The problem of evil

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

I’m not even arguing whether or not morality is objective or subjective.

I merely stated what makes a morality objective or subjective.

I think that I can participate in any way that I choose.

Consider it clutter if you want. I don’t decide how you evaluate it.

I spelled it out pretty clearly.

Ok.

Regards
DL

There are lots of ways to feel guilty that have nothing to do with religion. For instance, I feel guilty because I was mean to James and now he’s gone. No one told me to feel guilty and there is no law saying I should, but it just is. I find most of the time that I get mad at someone online, I endup feeling bad about it later because I lacked understanding at the time. So I don’t know… we need a general road map to follow and let our conscience guide the nuances. I can’t think of a better way.

That’s a good observation. I suppose psychopaths have the advantage in society, but probably couldn’t form a homogeneous one because it doesn’t confer any societal benefit. If society is deemed good, then psychopaths are deemed bad.

In the real bible, Jesus’ words are in red, but that delineation is lost online.

Yeah, that’s what’s referred to as part of the beatitudes of the sermon on the mount.

How does that engender guilt? The idea is that God is supposed to recompense in place of our vengeance, but that presupposes that God exists. If God did exist and did look after his flock, then it would be a good way to act, but what happens is we love our enemies who then shit all over us and God does nothing because he is not there (or doesn’t care).

It is sin if she promised forever on an altar. She should feel guilty in that case.

I think conscience applies within the established framework and not everyone’s conscience is functional:

1 Timothy 4 New International Version (NIV)
4 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

The idea is that you’re “born again” and receive a new spirit (new guiding conscience I suppose) and that separates the wheat from the weeds: one goes into the barn and the other into the oven.

The Parable of the Weeds
24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

Then he should feel guilty.

I’m not sure he assumed it was wrong. Apparently he had mind-reading abilities:

7 When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” 8 (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)
9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.[a])
10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”
11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?”
13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”
16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”
17 “I have no husband,” she replied. Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband.
18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”

Well it’s true, ain’t it?

Yep, I went through that.

Some of it is deserving of guilt imo.

That could be church perversion. Much of the sexual laws were beneficial to society at the time.

Most things are mixed bags, except Alan, whose error has eluded me for some time.

Interesting. I didn’t know about that fight. Yes, why practice fighting if you intend to turn the other cheek? A fool who persists in his folly will become wise. The Buddhists beat the Samurai Brigands for the best land and temples. How? It’s like Jesus kicked Bruce’s ass somehow. How do people who don’t fight, beat the warriors?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNToJwKE4F0[/youtube]

Yes and remember God is supposed to be on your side as well in the case of those assholes who do not feel bad afterward.

If that is true then there must be some way of determining when to hit back and when to not.

In the context of Christianity, stealing is always wrong, but the nuances are left to your conscience because the law cannot possibly describe every situation. Likewise, insults are always wrong, but what constitutes insult is too variable to describe in a rule.

Jump in however you can. This is fine.

A lot of folks see it that way which is why Jesus said:

[i]38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

That’s true, but how can you be sure evolving is not devolving? Everyone thinks they are doing right.

I brought up Hitler because it’s colloquially assumed he was evil, not that he actually was. He is just representative of the general cultural idea of evil. I’m not judging him. I’m just saying that if you, by chance, assume he was evil, then consider that he thought he was doing good.

Because I’m a hypocrite like everyone else lol

Yes I would like some good advice, but no one can answer my questions it seems