The self illusion and the selfish gene

[LucyJr]

Firstly, I think people are missing the point that God created Evil…the tree was called “The Tree of Knowledge and Evil”. Adam and Eve didn’t create the tree in Eden did they? So to say that “sin” or “evil” is a creation of man and that God is disappointed because of it is kind of silly.

I disagree.
The tree was called the "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", not just "knowledge of evil."

The tree in itself was nothing. The commandament of God to not eat out of that tree was something, and the choice of man who chosed to pass the commandament of God and eat from that tree was also something.

I disagree that God created evil. Evil is not something by itself. There are no two opposing forces Good vs Evil, as some forms of pantheism teach. Evis is like a parasit. Its not even in itself, its a denigration of good. Good is good in itself. Evil is not evil in itself, it is evil in good, it is something that is like the absence of good, something that eats out from good. It might be hard to understand, because our imagination can go wrong. But let's put things in their proper places.

Good is only good and meaningful because there are intelligent beings that can comprehend it, understand it. But how? By the act of choice, by free will. The free will of any being has the capacity and potential either to chose good, either to chose bad. Its not a split will, its not a schizoprenic will, there are no two kinds of will, because the will itself is a testimony of good, because the will can understand morality and its consequences. Thus the will is good thing, as God created it. Because whithout free will, we wouldn't be capable of living meaningful lives and moral lives.

So evil is not a creation, evil is something potential in the act of moral choices. Thus it can be argumented that in one sense, evil has always been existent, as something potential, in the free will of God. Can God sin? In a paradoxical sense, He can, but also He can not. Moreover, knowing its perfect moraly nature, we can be sure that ultimately God can not and will not sin, and He has never sined, just like Jesus was not.

You say this:

God created “evil” along with “good”, just as he did light and dark.

And this is simply not correct.

Firstly, evil can not be created, just like good can not be created, because good has always been existent in the self-existent, eternal nature of God.

So the underlying essence of existence as it is is that God, the ground of it, is a moral being, but not only is a moral being, but is the activity of morality itself. At the heart of existence and reality, there is something and somebody which is Absolute and Perfection, in all its attributes. His very Perfection, and self-existent nature, are something good in itself, thus proving that ultimately and before all that exist, existence is good, because Perfection is good.

Then he has moral attributes, like Justice, Mercy, Forgiveness which also are attributes of good, of morality itself, which is God.
So God is Good, and "The Good", like Plato said, is God Himself.

So there is nothing "neutral" at the heart of reality and existence. Neutrality is also something which does not exist in itself...its something that is a perversion of good by the act of free will. So neutrality is not neutrality, is evilness, because is a perversion of good. Moral compromise is evil, because it is a perversion of good.

At the basis of existence, at the heart of it, it has been, it is, and it will always be, Absolute Goodness and Perfection, which is God. Good is the only essence that really exist in itself. It is self-existent and self-evident, and intrinsicaly valuable and meanigful.

Evil is not. Evil exist only as a perversion of good, made possible by the act of free will, and made potential by free will itself.
Evil is not a force in itself, only good is it. Evil can exit only if good exist. Evil is dependent of good.

There is not battle between good and evil, like many think it is. The battle is in the mind, in the act of free will. Only there it can be thought as a battle between good and evil. But in reality, only good exist as a thing in itself, that is self-evident.

You cannot have one without the other. We were meant to sin on this earth…certainly God knew that there wouldn’t be one single person who didn’t commit one sin or another.

I think you make some quick assumptions which are not true.

I already argumented that God's foreknowledge is not foreordination. The foreknowledge of God does not change and influence reality.

So even if God "knew" that evil will come to its potential by the act of free will when he created the man, that simply does not make God the author of evil.

God created man with the ability to live meaningful life, giving him free will, to chose good or not to chose good, which means evil.
So God knew that man would sin...BUT:

God also knew that in order for man to understand good and meaning, he must have free will. So this is the risk that free will caries in itself, the potential to do good, but also to do evil. And God assumed this risk, because this is the only way he could create something meanigful, that has the ability to chose freely, to make moral decisions, to understand and to have responsability.

He could do two things: either create people "in his own image" with the ability for morality, or either create robots and blind creatures or anything else, like animals are. Why did He chose to create us? I don't think is our business to call the Creator to answer to such questions.

But if you take away the idea of God creating “evil” then it makes no logical sense….it doesn’t make sense in any way.

Yes it does. The logical sense is that evil is a creation of our choices, and we are responsable for it.

Even IF God didn’t create sin, it would make him unjust for punishing us for sinning when he knew that we would sin…everyone would.

Well if God didn't created sin, the only logical alternative is that we "created" sin. So then how it is unjust that God judges us for our sins, the sins which are ours? Simply because He knew we would sin...that is simply absurd.

If I know you want to do something evil to someone, and I try to persuade you to stop you, try to convince you, but ultimately the act of moral choice is yours, and I can not take the decision in your place, because you are another person, with another story, with another free will, and you do that evil to that person, while i knew before, does that make me unjust or moraly guilty?

So is with God. He can not chose in our place, and he can not violate our moral freedom. We are a complex creation, "wonderfuly made"...but this comes with responsabilities. If you were a dog or a rock, you wouldn't be judged for anything, but many things you wouldn't understand. In fact, you wouldn't understand almost anything.

And if God cannot see a clear picture of all future events and only shadows, then He is certainly not omnipotent and omniscient as the Bible would ascribe Him.

God not only can see a clear of all future events, He can see a PERFECT picture of future events. He does not see shaddows...that was just a analogy, a example to God's foreknowledge. So God is omnipotent and omniscient.

I am actually winning your argument for you Lucy…(since I believe in God anyhow…lol), but in order to understand good, you must understand evil….to appreciate love, you have to know hate.

I agree. The tree was called "The Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil".

This would be the most logical conclusion for “the problem of evil” Lucy

Somehow and partialy, yes, I think you are right.
Hovewer, God didn't create evil so we can understand good.

but it also goes against what most churches teach…and, it would make God unjust for punishing us or sending anyone to Hell.

I don't think it goes against of most curches teachings...classic christian doctrines agree that moral responsability comes with the potential for evil...but this is not the whole story. It is incomplete, like I said.

 

[just me]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvVt4lDSPeY

30 minutes to 35 minutes is worthy of your time

Scientists talk about DNA and cells, editing enzymes, the code of DNA, and how codes lead back to some form of intelligence.
[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION] ," When lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and when sin is finished, it bringeth forth death. " just to add to your discussion

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION] ," When lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and when sin is finished, it bringeth forth death. " just to add to your discussion

Blessed is the one who undestand this...

 

[Skarekrow]

I disagree.
The tree was called the "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", not just "knowledge of evil."

The tree in itself was nothing. The commandament of God to not eat out of that tree was something, and the choice of man who chosed to pass the commandament of God and eat from that tree was also something.

I disagree that God created evil. Evil is not something by itself. There are no two opposing forces Good vs Evil, as some forms of pantheism teach. Evis is like a parasit. Its not even in itself, its a denigration of good. Good is good in itself. Evil is not evil in itself, it is evil in good, it is something that is like the absence of good, something that eats out from good. It might be hard to understand, because our imagination can go wrong. But let's put things in their proper places.

Good is only good and meaningful because there are intelligent beings that can comprehend it, understand it. But how? By the act of choice, by free will. The free will of any being has the capacity and potential either to chose good, either to chose bad. Its not a split will, its not a schizoprenic will, there are no two kinds of will, because the will itself is a testimony of good, because the will can understand morality and its consequences. Thus the will is good thing, as God created it. Because whithout free will, we wouldn't be capable of living meaningful lives and moral lives.

So evil is not a creation, evil is something potential in the act of moral choices. Thus it can be argumented that in one sense, evil has always been existent, as something potential, in the free will of God. Can God sin? In a paradoxical sense, He can, but also He can not. Moreover, knowing its perfect moraly nature, we can be sure that ultimately God can not and will not sin, and He has never sined, just like Jesus was not.

You say this:


And this is simply not correct.

Firstly, evil can not be created, just like good can not be created, because good has always been existent in the self-existent, eternal nature of God.

So the underlying essence of existence as it is is that God, the ground of it, is a moral being, but not only is a moral being, but is the activity of morality itself. At the heart of existence and reality, there is something and somebody which is Absolute and Perfection, in all its attributes. His very Perfection, and self-existent nature, are something good in itself, thus proving that ultimately and before all that exist, existence is good, because Perfection is good.

Then he has moral attributes, like Justice, Mercy, Forgiveness which also are attributes of good, of morality itself, which is God.
So God is Good, and "The Good", like Plato said, is God Himself.

So there is nothing "neutral" at the heart of reality and existence. Neutrality is also something which does not exist in itself...its something that is a perversion of good by the act of free will. So neutrality is not neutrality, is evilness, because is a perversion of good. Moral compromise is evil, because it is a perversion of good.

At the basis of existence, at the heart of it, it has been, it is, and it will always be, Absolute Goodness and Perfection, which is God. Good is the only essence that really exist in itself. It is self-existent and self-evident, and intrinsicaly valuable and meanigful.

Evil is not. Evil exist only as a perversion of good, made possible by the act of free will, and made potential by free will itself.
Evil is not a force in itself, only good is it. Evil can exit only if good exist. Evil is dependent of good.

There is not battle between good and evil, like many think it is. The battle is in the mind, in the act of free will. Only there it can be thought as a battle between good and evil. But in reality, only good exist as a thing in itself, that is self-evident.


I think you make some quick assumptions which are not true.

I already argumented that God's foreknowledge is not foreordination. The foreknowledge of God does not change and influence reality.

So even if God "knew" that evil will come to its potential by the act of free will when he created the man, that simply does not make God the author of evil.

God created man with the ability to live meaningful life, giving him free will, to chose good or not to chose good, which means evil.
So God knew that man would sin...BUT:

God also knew that in order for man to understand good and meaning, he must have free will. So this is the risk that free will caries in itself, the potential to do good, but also to do evil. And God assumed this risk, because this is the only way he could create something meanigful, that has the ability to chose freely, to make moral decisions, to understand and to have responsability.

