Telesis said:
I think you mean reverse aretaic ethical theory, my friend, from arete (virtue). I agree that both atheism and religion can be good. I find that Atheists tend to be more tolerant, however.
Atheists just lack the religious experience that leads to faith, there is really no moral bearing in the words believer or non-believer, except in the mind of the person saying them.
Tolerance would be expected by someone who either has no experience in the field in question (i.e. Religious experience) or a broad range of experience and ability to discern mutual experiences between varying traditions.
Shalom
Bob
Ah, finally it surfaced…
This I think is the heart of our disagreement; and in my view, it is a fundamental - well I have to apologise for the word - evil.
And this evil is the worship of self, or in other words, idolatory, replacing the “wily creature” God with Self. Self have been elevated beyond what it is and worshipped as good. To attribute evil to Self is akin to blasphemy. And we teach our children a lie that there are no bad people only good people. (To know that people are evil is not to the same as to judge[1] them evil.) I will certainly say that I am bad, even evil, for my heart is utterly deceitful, even beyond my knowing.
[[size=75][1]By judge another here I mean to act or behave or decide in a manner that punishes the other.[/size]]
The difference that God makes to me and for all the world is that he vouch for me, in all that I do - by faith - even if it had arisen from an evil heart. As an example, read the story of David and Bethseba, the outcome being Solomon, the wisest king ever, and thence eventually Jesus Christ.
God is able to make evil, good, and death, even eternal life!
And the attitude that I hold of others and their actions, knowing that all are evil, is not to judge the actors evil - for it is irrelevant really - or even to call all their acts as such, but rather acknowledged that God is sovereign, and he will make ALL things good to those that love him and are called for his purposes [Roms 8:28].
However if you are in position of authority, and ALL authority on earth is God’s [Rom 13:1], then the considerations are different. If I am by God’s grace appointed as a judge, I will to the best of my abiliites, authority, knowledge and God’s wisdom attempt true justice, ie see the motives and intention of the heart before applying the law
The context, circumstances, etc determines what is to be acted, and not whether the eventual act is good or bad. The still remains with the actor. In a court of law the actor gets persecuted, and we dont persecute the act do we? The criminal goes to jail not the crime.
Conceivably none. But what’s the point here?
I am not. I am categorically dividing ALL humankind, including myself, as evil. So to God there is no difference that you die a natural death or in an catastrophic disaster, like 9/11, it is merely our due recompense. And certainly God can use evil to judge evil.
Bob stated:
Welcome back Bob. I like your thread in the origin of evil. Good to see you online again. I pretty much agree with what you have said. My point about tolerance is this: An atheist will look at an Islamic fundamentalist differently than will a Christian. Where you are looking from always influences what you are looking at. The different religions tend to bicker with one another.
Chanbengchin stated:
Thank you for helping prove my point about tolerance.
You fail to understand this point, however. I suppose it is easier to lapse into hyperbolic naivete and label something as evil than to actually understand somebody. I feel sorry for you.
For those less judgemental and more inclined to pursuing the truth i offer the following examples.
Acts are not inherently evil:
The meaningless killing of a man is not a good act. However killing a man in a just war or to defend one’s home is a good act. The same act of killing can be good or bad. Acts are not inherently evil in and of themselves. It is only in relation to other people and values that they begin to have any value at all. A man on a deserted isle has a very restricted field of morality.
People are not inherently evil
Some of the same arguments apply. How evil can a man on a deserted isle be? All of us are also capable of both good and evil acts. We are not entirely good, nor entirely evil.
(emphasis mine)
Once again
Italicized portion added for further clarity
Once again, the original context in which this is placed is of the utmost importance. I was attempting to show that none of us are totally good or evil.
I was not speaking to you personally per se. I was trying (once more) to demonstrate that morality is not the black and white world where you can merely pass down labels like ‘evil’ or ‘axis of evil’ on ideas and ideologies which are different and therefore not easily understood.
Oh yeah! tell me about it.
Seemingly you cannot tolerate, and take offence, at me holding the point that all men are evil?
And isnt the goal of philosophy the truth?
And if you find the truth not pleasing to the ear, do you reject it? And those who hold such views?
And does knowing and holding onto the truth the same as making a judgement?
That depends on your measure of evil.
Did you? If so I think your attempt failed.
