God's purpose

Whatever that kind of reason, to kill someone is to want them dead. It is and act of evil.

Not in the case of self defense IMO.

So fear motivates the response...real or imagined...

When you strip away all of the details this is true in most cases of murder. There are always exceptions. It would depend on the circumstances and on the person as to whether I would paint them as generally evil.

But is the seeing real or imagined? Is the act of killing someone (or otherwise taking away their ability to compete) evil? If the competitors are much the same in attitude is it just a matter of the more cunning wins and thus it isn't evil? What about the negative consequences of their competitiveness upon others not directly involved but still collateral damage?

I guess my yardstick would be if the person had other options for settling the problem to achieve a win/win situation but opted for murder as the best course of action, then that would be evil. Once again, it really depends on the circumstances and the person involved.

The examples are not overly detailed that anyone can make a relevant assessment. It appears finding good or evil in many circumstances requires details.

Because you would need to judge the situations on an individual basis. Life doesn't fit in neat little categories all the time. Watch the movie Delores Claiborne, was that her only choice of action? Some might brand her evil, I didn't.

And there are levels of ignorance. Perhaps the evil is in the ignorance in which the person has no interest in being less ignorant, preferring to remain in the state of ignorance that suits their agenda.

I agree with you on this one.

If it cannot be helped, perhaps that is something to pity as well as keep an eye on. If the person has it within them to make the necessary adjustments and chooses not to, and acted out evil on others, then that would be evil.

Yes, I think so.

I still maintain that most of us do know good from evil. Those who have had evil acts done upon them, most of them know the acts were evil and what are commonly called 'psychological issues' are not all things which cannot be changed IF the person who suffered evil acts wants to make that effort. If not, then they will likely become victimizers themselves.

Agreed. It takes a special person in those cases who is insightful enough to realize that without outside help and they are rare.

I can empathize with those who have been treated badly as children and have no opportunity or know-how on ways to heal the damage and move forward in goodness. I don't have the same empathy for those who have the opportunity but choose to hold onto their suffering and make others suffer as well.

Me either

What would be the deciding factor for you either way?

What their personal history and situation might be that lead up to that point. I would not consider a mentally ill person to be evil as an example.

Yes. I wasn't aware I was marginalize this. Hard work is required. The will to want to heal is required. Time is required. A workable environment where such a thing is supported is required. Nonetheless my point was that forgiveness is crucial and in some ways the first major step towards getting over it and moving on.

I'm not so certain that forgiveness is key. If you re-evaluate the circumstances for why a person does something to you sometimes it's not a personal thing at all but a matter of you being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't think someone who has kids starving that knocks me down and steals my purse is evil, I also don't consider drug addicts that steal to be evil, but the drug dealers might fall into that category.

If the choices are available and the supports in place, no matter that there is a lot of effort needed by the victim to get to that point, if they choose not to do so and become a part of the cycle of abuse by being abusive, then they perpetuate an evil thing.

Yes they do, but once again, it depends on the person's capacity to have that insight into the situation.

I am not hard nosed about this but neither am I someone who thinks it is appropriate to enable victims to remain victims and become vicitimizers. That is not a solution to the problem. Some systems are far too precious with victims that victims see a convenience in the sympathy and support which does not have as a critical goal of healing and moving on (becoming a victor) and victims take advantage of that to remain in the victim role. They can even victimize by using their victim status as a means to solicit continuous support and sympathy whilst making no real effort whatsoever to get over it and fully help themselves. They say 'I can't' and that is accepted as truth.

OK, a lot of people feel that way about it. I just don't think things are so cut and dry or simple in most cases.

Now I can agree that some simply cannot. They obvious do not have it in them for various reasons. Often they are not purposefully victimizing anyone else. Purposefully victimizing others is evil, even that it has been done to you, how much more one should know the evil of it.

You get into that gray area where one has to ask whether it's willful ignorance or just plain ignorance. We all judge people, putting them into categories, but often what we think about individual people or situations simply doesn't matter.

I assume then that this 'greater reality' is something other than the material one?