He could do two things: either create people "in his own image" with the ability for morality, or either create robots and blind creatures or anything else, like animals are. Why did He chose to create us? I don't think is our business to call the Creator to answer to such questions.


Yes it does. The logical sense is that evil is a creation of our choices, and we are responsable for it.


Well if God didn't created sin, the only logical alternative is that we "created" sin. So then how it is unjust that God judges us for our sins, the sins which are ours? Simply because He knew we would sin...that is simply absurd.

If I know you want to do something evil to someone, and I try to persuade you to stop you, try to convince you, but ultimately the act of moral choice is yours, and I can not take the decision in your place, because you are another person, with another story, with another free will, and you do that evil to that person, while i knew before, does that make me unjust or moraly guilty?

So is with God. He can not chose in our place, and he can not violate our moral freedom. We are a complex creation, "wonderfuly made"...but this comes with responsabilities. If you were a dog or a rock, you wouldn't be judged for anything, but many things you wouldn't understand. In fact, you wouldn't understand almost anything.


God not only can see a clear of all future events, He can see a PERFECT picture of future events. He does not see shaddows...that was just a analogy, a example to God's foreknowledge. So God is omnipotent and omniscient.



I agree. The tree was called "The Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil".


Somehow and partialy, yes, I think you are right.
Hovewer, God didn't create evil so we can understand good.


I don't think it goes against of most curches teachings...classic christian doctrines agree that moral responsability comes with the potential for evil...but this is not the whole story. It is incomplete, like I said.

If God created “good” then the opposite of that would be “evil” right?
The absence of good is not evil in itself…but even if the tree was “The tree of knowledge of good and evil” then it meant that God had knowledge of evil…and by creating the tree with the knowledge that the fruit would be eaten (even if it was just a shadow knowledge) then one could make the assumption that God intended for mankind to sin.
So how can he then punish us for his own desire?
If God has absolute power over all things…and created all things…then God would also have had to be the creator of Lucifer and Hell.
There is a contradiction in that Christians claim that God knows all, and has power over all…then why didn’t He know that Lucifer would turn against him? And, by the act of creating him with the power to commit great evil…didn’t God also create evil by not restraining Lucifer’s abilities?
As far as what you said about you trying to convince me not to do evil and I do that evil anyway…there is a difference here…
Let’s say I had no knowledge of how to kill someone…this could represent Adam and Eve before they ate the fruit.
It would be silly for you to try and convince me not to kill anyone, if I had no knowledge of what killing even was.
But once the fruit was eaten…it would be like you explaining to me how to kill someone…even more so, it would be like you handing me a gun and explaining to me how to fire it, the best place to shoot someone, etc. etc.
If I had no gun, and no knowledge of how to kill or even what killing was…then chances are I wouldn’t ever kill anyone.
So why even put the tree there? Clearly the plan was for Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit….especially if God knew they would if it was there.
One could say that God not only knew we would sin, but intended for us to sin.
Then to turn around and punish us because we sin would make God unjust.
I believe that we are here to experience all these things Lucy…the good, the evil…to understand for ourselves what they feel like, how they affect us, how they effect others…to learn why we should choose good over evil for ourselves.
But the only way to do that is to sin…to understand why it is wrong…to understand why good should always prevail in the end.
I think this was the deal we all made before coming here…and I don’t think we will be punished or tortured in Hell for anything we have done.
Even if you are a truly evil person…one could say that they are mentally ill for being that way…but the understanding we will gain once the veil is lifted from our eyes and we reach the understanding of “why”, is the ultimate goal.
I don’t think that our “souls” have evil in them at all…and that this whole earth is a learning experience for us all.
But that is just my own belief.

 

[just me]

If a person were to try and understand something eternal in a temporal mind, he might see an arch angel standing over the throne of God watching and coveting.

quote" There is a contradiction in that Christians claim that God knows all, and has power over all…then why didn’t He know that Lucifer would turn against him? And, by the act of creating him with the power to commit great evil…didn’t God also create evil by not restraining Lucifer’s abilities?" unquote

It amuses me how little we know and understand about God. We should never allow our limited understanding to make assumptions about Him or His Divine Will. As for Lucifer? It's hard to find good help. The devil cometh not but to steal, kill, and destroy.

Consider those that have given their lives to be monks. Do you really think God wants them to rush out and try sin? He calls us to be holy. Can't justify what you are saying except it is how maybe you would like to see it, @Skarekrow . There are so many verses
that better explain than I can possibly try what bothers you. I wish you would dig deeper into the scriptures and find people to spend time with that better understand the scriptures. In person, not in crow form.

Pin It
[h=2]Archangel Lucifer[/h]There is alot of information about Lucifer, whether it is from the Bible, or from other religions. Lucifer was an Archangel long ago. Lucifer, meaning, in Latin, as "Light bringer, Bearer of Light." Lucifer is now known to the world as Satan, or the Devil. Satan, meaning "Adversary."Lucifer is said to have been cast out of Heaven because of "sinful pride", thinking that he was equal to God and rebelling against him. Supposedly the most evil thing that Satan does to us is tempt us into thinking that we are God. It is said that Lucifer is the first Angel to have sinned. Some say that Lucifer is not the opposite of God, but the opposite of Michael, the head Archangel. It is said that Lucifer was created by God on the 6 day of creation. The original theory is that Lucifer is the Archangel that rebelled against God and lead the revolt against him. Lucifer was jealous of the love that God felt against Adam. Some scholars actually believe that Hell is located in Heaven. It is believed that Lucifer aligned himself with one third of the Angels in an attempt to overthrow God and the faithful Angels, taking over the Kingdom. Lucifer and his Angels engaged in battle with Archangel Michael and his Angels and were defeated, casted down to earth. copied

 

[LucyJr]

Sory to answer this only now , but here we go:

If God created “good” then the opposite of that would be “evil” right?

No, God didn't create "good", because good is God, and God is good. So good has always been self-existent.

The absence of good is not evil in itself…but even if the tree was “The tree of knowledge of good and evil” then it meant that God had knowledge of evil

Of course God had knowledge of evil, even before the Creation, before creating Adam and Eve, before the tree, before everything thaty He created, God knew about the possibility of evil, in virtue of the fact that He himself is the paradigm of Goodness.

“The tree of knowledge of good and evil” was nothing in itself, it was called this way symbollicaly. Its meaning was that as soon Adam or Eve would chose to not follow the command of God to NOT eat from the tree, their moral INNOCENCE and SINLESNESS would cease, and they would know and experience EVIL, or SIN. So that's why the tree was called "“The tree of knowledge of good and evil”. It was a symbol, something that expressed a moral truth in it.

and by creating the tree with the knowledge that the fruit would be eaten (even if it was just a shadow knowledge) then one could make the assumption that God intended for mankind to sin.

Firstly, it was not a shaddow knowledge. It was a PERFECT knowledge.

But why would make one the assumption that God INTENDED for people to sin? God KNEW Adam and Eve would sin, but he never INTENDED such a thing.
This assumption is irrational.

So how can he then punish us for his own desire?

Again, there was no such a desire in God for people to sin. His desire would have been that people would NOT sin. Yet people sinned, and God knew before this. This say something about free will, and responsability.

If God has absolute power over all things…and created all things…then God would also have had to be the creator of Lucifer and Hell.

A distinction needs to be made. God has absolute power, within what is LOGICALY POSSIBLE, not IMPOSSIBLE.
So yes, God was the creator of Lucifer, and Hell too. But I don't see where the problem lies.
Lucifer, just like us, chosed to sin.

There is a contradiction in that Christians claim that God knows all, and has power over all…then why didn’t He know that Lucifer would turn against him?

He knew about it.

And, by the act of creating him with the power to commit great evil…didn’t God also create evil by not restraining Lucifer’s abilities?

Not at all. Because God also created Lucifer with the power to commit great GOOD...
for God to restrain Lucifer abilities, it would mean to make Lucifer incapable of doing evil, but also good...a kind of robot, whithout free will, whithout true FREEDOM, whithout dignity, whithout inherent WORTH, whithout the capability to understand meaning.

I believe that we are here to experience all these things Lucy…the good, the evil…to understand for ourselves what they feel like, how they affect us, how they effect others…to learn why we should choose good over evil for ourselves.

I don't think its that simple.

Because if it were how you say, good wouldn't be good, and evil wouldn't be evil.
Good MEANS something, and evil MEANS something. By your afirmation, the intrinsic value of goodness disappear. There is nothing sacred in it, there is nothing good in it. If one needs to make evil so as to understand good...that makes good not good enough, and evil not evil enough. There is a contradiction here. Either good is really good, and is good in itself, either good is not really good.

But the only way to do that is to sin…to understand why it is wrong…to understand why good should always prevail in the end.
I think this was the deal we all made before coming here…and I don’t think we will be punished or tortured in Hell for anything we have done.
Even if you are a truly evil person…one could say that they are mentally ill for being that way…but the understanding we will gain once the veil is lifted from our eyes and we reach the understanding of “why”, is the ultimate goal.
I don’t think that our “souls” have evil in them at all…and that this whole earth is a learning experience for us all.
But that is just my own belief.

I know there are people who hate themselfs...not because they have problems with their "self-esteem", but because they see in themselfs some contradictions and evil things that makes them to hate themselfs. A guilt, a shame, a desire to be forgiven, a desire to "escape" of themselfs. Many of them are people who never heard or believe the goespel of Christianity.
This is the sole and most important problem in man...the evil, the moral impurity.
I believe according to the Bible, many of theese men will be saved, because they genuinely repented in total disgust of their actions, and althought they did not knew God or Jesus, they understood by their consciousness that they are evil, and worthy of judgement.

But then there are other men, who never see any problem with themselfs, who die with the conscience "seared" and "hardened". They make the same reapeated actions all their lives, and never never something "gets a hold" on them, never they understand and comprehend the meaning of their actions, the responsability that reside in their very consciousness.

