The problem of evil

It’s not my bible. I threatened to burn the damned thing on easter. Dangerous book!

The Lord is presumed to be the only righteous judge and that’s the underpinning of the religion otherwise how could any law have authority if no entity could be a judge?

Yes because what else can you do?

Parental responsibility is to raise adults, not children, not dependents, nor minions, bootlickers, nor rebels.

You could come up with an example.

I have been the egalitarian suggesting to turn the cheek across the board, you’re saying to hit back. So if a woman slaps you, you will slap her back, right? Well, just be sure a bunch of other guys aren’t watching or you may have a brawl on your hands.

That’s child upon child, not adult against child. Mothers don’t tell children to antagonize adults who hit them, but run to find help. And hitting someone weaker than yourself is immoral imo. You can restrain them and hold them down, but not clobber them.

Reciprocity only occurs on equal playing field. Handicapped against healthy is not a fair fight and not reciprocity.

17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

So it would seem that feeding the rapist and murderer is prescribed.

How is the punishment policy working? How many are rehabilitated? As far as I can tell, they come out of prison and return to their actions like a dog to vomit.

Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

Eh, it’s not consistent with the rest of the literal, allegorical interpretation of the bible nor in the spirit of it.

Now we’ve come full-circle in illustrating how honoring God is at odds with honoring man: God says to do good to the murderers, man says to lock them up. God says to turn the other cheek, man says to come up swinging.

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

I don’t know what determines the goodness of acts. I see theories and they seem weak. This doesn’t mean I am rooting for my theory, whatever it might be.

Now don’t be bringing Watts in again, LOL.

He who don’t doubteth is probalby an asshole.

I am not sure what to do with that.

I am not arguing it is literal, he’s talking about people and acts. The problem is that it is a rule, with no gradations or exceptions. The metaphor could have been used in a way that would have created less guilt and panic - especially given the potential problem with Hell, you better be damn clear what you are saying to people.

Again, I could not possibly have been reading it literally or it would have been a quote about agriculture, or permaculture, and while problematic on that level, I wouldn’t care and it wouldn’t lead to guilt but possibly to the throwing away of good fruit. Reading too much in it. Well, that’s the thing. I know humans and I know how many of them will take such quotes, and history is littered with people, good people, who tried to live up to scriptures, panicked regularly about the coming of hell based on scriptures, and had a hateful voice in their heads empowered by scripture. Telling me not to read too much into it - which I think is an ironic suggestion about a religious text that requires reading a lot into it - is missing the point. People read stuff in these things and if you don’t want people to plague themselves with ideas, there are simply ways to modify texts to make them more nuanced.

Bruce Lee sure as shit did not, as a rule, turn the other cheek. He fought people all the time for all sorts of things. Heck, he did it in the streets just to learn. And again, I have seen what the language of the Bible does to basically good people. Also the language of secular moralities that have similar naive presentations. The point is precisely that humans will try to navigate using these things and terrible things will result from navigating following the advice of people who are cut off from their emotions to various degrees. Jesus, if he said this, had stuff to learn. Which is fine, who doesn’t? He did his best.

Well, I didn’t know how you were defining stealing. It seems like your definitions is stealing is when you think you are stealing. I thought you meant when it is breaking the law. Property and things move around in all societies. My only point was that what is considered stealing in that society by the people in power, even by the majority may not be stealing and hence not immoral. I don’t think there would have been anything wrong about a slave going into the house and taking a piano or all the horses in the barn or whatever. Perhaps he should share with other slaves, but no possible property crime could be committed against a master by a slave in my view. He could burn down the master’s house for all I care.

Conscience and practical fear of consequences is the the guide for all of us, though many might not word it that way. The potential committers of what some might consider crime. I just wanted to make it clear that just because you follow your conscience you have not even the slightest guarantee this is meaningful, even to you in the long term, unless you have really gone deep into yourself.

OH, sure, there are practical issues I always take into consideration. That’s what I meant by at least TRYING to not offer the other cheek.

If you don’t know what determines good, then how do you know it’s not the conscience?

Oh you like him! I got him on my pedestal still :wink:

:laughing:

You can eat meat if you think eating meat is ok, but if you doubt, then it’s not ok.

I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

If you think it’s bad, it’s bad; because nothing is bad of itself.