Yes, in my opinion. I have no proof, but I do think we are just one small facet of what reality is like overall.

Asking for forgiveness is a different thing from being forgiving.

In the context of this thread, the bible speaks about both. We are taught to turn the other cheek and ask Christ for our own forgiveness when we fail to live up to spiritual expectations.

Yes but you said in arguing a point I made...

"That's crap. Every action and reaction is a personal choice. I can't see what I anyone could learn from suffering as a result of an evill act."

According to the bible, we are supposed to learn something through suffering. I don't think that's true. We might not be able to control who inflicts suffering upon us but we can control, to some extent, how we react to it. For example, I wait two days after getting angry about something before I sit down to talk it through with the person because it allows me to put things in a different perspective and be civil.

Repetitive child abuse isn't in this category, no one expects a victim, especially a child, to have any kind of emotional resources or ability to process that kind of insult. What kind of lesson is that child supposed to learn anyway?

that is irony in the sense that the Christian tradition is built around the idea of learning from ones suffering.

I think the Christian identity is about Christ's suffering to save us from our sins, which I think is just some made up stuff to replace sacrificing people to imaginary God's.

More to the point, one can indeed learn from ones own suffering the result of an evil act against one. Every reaction (as you said in the same breath) is a personal choice.

What lesson are you learning from suffering?

Sounds logical yes? And yet, I also can see how some people might require feeling guilty for their actions and that having someone else who didn't deserve it 'pay the price' for your evil actions might be the very thing which tips someone into feeling real remorse and wanting to and making the effort to change the way they act. Apparently this has genuinely happened to many. Not saying of course that such a tactic will work on everyone...but if it works I am not going to criticism it.

Sounds like scapegoating to me, which is historically a dysfunctional family pattern.

The way I look at it, perfection is overrated and misunderstood for that. I can never be perfect (whatever they hey that is) but I can always be better...

As to 'salvation' *shrugs* - From 'hell'? That was just a place for the waste - on the outskirts of town...like the dump...it was a metaphor according to some and how it got twisted into some actual place the organised religion of Christianity created really didn't do their idea of god any favors.

If 0='off' and 1='on' then salvation would be a matter of remaining 'on'. Not 'on' and sentenced to an eternity of pain and suffering. Seems like as usual some evil got in there and twisted the message to suit some evil agenda... but *whatever*...

Yeah, I can't see the point of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you see any animals running around worrying about this? Nope.

Yes,, The human animal.

Good and evil are concepts, and the exact configuration of the beliefs varies with culture and with religion.

They are human concepts yes. As concepts they are linked with human actions. Human actions are real. Human actions are what helped evolve the concepts of good and evil. Evil and good are real human actions.

My previous post explained one type of society which sees evil in the actions of the other type of society and visa versa. The societies themselves are basically reacting to what they understand as evil and see themselves as good. Yet both behave in the same way. So are they good or evil or neither?

The only real universals one can speak of relate to, non-prescriptively, survival, and prescriptively, as basic social logic, the golden rule.

Would you consider the golden rule to be good then?

Not unsurprisingly, many religious and secular moral codes have to do with life and property.

If one individual owned the world, and everyone else paid the individual rent, would you think that okay?

But all prescriptive systems, as much as they attempt to be grounded on unchanging law, can easily ignore the need to go from word to deed, thus the need to interpret. The leader of a religious or secular group, if chosen by some form of vote, accumulation of followers or participatory selection process, becomes a leader by consensus. Consensus, then, is what decides what is true and good, today. Even in those times and places when its role is ignored or denied to maintain a facade of infallibility and absolute truth.

Consensus is in the actions of the followers in relation to the leader. This happened in Nazi Germany. Many folk now hold the consensus opinion that Nazi Germany was evil. Motivated by evil intent.

You appear to be arguing evil and good don't actually exist and are just concepts. If that is the case, can I assume then that you would be someone who does not think that Nazi Germany was evil?
 
Last edited:
You appear to be arguing evil and good don't actually exist and are just concepts. If that is the case, can I assume then that you would be someone who does not think that Nazi Germany was evil?