Its interesting how different can people be...like Dostoievski noted, when he was in prison, some of the people there were eaten alive by guilt and shame, and others were just...coll with it, happy-go-lucky.
The point I'm trying to make, Skarekrow, there is no fundamental difference between a man in the prison convicted for murder and a liar, or a person that makes judgements. From which category are we???

You say this:

I don’t think that our “souls” have evil in them at all…and that this whole earth is a learning experience for us all.

And according to the Bible, this is not true. Your statement is just idealism, a irrational romanticism. It lacks any depth of comprehending of the true nature of humanity. Its just sentimentality.
According to those who see things objectively (and I'm not naturally one of them), a romantic can be a person who can endlesly do things and experience life, but he will not understand and get a firm position in the world of responsability, of understanding the consequences of his own actions. He will remain a eternal child...he sees the world in "pink colored glasses", a superficial person, a happy-go-lucky person...

 

[Skarekrow]

Sory to answer this only now , but here we go:


No, God didn't create "good", because good is God, and God is good. So good has always been self-existent.


Of course God had knowledge of evil, even before the Creation, before creating Adam and Eve, before the tree, before everything thaty He created, God knew about the possibility of evil, in virtue of the fact that He himself is the paradigm of Goodness.

“The tree of knowledge of good and evil” was nothing in itself, it was called this way symbollicaly. Its meaning was that as soon Adam or Eve would chose to not follow the command of God to NOT eat from the tree, their moral INNOCENCE and SINLESNESS would cease, and they would know and experience EVIL, or SIN. So that's why the tree was called "“The tree of knowledge of good and evil”. It was a symbol, something that expressed a moral truth in it.


Firstly, it was not a shaddow knowledge. It was a PERFECT knowledge.

But why would make one the assumption that God INTENDED for people to sin? God KNEW Adam and Eve would sin, but he never INTENDED such a thing.
This assumption is irrational.

On the contrary…it is irrational to think otherwise…
If God had PERFECT knowledge that Adam and Eve would partake of the fruit and sin…then the very act of creating the tree in the first place would make this intentional on God’s part.

Again, there was no such a desire in God for people to sin. His desire would have been that people would NOT sin. Yet people sinned, and God knew before this. This say something about free will, and responsability.


A distinction needs to be made. God has absolute power, within what is LOGICALY POSSIBLE, not IMPOSSIBLE.
So yes, God was the creator of Lucifer, and Hell too. But I don't see where the problem lies.
Lucifer, just like us, chosed to sin.


He knew about it.


Not at all. Because God also created Lucifer with the power to commit great GOOD...
for God to restrain Lucifer abilities, it would mean to make Lucifer incapable of doing evil, but also good...a kind of robot, whithout free will, whithout true FREEDOM, whithout dignity, whithout inherent WORTH, whithout the capability to understand meaning.

There is no problem…the idea that God didn’t create good…that it was preexisting…is a contradiction…the same with the idea of God have absolute knowledge of evil, but not having the capacity to commit evil himself. Of course, God being said to be what God is…he wouldn’t, but if he wished it so, surely he could.

I don't think its that simple.

Because if it were how you say, good wouldn't be good, and evil wouldn't be evil.
Good MEANS something, and evil MEANS something. By your afirmation, the intrinsic value of goodness disappear. There is nothing sacred in it, there is nothing good in it. If one needs to make evil so as to understand good...that makes good not good enough, and evil not evil enough. There is a contradiction here. Either good is really good, and is good in itself, either good is not really good.



I know there are people who hate themselfs...not because they have problems with their "self-esteem", but because they see in themselfs some contradictions and evil things that makes them to hate themselfs. A guilt, a shame, a desire to be forgiven, a desire to "escape" of themselfs. Many of them are people who never heard or believe the goespel of Christianity.
This is the sole and most important problem in man...the evil, the moral impurity.
I believe according to the Bible, many of theese men will be saved, because they genuinely repented in total disgust of their actions, and althought they did not knew God or Jesus, they understood by their consciousness that they are evil, and worthy of judgement.
But then there are other men, who never see any problem with themselfs, who die with the conscience "seared" and "hardened". They make the same reapeated actions all their lives, and never never something "gets a hold" on them, never they understand and comprehend the meaning of their actions, the responsability that reside in their very consciousness.

Its interesting how different can people be...like Dostoievski noted, when he was in prison, some of the people there were eaten alive by guilt and shame, and others were just...coll with it, happy-go-lucky.
The point I'm trying to make, Skarekrow, there is no fundamental difference between a man in the prison convicted for murder and a liar, or a person that makes judgements. From which category are we???

I disagree with you.
If one has no concept of evil then one has no concept of good either, and one could also say that no one would have free will either.
How could Adam and Eve have free will with no concept of the absence of good? How could you say they had free will when they had an incomplete understanding of what sin/evil was?
I am not saying that evil is something that should be cultivated, but that goodness becomes something shallow without the contrast of evil.
For the same reasons that people never really know what great heights they can reach without being tested…surely as a Christian this is a concept you can understand? Why does God test mankind? Why did God test Job?
Why do nations find it necessary to find common ground, to work together, to show their humanity even more…when faced with hardship?
Great evil can be just that…a terrible, awful thing…but it has also been the inspiration for countless numbers of selfless acts, beautiful art, writing, etc.
Just as a man goes to prison for his crimes like you mentioned…why do we do that? Part is to punish them…but part is to show that person what they are missing out on by having their “free will” taken away. For some, they will return…but for others, they will reach the understanding of everything they have taken for granted by committing evil…a conclusion some would not have reached without evil existing in their lives.
Just as my own tagline says “there can be virtue in sin” not because sinning itself is of a good nature, but because good things that otherwise wouldn’t have or couldn’t have happened, happened in response to the sin or evil.
If God didn’t see fit for evil to exist and serve a purpose for us here, then why let it continue to exist at all? Surely God could remove evil from existence and still allow “free will” to exist too if He so chose? So why does it still remain? Because evil, can be the driving force of good…good greater than good could have existed in the absence of evil.

You say this:

And according to the Bible, this is not true. Your statement is just idealism, a irrational romanticism. It lacks any depth of comprehending of the true nature of humanity. Its just sentimentality.
According to those who see things objectively (and I'm not naturally one of them), a romantic can be a person who can endlesly do things and experience life, but he will not understand and get a firm position in the world of responsability, of understanding the consequences of his own actions. He will remain a eternal child...he sees the world in "pink colored glasses", a superficial person, a happy-go-lucky person...

You can call it “idealism” or “irrational romanticism” if you like…I happen to find most of what has gone on in the Bible to be irrational frankly.
I do know for a fact though that I am not a superficial, happy-go-lucky person….lol.
I am constantly trying to find answers to life just like everyone else is Lucy…I do have a very firm grasp on my own responsibilities and the consequences thereof.
But at the same time…I refuse to believe in a God who will send us to Hell after we have been told of His perfect love for us…sorry, call it wishful thinking or whatever you want to call me…but my own beliefs are no more “idealist” than yours are…you have faith that the Bible is true, and I have faith that my own beliefs are true…I would not all call you an “irrational romantic” because of your hopeful thinking that everything the Bible says is absolutely true and has not been changed or corrupted by mankind…that it is even the word of God in the first place…we are no different there at all Lucy.
If we are, then please explain how your beliefs supersede my own?

 

[LucyJr]

On the contrary…it is irrational to think otherwise…
If God had PERFECT knowledge that Adam and Eve would partake of the fruit and sin…then the very act of creating the tree in the first place would make this intentional on God’s part.

Yet I still strongly disagree with you.

It has nothing to do with that specific tree...God could name a animal "The animal of knowledge of good and evil" and tell Adam and Eve that they should not "stay as closely to that animal enough to feel its breth, to keep a healthy distance". It might sound funny...

but it was not the tree, it was the COMMAND of God. THAT was a moral duty of Adam and Eve, to LISTEN and OBBEY to the command that God has given.

So I don't think you are right in saying that God has intended for them to sin...if we are to be honest, the only thing God intended for Adam and Eve is what he prohibited to them, under a form of a moral command, which is to not eat from that tree. So what God intended was for them to LISTEN and OBBEY, not to sin. Your just making a big jump, from the intention of God for Adam and Eve to listen and obbey, to God's supposed intention for them to sin.

To me its just logic here. What do you say?

And I notice you keep accentuating the knowledge of God...and again I answer to this...God's knowledge or foreknowledge was truthful because the act of sinning on the part of Adam and Eve was going to take place...IF they weren't to sin, the act of sin wouldn't happen, and God would have foreseen their moral purity, not their sin...so its not about God's foreknowledge, its about what actualy happened.

There is no problem…the idea that God didn’t create good…that it was preexisting…is a contradiction…

Why is there a contradiction?

the same with the idea of God have absolute knowledge of evil, but not having the capacity to commit evil himself. Of course, God being said to be what God is…he wouldn’t, but if he wished it so, surely he could.

God is Perfection in all His attributes.

If he wished to do evil, He would do evil...but this is the problem: God can not and will not have any desire to do evil. That would be a logical contradiction, because its like assuming the possibility of absolute goodness turning in evilness...but that would mean good is not good in itself, it would mean good compromises in itself, it would mean that good is not good, thus good being not a "essence", not self-evident, not intrinsicaly good...but good IS good, and thus God can not and will not do evil ever, because he is absolute goodness.

 

[LucyJr]

I disagree with you.
If one has no concept of evil then one has no concept of good either, and one could also say that no one would have free will either.
How could Adam and Eve have free will with no concept of the absence of good? How could you say they had free will when they had an incomplete understanding of what sin/evil was?

This is the tricky part...

when Adam and Eve were obbeying to God, when they were walking in the garden of Eden naked, whithout shame, their moral state was that of goodness. They were righteous and beautiful, yet somehow whithout KNOWING it.