Nothing gives you the right to use the strong word ‘evil’ about my arguments, especially before you have made an attempt to understand them. You were right to apologize for that word and better yet, should not have used it. Your strong words will in no way make up for your lack of argument my friend. Your questioning a few statements out of context hardly qualifies.
Shalom,
Marshall
My use of the word evil was not directed against you, ie I am not singling you out and personally calling you evil, and it is meaningless to call any argument evil.
I have merely characterised the notion that people are inherently not good or evil a “fundamental evil”. That you hold such a view, an act in itself, on that basis, do not make you good or evil.
I on the other hand hold the view that all men are evil, including myself; and I have make a distinction between holding such a view and making judgements, ie to act on the basis of what is due to evil.
And do you have the right to call me intolerant for holding such a view? To do so would be intolerance itself, if not philosophically dishonest in the first place.
Now as any word being strong, it is irrelevant, for the truth is the truth, the spade is still the spade no matter how it sounds to the ear, and I have a right as any to call it such. But of course not all have the stomach for the brutal harshness of reality …
Marshall Mcdaniel Wrote:
I totally agree. Nor will someone starving be called bad/evil or condemed for stealing bread. For the actions in order to be judged are entangled with there circumstances. No one can be judged outside of their circumstances.
Chanbengchin wrote:
I dissagree with your view because it doesn’t logically make sense to me. One is evil/bad after he commits an evil/bad act not prior.
I believe one is a sinner because he sins not that one sins because he is a sinner.
This ofcourse is the huge diffrence between Christianity and Judaism.
Let me pose a question to you. Do you believe in mans freewill? The reason I ask is if you do I do not think you can logically show me why a man cannot live his life always choosing not to sin or commit evil/bad acts. Accordingly, when does a person begin to be judged for his acts? In Judaism it is at puberty at age 12 for girls 13 for boys. I do not know the christian view on this, is the person judged at age 6, 7 ect.?
Logic dont prove all the truths. Logic is not everything. Logic just tells you whether an argument is sound or not. And logically there is nothing to say that I cant start with the premise that all men are evil.
And one indication whether a premise is true or not is to look at the logical consequences of that premise, such as that it leads a simple and clear understanding of things: a kind of application of the Occam’s razors, ie the simplest and most parsimonious explanantion is more likely to be true.
If you have so define someone as evil/bad on the basis of his acts, than so be it. It is your definition.
The issue then is whether this is a good - in the sense that it a workable/useable - defintion or not. That I dont think it is, as you now walk into the mess of trying to say whether there are such things as good or bad acts, and getting into all kinds of intractable circularities. And as I have argued earlier, using the consequences of an act to make that judgement is not possible, if not flawed.
That is your belief and anyone can believe anything. The issue is which is true: one sins because one’s a sinner or vice versa? ie if you are concern to believe only that which is true, which is the case for me.
First a baby dies even before birth. And if death is the consequence of sin then the unborn baby has already sinned: Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. [Ps 51:5]
You may call it what you want - unfair, unjust, cruel - or whatever. The fact remains, a baby dies, even before birth.
So why not the alternative perspective that indeed the bible is true? Why cant we suspend our unbelief, and just consider, philosophically and not religiously, the premise, as discerned from Ps 51:5, that we are indeed sinful from birth.
Now from this perspective a whole new set of questions arise, such as how is sin transmitted from parents to child? is “sin” coded in the genes too? or it is because the soul - whatever it is - is already corrupted when conceived, and if so how? Now from this perspective too it make sense that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit and not by a man. For all born of man is sinful even from birth.
Now as to free will. OK I must admit here I have not got a good argument for or against free will. I will defer this argument for the moment. But my line of thought so far is centered in the notion of “freedom”.
Are we really free in all the things that we will today? Are we not “controlled” by our animal needs, be it food, shelter, sex? And are we not all fearful of death: we do all to avoid death, even betrayal. Are we truely free then? If we are not then the issue of free will is moot.
On the other hand Jesus said, “So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” [John 8:36] What do Jesus mean?
Now as to whether there is a man who can live his life not sinning at all, there may well be such, but again it is moot, for all men die, dont they?
Perhaps a humans judgement is flawed and is flawed only because he does not know all of the circumstances involved durring the act. But if we say there is a god then he will be able to accruatly judge an act based on its consequences, intent & circumstances.
I dissagree that death is a consequence for sin. Why does god not strike dead really evil people all the time then?
