Is doing evil a necessity of life? Did the ancients know this and Is that why we are all named as sinners? I think nature created the potential for evil in each of us because without that potential we would not have the ability to make a free choice between good and evil or evolve to find the fittest human. Consider. Evolution has two major components that we must do to survive; compete or cooperate, as required. Cooperation we would see as good because it does not create a victim or loser. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim and loser. From this view, we must do evil and to survive as that process produces the fittest. To not compete would produce the least fit and we would likely go extinct. Do you see this conundrum of us having to do evil? If you do, should God punish us for doing what we must do so as not to go extinct? I do not see God as justified in punishing us and that is why Gnostic Christians like me are Universalists. I see us all as not requiring salvation. God would not do evil by punishing us for doing what we must do to survive and thrive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exsultet “O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam”. “in the light of paradise, even the sin of Adam may be regarded as truly necessary and a happy fault.” If sin and doing evil is good and necessary for Adam, who represents all of mankind, then the church and I are suggesting that it is good that we all do evil. It seems that nature, or God, if you are into the supernatural, ultimately, created a perfect imperfect world. To appreciate perfection, we must know imperfection. This knowledge frees the mind. Regards DL
Evil, in the bible, does not appear until humans eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge of good and evil is symbolic of law. Once humans define something as evil and it becomes the law, it becomes evil. Before it is defined as evil or good, it is morally neutral. As an example, in the 1920's marijuana was made illegal. Before the law was passed, it was not evil to smoke marijuana. After the law defined this as evil, what had been morally neutral behavior, was now defined as evil. More recently, the laws of good and evil have changed relative to marijuana. Now it is not evil, anymore. However, if someone smokes in certain states of the US, it is not evil, but in other states it is still evil. It is evil at the Federal level, but not at all the state levels. Evil is not always about God or universal, but often about man made subjectivity. If you look at PC language taboos, this is not a universal truth. It is a manmade knowledge of good and evil; Snake in the tree. It will label some people as evil, usually people who vote differently, for making an improper noise. This has nothing to do with God or universal and objective truth. This is why God said, if you eat of this tree; accept man made premises of good and evil, you will be screwed. Humans will often make laws of good and evil, for their own benefit; money and power. There are certain objective laws of good and evil; God's laws. These are not manmade, but apply to all. The problem is, it is not always clear cut how to differentiate man made from the universal, with the two often confused, using legal tricks. For example, I can get in trouble for saying an improper PC noise. This is not evil in an objective sense. It is only evil in a manmade subjective sense. The same people will say because I did evil, it is good to attack me, for making this noise. Yet in a universal and objective sense, attacking others is an objective evil. This how knowledge of good and evil can lead to death, since it can become unreliable and confusing, leading to bad judgments where good is evil and evil becomes good. If you look at fake news and Trump, lying and misinformation is never good, since it makes it harder to deal with reality. Yet, this is defined as good by the Democrats and truth or reliable information is evil. The liberals are screwed due to loss of objectivity if they eat of this tree of snakes. Survival and adaptation needs reliable information. This is a universal truth. But it is made confused by those seeking and preserving power.
ALL value judgements are subjective This applies to the notion of good and evil Any attempt to link value judgements to non sentinel entities is anthropomorphic Cute if entities are Walt Disney cartoon characters Strange but understandably if entities are pets Weird if entities are inanimate things Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I do not agree. 1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. This refers to God choosing Jesus as our scapegoat and that is definitely a sin. I see all but perhaps one moral tenet to be subjective. List these objective laws so that we might see if you are correct. Regards DL
I am going to disagree with this only because of the one exception to that rule that does not seem to apply and might just be an objective moral tenet that cannot be refuted. At least I have yet to find a scenario that would do so. The good of the many outweighs the good of the few. What do you think? Can you refute that that is an objective moral tenet? Regards DL
ALL value judgements are subjective This applies to the notion of good and evil Any attempt to link value judgements to non sentinel entities is anthropomorphic Cute if entities are Walt Disney cartoon characters Strange but understandably if entities are pets Weird if entities are inano I believe in evolution yes Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Easy The good of the many (<<<< subjective) outweighs (<<<< subjective - who decides?) the good of the few (<<<< subjective) There is no neutral umpire here If you are one of the many you may well agree your needs outweigh needs of the few As one of the few you may very well resent you needs being overlooked for the sake of the many Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
IMO, We live in a dualistic, comparative 'universe' of thought and existence. Some obvious examples: light vs dark, yes vs no, full vs empty, cold vs hot, etc. ad infinitum. Our evolutionary descriptive perception offers this dualistic choice between opposing extremes or end-points, ergo, good vs evil. Linguistic modifications allow quantitative and qualitative variants of extreme dualistic choices to better communicate specifc details and allow more of a continuum of choice; this provides a means of choosing between the dualistic extremes choices (a simplistic meteorological example: "cloudy vs clear" may be modified by partly, mostly, etc.).