They were perfect in their worship of God, and in this state, being INNOCENT to evil and sin, they were good and righteous before God. This was their natural state...they did not knew about sleep(evil), because they were always awake and alive (good). They did not knew about evil, because they were always good. And they didn't knew they were good also. There was no dichotomy in their knowledge of good and evil, yet they were good and perfect before God, by their very innocence.
Note: this again proves that only good exist in itself, and evil is a denigration of it.

That's why the tree was called symbolically "The tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil". The moment they chosed to pass and broke the command of God, their eyes, their spiritual eyes were open to evil.
In one second, they knew about good and evil, about glory and shame, about dignity and shame, about purity and misery. They knew it all. By their disobedience to God, their eyes were open to the great evil they had done against God, and SHAME entered for the first time in the human race.

How could Adam and Eve have free will with no concept of the absence of good? How could you say they had free will when they had an incomplete understanding of what sin/evil was?

They had free will at that time also, when they were innocent. Free will does not mean to chose only between good and evil...Adam chosed how to name the animals by his free will, he chosed to talk or to stay quiet, to walk or to sit, to run or to stay...many many things. The angels from heaven also have free will...yet they did not execise their free will to chose from two evils the least of evil...they make use of their free will in other ways, one of them is to listen and obbey to God.

I am not saying that evil is something that should be cultivated, but that goodness becomes something shallow without the contrast of evil.

How could goodness be contrasted with evil when evil does not exist in itself...again, good is good enough in itself, meaning that good is actualy good, not less of a good. Good is objective and self-evident, intrinsicaly valuable.

If your statement is true, it would mean that good (God) would have to compromise with itself for evil, so as to become profound or not shallow. But that would mean again, that good is not good enough. But if something is not good enough (God), then nothing is ultimately good, thus good being inexistent.

For the same reasons that people never really know what great heights they can reach without being tested…surely as a Christian this is a concept you can understand? Why does God test mankind? Why did God test Job?

So as to learn Job a great moral truth...Job needed to learn that truth because job was a sinful man...if Job would have been righteous and holy like the angels from Heaven are, Job would knew that moral truth.

Why do nations find it necessary to find common ground, to work together, to show their humanity even more…when faced with hardship?
Great evil can be just that…a terrible, awful thing…but it has also been the inspiration for countless numbers of selfless acts, beautiful art, writing, etc.

No, because good is good in itself...good can "pass the test" alone.

Evil can not inspire anything...inspiration is something good...if there ever was a inspiration for doing good, it comes from good, not from evil. Not only it comes from good, but it is BECAUSE of good, and FOR good, and BY means of good.
So evil does not play any part in this, especialy for sharpening one's capacity for good.

 

[Skarekrow]

Yet I still strongly disagree with you.

It has nothing to do with that specific tree...God could name a animal "The animal of knowledge of good and evil" and tell Adam and Eve that they should not "stay as closely to that animal enough to feel its breth, to keep a healthy distance". It might sound funny...

but it was not the tree, it was the COMMAND of God. THAT was a moral duty of Adam and Eve, to LISTEN and OBBEY to the command that God has given.

So I don't think you are right in saying that God has intended for them to sin...if we are to be honest, the only thing God intended for Adam and Eve is what he prohibited to them, under a form of a moral command, which is to not eat from that tree. So what God intended was for them to LISTEN and OBBEY, not to sin. Your just making a big jump, from the intention of God for Adam and Eve to listen and obbey, to God's supposed intention for them to sin.

To me its just logic here. What do you say?

And I notice you keep accentuating the knowledge of God...and again I answer to this...God's knowledge or foreknowledge was truthful because the act of sinning on the part of Adam and Eve was going to take place...IF they weren't to sin, the act of sin wouldn't happen, and God would have foreseen their moral purity, not their sin...so its not about God's foreknowledge, its about what actualy happened.



Why is there a contradiction?


God is Perfection in all His attributes.

If he wished to do evil, He would do evil...but this is the problem: God can not and will not have any desire to do evil. That would be a logical contradiction, because its like assuming the possibility of absolute goodness turning in evilness...but that would mean good is not good in itself, it would mean good compromises in itself, it would mean that good is not good, thus good being not a "essence", not self-evident, not intrinsicaly good...but good IS good, and thus God can not and will not do evil ever, because he is absolute goodness.

This is the tricky part...

when Adam and Eve were obbeying to God, when they were walking in the garden of Eden naked, whithout shame, their moral state was that of goodness. They were righteous and beautiful, yet somehow whithout KNOWING it.

They were perfect in their worship of God, and in this state, being INNOCENT to evil and sin, they were good and righteous before God. This was their natural state...they did not knew about sleep(evil), because they were always awake and alive (good). They did not knew about evil, because they were always good. And they didn't knew they were good also. There was no dichotomy in their knowledge of good and evil, yet they were good and perfect before God, by their very innocence.
Note: this again proves that only good exist in itself, and evil is a denigration of it.

That's why the tree was called symbolically "The tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil". The moment they chosed to pass and broke the command of God, their eyes, their spiritual eyes were open to evil.
In one second, they knew about good and evil, about glory and shame, about dignity and shame, about purity and misery. They knew it all. By their disobedience to God, their eyes were open to the great evil they had done against God, and SHAME entered for the first time in the human race.



They had free will at that time also, when they were innocent. Free will does not mean to chose only between good and evil...Adam chosed how to name the animals by his free will, he chosed to talk or to stay quiet, to walk or to sit, to run or to stay...many many things. The angels from heaven also have free will...yet they did not execise their free will to chose from two evils the least of evil...they make use of their free will in other ways, one of them is to listen and obbey to God.


How could goodness be contrasted with evil when evil does not exist in itself...again, good is good enough in itself, meaning that good is actualy good, not less of a good. Good is objective and self-evident, intrinsicaly valuable.

If your statement is true, it would mean that good (God) would have to compromise with itself for evil, so as to become profound or not shallow. But that would mean again, that good is not good enough. But if something is not good enough (God), then nothing is ultimately good, thus good being inexistent.


So as to learn Job a great moral truth...Job needed to learn that truth because job was a sinful man...if Job would have been righteous and holy like the angels from Heaven are, Job would knew that moral truth.


No, because good is good in itself...good can "pass the test" alone.

Evil can not inspire anything...inspiration is something good...if there ever was a inspiration for doing good, it comes from good, not from evil. Not only it comes from good, but it is BECAUSE of good, and FOR good, and BY means of good.
So evil does not play any part in this, especialy for sharpening one's capacity for good.

Well, we will just have to agree to disagree…
Evil can in fact inspire good…just as someone with misguided “good” intentions can create “evil”.
There really are only three explanations for the existence of evil (if it does exist). First, evil just happened by itself. That implies that God is not omnipotent. Second, God created evil.
Even if evil is the result of a fallen angel, if God created everything, he must have created Satan knowing that he would fall, and therefore God created evil. Third, God is both good and evil…this is the possibility that makes the most sense to me.
The second case, although more plausible, violates the concept of reason. Why would a creator god create His own nemesis? The only reason I can think of is that in order to give us free will...God had to create something besides good from which to choose. If there is only one choice...free will has no meaning.
The third case really only violates our traditional concepts of good and evil….we have labeled good “good” and evil “bad”, but what if these are man-made constructs that misrepresent the true nature of good and evil?
Perhaps good and evil are just two sides of the same coin or just two movable points on a continuum?
In a world of “us against them” don’t we always consider “us” to be good and “them” to be evil? You should realize Lucy that in “their” eyes, we are the evil “them”? Who is right...it depends on your point of view.
If you can see the truth that there really is no enemy, it may be that the third case is the only one that makes any sense at all.

“Let us say that an evil is necessary if it is a logically necessary condition for the realization of some great and important good. I cannot give a convincing example here, but I can give you a sense of what I have in mind by considering some imperfect approximations to the idea. When a doctor gives you a shot in order to vaccinate you against a disease, the momentary pain you suffer is an evil in our technical sense of the term (assuming you are innocent, of course). But it is clearly justified by the future good it makes possible. Given our technological limitations, the pain is in a sense a necessary evil: it is a bit of suffering without which a greater good -- namely freedom from disease -- would not be possible. Now the pain of vaccination is not a necessary evil in any absolute sense. A painful shot may be the only way for us to prevent the disease at this point in our history: but it is certainly logically possible that there should be a painless "magic bullet" that confers complete immunity at no cost whatsoever. So the painful shot would not be an example of an absolutely necessary evil. On the other hand, if it could be shown that some great good could not possibly be achieved without some human suffering, then we should say that such suffering is to that extent necessary. Much more could be said by way of explanation here. But I hope the notion will be clear enough for our purposes in what follows.” - Princeton University, Professor Grosen

St. Augustine had some very insightful words on just this very subject Lucy…enjoy...

Is God the author of evil or its helpless victim? St. Augustine's answer has been the most intellectually credible and emotionally satisfying solution to this vexing problem.
One doesn't need a Ph.D. in theology to look around the world and realize something is desperately wrong. The existence of evil is one of the most vexing challenges a Christian--or any person, for that matter-- must grapple with. It's occupied the minds of great Christian thinkers since the beginning, including St. Augustine (354-430). For much of his life he worked hard at a solution.

Augustine's approach was not just brilliant; it was practical. His insight is intellectually credibleand emotionally satisfying in that it gives hope and offers meaning to the Christian trying to make sense out of life in a fallen world.

Two Aspects of the Problem
The problem of evil can be phrased in several ways. One approach addresses the origin of evil, prompting the syllogism (a series of statements that form a reasoned argument): 1) God created all things; 2) evil is a thing; 3) therefore, God created evil. If the first two premises are true, the conclusion is inescapable.

This formulation, if sustained, is devastating for Christianity. God would not be good if He knowingly created evil.
Augustine realized that the solution was tied to the question: What is evil? The argument above depends on the idea that evil is a thing (note the second premise). But what if evil is not a "thing" in that sense? Then evil did not need creating. If so, our search for the source of evil will take us in a another direction

Augustine approached the problem from a different angle. He asked: Do we have any convincing evidence that a good God exists? If independent evidence leads us to conclude that God exists and is good, then He would be incapable of creating evil. Something else, then, must be its source.