This is precisly why I do not agree with your view. I cannot believe in a diety who is as unjust as your view of him holds. And I feel my view of a man is a sinner because he sins is more logically sound and more importantly is just, contrary to yours.
You ask me to suspend disbelief. Fine I have, in doing so the question in my mind arises of why a diety for the first two thousand years of his revelation to humanity through the Torah states man is a sinner because he sins and then reverses his view in the new testement. Does he not know all, according to our understanding of him?
Our wills are not totally free. They are definitly limited there is no question as to that. But something must exist in order to be limited I.E. Freewill. So to me it is obvious we have one though it be limited. With this limited freewill man still has choice, choice to commit sin or not.
I don’t follow you, why do you equate death with sin? How is dying a sin?
Then how do you explain death?
What then is your explanation for babies dying, even before they are born? It is not just as “unfair, unjust, cruel” whatever your explanation is? How do you explain where is God then? Isn’t God just as cruel in NOT intervening?
As to God striking dead evil people - it is a question of time. In any case is not God patient not willing any to perish but that all repent?
First the view is not necessarily contradictory to my position, namely I hold A=>B and you hold B=>A: they are not contradictory. If they are both true, it then leads to A=B.
Second if I accept your position that a man is a sinner when he sins, that does not explain WHY he sins in the first place?
(Isnt Ps 51:5 part of the Torah?)
Not totally free means not free. Free will then is an oxymoron. Whatever “freedom” you have is a restricted one. What we can will is merely confined to this “freedom”. Enjoy!
Do not all men die? I have not heard of anyone, even Jesus Christ, who did not die. (Perhaps Enoch and Elijah did not die, at least not yet.) And to me death is a consequence of sin, and thus, in all probability no one is able to be absolutely sinless. You can be sinless for all times but for one instance and you are tainted forever.
I’ve just flown over this great swamp of arguments in my helicopter…
So, this is how laymen carry on!
Learn this if you wish to raise yourselves from out of the swamp.
[size=150]There is no external good or evil!!![/size]
How many times do you have to have this repeated to you before you begin to examine it?
Or are you all so deaf and blind and lost that there is no hope for you?
Hi Marshall,
You are probably right, atheists stand on neutral ground to a certain degree. I tend to divide the world into those who have compassion at the core of their Philosophy, and those who do not. The border runs through many Religions and Philosophies and brings us together in a way some people can’t even imagine.
I was talking to a man the other day who wouldn’t be seen dead in the church in the next village - even though it is the same confession as his own. It became very obvious to me that I wasn’t going to understand this mindset, but made me very aware of how much the religious betray their beliefs by such peculiarities.
Shalom
Bob
chanbengchin
What’s the problem with sin?
You speak as though it were a sin to sin!
If you study the old texts, scriptures, writings, etymologies, etc., you’ll find that sin amounts to nothing graver than error. That’s all it is, no big deal, just error.
And you know what they say? To err is human, to forgive divine.
And what do you mean when you say that all men die?
Sure, their bodies do. But what about the logos? Does that die too? And what about the morally imperishable?
Hi chanbengchin,
Interesting really how the discussion on evil has turned up here.
You say then that all men are morally bad or wrong, wicked and evil tyrants. They all cause ruin, injury, or pain. They are all harmful. All men are bad or blameworthy by report, they are infamous and have an evil reputation. All of Mankind is characterized by anger or spite, all are malicious and all have an evil temper.
This is a little like the sentences that start with “always” - we stop using the term so generally when we grow up, realising that it isn’t quite true. There are many people in this world - though they are no doubt far removed from you - who have no opportunity to be all the things that you claim by saying that “all men are evil”. They are beaten and driven from birth, raped, abused and killed before they reach twenty years of age. There are people who are born into conflicts that last their whole lifetime, which means their whole worldview is coloured by their experiences. Your naive ideas about sin border upon audacious impudence towards people who’s lives you couldn’t care less about.
Sin may be portrayed in drastic language in the Bible, but you have no right to amplify these statements even more. Sin is different in the OT and the NT. Common to both is the definition as a missing of the target, a lapse or conduct unbefitting. In the OT there is the definition of sin as a revolt, or as “crookedness” as a result of guilt. Sometimes it is described as a straying from the fold, but mostly the terminology is secular. In the NT the greek terminology takes on a pious character with more emphasis upon guiltiness, blame, debt. Mankind is described as being disobedient and lawless.