The bible is all screwed up. For instance Jesus never said he was THE son of God, but A son of God (meaning you are too). The church wanted the guilt, not Jesus.

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Where is the guilt?

Exactly why Watts said “The bible should be ceremoniously and reverently burned every easter; we need it no more since the spirit is with us”. It’s a dangerous book. Idols of stone or wood are easy to spot, but those made of ideas are dangerous.

Bruce didn’t have to hit back because no one could hit him first :stuck_out_tongue: :laughing:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH1GFaw09hk[/youtube]

Wouldn’t bother me either.

Well, stealing is wrong, but what constitutes stealing is up to your conscience to decide. It’s like that I think. I mean, absent laws n stuff.

Yes even doing good to those who try to hurt you is still retaliatory since the idea is heaping hot coals upon their head by doing them good instead of evil.

I remember I got into a bar fight and the next day my friend say “You should have just bought him a beer.” The problem with fighting is having to watch your back for the revenge, unless you kill the guy then his brother or somebody comes.

That is a faith based assumption and wrong according to your own bible.
[/quote]
It’s not my bible. I threatened to burn the damned thing on easter. Dangerous book!

The Lord is presumed to be the only righteous judge and that’s the underpinning of the religion otherwise how could any law have authority if no entity could be a judge?

Yes because what else can you do?

Parental responsibility is to raise adults, not children, not dependents, nor minions, bootlickers, nor rebels.

You could come up with an example.

I have been the egalitarian suggesting to turn the cheek across the board, you’re saying to hit back. So if a woman slaps you, you will slap her back, right? Well, just be sure a bunch of other guys aren’t watching or you may have a brawl on your hands.

That’s child upon child, not adult against child. Mothers don’t tell children to antagonize adults who hit them, but run to find help. And hitting someone weaker than yourself is immoral imo. You can restrain them and hold them down, but not clobber them.

Reciprocity only occurs on equal playing field. Handicapped against healthy is not a fair fight and not reciprocity.

17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

So it would seem that feeding the rapist and murderer is prescribed.

How is the punishment policy working? How many are rehabilitated? As far as I can tell, they come out of prison and return to their actions like a dog to vomit.

Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

Eh, it’s not consistent with the rest of the literal, allegorical interpretation of the bible nor in the spirit of it.

Now we’ve come full-circle in illustrating how honoring God is at odds with honoring man: God says to do good to the murderers, man says to lock them up. God says to turn the other cheek, man says to come up swinging.

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]
A judge can be faced and question and accepts testimony.

To have an invisible guy in the sky God as a judge means not having justice.

I have also seen mothers bite their children at their level of intensity.

I get the idea that you are not really listening to what reciprocity is all about and I am not about to lay the Golden Rule aside to follow your thinking that rewarding evil is somehow good.

I am afraid to ask what you would do if you got home and someone was raping your wife. I am afraid you would say you would serve him drinks between bouts.

I gave you the points I wanted and will leave you guys to argue along.

Regards
DL

Yeah I guess. I don’t even know what good justice does after we’re dead. During life, justice is served to be example to others, but after death it seems sadistic and certainly doesn’t right the wrong.

I suppose I misunderstood you the first time, did you say mothers bite their children? I’ve never heard of that. I’ll ask around.

Reciprocity - an eye for an eye, right?

Why not? That’s dogmatic ain’t it?

Yes but to fight evil, you have to know what it is. And that is where the crusades came from, lots of wars, and hell, Hitler thought he was fighting evil.

“Judge not, that you be not judged.” The sin in the garden wasn’t suddenly becoming aware of good and evil, but arrogantly presuming we could tell the difference. Thinking you know and could recognize evil such that you could reward or punish it is itself evil, if anything is evil, because it’s full of conceit.

Oh I’d beat the hell outta him, for starters. I’d be determined to.

I caught a guy in bed with my girlfriend before. I had him by the hair in one hand and my other hand drawn back, he was shaking like a leaf and looked terrified, but I couldn’t hit him. Everyone gave me shit about letting him go, so I’m more determined for the future and rape is quite a different thing, yeah, I’d beat him senseless. But I’m not a saint, so don’t follow my lead.