If Augustine's approach is fair, it prompts a pair of syllogisms that lead to a different conclusion.
First: 1) All things that God created are good;
2) evil is not good;
3) therefore, evil was not created by God.
Second:
1) God created every thing;
2) God did not create evil;
3) therefore, evil is not a thing.
The key to success here, is the truthfulness of two premises. If Augustine can offer evidence through natural theology that God exists as Creator and also that God is good, making everything He created also good, then the conclusion--evil is not a thing--automatically follows.

This is Augustine's strategy. If evil is not a thing, then the case against Christianity stated in the original syllogism is unsound because one of its premises is false. The critical question is: What is evil?

Digging a Hole in Goodness
Central to Augustine's idea of goodness (and, consequently, evil) was the notion of being. To Augustine, anything that had being was good. God as the ground of being was perfectly good, along with everything he brought into being. This goodness was a property that came in varying degrees.

With this foundation Augustine was now prepared to answer the key issue: "Where is evil then, and whence, and how crept it in hither? What is its root, and what its seed? Or hath it no being?"[1] To this Augustine answered: "Evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name 'evil.'"[2]
Augustine observed that evil always injures, and such injury is a deprivation of good. If there were no deprivation, there would be no injury. Since all things were made with goodness, evil must be the privation of goodness: "All which is corrupted is deprived of good."[3]

The diminution of the property of goodness is what's called evil. Good has substantial being; evil does not. It is like a moral hole, a nothingness that results when goodness is removed. Just as a shadow is no more than a "hole" in light, evil is a hole in goodness.

To say that something is evil, then, is a shorthand way of saying it either lacks goodness, or is a lower order of goodness than what ought to have been. But the question remains: "Whence and how crept it in hither?"

Augustine observed that evil could not be chosen because there is no evil thing to choose. One can only turn away from the good, that is from a greater good to a lesser good (in Augustine's hierarchy) since all things are good. "For when the will abandons what is above itself, and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil--not because that is evil to which it turns, but because the turning itself is wicked."[4]

Evil, then, is the act itself of choosing the lesser good. To Augustine the source of evil is in the free will of persons: "And I strained to perceive what I now heard, that free-will was the cause of our doing ill."[5] Evil was a "perversion of the will, turned aside from...God" to lesser things.[6]

Flawed Perfection
Augustine's solution has not been satisfying to some. Friedrich Schleiermacher snorted at the concept that God gave good creatures the freedom to do bad. If a being is perfect in its goodness, he held, it would never sin even if it were free to. Evil would then have to create itself ex nihilo, which is ridiculous.[7]

However, it doesn't follow that moral perfection necessarily entails immutability. That's a different type of perfection, a perfection in being. Schleiermacher's objection confuses the two. The fact that a perfectly beautiful vase is capable of being broken doesn't take away from its aesthetic perfections. In the same way, it makes sense to say that man was created morally perfect (morally whole or complete, at his proper level of goodness), even though he wasn't immutable in this perfection.

The objections raised by atheist philosophers J.L. Mackie and Antony Flew are more substantial.[8] Isn't it possible that God could have created man immutable in his goodness, yet still have the opportunity to freely choose in other areas? Won't man have immutable goodness in heaven? And will he not also have freedom to choose among certain options? Why not here on earth? Couldn't God construct man's nature such that evil simply was not an option?

Mackie and Flew are right in one regard. God could have created such a world. Freedom in the larger sense (the ability to make choices) does not require freedom in the narrow sense (the ability to make moral choices).

They miss the big picture, though: God would not have accomplished a second purpose. He not only wanted free creatures; He also wanted plenitude, that is, the greatest good possible. Plenitude--the highest good, the best of all possible worlds--requires more than just general freedom; it requires moral freedom, and that necessarily entails the possibility of evil.

Since all that God made is good, even those things which appear evil only appear that way because of a limited context or perspective. When viewed as a whole, that which appears to be evil ultimately contributes to the greater good.

For example, certain virtues couldn't exist without evil: courage, mercy, forgiveness, patience, the giving of comfort, heroism, perseverance, faithfulness, self-control, long-suffering, submission and obedience, to name a few. These are not virtues in the abstract, but elements of character that can only be had by moral souls. Just as evil is a result of acts of will, so is virtue. Acts of moral choice accomplish both.

The Best of All Worlds
A world that had never been touched by evil would be a good place, but it wouldn't be the best place possible. The best of all worlds would be a place where evil facilitated the development of virtues that are only able to exist where evil flourishes for a time. This would produce a world populated by souls that were refined by overcoming evil with good. The evil is momentary. The good that results is eternal.

What good comes out of a drive-by killing, someone might ask, or the death of a teenager through overdose, or a daughter's rape, or child abuse? The answer is that a commensurate good doesn't always come out of those individual situations, though God is certainly capable of redeeming any tragedy. Rather, the greater good results from having a world in which there is moral freedom, and moral freedom makes moral tragedies like these possible.

A Heavenly Twist
This observation reveals an interesting twist in this problem. If morality freely chosen can only happen in a world where evil is possible, then heaven will be a place where there will be no moral growth, where moral choices will not be possible because all the inhabitants of heaven will be immutably good. There is a type of soulish growth only available to inhabitants of a fallen world.

Two Scriptural observations lend credibility to this view. First, in recounting the great heroes of faith, the writer of Hebrews mentions that some were rescued by faith, but others endured by faith "...in order that they might obtain a better resurrection."[9] (Heb. 11:35) Second, Paul tells Timothy that "...godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come." (1 Tim. 4:8)

Both of these verses indicate that conditions in this life affect conditions in the next. Bearing up under evil in this life improves our resurrection in the next. Godliness in this life brings profit in the next. These benefits are not available after this life or there would be little urgency to grow now; all eternity would be left in which to catch up.

It appears that a deeper, more profound good results when virtue is won by free, moral souls struggling with evil, rather than simply granted to them as an element of their constitution.

Spoiled Goodness
Augustine knew that evil was real. Independent evidence (natural theology) was enough to convince him that God existed and that everything He created would be good. Evil, then, must be something real, but not a "thing" in the conventional sense. Evil is not a created thing, but spoiled goodness made possible by the free moral agency of rational creatures. Evil is not something present, but something missing, a privation.

The challenge that God could have created a world of free-will creatures immutable in their goodness is answered by the notion of plenitude, the greatest good. The possibility of evil also makes a greater good possible. God made a world in which true moral decision-making and development of virtues is possible in humans, manifest by persons whose character is formed through growth and struggle.

There's a sound reason why God has allowed evil. It doesn't conflict with His goodness. God is neither the author of evil, nor its helpless victim. Rather, precisely because of His goodness He chooses to co-exist with evil for a time.




I found this very interesting and insightful Lucy…it kind of finds the common ground between both our ideas regarding the existence of evil and it’s necessary actions.

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]
Perhaps you can catch some time to watch this debate. I will answer to your posts later i hope.

[video=youtube;rkVfvzpKreg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkVfvzpKreg[/video]

 

[Skarekrow]

@Skarekrow
Perhaps you can catch some time to watch this debate. I will answer to your posts later i hope.

[video=youtube;rkVfvzpKreg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkVfvzpKreg[/video]

I may have to wait for the weekend for that one buddy….lol…that’s cheating btw, just throwing up a debate in our place…lololol.

 

[LucyJr]

Well, we will just have to agree to disagree…
Evil can in fact inspire good…just as someone with misguided “good” intentions can create “evil”.

I disagree, based on the premise that inspiration is something which is good, and thus it doesn't come from evil.
On your assertion, good is dependent on evil. For good to be good, good has to "save" from evil.
But that is self-contradictory, because good is good in itself. Good doesn't need to "prove" its goodness, ot its "depthness". Good is good.

There really are only three explanations for the existence of evil (if it does exist). First, evil just happened by itself. That implies that God is not omnipotent.

I think this is the true explanation fro evil, hovewer with a little correction.

If evil just "happened by itself", it means evil would have to be pre-existent from evil, it means evil creating evil, thus its a contradictory statement.
Thus evil DOES need a casual factor, but that factor is not caused by evil itself. the factor that created evil is called free will.
But the it does not mean this:

implies that God is not omnipotent

God is omnipotent, but His omnipotence implies everything which is logicaly possible, not impossible.
For God to stop the creation of evil from the free will of man is...impossible. God's omnipotence doesn't work here.

Second, God created evil.
Even if evil is the result of a fallen angel, if God created everything, he must have created Satan knowing that he would fall, and therefore God created evil.

I don't think it makes sense at all. It is totaly absurd.

How can Absolute Goodnesss create evilness? If good would create evil...good would compromise in itself...but if good would compromise and its capable of compromise...good wouldn't be good in itself ultimately. .....and if good wouldn't be good, ultimately there wouldn't be the distinction of good and evil...morality would be a illusion, a play on God's part.

So by saying that good created evil, you logicaly eliminate any credibility of good and goodness itself, thus your whole statement is self-contradictory.

We can even recognise this and intuit it...evil is not evil in itself. When one is doing a comparation between good and evil, he will invariably compare everything with the standard of good, thus proving that good exist in itself, while evil does not. So again there is a intrinsic contradiction here.

The second case, although more plausible, violates the concept of reason. Why would a creator god create His own nemesis? The only reason I can think of is that in order to give us free will...God had to create something besides good from which to choose. If there is only one choice...free will has no meaning.

But I don't think its true...evil doesn not exist outside of free will...
You need to change you point of view...evil and good is not external, its not "outside" of free will...it is whithin free will...it comes and goes with free will. If there is no free will, there is good and evil either.