The most important thing is that Mankind may be sinners, but they are not for that reason “evil” as above. Especially the claim that “all” men are “evil” really goes overboard and is typical for extreme views. It may well be that sinners are lost, that they are desorientated in a confusing world - but are they “wicked” for that?
Shalom
Bob
The explanation for babies dying even before they are born is that they are murdered. It is one person taking the life of another person. So your example of babies dying before birth is equivlent to an adult being murdered by someone else. It is another person commiting a sin by taking someone elses life. Your point has more to do with why god allows innocent people to perish then with orginal sin, and that is a different conversation.
Why have you sinned if you ever have? I for example have sinned because of the following reasons: contempt for god, defiance, indiffrence, for power, and selfishness. Basicly I put my will before gods will when I sin.
The question is am I able to put gods will before my own? The awnser according to the Torah is that I am able to do so. Hence if a person does so consistantly all his life then he has lived without sin. He is a righteous person according to god in the Torah.
The Torah for example gives several accounts of humans living without sin.
I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands, and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws. (Genesis 26:4-5)
Another example is Job.
Note that immediately after the sin of Adam and Eve is narrated, the Torah declares that man can master his passionate lust for sin. In Genesis 4:6-7, God turns to Cain and warns him,
If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? If, though, you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you shall master over it. (Genesis 26:4-5)
Theology if you compare Judaism to Christianity is in a total contradiction.
But when I set theology aside and think this out it really comes down to faith in the end. I’m also concerned with holding the belief that is true and not any old belief.
So to be totally honest with you thinking philosophically and due to some of what you said I cannot say that man has the ablity to overcome all sin or things condemned in the Torah. Homosexuality and spilling seed is what comes to mind. So the awnser at best is that I don’t know.
It comes down to if you believe in religion which religion you place your faith in. Judaism claims you can, Christianity claims you can’t, which is truth, which is right, because of our disscussion I don’t know anymore.
I would have to have blind faith in Judaism which says that the almighty did not give us desires that we cannot govern or commandments that we could not keep in order to contradict Christian theology that man is enslaved to sin. Another problem however is I cannot say man is enslaved to sin without doubt. Homosexuality I cannot anwser for because I’m not gay so how could I truly know if one is able not to transgress in this vice(according to scripture). Spilling seed durring sleep however I also do not know if its impossible to live without doing so, and this is only relevant to men anyhow.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/os.htm ← Jewish view on Orginal Sin intresting read.
Marshall McDaniel
"For those less judgemental and more inclined to pursuing the truth i offer the following examples.
Acts are not inherently evil:
The meaningless killing of a man is not a good act. However killing a man in a just war or to defend one’s home is a good act. The same act of killing can be good or bad. Acts are not inherently evil in and of themselves. It is only in relation to other people and values that they begin to have any value at all. A man on a deserted isle has a very restricted field of morality.
People are not inherently evil Some of the same arguments apply. How evil can a man on a deserted isle be? All of us are also capable of both good and evil acts. We are not entirely good, nor entirely evil."
Meaningless killing – meaningless to you, but to the killer? No, it is not a good act, neither is it a bad act.
Killing a man in a just war or to defend one’s home is a good act – utter tosh! This is total codswallop! A just war? One’s home? What are these things, where are they to be found?
The same act of killing can be good or bad – yes, correct, according to the subjective morality of the observer. It’ll be bad for the family of the victim. And it’ll be good for enemies of the victim. But this is all in the realm of relative morality, what about the realm of absolute morality? In that (latter) realm there’s no room for wishy-washy politically correct subjective philosophical quibbling. In that realm there is only objective, absolute, infallible rigorous truth.
And what does that tell us? (I can hear all the atheists moaning in pain and anguish as their subjective master lashes them with his bull-whack) It tells us, quite simply that there is no external good or evil!
A man on a deserted isle has a very restricted field of morality – how can you say this? How on earth can you know this? Did you ever study the self-portraits of Rembrandt? One tiny field of research, his reflection in a glass, and where the restrictions?
Marshall, it’s only a small step, why not take it, you’ll never look back! All you have to do is re-write your following statement omitting the word, ‘entirely.’
We are not entirely good, nor entirely evil.
I guarantee you’ll immediately jump forward one giant step.
Free at last eh? Doesn’t it feel good? Now you’re a fully-fledged member of the most elite group in all philosophy. The world has thus far seen but a few score of us enlightened ones! Welcome oh imperishable one!