:laughing:

Tag-teaming eh? :smiley:

I think I said there are problems with using conscience to determine the good and when someone should feel bad. NOt that it wasn’t conscience. I also went on to say that one had to go deeply into oneself to be able to trust conscience. I may have contradicted myself as I explored, but I think as my argument developed I indicated that it could work, that one could find a voice in one’s head to trust, once one went through the process of separating out culture, parenting, self-hate posing as conscience, and so on. And once one challenged ideas, like those from scripture, that can lead to guilt where it is not necessary. I don’t think this is easy. I think we are taught now, by both secular and religious authorities, to feel guilty for things that are part and parcel of being social mammals, such as emotions - which I mentioned. To say that conscience determines the good and bad, to me makes it seem like that voice we call conscience is one we can take for granted is not utterly contaminated by sick cultural elements.

Oh, the poor guy probably wants a little nap, let him get down for a while.

Aren’t we then giving pyschopaths the right to rape out daughters and more?

So conscience is the source of evil and it would be best not to have one. Psychopaths become not just fine when they harm others, but role models. If we were all psychopaths, there would be no bad acts.

I have a hard time knowing what is Jesus, what is from the people who listened and told the stories and what is from translators and the church. But a number of the quotes of Jesus can lead to guilt. A quick search found…

To pressure people to love their enemies is too much - just imagine what child victims of violence will do with that kind of thing. Now, of course, he may have been misquoted. Translations may push certain words like ‘love’ here to far forward. But back in the days when I as an adult relooked at Jesus, the Biblical Jesus had a lot of ideas that put pressure on the emotional body in ways I consider unloving.

I like what he did there, but there is still guilt. Go and sin no more. Just because she slept with someone outside her marriage does not mean it was a sin. And you should agree if conscience is the judge. Perhaps her husband was a violent unloving man, and once in her life she wanted to make love where there was love present. Jesus just assumed it was wrong what she did, but that no one else could be violent towards here SINCE THEY WERE NOT PERFECT.

But it seems like your argument is: here he went against guilt, so he does not produce guilt. He said and did a lot of stuff. They add up to a lot of room for guilt.

You think that is not going to create a lot of guilt in people. Imagine poor teenagers listening to that, they are all having premarital sex, but Jesus’ estimation. Look, I love the guy for interfering with the violence of the old shitty Jewish laws. Kudos to him. He did some wonderful stuff, given the time and the culture, as far as I can tell. But he also set the seeds for a lot of guilt and shame. Now it is not merely acts, but internal reactions - and quite human ones - that are sins. I think the Jesus shift to expecting harmony between the internal and the external has a positive side. I also want a harmony there and of course what is inside is important. But his way of doing this included making everyone a mortal sinners for natural attractions to the opposite sex.

I think the spirit of the Bible - or spirits of the Bible - are a mixed bag. Some good stuff, some improvements on what went before, but also some really terrible stuff, including some of what jesus said (according to the Bible).

mentalfloss.com/article/67108/ti … real-fight
Bruce Lee and Jesus are very hard to follow both at the same time.

OK

Oh, I love the nasty kind gesture to an asshole. I think that can be a great response. But that’s only for real assholes. And they have to be the right kind who will feel bad after you do that. Otherwise it is a want of some fine acting.

Sure, I am not suggesting it is practical to slap back all the time. Nor am I saying that the opposite of turn the other cheek should be a rule. If some say X is true. If I disagree, it may because I think it is only sometimes true or rarely true. I may think it is never true. But there is no reason to assume I mean -X is true. Or one should always -X.

That’s odd. One would expect that deciding if stealing is right or wrong is also “up to your conscience”. Surely all questions of right or wrong are up to your conscience once you take the approach of centering ethics in yourself.

Not really.

You guys are way too long winded for me and my two little typing fingers.


“Reciprocity - an eye for an eye, right?”

Basically, yes. The penalty for a crime should be at about the same level as the crime.
I think a just judge will consider that the perpetrator, and his guilt, should be given some mercy from that due to the fact that the criminal was not born that way. He was made that way by all who interacted with him.

As a Universalist, I see that as the most just way to go.


“Why not? That’s dogmatic ain’t it?”

I think it could be said that my adherence to the Golden Rule is dogmatic, but a Gnostic Christian is always ready to evolve his God to a higher form if something better, in terms of rules and laws to live by, comes along.