Third, God is both good and evil…this is the possibility that makes the most sense to me.
The third case really only violates our traditional concepts of good and evil….we have labeled good “good” and evil “bad”, but what if these are man-made constructs that misrepresent the true nature of good and evil?
Perhaps good and evil are just two sides of the same coin or just two movable points on a continuum?
In a world of “us against them” don’t we always consider “us” to be good and “them” to be evil? You should realize Lucy that in “their” eyes, we are the evil “them”? Who is right...it depends on your point of view.
If you can see the truth that there really is no enemy, it may be that the third case is the only one that makes any sense at all.

I disagree. If what you said is true, it would mean that something is not ultimately something...it would mean that ultimately everything is nothing, and nothing is everything, something is not something, and another thing is something...it means absurdity on any level of existence.
It would mean that at the basis of existence and reality, ultimately there is nothing that has a "nature" in itself, a intrinsic nature, a self-evident nature...but then if nothing is self-evident and "essential", not even our reason is.
It means nothing has any credentials after all...for nothing is something.

but what if these are man-made constructs that misrepresent the true nature of good and evil?

That's the whole point. If good is not good, there is no ultimately any "nature" after all.

Perhaps good and evil are just two sides of the same coin or just two movable points on a continuum?

I don't think it is so, as that would be absurd.
One can esily intuit so...when one is comparing evil and good...there comes a ultimate standard of everything, and that standard in itself can not be evi or half evil, it must be good.
it is hard to explain really...but this truth is self-evident...it is so self-evidnt that it doesn't need any explanations, Skarekrow. It just comes as a fundamental truth, that from which all truths emerges.

The only way, I say, you can understand this truth is to think profoundly and honestly for about 5 minutes, and you will see it is a self-evident truth. Your intuition (not the INFJ one), the fundamental one, the one which we can know the generals and fundamentals, will tell you and point to you that which is self-evident.

It is hard to explain it clear because it doesn't need any explanations...its just there, that good is self-evident. I just intuitively know its true, and to take any other stance, would lead to total absurdity.

In a world of “us against them” don’t we always consider “us” to be good and “them” to be evil? You should realize Lucy that in “their” eyes, we are the evil “them”? Who is right...it depends on your point of view.

No, that's not true in my opinion. "We" can consider "them" our enemies, and "they" will consider "us" their enemies, but this has nothing to do with "good" vs "evil" in any objective sense. Its just relativism, a childish relativism.

If you can see the truth that there really is no enemy, it may be that the third case is the only one that makes any sense at all.

I can see the truth that ultimately to be a enemy is relativistic, but in my opinion this has nothing to do with morality...its just a whole other situation...it has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. Can you prove to me that your example has anything to do with morality?


have to get to work, will answer the rest later. Cheers.

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]
The contradiction of your position is evident in another angle: that ultimately, good is preferable to evil, thus meaning that good is self-existent and intrinsicaly valuable, while evil is not.

Perfection is not for the pure of soul; There may be virtue in sin.

Why suposedly there might be virtue in sin? Because the virtue in sin is toward a greater good. It is that 'greater good" that ultimately ontradicts your position. For one has to ultimately chose between evil and good...what? He has to chose good, not evil. thus goodness is better than evilness.

So again this:

Perhaps good and evil are just two sides of the same coin or just two movable points on a continuum?

if it would be true, would painfuly and deadly contradict this:

Perfection is not for the pure of soul; There may be virtue in sin.

Even the word "virtue" bears a big problem for your position. You can not use legit the word "virtue". Because a "virtue" implies a ultimate good, something that which is intrinsicaly preferable and better than something else, thus pointing toward something that whcih is intrinsicaly valuable, which is goodness.

 

[Skarekrow]

I disagree, based on the premise that inspiration is something which is good, and thus it doesn't come from evil.
On your assertion, good is dependent on evil. For good to be good, good has to "save" from evil.
But that is self-contradictory, because good is good in itself. Good doesn't need to "prove" its goodness, ot its "depthness". Good is good.

You are right…good does not need evil to exist. Light does not need darkness. Sadness does not need happiness. etc. etc. They can all exist on their own. But without sadness…without suffering…would those times of happiness be as great? It is all relative Lucy…we cannot fully appreciate something until it is taken away.
You may think you appreciate what you have, and to a certain extent we can appreciate it…but this is one of the fundamental ways that we as humans learn and grow. One may think that they understand what love is…until they are in love…then they may think they understand what love is…then they have a child, and that love is very different. One may grow so accustomed to love that they begin to take it for granted…this happens all the time…it is our nature as humans…we begin to not appreciate what we have when it is a constant…and so we must have an opposite for contrast. That is the only way to truly appreciate love…that knowing that today my love my get in a car crash and be no more…we must be in the “now” because it can only be momentary. This I feel is the same with good and evil…you must have contrast…why else would God allow it to exist? This is not in contradiction to God…this is logical concept of “why”.

I think this is the true explanation fro evil, hovewer with a little correction.

If evil just "happened by itself", it means evil would have to be pre-existent from evil, it means evil creating evil, thus its a contradictory statement.
Thus evil DOES need a casual factor, but that factor is not caused by evil itself. the factor that created evil is called free will.
But the it does not mean this:



God is omnipotent, but His omnipotence implies everything which is logicaly possible, not impossible.
For God to stop the creation of evil from the free will of man is...impossible. God's omnipotence doesn't work here.


I don't think it makes sense at all. It is totaly absurd.

How can Absolute Goodnesss create evilness? If good would create evil...good would compromise in itself...but if good would compromise and its capable of compromise...good wouldn't be good in itself ultimately. .....and if good wouldn't be good, ultimately there wouldn't be the distinction of good and evil...morality would be a illusion, a play on God's part.

So by saying that good created evil, you logicaly eliminate any credibility of good and goodness itself, thus your whole statement is self-contradictory.

We can even recognise this and intuit it...evil is not evil in itself. When one is doing a comparation between good and evil, he will invariably compare everything with the standard of good, thus proving that good exist in itself, while evil does not. So again there is a intrinsic contradiction here.


But I don't think its true...evil doesn not exist outside of free will...
You need to change you point of view...evil and good is not external, its not "outside" of free will...it is whithin free will...it comes and goes with free will. If there is no free will, there is good and evil either.

Perhaps God did not create evil…perhaps it has always existed…but God allows it to happen…God allows people to suffer…God allows children to die of cancer…and perhaps we don’t understand the reasons why He allows certain things like that to happen…but you cannot deny that God could end the suffering from evil.
Why is it so hard for you to say that God allows evil? Or even that God could have created evil to provide a teaching context for good? Does that make God evil…clearly no…but it certainly changes our understanding of Him.

I disagree. If what you said is true, it would mean that something is not ultimately something...it would mean that ultimately everything is nothing, and nothing is everything, something is not something, and another thing is something...it means absurdity on any level of existence.
It would mean that at the basis of existence and reality, ultimately there is nothing that has a "nature" in itself, a intrinsic nature, a self-evident nature...but then if nothing is self-evident and "essential", not even our reason is.
It means nothing has any credentials after all...for nothing is something.


That's the whole point. If good is not good, there is no ultimately any "nature" after all.

Let’s try to avoid playing semantics with words…the fact is, no one knows the true nature of God. Whenever I bring up questions like “Why would God put the tree in the garden of Eden?” You answer that the tree was just there…for no certain purpose…I find that answer to be a cop-out. God knew what the tree was…God put the tree in that spot, at that time, KNOWING what would happen…that abdicates a certain level of free will that Adam and Eve supposedly had…in other words - God put it there for the sole purpose of them sinning…because whatever His plan was…that was clearly a part of it…I feel that it was only mankind who has changed the meaning of them partaking of the fruit to be something bad. God introduced sin because He wanted them to sin…it was our next step in physical, mental, and spiritual evolution.

I don't think it is so, as that would be absurd.
One can esily intuit so...when one is comparing evil and good...there comes a ultimate standard of everything, and that standard in itself can not be evi or half evil, it must be good.
it is hard to explain really...but this truth is self-evident...it is so self-evidnt that it doesn't need any explanations, Skarekrow. It just comes as a fundamental truth, that from which all truths emerges.

The only way, I say, you can understand this truth is to think profoundly and honestly for about 5 minutes, and you will see it is a self-evident truth. Your intuition (not the INFJ one), the fundamental one, the one which we can know the generals and fundamentals, will tell you and point to you that which is self-evident.

It is hard to explain it clear because it doesn't need any explanations...its just there, that good is self-evident. I just intuitively know its true, and to take any other stance, would lead to total absurdity.

It isn’t absurd at all Lucy. I say good cannot exist without evil, and visa versa. Evil is not the lack of good…it is the opposite of good…there is a difference.

No, that's not true in my opinion. "We" can consider "them" our enemies, and "they" will consider "us" their enemies, but this has nothing to do with "good" vs "evil" in any objective sense. Its just relativism, a childish relativism.


I can see the truth that ultimately to be a enemy is relativistic, but in my opinion this has nothing to do with morality...its just a whole other situation...it has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. Can you prove to me that your example has anything to do with morality?


have to get to work, will answer the rest later. Cheers.

Call it “childish” if you must (although I think we should try to avoid such words directed toward one another), but there is truth in what I have said.
I’m sure that Taliban feels right, and holy, and good knowing that they are carrying out the wishes of their deity…whereas they would look at Christians as the ones who are evil..so their opinion of good and evil is very different Lucy. The things that they do…that we perceive as “evil” are actually “good” and justified in their minds…the same goes for our opinion of them. If it is “childish” in any way…it is in the understanding that even a child could grasp that concept and understand it.

@Skarekrow
The contradiction of your position is evident in another angle: that ultimately, good is preferable to evil, thus meaning that good is self-existent and intrinsicaly valuable, while evil is not.

Why suposedly there might be virtue in sin? Because the virtue in sin is toward a greater good. It is that 'greater good" that ultimately ontradicts your position. For one has to ultimately chose between evil and good...what? He has to chose good, not evil. thus goodness is better than evilness.

So again this:


if it would be true, would painfuly and deadly contradict this:



Even the word "virtue" bears a big problem for your position. You can not use legit the word "virtue". Because a "virtue" implies a ultimate good, something that which is intrinsicaly preferable and better than something else, thus pointing toward something that whcih is intrinsicaly valuable, which is goodness.

