tangible force, lurking in the dark, awaiting a summons by the fact that its very name was mentioned.

It seems that superstitions considered evil a force that caused people to act in a bad way or caused bad things to happen to good people.

This belief has not completely disappeared today.

first off, Disasters are NOT the result of God's handiwork. Disasters are the result of MANS handiwork.

That's a nice bit of spin, there, but inasmuch as it's God's choice whether or not he punishes man for our handiwork, they are God's handiwork (by your logic). He doesn't have to punish us.

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

I would think that, 500 years ago, a discussion of evil around a campfire would not have occurred.
Evil would have been considered a tangible force, lurking in the dark, awaiting a summons by the fact that its very name was mentioned.

It seems that superstitions considered evil a force that caused people to act in a bad way or caused bad things to happen to good people.

This belief has not completely disappeared today.
Wouldn't those superstitions, with the conduct and oaths they inspired, be the conversation around the campfire? Is fear-based silence a statement? If the fight or flight response to danger/fear is common in the animal kingdom, how is it (unless I am mistaken) that irrational fear seems unique to . . . us? It seems to me that superstitions are the response to irrational fears. If fear came first, perhaps it was wise, 500 years ago, not to summon what was lurking in the dark by mentioning its name. What do you think?

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. Mans intimate and good relationship with God was severed. Not only for the first man but every man thereafter was born under the penalty of the orginal mans disobedience. Whereas previously, God provided all things for man to live in perfect harmony with Him and His creation. Afterward, Man had to struggle and strive to make it on his own. Which, if you allow me to boldly point out, was mans choice when he disobeyed. Man decided that Gods way was not good enough and went his own way. God has only ALLOWED man what man wanted. Independence.

To blame God for what man chooses and then saying that God does not need to punish disobedience is what secular humanism would love all mankind to believe. Mankind never wants to be punished for doing things their own way. But guess what? You and I are not God and God is the one who created us, God is the one who demands justice, even though you may consider that ungodly of Him. This only proves that you do not know God.

With All freedom comes responsibility. Without Justice for those who disobey, there cannot be love for those who obey. God is both loving and Just.

T

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. Mans intimate and good relationship with God was severed. Not only for the first man but every man thereafter was born under the penalty of the orginal mans disobedience. Whereas previously, God provided all things for man to live in perfect harmony with Him and His creation. Afterward, Man had to struggle and strive to make it on his own. Which, if you allow me to boldly point out, was mans choice when he disobeyed. Man decided that Gods way was not good enough and went his own way. God has only ALLOWED man what man wanted. Independence.

To blame God for what man chooses and then saying that God does not need to punish disobedience is what secular humanism would love all mankind to believe. Mankind never wants to be punished for doing things their own way. But guess what? You and I are not God and God is the one who created us, God is the one who demands justice, even though you may consider that ungodly of Him. This only proves that you do not know God.

With All freedom comes responsibility. Without Justice for those who disobey, there cannot be love for those who obey. God is both loving and Just.

T
In the Old Testament, God killed more people than Hitler. That makes him just? I'd say that makes him "evil". Jesus was a much better dude. Incidentally, secular humanists don't believe in God at all, and thus they wouldn't want people to believe what you said.

Have it YOUR way.. everyone else does. :thumbs:

Have it YOUR way.. everyone else does. :thumbs:

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.

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

Wouldn't those superstitions, with the conduct and oaths they inspired, be the conversation around the campfire? Is fear-based silence a statement? If the fight or flight response to danger/fear is common in the animal kingdom, how is it (unless I am mistaken) that irrational fear seems unique to . . . us? It seems to me that superstitions are the response to irrational fears. If fear came first, perhaps it was wise, 500 years ago, not to summon what was lurking in the dark by mentioning its name. What do you think?
================================================== ====

As far as we know, we are unique to have a thinking mind. The thinking mind can be a friend or enemy to the peace and contentment of its host.
A host, ruled by fears, can invent explanations or accept the handed-down explanations of others.

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.

I believe, that superstitions and most religions, are attempts to explain natural fears and unknowns. Perhaps, some have more fears of unknowns than others, therefore requiring superstitions and religions.
This statement would give credit to those, that do not require superstitions and religions, as having more strength to face unknowns and fears on a personal level.

You might take notice of the fact that most superstitions and religions leave the individual with counter-measures that will ward off the evil or bad occurrences. Again, this is mans attempt to control a seemingly uncontrollable situation.

To blame God for what man chooses and then saying that God does not need to punish disobedience is what secular humanism would love all mankind to believe.
==================================================

Yet, the religionist would want all of mankind to blame God for every good thing that occurs.

A school building could collapse and crush 49 children and the religionist would say, for the one child that was not killed of 50, that this child was spared by the grace of god.

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
Um, debate is rather the point of this forum.