Our God evolves while most are stagnant thinking and not really the best thinking for these times of enlightenment.


“Yes but to fight evil, you have to know what it is.”

Sure. Those issues are subjective. Most of us know what is good and evil. You do as you have judged Hitler evil. So why would you allow yourself to judge evil and want me not to do so?


“Judge not, that you be not judged.”

Why do you fear judgement and tell us not to do it when you yourself judge others?

If you are not living the best way, would you not like to be judged and corrected so that you might live a better way?

Regards
DL

If morals and ethics are subjective, which I think they are, while you seem to think them objective, tell us where you get your objective moral tenets from.

I see nothing wrong with a general idea that steeling is wrong, but I do see a problem when it is thought to be a rule cast in stone.

Let’s say you happened to be where you heard two guys with a bomb plotting to kill someone.
They leave the bomb in their room to go to lunch.

Would you, if there was no other authority available before the possible detonation, break into their room and steal their bomb?

I sure would as stealing it would be the right thing to do. No?

Regards
DL

I think the idea is that ‘stealing’ as a word means that it is not OK. By definitions if you are calling it stealing it is bad to the person labelling it that way. If I say I murdered someone I am judging it negatively. If I say I killed someone, then we don’t know yet.

If I ‘fairly redistribute devices’ when I take what you think of as your lawnmower, then I would never refer to it as stealing. Like ‘eminent domain’ or ‘repossessing your car’ or ‘manifest destiny’ may or may not be what some people would think of as stealing, but the one doing the taking probably does not.

I would not, however, say to a police officer that I stole it. Not because I’d be afraid of being charged, but because I would not think of that as stealing. Just as if I were a surgeon who cut out some cancerous tissue from a leg, I would not say I maimed that guy.

So you’re saying that “stealing is wrong” is a truism rather than a moral judgment of conscience.

Strange. I didn’t say that I think that morals and ethics are objective. Where did you get that idea?

Yes. So if you are choosing that word, you are making that judgment, since it means taking immorally. Which is my take on Serendipity’s position. Me personally, there might be situations where I might use the negative word for various reasons, while still feeling it was not wrong for me to do it. IOW I might want to make it clear I had broken the law or some moral rule, given the situation.

Not the same type of scenario at all. The patient knew what the doctor was going to do and volunteered. The two who are stolen from did not volunteer to have their bomb stolen.

Taking that bomb by breaking into that room is break and enter and thief, in the legal definition.

I will let you argue with that definition. I will just accept it, admit I stole the bomb and let the courts, should the cops be fool enough to arrest me, decide if it was a justifiable thief or not.

If you would not call break and enter and taking someone else’s property thief, what would you call it? The legal term would be nice.

Regards
DL

This example seems to be based on the idea that all moral rules have the same “weight”.

That’s not the case. Even if a person believes in objective morals, he can say that stealing a bomb, although morally wrong is the preferable action to allowing people to be blown up by the bomb which is also morally wrong. The lesser of two wrongs.

IOW, there is a hierarchy in moral rules.

From what you wrote.

Perhaps I read you wrong.

I thought you were trying to take the judgements out of our consciousness. “Well, stealing is wrong, but what constitutes stealing is up to your conscience to decide. It’s like that I think. I mean, absent laws n stuff.”

Apologies.

I thought that your “Well, stealing is wrong”, was being offered as an objective moral tenet.

Regards
DL

Correct, in a sense, and that is why I think they are all subjective and not objective.

The hierarch can be adjusted by need.

===========

I, again, might be reading you wrong but this seems to disagree with what you put above.

"This example seems to be based on the idea that all moral rules have the same “weight”.

That’s not the case.

Regards
DL

Objective morality says that there is one correct evaluation of the morality of any particular situation.

Subjective morality says that there can be several different correct evaluations of the morality of a particular situation, depending on who is doing the evaluating.

“Need” is simply one factor within a particular situation. “Need” has nothing to do with whether morality is objective or subjective.

True on your last, again while denying that morality is objective. You have yet to show an example of objective morality so do not clutter the discussion without an example. No one can know what the hell you are referring to.

As to need, it is certainly a factor in determining morality.

youtube.com/watch?v=Xa6c3OTr6yA

Regards
DL