Once again…I believe that God allows evil to exist and could have created evil in order for us to learn about, and appreciate the opposite, whereas without it we would become accustomed to it and take it for granted.
So yes…there is virtue in sin (evil).

 

[LucyJr]

You are right…good does not need evil to exist. Light does not need darkness. Sadness does not need happiness. etc. etc. They can all exist on their own. But without sadness…without suffering…would those times of happiness be as great? It is all relative Lucy…we cannot fully appreciate something until it is taken away.
You may think you appreciate what you have, and to a certain extent we can appreciate it…but this is one of the fundamental ways that we as humans learn and grow. One may think that they understand what love is…until they are in love…then they may think they understand what love is…then they have a child, and that love is very different. One may grow so accustomed to love that they begin to take it for granted…this happens all the time…it is our nature as humans…we begin to not appreciate what we have when it is a constant…and so we must have an opposite for contrast. That is the only way to truly appreciate love…that knowing that today my love my get in a car crash and be no more…we must be in the “now” because it can only be momentary. This I feel is the same with good and evil…you must have contrast…why else would God allow it to exist? This is not in contradiction to God…this is logical concept of “why”.

I think we as humans appreciate good only in contrast with evil because we are evil, not good.

Let’s try to avoid playing semantics with words…the fact is, no one knows the true nature of God. Whenever I bring up questions like “Why would God put the tree in the garden of Eden?” You answer that the tree was just there…for no certain purpose…

Everythink is with a purpose.
Its logically that the tree was there with a purpose...I think the purpose is to fulfil God's command...God was using that tree for His plan.

God knew what the tree was…God put the tree in that spot, at that time, KNOWING what would happen…that abdicates a certain level of free will that Adam and Eve supposedly had…

I don't thin you are correct, Skarekrow.
I already argumented that forreknowledge does not imply foreordination...in fact, if Adam and Eve would have not sinned, God wouldn't knew they would sin...it was that very fact that Adam and Eve chosed to disobey God that determined God to foreknows what they would do.
Do you have other explanation for this? I think my explanation is logicaly correct...God foreknows something because it will happen...not because He foreknows it.

God put it there for the sole purpose of them sinning…because whatever His plan was…that was clearly a part of it…I feel that it was only mankind who has changed the meaning of them partaking of the fruit to be something bad. God introduced sin because He wanted them to sin…it was our next step in physical, mental, and spiritual evolution.

I think this would be true if God's foreknowledge implies foreordination, but if its not, it doesn't logically follow. What do you think?

It isn’t absurd at all Lucy. I say good cannot exist without evil, and visa versa. Evil is not the lack of good…it is the opposite of good…there is a difference.

Here is how C.S lewis refutes Dualism:


The metaphysical difficulty is this. The two Powers, the good and the evil, do not explain each other. Neither Ormuzd nor Ahriman can claim to be the Ultimate. More ultimate than either of them is the inexplicable fact of their being there together. Neither of them chose this tete-a-tete. Each of them, therefore, is conditioned--finds himself willy-nilly in a situation; and either that situation itself, or some unknown force which produced that situation, is the real Ultimate. Dualism has not yet reached the ground of being. You cannot accept two conditioned and mutually independent beings as the self-grounded, self-comprehending Absolute. On the level of picture-thinking this difficulty is symbolised by our inability to think of Ormuzd and Ahriman without smuggling in the idea of a common space in which they can be together and thus confessing that we are not yet dealing with the source of the universe but only with two members contained in it. Dualism is a truncated metaphysic.

The moral difficulty is that Dualism gives evil a positive, substantive, self-consistent nature, like that of good. If this were true, if Ahriman existed in his own right no less than Ormuzd, what could we mean by calling Ormuzd good except that we happened to prefer him. In what sense can the one party be said to be right and the other wrong? If evil has the same kind of reality as good, the same autonomy and completeness, our allegiance to good becomes the arbitrarily chosen loyalty of a partisan. A sound theory of value demands something different. It demands that good should be original and evil a mere perversion; that good should be the tree and evil the ivy; that good should be able to see all round evil (as when sane men understand lunacy) while evil cannot retaliate in kind; that good should be able to exist on its own while evil requires the good on which it is parasitic in order to continue its parasitic existence.

The consequences of neglecting this are serious. It means believing that bad men like badness as such, in the same way in which good men like goodness. At first this denial of any common nature between us and our enemies seems gratifying. We call them fiends and feel that we need not forgive them. But, in reality, along with the power to forgive, we have lost the power to condemn. If a taste for cruelty and a taste for kindness were equally ultimate and basic, by what common standard could the one reprove the other? In reality, cruelty does not come from desiring evil as such, but from perverted sexuality, inordinate resentment, or lawless ambition and avarice. That is precisely why it can be judged and condemned from the standpoint of innocent sexuality, righteous anger, and ordinate acquisitiveness. The master can correct a boy's sums because they are blunders in arithmetic--in the same arithmetic which he does and does better. If they were not even attempts at arithmetic--if they were not in the arithmetical world at all--they could not be arithmetical mistakes.

Good and evil, then, are not on all fours. Badness is not even bad in the same way in which goodness is good. Ormuzd and Ahriman cannot be equals. In the long run, Ormuzd must be original and Ahriman derivative. The first hazy idea of devil must, if we begin to think, be analysed into the more precise ideas of 'fallen' and 'rebel' angel. But only in the long run. Christianity can go much further with the Dualist than Dr Joad's article seems to suggest. There was never any question of tracing all evil to man; in fact, the New Testament has a good deal more to say about dark superhuman powers than about the fall of Adam. As far as this world is concerned, a Christian can share most of the Zoroastrian outlook; we all live between the 'fell, incensed points' of Michael and Satan. The difference between the Christian and the Dualist is that the Christian thinks one stage further and sees that if Michael is really in the right and Satan really in the wrong, this must mean that they stand in two different relations to somebody or something far further back, to the ultimate ground of reality itself. All this, of course, has been watered down in modern times by the theologians who are afraid of 'mythology', but those who are prepared to reinstate Ormuzd and Ahriman are presumably not squeamish on that score.


What do you think?

Call it “childish” if you must (although I think we should try to avoid such words directed toward one another), but there is truth in what I have said.

"Childish" part was not directed toward you. How did you think I could be doing that ?

I’m sure that Taliban feels right, and holy, and good knowing that they are carrying out the wishes of their deity…whereas they would look at Christians as the ones who are evil..so their opinion of good and evil is very different Lucy. The things that they do…that we perceive as “evil” are actually “good” and justified in their minds…the same goes for our opinion of them. If it is “childish” in any way…it is in the understanding that even a child could grasp that concept and understand it.

But if this is true...there wouldn't be any good ultimately. The contradiction is fatale. One could even question from where do we have the concept of good and evil after all, because it seems to be a matter of prefferences, just like C.S' Lewis said:

The consequences of neglecting this are serious. It means believing that bad men like badness as such, in the same way in which good men like goodness. At first this denial of any common nature between us and our enemies seems gratifying. We call them fiends and feel that we need not forgive them. But, in reality, along with the power to forgive, we have lost the power to condemn. If a taste for cruelty and a taste for kindness were equally ultimate and basic, by what common standard could the one reprove the other? In reality, cruelty does not come from desiring evil as such, but from perverted sexuality, inordinate resentment, or lawless ambition and avarice. That is precisely why it can be judged and condemned from the standpoint of innocent sexuality, righteous anger, and ordinate acquisitiveness. The master can correct a boy's sums because they are blunders in arithmetic--in the same arithmetic which he does and does better. If they were not even attempts at arithmetic--if they were not in the arithmetical world at all--they could not be arithmetical mistakes.


To give a explanation for the situation you give, in a absolute moral sense...both talibans and christians would be wrong in assuming that our and their enemies are "good" or "evil" in any moral sense. This is just a relative situation, in a context, in a conflict of interests. We might call them our enemies as christians, but we surely know they are not necessarely bad simply in virtue of being our own enemies, and this is also valuable in their situations. If it were to be like this, any war would be justified in itself.
Rather we would call them "evil" by reffering to a objective standard of morality, like perhaps the fact that they are killing innocent people, or they are starting a war from religious interests, having no desire for making peace.
Are you agree with me here?

Once again…I believe that God allows evil to exist and could have created evil in order for us to learn about, and appreciate the opposite, whereas without it we would become accustomed to it and take it for granted.
So yes…there is virtue in sin (evil).

I don't think this is true Skarekrow. This would imply that God Himself appreciates good because He makes evil, or that He is evil, and thus He appreciates and values good. So He is both good and evil.

But this brings enormous problems, logical problems.

Firstly, there is this implied assumption, that the greater value relies in good, not in evil, thus logicaly it means that between good and evil, good is preferable to evil, because good is valuable, while evil is not. It implies that good is valuable in the virtue of being good.

But if this is so, it would contradict the whole theory of the completness of good and evil...which its like the two side of a coin, like you said. But this Dualism is ultimately moraly neutral...it eliminates any intrinsic value of one side, good, versus the other side, evil.

Can you see what I mean here? I think its logicaly contradictory, what do you think and why?

 

[Skarekrow]

I think we as humans appreciate good only in contrast with evil because we are evil, not good.

Perhaps this is where our thinking differs and you cannot fully see what I am trying to get at….you see, I think mankind is innately good, not innately evil.
There are some people who are born as Sociopaths and grow up to be what we would deem “evil”, but there are a certain set of “evil” conditions placed upon people who are predisposed in order for that to fully happen. Even in God has nothing to do with evil or it’s creation, why would He make us innately evil instead of innately good with the free will to commit evils if we so chose? That makes far more logical sense. Especially if we are to be held “accountable” for our actions and potentially punished. It would be like tying someone’s feet and hands with rope and then throwing them in the water expecting them to swim…and not only getting angry when said person cannot swim, but that person expects you to thank them…and then if they survive, they could be punished for not getting to shore fast enough….that is what the concept of original sin and humans being innately “evil” equates to.