Of course. So is doing good. The ancient whats? Aztecs? Druids? Sumerians? Chinese? Or more ancient still? I do not believe all the ancients agreed on their definitions of evils or sin or whom to name either one. Nor do i believe it matters what they thought. They're dead and I'm not.
I cannot agree here. When comparing the numbers of the many and the few, there is no subjectivity. Math is math and the high number and low number are objective facts. Make your argument to refute this. Regards DL
No argument on this but it says nothing of the issues in the O.P.. I will say that Yin Yang are complimentary to each other and not opposites. Just to give you something to think about as dualism does not always apply. Do you love? I would imagine that your love does not have a hate component and exists without duality. There is hate, but it does not apply where your love is. Regards DL
But what you think is conditioned by the culture you live in, which has evolved from what previous generations thought. You are saying that the history of ethics does not matter, but it has affected you, so it does matter to some extent.
True Maths is maths Numbers are numbers Objective Agree But the discussion is not about numbers It is about ' goodness ' <<<<<<< Goodness is subjective Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No I'm not saying anything of the sort. We may regard the history of any human endeavour as more or less important - depending on the aspect of the endeavour that we're contemplating - to its present form, and to our own part in its present form. But, present ethical thought is shaped by far, far more than just the ideas of early shamans. Some of the nebulous 'ancients' of the OP may have believed in original sin and that all humans partake of that sin. On the other hand, some ancients believed in the general goodness of mankind, and some recognized our animal nature, and some had no concept of sin at all. These were also part of that history. So were all the philosophers, poets and scientists who contributed very different modes of thought. All of their cultural input may influence the moral tenor of my times. However, none of their beliefs determine my attitude. I don't feel obliged to answer to them.
Well, I hope you will understand why it looks like that when you say "Nor do i believe it matters what they thought. They're dead and I'm not." I may be wrong, but I very much doubt that any ancient thinkers believed in original sin before Christians (i.e. St. Augustine, 300 AD?) hit on the idea. The reason is that polytheistic religions had no reason to invent the concept, but Christians had to in order to explain the existence of evil in a world ruled by an omnipotent and benevolent god. I personally think this a pathetic cop-out, but Christians are stuck with the idea.
That's why I asked which ancients? How ancient? The Bible is very far from containing all the ethical systems of antiquity, even in the Mediterranean region, never mind the whole world. There is a hint of the idea in Genesis: the fall from grace and expulsion from Eden (exactly so that they wouldn't covet the fruit of immortality): with moral understanding comes hardship - but only during life. Most times, when Jehova was ticked-off with one his people, he'd just smite him dead on the spot, and that's all. No hellfire. Farther along - though I don't have time to look it up - Jehovah explicitly states that he intends to "visit the sins of the father upon the sons, even onto the seventh generation", and there is extensive reference in Leviticus to the sins of the priesthood (rulers?) being shared by all of the people, where Jehovah also lays out the sacrifices he requires in atonement - which brings us to the rationale for needing a holy scapegoat. Well, they're really in a bind. Once they adopted the son, they had, perforce, to adopt the father, and spin the crazy logic of sin, sacrifice, conciliation and eternal life. Obviously, most of them, even at the lowest levels where faith is strongest, can't really believe the whole story or obey all the rules or even agree with all the principles. So they have to practice selective blindness, selective amnesia and selective guilt.
Presumably the logic of God is that we could all love thy neighbor. Two small tribes might compete, but they would be stronger if they cooperated as a single, larger tribe. This is why we have undergone social evolution over milennia to form larger and larger tribes. It's more efficient and more survival-friendly.