That's not what he's arguing. He's arguing the Nazis didn't believe they were evil. They thought they were doing good. Same thing I've said to you twice now.

Also, and I deleted this bit from my quote of you above, sorry, if "good" and "evil" are decided by consensus then they don't exist anywhere but by agreement of society, meaning, people aren't evil, they do things society believes is wrong. You've invalidated your entire prior argument by saying this.
 
I'm not sure if the top bit is a quote from something or someone in particular, or if you were just making it look like that. I mean I can say "god is my left sock" in quotes, doesn't suddenly become true.

According the the argument, concepts are not true. So things don't suddenly become true, they either are or are not.
Sorry about the confusion. I placed the phrases you mention as a point of interest to me. They add up to the same number.

Evil isn't a thing. For every "evil" example you come up with, there is or was someone who thought those actions were good. Nazis thought they were saving the motherland. They viewed Jews as evil. The point here that you seem to be missing is that the designation "good" or "evil" are subjective.

Okay - I'll go with that argument. Therefore you are saying that even if a general consensus is that the action of the Nazis against the Jews was seen as evil, this did not mean that it was evil?

The reason being that even a general consensus is still a subjective thing?



You and I, navigator, will probably agree on a lot of our personal moral codes. Not because we have received it from God in high, but because we grew up in similar cultures.

Lets play with that. If we replace "from God on high" with "naturally born with", you are saying that we are not naturally born with the sense of good and evil, but it is a thing conditioned by the culture we grow up within and if we didn't have that influence, we would not know the difference?

Lets say then that a baby is placed into an environment where such influences were kept from it, and spent say - 25 years in that environment, that it would not develop any sense of good and evil because we are not born with that sense?

The take away here is that nobody is wrong. And also, nobody is right.

That being the case, what is all the fuss about. Why for example do you argue with theists? Do you find them to be 'wrong'? Why are you arguing with me that I am wrong? Do you think you are right? If so, then how does that align with your saying that there is no right or wrong?
 
Last edited:
Yes,, The human animal.
OK, it was rhetorical but indeed a technical foul...

They are human concepts yes.
But you got the point.

As concepts they are linked with human actions. Human actions are real. Human actions are what helped evolve the concepts of good and evil. Evil and good are real human actions.

I'll not address the rest, because you need to reflect on the logic above. This is one of my last posts before hitting the sack, and I don't feel like spelling it out for you. Maybe RK will, she's got this killer energy, and I don't know where it comes from. Giving me an old man complex and stuff.:boggled:
 
Whatever that kind of reason, to kill someone is to want them dead. It is and act of evil.
Therefore any being that killed all life on Earth except a few in a particular boat would be the most evil being ever. Theists don't have to worry however as what you say is blatantly wrong.

Is it also evil to kill non-human animals and other forms of life? After all you agree humans are animals . . .
Yes,, The human animal.


Have you been able to figure out if you believe astrology works yet?
 
Last edited:
What lesson are you learning from suffering?

Okay well first up I think that you an I agree more than disagree and I also think that the general argument against evil (and good) existing from other members is a similar way of looking at it as you are....and I am not.

It generally gets down to what I said earlier about evil being purposeful acts against others which cause otherwise unnecessary suffering.

While - yes - I am arguing that we are all born with a sense of knowing good from evil, I am not saying that a child should thus cope with their predicament and know ways in which to deal with this internally without external help as well...in fact I am not saying that an adult should be able to do this all from 'within' either.

But let us perhaps agree for now to presume that the knowledge of good and evil is an inherent aspect of being human and we are born with this understanding as an instinct of sorts. We have it in us but it needs us to work with it and mature and that is a learned thing.

In the meantime we are also assaulted by ancient cultural belief systems which are being heavily utilized by present day systems and prey on that natural sense of knowing good and evil in order to steer it this way and that and we may even balk at that to one degree or another and rebel against it because we inherently know what is good and what is evil...or we might be less inclined to buck the system and consciously/unconsciously this serves to push down any feelings of conviction which might be wanting 'airplay' in our minds - to have some influence over our choices - but are drowned out one way or the other...the other being that the external voice(s) are louder and perhaps even threatening...so whatever the reason, we go along with it.

Say even, that your own survival might be in jeopardy if you don't go along with it....and then to complete the censorship of the inherent values, we learn to justify pushing it down by saying things along the lines of 'survival instinct is inherent but knowing good from evil is not'...

So your question...
"What lesson are you learning from suffering"

is answered along the lines of...

"Act With The Situation Rather Than Against It"

Which for me is like unto 'find ways to ensure that you do not yourself become a victimizer.' which I think is a central part of what Jesus seemed to be about (given that words attributed to him which may contradict this, might not have been spoken by him at all...like the concept of hell.)

Not that I want to argue about that.

So you say 'the kind of person who can do this is rare.' And here am I thinking that it is within us all to be able to do this knowing that I do it/have done it...and even your method of delaying emotional response in order to formulate clarity and practical ways of approaching the problem probable fall into that 'rare' category.

But is that really the case? Are we really 'rare' human beings or is it more simply a matter of fact that we are really no different from everyone else but that which we have learned to understand through practicing these alternate ways of doing things is the same for practically every other human being. Most are quite capable of doing it as well - but choose not to.

You can probably gather from what I have said already that I don't buy into the 'some can but most can't' argument. I suspect that it is just another way of evil intentions getting their way in the world and avoiding (where possible) any repercussions with the intent of steering the greater part of humanity through the evil influence.

I have learned a great deal from my sufferings and this understanding how best to deal with being someone's victim, forgiveness etc...healing - is part of what I have learned. Quite a major part. It is not simply a theory for me but a subjectively experienced matter of fact.
 
According the the argument, concepts are not true. So things don't suddenly become true, they either are or are not.
Sorry about the confusion. I placed the phrases you mention as a point of interest to me. They add up to the same number.



Okay - I'll go with that argument. Therefore you are saying that even if a general consensus is that the action of the Nazis against the Jews was seen as evil, this did not mean that it was evil?

The reason being that even a general consensus is still a subjective thing?





Lets play with that. If we replace "from God on high" with "naturally born with", you are saying that we are not naturally born with the sense of good and evil, but it is a thing conditioned by the culture we grow up within and if we didn't have that influence, we would not know the difference?

Lets say then that a baby is placed into an environment where such influences were kept from it, and spent say - 25 years in that environment, that it would not develop any sense of good and evil because we are not born with that sense?



That being the case, what is all the fuss about. Why for example do you argue with theists? Do you find them to be 'wrong'? Why are you arguing with me that I am wrong? Do you think you are right? If so, then how does that align with your saying that there is no right or wrong?
Nobody is right or wrong in my specific example that you cropped out of the quote. If you'd like to discuss what I actually said,let me know,but I am not playing the game of cropping out what I was referring to to make it sound like I said something different.
 
Navigator-We don't have to all agree on things, but when you say we know the difference between good and evil and that this is inherent, it is in the sense that it is taught to us as children. We aren't born with this knowledge. Feral children are a good example of how good and evil must be taught. Review child development, nothing is less considerate of their own actions than a 2 year old toddler. I think you are too concrete in your concept of good and evil.

If forgiveness worked for you on resolving your issues then that's fine. It does nothing for me but piss me off further which adds to the anger. Why should I forgive anything? The way I handle things is to try to see beyond the behavior of the offender, even those that harm me in some way. I do not forgive, but it if I understand the motivation behind an action, I'm much more likely to move past it.

This is my learned coping mechanism. I certainly don't act with the situation. People as a general rule don't like confrontation, even civil confrontation, because it generates shame. If you feel you are being victimized then stand up for yourself in an appropriate way. The offender will deny it most of the time, sometimes even vehemently, but remain calm and hold your ground. Deep down inside they know you are right. After that, they tend to leave you alone. I find very little "evil", as you call it, gets thrown my way.
 
That's not what he's arguing. He's arguing the Nazis didn't believe they were evil. They thought they were doing good. Same thing I've said to you twice now.

I agree. I've been studying how US slave owners justified slavery as a positive good. Same only different.

Also, and I deleted this bit from my quote of you above, sorry, if "good" and "evil" are decided by consensus then they don't exist anywhere but by agreement of society, meaning, people aren't evil, they do things society believes is wrong. You've invalidated your entire prior argument by saying this.

I don't think good and evil exist as independent concepts beyond what society agrees on. I do think societies sort of tend toward similar things, such as a sense of fairness, because it predates humanity, and is just so darn useful in creating cohesive groups, which help survival of social species like us. Example.

There are many competing useful traits in a society, though. We need loyal followers, and bold leaders. We need to drive off strangers who would harm us and ally with strangers who would help us, and figure out the difference. We need to be generous, without letting all our resources be stolen, and protective, but not waste too many resources on it. We need to make tribe members cooperate, without stifling new good ideas or driving them off.

All those things combined in different proportions, plus a few outliers that are psychopathic, obsessed with one thing, etc., produce the huge variety of human societies, most of which are functional but not all.

If it's "good" to contain ISIS to keep them from destroying our way of life, it's "good" to destroy the Jews to save Germany or the Indians who are on land we need. Except in hindsight, the urge to hate foreigners and claim their stuff went wild and turned evil. But the people who did it thought it was good at the time.
 
Nobody is right or wrong in my specific example that you cropped out of the quote. If you'd like to discuss what I actually said,let me know,but I am not playing the game of cropping out what I was referring to to make it sound like I said something different.

Okay - so you are only saying nobody is right or wrong in relation to the little stuff like...

cropped bit:
[like There are many people who view killing animals (especially for food) is evil. Not just american vegans, but Hindus and Buddhists and some denominations of Christians. You probably don't see yourself as evil for having a burger. But some people believe that taints your "soul".]

...superstition and...

cropped bit:
[There are people who view ever having sex, even in marriage, is evil.]

...more superstition and ...

cropped bit:
[There are people who believe you are evil if you wipe your butt with your right hand (I'm not joking).]

...even more superstition...

cropped bit:
[If we have someone in the ISF say from India, or Saudi Arabia, or Japan, etc... They may have different ideas about what is moral. Not to mention different religions, or denominations of religions.]

and now morality ideas being different...

So all of the above which was cropped from my reply had to do with what you were meaning when you said " nobody is wrong. And also, nobody is right."?

Please forgive my confusion - it is understandable enough - some are saying (you included) that good and evil don't actually exist and then you add that "nobody is wrong"...and also, "nobody is right" - I thought you were meaning in terms of good and evil rather than which hand you wipe yer butt with.

I hope that clears up the little confusion and we can get back to the discussion.
 
Okay - so you are only saying nobody is right or wrong in relation to the little stuff like...

cropped bit:
[like There are many people who view killing animals (especially for food) is evil. Not just american vegans, but Hindus and Buddhists and some denominations of Christians. You probably don't see yourself as evil for having a burger. But some people believe that taints your "soul".]

...superstition and...

cropped bit:
[There are people who view ever having sex, even in marriage, is evil.]

...more superstition and ...

cropped bit:
[There are people who believe you are evil if you wipe your butt with your right hand (I'm not joking).]

...even more superstition...

cropped bit:
Snipped considerably...

You just labeled Islam, Hindu, and Buddhism as "superstition". Do you call Christianity superstition as well?

What I said is, none of their sets of beliefs about good and evil are wrong, and none of them are right. They just *are*. Because "good" and "evil" do not exist outside of the social constructs. You can't say "my morals are right and yours are wrong", because you have no way to validate that except a circular argument like "the bible is the word of god because it says god wrote it".

To state it again clearly: no socially constructed set of morals(rules of good or evil) are right, and none are wrong.
 
Last edited:
Here's an illustration:

Person A, an atheist "I do to other people like I would want them to do me; I live with empathy"
Person B, a Protestant "I follow the New Testament, and try to live like my church teaches"
Person C, an Observant Jew "I follow the Torah and the rabbinical teachings"
Person D, a Shiite Muslim "I follow the Quran, and my Imam"
Person E, a Shintoist "I honor my ancestors and my role in society"
Person F, a !Kung Bushman "I serve the spirits of the animals and plants and ground, and of my people"
Person G, a Cherokee "I honor our dead and the spirits around us"
Person H, a Catholic "I follow the doctrine of the church"
Person I, a Zen Buddhist "I strive to renounce all desires and become one with creation"
Person J, a Hindu "I follow our sacred writings and worship the Brahma"
Person K, a Satanist "I worship Lucifer and sacrifice to his unholy light"
Person L, a new age hippie "I believe we are all one, and pieces of the same consciousness"


I could go on, for hundreds of examples, because that's how many beliefs there are in the world. And each individual in a belief system (or renunciation thereof) has his or her own way of understanding and living it.

So here's the question, Navigator. If we want to say "good" and "evil" exist outside culture, somehow inborn in humans, then where is it? Which of these belief systems shows it, and which rejects it?

Or is the truth that each society (and subset therein) has made its own belief system, which each person thus adapts to him or herself, and there is no overarching "good" and "evil" that every human much acknowledge?
 
Last edited:
Well here's a good concrete example of how something thought to be good parenting really messed up their kids. Look at Prince Charles, the Queen says she thought she brought him up very well. He never spent more than 30 minutes per day with her and when he turned 8 years old they sent him to live in boarding school in rural Scotland that had no heat or hot water to "toughen him up". These days she would be charged with parental neglect.
 
Navigator-We don't have to all agree on things, but when you say we know the difference between good and evil and that this is inherent, it is in the sense that it is taught to us as children. We aren't born with this knowledge. Feral children are a good example of how good and evil must be taught. Review child development, nothing is less considerate of their own actions than a 2 year old toddler. I think you are too concrete in your concept of good and evil.

Jodie - did you read what I said about it being possible that we are indeed born with this inherent understanding of good and evil ?

What I was meaning there is that it is part of human nature...like being sexual.

Does that mean babies are sexual?

No - it means they are born with sexuality being part of what it means to be human.

I agreed that there are exceptions to the rules and hope I made it clear enough that I was speaking in general terms.

The main point I was making was how the inherent knowing is manipulated by the external...I wonder why you skipped that bit altogether? It is quite likely why it appears concepts of good and evil are educated from external source but does not mean that we don't know. I even gave examples.

If forgiveness worked for you on resolving your issues then that's fine. It does nothing for me but piss me off further which adds to the anger. Why should I forgive anything?

Because it is helpful to your process.

The way I handle things is to try to see beyond the behavior of the offender, even those that harm me in some way. I do not forgive, but it if I understand the motivation behind an action, I'm much more likely to move past it.

It seems to me that in order to do this you have to forgive. Part of forgiveness involves understanding motivation but the forgiveness isn't just about understanding the motivation ["oh poor thing it happened to him/her too when they were a kid and they are just lashing out - I forgive him/her] it is about being able to not become a victimiser by understanding that even if that were the case, it is still no excuse for doing it yourself.

But - if what you say is true and works for you - that you do not forgive but try to understand the motivation behind the harm done to you (whatever that might be) then I am not one to quibble -if it works and you are a better person for it then how you got there isn't the important thing - that you got there is the important thing.

Likewise. if someone says forgiveness was part of their process for 'getting there' and they got there, then that should be acceptable to you as well, right?

This is my learned coping mechanism. I certainly don't act with the situation. People as a general rule don't like confrontation, even civil confrontation, because it generates shame. If you feel you are being victimized then stand up for yourself in an appropriate way.

That is one way of acting with the situation.

offender will deny it most of the time, sometimes even vehemently, but remain calm and hold your ground. Deep down inside they know you are right. After that, they tend to leave you alone. I find very little "evil", as you call it, gets thrown my way.



What I have learned from experiencing those who have been victims of evil and have then tried to make me their victim is that they don't want to be better. They have this understanding that they have every right to feel the way they do and even that you are not the perpetrator and are simply someone who has come along years after the events and wears the crap from the victim all because the victim feels they have the right to hold onto their pain and this gives them a sense of justification and too bad that you are damaged by that. They do not care.

I have been victimized by victims and forgiveness is something which helped me, not them. I understand their reasons, but don't agree with them. I worked many years with one such person and tried all I could to support her and it took all those years to learn the lesson therein. She never wanted to heal from the pain. She wanted to inflict the pain onto others who loved her.

(Since then I have learned a bit about what is called BPD and read many online comments from those who are diagnosed with the disorder. It is a behavioral thing and something which the individual chooses but the general consensus among sufferers is that they know they are doing wrong but just can't help it. I think it is because they cling to the sense that they have every right to feel bitter etc for what they went through and this helps the disorder take hold and develop.)

Now is that evil or just something which cannot be judged good or evil? Does it fall into the grey area?

Yeah it is evil because it purposefully causes pain and I got to understand that she wanted me to feel her pain and be like her - to be the victim - her victim. I didn't know it then but she was a non diagnosed BPD at least according to first hand information I read from those diagnosed with BPD. What they do to others is evil - that they say they can't stop doing it is pitiful.

And yes, I could see it like a virus...it had gotten hold of her through the actions of those who took her in childhood and did evil to her...and I eventually could see that the problem was one that had been going from generation to generation for many generations and the 'virus' went back down the line to whoever it was (long forgotten) who first perpetrated evil into the original family and that it was this individual who was being represented in all who suffered as a result, right through those generations and who - rather than break the chain, for whatever reasons (survival etc) chose to represent the original perpetrator - the one who first brought the virus into this family.

That is how both good and evil work. We inherently know good from evil but sometimes choose evil because it feels justified and to hell with the consequences...

Forgiveness is never part of the deal to those who still have issue and do not want to break the chain of such process but rather inevitably carry the baton instead...not saying they know that this is what they do...some do and some don't and all to different degrees of knowing.

Now from the process what did I learn from the pain? I learned to be more careful about people. I learned to look for those without such issues and leave the ones with such issues to their own games etc. I learned that I was no ones victim ever.

there is an old saying 'forgive and forget.' I don't agree. That is not wisdom. What I think is 'forgive but never forget.' Because if you forgive and forget, you will eventually sooner or later find yourself in a similar position...some spiritual people call this the 'law of attraction' - because you have chosen to forget how you got yourself into that position in the the first place you are more likely to repeat the mistake. Forgive and move on - sure - i am open to someone being able to change but I would definitely require a lot of evidence before I accepted they genuinely have.

I seek out good people - surround myself with like minded caring individuals. I don't have any time for those who prove to be of evil intent. Sometime yes, it is hard to tell...as such I 'reserve the right' to withhold opinion until such a time as it is clear.
 
You just labeled Islam, Hindu, and Buddhism as "superstition".

no I didn't.

Do you call Christianity superstition as well?

No.

Just to be clear here RK, I labelled those examples you gave as being superstitious and while I don't know a great deal about Islam. Hindu, Buddhism etc, I suspect the motivations of anyone who - like you appear to be doing - make blanket statements about any organised religion. I know well enough that there are all sorts of different subsets under those headings, and not all practice and believe the same things.

I am aware that there are subsets of Christianity which do superstitious things. Perhaps really you need to tell me what your interpretation of 'Christianity' is that I get a better idea of what you are suggesting...but for now at least, I don't personally see 'Christianity' or other religions as 'superstitious' - I do see aspects of their practices to be superstitious...sometime to the max. Are they good or evil or just distractions from the knowledge of good and evil? If they are distractions, then are they essentially evil or at least more likely to support evil?



What I said is, none of their sets of beliefs about good and evil are wrong, and none of them are right. They just *are*. Because "good" and "evil" do not exist outside of the social constructs. You can't say "my morals are right and yours are wrong", because you have no way to validate that except a circular argument like "the bible is the word of god because it says god wrote it".

To state it again clearly: no socially constructed set of morals(rules of good or evil) are right, and none are wrong.

I think we are therefore talking about two different things then RK. You are talking about right and wrong in relation to cultural/religious and social norms inherited through external processes and I am talking abut the knowledge of good and evil being an inherent property of the human being....which is also manipulated by those external things you mention in order to garner support through various means.

The knowledge is inherent but is manipulated/corrupted long before the individual can work with it in its non corrupted state.

That's what I think.
 
Last edited:
Navigator. If we want to say "good" and "evil" exist outside culture, somehow inborn in humans, then where is it?

It is hidden behind the confusion caused by intrusion of the external world which uses the inherent knowledge of good an evil to muddy the waters rather than clarify them. Evil purpose does not want clarity but distortion and confusion, conflict and emotional upheaval...

Be that it is hidden, does not mean that it does not exist within you. In part you are operating within it even in that you use it to fuel and participate within those external beliefs and accompanying conflicts.

You know what good and evil are RK and that they exist. They are not just simply constructs of external human invention which we pick and choose from.

They are real and are made real through the purposeful actions of human beings.

I think thought that the argument is now beginning its full circle stage and nothing more can be added or subtracted from what I have said regarding it. As per usual in such circumstances is is best to leave it at that rather than get into the repeating proces or trying to say the same thing another way.

Generally that is called 'agreeing to disagree' the argument is circular and therefore gone nowhere in particular. Take what you will from it.

Nothing so far said here has convinced me that good and evil don't actually exist as real things in the world.
 
Last edited:
One thing I have noticed here is that my question and observations in this post were not addressed.


If a large group live peacefully together and a small group invaded, raped and pillaged and enslaved, would you consider the small groups actions to be evil against the large group?

What you have asked above is based on the understanding that both sides have military and are not in themselves peaceful social systems.

The evil of this comes through irrational fear as well as through alpha leadership promoting fear in its citizens about the 'opposing forces' and this happening on both sides.

The evil therefore is already affected the thought processes of the minds of the citizens within the ranks and files of the opposing countries.

Two evils do not make anything good. The actions of evil are evil.
 
One thing I have noticed here is that my question and observations in this post were not addressed.


If a large group live peacefully together and a small group invaded, raped and pillaged and enslaved, would you consider the small groups actions to be evil against the large group?

What you have asked above is based on the understanding that both sides have military and are not in themselves peaceful social systems.

The evil of this comes through irrational fear as well as through alpha leadership promoting fear in its citizens about the 'opposing forces' and this happening on both sides.

The evil therefore is already affected the thought processes of the minds of the citizens within the ranks and files of the opposing countries.

Two evils do not make anything good. The actions of evil are evil.

It's very hard to get a handle on what you are saying or trying to say Navigator.
 
It is hidden behind the confusion caused by intrusion of the external world which uses the inherent knowledge of good an evil to muddy the waters rather than clarify them. Evil purpose does not want clarity but distortion and confusion, conflict and emotional upheaval...

Be that it is hidden, does not mean that it does not exist within you. In part you are operating within it even in that you use it to fuel and participate within those external beliefs and accompanying conflicts.

You know what good and evil are RK and that they exist. They are not just simply constructs of external human invention which we pick and choose from.
They are real and are made real through the purposeful actions of human beings.

I think thought that the argument is now beginning its full circle stage and nothing more can be added or subtracted from what I have said regarding it. As per usual in such circumstances is is best to leave it at that rather than get into the repeating proces or trying to say the same thing another way.

Generally that is called 'agreeing to disagree' the argument is circular and therefore gone nowhere in particular. Take what you will from it.

Nothing so far said here has convinced me that good and evil don't actually exist as real things in the world.

What you did with this post is disregard everything I've said to you, and patronizingly asserted you know better than me what I feel is the truth. How astoundingly blind! It does not seem to occur to you that I honestly am telling you these things as a fact. You seem to think I'm playing a game.

What you just did is the equivalent of a catholic saying to an atheist "I know you really believe, even if you don't want to say it".

Wow.
 

Back
Top Bottom