Everythink is with a purpose.
Its logically that the tree was there with a purpose...I think the purpose is to fulfil God's command...God was using that tree for His plan.

I don't thin you are correct, Skarekrow.
I already argumented that forreknowledge does not imply foreordination...in fact, if Adam and Eve would have not sinned, God wouldn't knew they would sin...it was that very fact that Adam and Eve chosed to disobey God that determined God to foreknows what they would do.
Do you have other explanation for this? I think my explanation is logicaly correct...God foreknows something because it will happen...not because He foreknows it.

We may just have to agree to disagree there Lucy…it is a circular argument if you will not concede that God can change future events…and I don’t see why He couldn’t? It does not infer anywhere in the Bible that God cannot change future actions and events…only that He has power over all things, and one can easily assume that a being with the power to create the whole universe and reality itself could certainly change a future event He knew would be detrimental to mankind -whom He so loved.
But not only NOT change it….but hold all future generations responsible and punishable for it? That makes no sense, THAT is illogical.
My argument is that not only did God put the tree there, but He intended Adam and Eve to “sin”…because it was the “tree of knowledge…” along with “good” and “evil”…one can say this is the parabolist representation of the moment mankind evolved to a point of true self-awareness, when one could question their own actions and conclude which would be good and correct or evil and wrong and why that decision would be healthy or detrimental to mankind.
We could conclude it is the moment when we could be held accountable for sinning because we were aware of what it was and why it was wrong.

I think this would be true if God's foreknowledge implies foreordination, but if its not, it doesn't logically follow. What do you think?

You seem to jump back and forth on this point Lucy depending on what is required for the argument at hand on this subject. At first you stated that God has a perfect vision on the future. Then, in subsequent debating, it became a “shadow” vision of the future…upon which I commented and was refuted again with it NOT being a “shadow” vision of the future but once again a “perfect” vision. Firstly, where do you get either one of these ideas? I don’t think that there is reference in the Bible to God having any vision into the future “shadow” or “perfect” at all. And if there is reference to it…where does it imply that He cannot change it on a whim?

Here is how C.S lewis refutes Dualism:


The metaphysical difficulty is this. The two Powers, the good and the evil, do not explain each other. Neither Ormuzd nor Ahriman can claim to be the Ultimate. More ultimate than either of them is the inexplicable fact of their being there together. Neither of them chose this tete-a-tete. Each of them, therefore, is conditioned--finds himself willy-nilly in a situation; and either that situation itself, or some unknown force which produced that situation, is the real Ultimate. Dualism has not yet reached the ground of being. You cannot accept two conditioned and mutually independent beings as the self-grounded, self-comprehending Absolute. On the level of picture-thinking this difficulty is symbolised by our inability to think of Ormuzd and Ahriman without smuggling in the idea of a common space in which they can be together and thus confessing that we are not yet dealing with the source of the universe but only with two members contained in it. Dualism is a truncated metaphysic.

The moral difficulty is that Dualism gives evil a positive, substantive, self-consistent nature, like that of good. If this were true, if Ahriman existed in his own right no less than Ormuzd, what could we mean by calling Ormuzd good except that we happened to prefer him. In what sense can the one party be said to be right and the other wrong? If evil has the same kind of reality as good, the same autonomy and completeness, our allegiance to good becomes the arbitrarily chosen loyalty of a partisan. A sound theory of value demands something different. It demands that good should be original and evil a mere perversion; that good should be the tree and evil the ivy; that good should be able to see all round evil (as when sane men understand lunacy) while evil cannot retaliate in kind; that good should be able to exist on its own while evil requires the good on which it is parasitic in order to continue its parasitic existence.

The consequences of neglecting this are serious. It means believing that bad men like badness as such, in the same way in which good men like goodness. At first this denial of any common nature between us and our enemies seems gratifying. We call them fiends and feel that we need not forgive them. But, in reality, along with the power to forgive, we have lost the power to condemn. If a taste for cruelty and a taste for kindness were equally ultimate and basic, by what common standard could the one reprove the other? In reality, cruelty does not come from desiring evil as such, but from perverted sexuality, inordinate resentment, or lawless ambition and avarice. That is precisely why it can be judged and condemned from the standpoint of innocent sexuality, righteous anger, and ordinate acquisitiveness. The master can correct a boy's sums because they are blunders in arithmetic--in the same arithmetic which he does and does better. If they were not even attempts at arithmetic--if they were not in the arithmetical world at all--they could not be arithmetical mistakes.

Good and evil, then, are not on all fours. Badness is not even bad in the same way in which goodness is good. Ormuzd and Ahriman cannot be equals. In the long run, Ormuzd must be original and Ahriman derivative. The first hazy idea of devil must, if we begin to think, be analysed into the more precise ideas of 'fallen' and 'rebel' angel. But only in the long run. Christianity can go much further with the Dualist than Dr Joad's article seems to suggest. There was never any question of tracing all evil to man; in fact, the New Testament has a good deal more to say about dark superhuman powers than about the fall of Adam. As far as this world is concerned, a Christian can share most of the Zoroastrian outlook; we all live between the 'fell, incensed points' of Michael and Satan. The difference between the Christian and the Dualist is that the Christian thinks one stage further and sees that if Michael is really in the right and Satan really in the wrong, this must mean that they stand in two different relations to somebody or something far further back, to the ultimate ground of reality itself. All this, of course, has been watered down in modern times by the theologians who are afraid of 'mythology', but those who are prepared to reinstate Ormuzd and Ahriman are presumably not squeamish on that score.


What do you think?



"Childish" part was not directed toward you. How did you think I could be doing that ?



But if this is true...there wouldn't be any good ultimately. The contradiction is fatale. One could even question from where do we have the concept of good and evil after all, because it seems to be a matter of prefferences, just like C.S' Lewis said:

The consequences of neglecting this are serious. It means believing that bad men like badness as such, in the same way in which good men like goodness. At first this denial of any common nature between us and our enemies seems gratifying. We call them fiends and feel that we need not forgive them. But, in reality, along with the power to forgive, we have lost the power to condemn. If a taste for cruelty and a taste for kindness were equally ultimate and basic, by what common standard could the one reprove the other? In reality, cruelty does not come from desiring evil as such, but from perverted sexuality, inordinate resentment, or lawless ambition and avarice. That is precisely why it can be judged and condemned from the standpoint of innocent sexuality, righteous anger, and ordinate acquisitiveness. The master can correct a boy's sums because they are blunders in arithmetic--in the same arithmetic which he does and does better. If they were not even attempts at arithmetic--if they were not in the arithmetical world at all--they could not be arithmetical mistakes.


To give a explanation for the situation you give, in a absolute moral sense...both talibans and christians would be wrong in assuming that our and their enemies are "good" or "evil" in any moral sense. This is just a relative situation, in a context, in a conflict of interests. We might call them our enemies as christians, but we surely know they are not necessarely bad simply in virtue of being our own enemies, and this is also valuable in their situations. If it were to be like this, any war would be justified in itself.
Rather we would call them "evil" by reffering to a objective standard of morality, like perhaps the fact that they are killing innocent people, or they are starting a war from religious interests, having no desire for making peace.
Are you agree with me here?

It isn’t so simple as evil arising out of sexual perversion, inordinate resentment, or lawless ambition.
If a small Muslim child watched as American soldiers came to his village and destroyed it…killed his people…maybe killed his parents…he is an innocent child…surely not “evil”. And yet, in his own eyes the Americans are very evil…so yes, it is very subjective and isn’t so simple as to be driven by “sinful” thoughts or actions.
This child was raised with a different set of values and morals than you or I have been Lucy…what is “sinful” to you or I maybe not for him…perhaps revenge is wholly justified and acceptable within their culture. And it used to be within Christian culture too with “an eye for an eye”…it still is quoted when it is deemed suitable even though it is not supposed to be the law anymore.

I don't think this is true Skarekrow. This would imply that God Himself appreciates good because He makes evil, or that He is evil, and thus He appreciates and values good. So He is both good and evil.

But this brings enormous problems, logical problems.

Firstly, there is this implied assumption, that the greater value relies in good, not in evil, thus logicaly it means that between good and evil, good is preferable to evil, because good is valuable, while evil is not. It implies that good is valuable in the virtue of being good.

But if this is so, it would contradict the whole theory of the completness of good and evil...which its like the two side of a coin, like you said. But this Dualism is ultimately moraly neutral...it eliminates any intrinsic value of one side, good, versus the other side, evil.

Can you see what I mean here? I think its logically contradictory, what do you think and why?

I see no problem there at all….to imply that God has the power to create or wield “evil” and yet He chooses not to do so because choosing “goodness” over “evil” is the correct and right thing to do, does not diminish God whatsoever.
Just because the capacity to commit great atrocities exists does not make someone evil Lucy. I can go out and try to become the next Hitler if I so choose…but the capacity to be evil, does not make me evil.
Simple logic.

 

[Lark]

Given that good and the opposite of suffering are not taken as proofs of God's existence why are evil and suffering sufficient proofs against God's existence?

 

[LucyJr]

Given that good and the opposite of suffering are not taken as proofs of God's existence

Morality or goodness has been argumented for God's existence by many classic philosophers. It is known as the argument from morality:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

This is one form of the argument.

why are evil and suffering sufficient proofs against God's existence?

This is a very interesting question because by making appeal to the reality of evil, the argument is ultimately contradictory. Why?
Because if there is a real evil, a real 'bad' in this world, there must be also a real good...and if there is a objective evil and a objective good, logicaly there must be a God, a Being that is the fundament of morality. Thus the argument from evil against God existence can ultimately sink its boat.
When confronted with this, the proponents of the evil argument respond that the argument works only as a "internal" contradiction in Christianity, since they know and recognise that if God doesn't exist...they can not say evil is real.
Its a very funny situation...

 

[Skarekrow]

[MENTION=4115]Lark[/MENTION]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil