Are Humans born good or evil?

[O'Canada!]

I am having this debate is my Philosophy class right now, and though it might be interesting here.
Are humans born good or evil, and do we have the ability to chnge that? what do you thing?

[Tuatara]

Good and evil are a matter of perspective. If we were to ask the members here at Whistlestopper whether or not Bush was good or evil, the room would be divided.

[Blueangel]

I think it would be fair to say that humans are born with the propensity for good and evil. The rest is down to nurture and conditioning.
We all know the power of nurture, so it's probably inevitable that a child with a more developed propensity for evil could be influenced positively within a nurturing, supportive environment.

[green lantern]

Good and evil are a matter of perspective. If we were to ask the members here at Whistlestopper whether or not Bush was good or evil, the room would be divided.very true.

[Craig]

I am having this debate is my Philosophy class right now, and though it might be interesting here.
Are humans born good or evil, and do we have the ability to chnge that? what do you thing?

At the risk of sounding superficial, it really depeneds upon what standard we are judged by. If we follow a Christian standard, we are judged in comparison to perfection, and inevitably we fall short, which means quite simply that we are evil by nature. If we appeal to some other (secular) standard, things can become more interesting. So, which standard are we going to employ for the sake of debate?

[eugene40]

I would say humans are born with a great capacity for both. Though I do like craigs comment on it..

[O'Canada!]

At the risk of sounding superficial, it really depeneds upon what standard we are judged by. If we follow a Christian standard, we are judged in comparison to perfection, and inevitably we fall short, which means quite simply that we are evil by nature. If we appeal to some other (secular) standard, things can become more interesting. So, which standard are we going to employ for the sake of debate?

Well personally I'd like to hear both standards, but my debate is probably chirstian values.

[Kong]

There is no universal good or evil. We are all born with survival and pleasure instincts. Bad behavior can often be corrected in children and young adults.

Good and bad behavior also depends upon circumstances. What may be considered evil in a time of peace may be considered exemplary in a time of war.

[cpwill]

:shrug: people are naturally born with both desires in them.

[mataj]

People are born to pick berries, and avoid being eaten. Everything else is our idea.

[cpwill]

Good and evil are a matter of perspective.

if that is the case then they would cease to exist.

[Myglarn]

I do not belive in evil or good. We are what we are and we are shaped by our environment and DNA. Simple as that.

For example a murderer often has some damage to he's brain. So is the murderer evil or a defect human, which perhaps can be corrected in the future? I go for defect human, he is not evil just malfunctioning :p.

[Tuatara]

if that is the case then they would cease to exist.
Would you like to be proven wrong?

[Dangerrmouse]

First you have to define the terms used. "Evil" for example, is a term much used to deny the humanity of the person described, eg "That terrorist/paedophile/murderer/president IS EVIL!"
No further justification is required, the individual is evil, and therefore a non-person, not entitled to being treated as human, and perhaps more importantly, not forcing us to confront our own humanity and our own capacity for committing similar "evil" acts...

[Confucius]

Humans arent born good or evil. However they are born with the choice to be good or evil.

[cpwill]

Would you like to be proven wrong?

when you say something is "good" or "evil", you are comparing it to a higher standard. to claim that there is no standard (only perspective) is to take away any serious available comparison and "good" and "evil" become mere words, devoid of meaning.

[MikeD4o7]

when you say something is "good" or "evil", you are comparing it to a higher standard. to claim that there is no standard (only perspective) is to take away any serious available comparison and "good" and "evil" become mere words, devoid of meaning.


So when people say that God is "good" then they tell us that God can't be judged by any human standards... what standards exactly are being looked at that indicate that God is "good"?

[The Big Bog]

Evil definitely. Have you ever really looked at a baby? You can just see all that evilness emanating from their beady little eyes. The wretched little monsters. :rolleyes:

[Boldnold]

I am having this debate is my Philosophy class right now, and though it might be interesting here.
Are humans born good or evil, and do we have the ability to chnge that? what do you thing?

BOTH!

Boldnold :)

[Boldnold]

Humans arent born good or evil. However they are born with the choice to be good or evil.

I don't think Hitler was ever considered to be 'Pope' material!

Boldnold :)

[Tuatara]

when you say something is "good" or "evil", you are comparing it to a higher standard. to claim that there is no standard (only perspective) is to take away any serious available comparison and "good" and "evil" become mere words, devoid of meaning.
What is this higher standard? Isn't a higher standard also a matter of perspective? Good and evil have definitions but many have differences within the context of the definition.
Here is an example:

A woman has her husband and children killed when a bomb is dropped on her house. She seeks retribution in the name of her god and kills someone who sides with the people who dropped those bombs. Is she good or evil? Are her actions good or evil?

You will see perspective plays a large roll in our definition of good and evil.

[jamesrage]

For example a murderer often has some damage to he's brain. So is the murderer evil or a defect human, which perhaps can be corrected in the future? I go for defect human, he is not evil just malfunctioning

No offense but that is the most liberal statement I have ever heard.
It is b.s. like that encourages criminals because they know that somebody out there is dumb enough to buy that crap,look at all the anti-death penalty people out there.They are a prime example of the idots who buy that crap.The "owe he grew up in a bad enviroment or he was abused as a child or he is ****in stupid" is all b.s. excuses to excuse the behavior of people who choose to be scum.

Descisions reguarding right and wrong are solely the responsibility of the individual.Requardless of the enviroment that one grew up in and reguardless if that individual was dropped on his head or not.It does not matter how stupid,screwed up, or retarded an individual is,the ability to commit right an wrong is solely up to that individual.

[Russikan]

Although interestingly the government in the US spends more to kill a man then it does to jail him for life. In Mother Russia we know how to kill people economically (killing only the guilty is the hard part).

[Boldnold]

So when people say that God is "good" then they tell us that God can't be judged by any human standards... what standards exactly are being looked at that indicate that God is "good"?

Good question. I wonder if there a 'universal' definition of 'Good' we all can understand and use as a 'national standard'? If so, please enlighten us so that we all can be on the same wave length as understanding what 'Good' really means. The word 'Good' has so many variables attached to it that I get a little confused sometimes when an army or marine solider says they're doing 'Good' today, I just shot & killed 4 of the enemy. Maybe the word 'Good' came from the word 'God' minus an 'o'. God would know. Let's ask him.

Boldnold :)

[jamesrage]

Although interestingly the government in the US spends more to kill a man then it does to jail him for life. In Mother Russia we know how to kill people economically (killing only the guilty is the hard part).

It is the all the b.s that goes on in the court rooms why so much is spent.We actually have seperate trials for sentencing and we have pre-trials.

[MikeD4o7]

Good question. I wonder if there a 'universal' definition of 'Good' we all can understand and use as a 'national standard'? If so, please enlighten us so that we all can be on the same wave length as understanding what 'Good' really means. The word 'Good' has so many variables attached to it that I get a little confused sometimes when an army or marine solider says they're doing 'Good' today, I just shot & killed 4 of the enemy. Maybe the word 'Good' came from the word 'God' minus an 'o'. God would know. Let's ask him.


I think there actually is an answer to this... and when I say it, it sounds incredibly simplistic.... but I think it's true. Good is the spreading of joy and happiness. Evil is the spreading of pain and suffering. I really think it is just as simple as that and it's universal.

Unfortunately that's not an acceptable answer for followers of the Bible because it knocks their God right out of that 100% good status.

[Russikan]

Mike what of something that hurts some and helps others in equal degrees.

And I know about the courts that is why I said that Russians tend to have a few innocents mixed in with the guilty.

[MikeD4o7]

Mike what of something that hurts some and helps others in equal degrees.

And I know about the courts that is why I said that Russians tend to have a few innocents mixed in with the guilty.


Good question... I guess that's where it gets a little grey. Personally, in a situation where a certain action would hurt one person and help another in equal degrees I'd just not take the action and let things play out on their own... but you could eaily make an argument going any which way in that kind of situation I suppose.

[Dangerrmouse]

"Personally, in a situation where a certain action would hurt one person and help another in equal degrees I'd just not take the action and let things play out on their own"

But then would doing nothing be good or evil?

[Myglarn]

No offense but that is the most liberal statement I have ever heard.
It is b.s. like that encourages criminals because they know that somebody out there is dumb enough to buy that crap,look at all the anti-death penalty people out there.They are a prime example of the idots who buy that crap.The "owe he grew up in a bad enviroment or he was abused as a child or he is ****in stupid" is all b.s. excuses to excuse the behavior of people who choose to be scum.

Descisions reguarding right and wrong are solely the responsibility of the individual.Requardless of the enviroment that one grew up in and reguardless if that individual was dropped on his head or not.It does not matter how stupid,screwed up, or retarded an individual is,the ability to commit right an wrong is solely up to that individual.
Oh yeah.. thats just because you belive in good and evil while i belive in science. Nothing to get all worked up about.

[Simba]

I am having this debate is my Philosophy class right now, and though it might be interesting here.
Are humans born good or evil, and do we have the ability to chnge that? what do you thing?

First, you have to interpret what is good or evil before you can answer this question.

What is good? What is evil?

[AgentM]

First, you have to interpret what is good or evil before you can answer this question.

What is good? What is evil?

Exactly, "Good" and "Evil" are in the eye of the beholder. There really is no such thing anyways, it's just a handy key word, or a nice soundbite for the media (*ahem* George W. Bush).

[MikeD4o7]

"Personally, in a situation where a certain action would hurt one person and help another in equal degrees I'd just not take the action and let things play out on their own"

But then would doing nothing be good or evil?


Well in a case like he described where there's an equal amount on both sides, I guess it would neutral. This is all very hypothetical though... most situations that are tough to call come down to personal judgement. and if you think about specific examples of those situations, most people are understanding of how difficult they can be and don't quickly throw a good or evil label on them.

[JoeR]

Well in a case like he described where there's an equal amount on both sides, I guess it would neutral.

This is one thing we never touched on in morality in high school (of course this is at a Catholic school, so what do you expect) That not everything is moral or immoral, but can be immoral.

[RageKage]

I dont see evil and good as opposites of eachother. They are different kinds of things.

All actions of conseqences, big and small. Some consequences are evil. This is generally regardless of why those actions were taken.

Good, however, is something that attempt - good is trying to minimize the evil conseqences of your actions.

Almost all people want to be good and minimize the evil conseqences of their actions. The problem is that people are often VERY wrong about what actions will do that. This is where debate and rational (political) dialoge becomes important. It allows people to do less evil to eachother in their attempts to do good.

[Boldnold]

I guess we'll all figure out what the difference is between whether we're 'Good' or 'Evil' if & when the 'Rapture' ever happens (remember I said 'If & When'). For those of us who are still around after that, then I guess we'll know for sure, won't we?

Boldnold

[JoeR]

Correction to earlier post, the second immoral should be ammoral

[Republican-Demo]

Well personally I'd like to hear both standards, but my debate is probably chirstian values.


Going by that standerd. We are all evil, considering we are all siners. Then going by Christian vaule then we are all born evil and will obviously never be like God which in most Christians faiths is a life goal, to be as much like God as possible. If God then views us all as below him and siners, we are all evil. But it is really up to the beholder, and the standerds of good and evil.

[GoHawks]

We are born innocent. We are also born with a free will to make choices, good and bad.

[O'Canada!]

We are born innocent. We are also born with a free will to make choices, good and bad.

Are we born innocent? As christian we beleive we are born with origional sin...

[GoHawks]

Are we born innocent? As christian we beleive we are born with origional sin...

I'm a Christian and I don't believe that you are interpreting that correctly. We are born of the original sinner, but a sin is a knowledgeable act, in my opinion.

[Garrett]

Are we born innocent? As christian we beleive we are born with origional sin...
We are born into the nature of sin. But a newborn baby has no sense of right and wrong. They are just innocent at that age. Which is why if one was to die, they are accepted into Heaven.

[Boldnold]

We are born into the nature of sin. But a newborn baby has no sense of right and wrong. They are just innocent at that age. Which is why if one was to die, they are accepted into Heaven.

At what age does the nature of a baby change when it realizes it's time to become a 'Sinner' or become a 'Good' little guy or girl? I guess there is no such thing as a 'bad' little baby? Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Boldnold :)

[Garrett]

At what age does the nature of a baby change when it realizes it's time to become a 'Sinner' or become a 'Good' little guy or girl? I guess there is no such thing as a 'bad' little baby? Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Boldnold :)
When the child learns right from wrong. The age of accountibility is different for everybody.

[Dangerrmouse]

Sociopaths by definition, have difficulty differentiating right and wrong, are they innocent, then?

[Garrett]

Sociopaths by definition, have difficulty differentiating right and wrong, are they innocent, then?
If their actions are out of their hands.......

[AgentM]

Good and evil simply do not exist. There are underlying reasons for everything. Some people are simply misguided (some to the extremes), or messed up in the head.

[Churlant]

As to the original question: No.

People are born with the capacity for both.

As a baby, our mentality is evil (little 'e') as we usually describe it, but our actions are not understood or chosen - thus little 'e' status. If you gave a 2 month old the power to destroy the world, we would all be dead... but he wouldn't have known any better and is not really Evil (big 'E') in the regular sense of the word.

Though, if you ask some people, babies are always Evil.

-JC

[Boldnold]

As to the original question: No.

People are born with the capacity for both.

As a baby, our mentality is evil (little 'e') as we usually describe it, but our actions are not understood or chosen - thus little 'e' status. If you gave a 2 month old the power to destroy the world, we would all be dead... but he wouldn't have known any better and is not really Evil (big 'E') in the regular sense of the word.

Though, if you ask some people, babies are always Evil.

-JC

Tell that to a baby! A baby can make choices. Example; Put a bowl of Black paint next to a bowl of White paint in front of a baby. Put a paint brush in each bowl and then tell him 'NOT' to touch them. What do you think the baby will do next? Go for the paint brush of course. Which bowl do you think the baby is going to choose? Yep, the bowl with the Black paint (more than 50% of the time). Why? Because the baby has made a conscious choice. Don't believe it? Give it a try. Try it in your living room for a more meaniful experience.

Boldnold :)

[Churlant]

Tell that to a baby! A baby can make choices. Example; Put a bowl of Black paint next to a bowl of White paint in front of a baby. Put a paint brush in each bowl and then tell him 'NOT' to touch them. What do you think the baby will do next? Go for the paint brush of course. Which bowl do you think the baby is going to choose? Yep, the bowl with the Black paint (more than 50% of the time). Why? Because the baby has made a conscious choice. Don't believe it? Give it a try. Try it in your living room for a more meaniful experience.

Boldnold :)

The baby wouldn't understand he is being given a choice at all - he would know both bowls are his to do with as he pleases. He will not understand if you remove one, or both, or punish him for splashing either. His 'choice' of bowl is not so obviously a choice. A moving bowl would probably attract more attention than a still one - and red would almost certainly win out over more subtle colors.

Further, the baby may make a conscious choice to do what he wants with the bowl of paint, but the consequences of these actions are not known to him. He will not understand what happens when you throw paint on a wall and he will not understand why he is being yelled at for doing so.

-JC

[Garrett]

I think you people are making something simple into something difficult. A newborn baby is just learning who it can and cannot trust. They do not know right from worng. They may choose between one object or the other,but this has nothing to do with right or wrong. A baby is just innocent.

[Churlant]

I think you people are making something simple into something difficult. A newborn baby is just learning who it can and cannot trust. They do not know right from worng. They may choose between one object or the other,but this has nothing to do with right or wrong. A baby is just innocent.

Exactly what I'm trying to say in my own very long and boring style :p

A baby might even want to more or less kill a person for pissing them off... which to us is an evil act, but the baby has no idea beyond someone pulling off their clothes and trying to drown them in a sink.

-JC

[GoHawks]

I agree that a baby is innocent until he/she has a fully developed conscious, that is when they are actually choosing between right and wrong and not just being curious.

[Vic]

why are some people here unable to see, that moral is a subjective issue?
one party says, that they are the good ones. another party says the same, but blaiming the other party on lying.
now who is right? you can´t prove that. What the majority thinks, that is what is considered right in a society.
it´s all about how the average person of a society thinks. you can´t say "what the bible/koran/me/i/he says is absolutly right and can´t be questioned by anyone.
that is just being an arrogant pest.

[Cedars]

If you believe that morality is subjective, Vic, then you must also believe that it is not wrong for another to kill your spouse, your children and/or anyone else you hold dear if the killer is from a culture that believes it's OKAY to do so. You must also believe that it is morally OKAY for terrorists to bomb innocent civilians or crash into buildings where hundreds of people die.

[Cedars]

Like Adam and Eve, all of mankind is quite capable of sinning. We all like to think if it were us, WE wouldn't have eaten the apple (and sometimes wonder how Adam and Eve could have been so silly). But any of us in Adam or Eve's place could very easily have done a similar thing - if not eating the forbidden fruit specifically then some other sin. God made us in His image -- that is, we are rational, logical beings. We are free to choose God or not to choose Him. Without the Grace of God, we are in darkness from our sins. We are born with the original sin of Adam and Eve because, like Adam and Eve, we are sinners. God knew our capacity for sin but He loves us so much that He became man incarnate, the Messiah -- our Saviour and His Son, in order to redeem us so that we may attain eternal happiness. So in answer to the original question of whether we are born good or evil, we are born in darkness (sin) but can repent and attain goodness through our free will to choose good through the Grace of God who is Light.

[JoeR]

The apply gave them the knowledge of good and evil correct? If they were given the command before eating said apple, how could god hold them responsible for anything? Isn't god a bit of an evil despot holding a grudge by condemning us all for them?

Of course all this is pointless to me since there is no compelling reason to believe and worship in any god of any organized religion.

I know plenty of good atheists. The idea that you need god to be good is absurd. The idea that you are born in darkness is only true if you consider the darkness to mean a complete lack of knowledge of good and evil. Society is the deciding factor in defining ones morality, so it is subjective in that sense, not in the there is no good and evil sense. There are constant values found in each society, though the definitions change, which further suggests a level of subjectivity. Certainly we find barbaric today most of the laws in Leviticus.

[Boldnold]

The apply gave them the knowledge of good and evil correct? If they were given the command before eating said apple, how could god hold them responsible for anything? Isn't god a bit of an evil despot holding a grudge by condemning us all for them?

Of course all this is pointless to me since there is no compelling reason to believe and worship in any god of any organized religion.

I know plenty of good atheists. The idea that you need god to be good is absurd. The idea that you are born in darkness is only true if you consider the darkness to mean a complete lack of knowledge of good and evil. Society is the deciding factor in defining ones morality, so it is subjective in that sense, not in the there is no good and evil sense. There are constant values found in each society, though the definitions change, which further suggests a level of subjectivity. Certainly we find barbaric today most of the laws in Leviticus.

Just for the record, it wasn't that apple in tree that caused all the trouble, it was that pair on the ground.

Boldnold :)

[Garrett]

Sociopaths by definition, have difficulty differentiating right and wrong, are they innocent, then?
Don't know about that one, I am not God. God is the judger, so wait and see.

[Garrett]

why are some people here unable to see, that moral is a subjective issue?
one party says, that they are the good ones. another party says the same, but blaiming the other party on lying.
now who is right? you can´t prove that. What the majority thinks, that is what is considered right in a society.
it´s all about how the average person of a society thinks. you can´t say "what the bible/koran/me/i/he says is absolutly right and can´t be questioned by anyone.
that is just being an arrogant pest.
First of all, what the majority thinks is usually considered right by society, but is still immoral. I'm not stupid enough to say that the Bible can't be questioned by anyone, because many people do question it's credibilty. But, I can say that the Bible is right.

[Boldnold]

First of all, what the majority thinks is usually considered right by society, but is still immoral. I'm not stupid enough to say that the Bible can't be questioned by anyone, because many people do question it's credibilty. But, I can say that the Bible is right.

It doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong when it comes to religious ideas and the bible. Your opinion will not change what is to come nor will have any effect on it's outcome but it will have measure on your fate. The destiny of the human race is already measured 'in time'. The time is almost up! Don't believe it? Wait & see.

Boldnold :)

[Cedars]

The apply gave them the knowledge of good and evil correct? If they were given the command before eating said apple, how could god hold them responsible for anything? Isn't god a bit of an evil despot holding a grudge by condemning us all for them?

Of course all this is pointless to me since there is no compelling reason to believe and worship in any god of any organized religion.

I know plenty of good atheists. The idea that you need god to be good is absurd. The idea that you are born in darkness is only true if you consider the darkness to mean a complete lack of knowledge of good and evil.
The story of Adam and Eve does not demonstrate a grudge of God. The point of the story is to realize that man had been given dominion over the earth and everything in it EXCEPT for ONE thing -- not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge and thus be obedient to God. Obedience and faithfulness to God is the key issue here, not knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve ALLOWED themselves to be tricked by the serpent. They KNEW the tree of knowledge was forbidden fruit and they ate it anyway; they disobeyed. When you think about it, Adam and Eve had everything and was only required to meet ONE request; but they did not OBEY God in this one request. We "inherited" original sin not because of God's grudge but because we are ALL like Adam and Eve.

Adam was not born in darkness but with the Light of God's presence. When Adam and Eve chose to listen to the serpent (darkness) instead of the Light of God, God allowed Adam and Eve the free will to do so. However, Adam and Eve were left with the consequences of their choice. But God loves every one of us and wants to pursue a relationship with us through our own free will, which is why He came down to earth and became man Himself and died for us so that we may be redeemed if we choose Him. Only God Himself could repair the damage done. Such a sacrifice does not make a grudge but is instead demonstration of an abiding love and deep commitment to us.

Society is the deciding factor in defining ones morality, so it is subjective in that sense, not in the there is no good and evil sense. There are constant values found in each society, though the definitions change, which further suggests a level of subjectivity. Certainly we find barbaric today most of the laws in Leviticus.
Right and wrong should not be confused with what is legal and what is illegal in any given country. And by your own argument, if morality is relative, then according to you I am right and you are right (each of us according to our societal values and beliefs) so you should not be even arguing this point. It defeats the very foundation of the "logic" of moral relativisim.

[Senor Herberto]

good and evil are the products of free will and the decisions humans make. good and evil are more like construction and destruction. both have legitimate positive purposes and both have dangerous downfalls and negative portions.

but if you're talking about original sin or some sort of guilt clause, then you're wrong. also if you're talking about entitlement you're wrong.

[JoeR]

Seems if god really loved us he would save everyone regardless of a childish demand to be believed and worshipped. If god excludes for such a petty reason, I would no sooner follow him than I would a dictator.

Of course I give Genesis and the moral code of your supposed god as about much weight as See Spot Run. Anything with a moral code would not commit genocide (see Canaanites and the flood)

We can agree on certain points, that murder is wrong, etc. It is the fight for the definition of it at this point. To that extent it is subjective. It is absolutely impossible to define morality seperate from culture and history.

[Garrett]

It doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong when it comes to religious ideas and the bible. Your opinion will not change what is to come nor will have any effect on it's outcome but it will have measure on your fate. The destiny of the human race is already measured 'in time'. The time is almost up! Don't believe it? Wait & see.

Boldnold :)
According to Bible prophecy, you're right. The time is almost up. And you're also right about my opinion not effecting anyone else, nobody else is responsible for my beliefs, nor can anyone believe for me. I do however believe every word the Bible says, and I know that the Bible is completley accurate. It is only a certain amount of time until every living thing here on earth will know that the Lord is God.

[Garrett]

Seems if god really loved us he would save everyone regardless of a childish demand to be believed and worshipped. If god excludes for such a petty reason, I would no sooner follow him than I would a dictator.

Of course I give Genesis and the moral code of your supposed god as about much weight as See Spot Run. Anything with a moral code would not commit genocide (see Canaanites and the flood)

We can agree on certain points, that murder is wrong, etc. It is the fight for the definition of it at this point. To that extent it is subjective. It is absolutely impossible to define morality seperate from culture and history.
God loves us so much that even after we sinned against him, he still gives us a chance to be forgiven, and live in his salvation. One difference between God and a dictator is God gives you an option to have something better, or to live your own fate. A dictator offers you a hellhold life, or death. So I can offer you $1,000,000 to pay off your debt, and you can take it. But if you choose not to take it, I can't force you to, rather watch you lose everything you have over ignorance.

[JoeR]

Any god that requires worshipping and faith of him by us is petty. A loving god would never send anyone to eternal torment, or whatever your version of hell may be. This is really a different topic though than what is being discussed here, and I apologize for taking it off-course with my fervent dislike of religion.

As to the original question of whether we are born good or evil, I tend to think tabula rasa, clean slate, and its all molded into us over time.

[Churlant]

Hm.. another take...

...since 'good' and 'evil' are not only human constructions, but subjective as well, one could assume that neither apply. However, if you want to get technical, 'evil' as we understand it takes considerably less energy and focus than 'good'... so it could be assumed that we are born 'evil' - a default, if you will - and it is 'good' which must be learned and maintained.

-JC

[JoeR]

Bit of an aside - This whole morality thing just makes me think of Star Wars and the light side and the dark side, the Jedi Code, things like that, particularly the above post, in regards to evil being easier.

Luke: “Is the Dark Side Stronger?”
Yoda: “No. Quicker, Easier, More Seductive.”

[The Big Bog]

Hm.. another take...

...since 'good' and 'evil' are not only human constructions, but subjective as well, one could assume that neither apply. However, if you want to get technical, 'evil' as we understand it takes considerably less energy and focus than 'good'... so it could be assumed that we are born 'evil' - a default, if you will - and it is 'good' which must be learned and maintained.

-JC
Can I take this to the realm of psychology for a moment? What you call "evil" I would call the "id."

Babies are born with nothing gonig on up there much bet their ids -- I want food, I want sleep, I want my mommy, I want to hump my stuffed bear because it feels good, etc. But it's all about me, me, me.

Perhaps someone who knows a little bit more about psychology then I do can explain to us where we get our egos and superegos and how they develop. Is it wholly environmental or is it some mix of environment and physiology?

I'm inclined to think that yes indeedy we are born "evil" or "self-centered" if you will, and that it takes some kind of external conditioning to build up a healthy sense of deference toward others' needs (our superegos) as well as the ego which regulates both the id and superego.

[Churlant]

Can I take this to the realm of psychology for a moment? What you call "evil" I would call the "id."

Babies are born with nothing gonig on up there much bet their ids -- I want food, I want sleep, I want my mommy, I want to hump my stuffed bear because it feels good, etc. But it's all about me, me, me.

Perhaps someone who knows a little bit more about psychology then I do can explain to us where we get our egos and superegos and how they develop. Is it wholly environmental or is it some mix of environment and physiology?

I'm inclined to think that yes indeedy we are born "evil" or "self-centered" if you will, and that it takes some kind of external conditioning to build up a healthy sense of deference toward others' needs (our superegos) as well as the ego which regulates both the id and superego.

Well, as I said, the concepts of good and evil are our own constructions - as such they have had varying definitions through history and will continue to do so in the future.

Now, what we consider evil is often attributed to Biblical descriptions. In that sense, people are very much born evil. If a person takes a more objective view, then it is understood that 'evil' is perhaps best defined as the intentional infliction of harm on another living being for reasons beyond self-preservation. In this case babies are not at all evil - they can't possibly understand their actions cause harm to others.

Same goes for insane individuals, mentally deficient, etc...

As for the psychology involved... it is indeed a mix of biology and environment. I would say it is primarily environmental, in fact. We are born with the minimal instinctual drives - self-preservation and self-propagation. At some point we receive instructions on methods for achieving both. Whether these methods square with social acceptance depends on what kind of parents you got. ;)

-JC

[The Big Bog]

Well, as I said, the concepts of good and evil are our own constructions - as such they have had varying definitions through history and will continue to do so in the future.

Now, what we consider evil is often attributed to Biblical descriptions. In that sense, people are very much born evil. If a person takes a more objective view, then it is understood that 'evil' is perhaps best defined as the intentional infliction of harm on another living being for reasons beyond self-preservation. In this case babies are not at all evil - they can't possibly understand their actions cause harm to others.

Same goes for insane individuals, mentally deficient, etc...

As for the psychology involved... it is indeed a mix of biology and environment. I would say it is primarily environmental, in fact. We are born with the minimal instinctual drives - self-preservation and self-propagation. At some point we receive instructions on methods for achieving both. Whether these methods square with social acceptance depends on what kind of parents you got. ;)

-JC

Okay, maybe I should have steered my theory away from behaviors meant simply for survival and more toward garden-variety "evil" actions. I would submit that most very small children, without the proper guidance from someone, will go over and snatch the sucker from the other kid's hand if that kid decides he/she wants the sucker. To me, that's probably an "evil" act--but it's also an act of an unregulated id.

Or what about a person who is sitting peacefully in his boat on a lake and sees a person drowning? This person has a boat and can swim, but he doesn't rescue the drowning person because the water's cold and he might get wet. Is that an act of evil--or a vastly underdeveloped superego? The guy in the boat didn't cause the harm to the drowning person, nor did he do anything to make it worse. He just did nothing for selfish reasons.

I'm simply trying to take this out of the context of any traditional biblical or religious definitions of good and evil and look at it more from a psychological standpoint. Does evil simply stem from living in a really bad environment?

[Churlant]

Okay, maybe I should have steered my theory away from behaviors meant simply for survival and more toward garden-variety "evil" actions. I would submit that most very small children, without the proper guidance from someone, will go over and snatch the sucker from the other kid's hand if that kid decides he/she wants the sucker. To me, that's probably an "evil" act--but it's also an act of an unregulated id.


Exactly. A kid won't know right and wrong unless they're taught as much. If the parents make it a point to teach the kid that stealing is actually good, is it still an evil act for the child to then steal someone else's candy? This is why 'evil' is subjective :) Certainly intentionally harmful actions should be considered evil... but how do we classify harmful actions carried out based on pure ignorance?

Some insist the 'conscience' is a fully developed entity and that we somehow know wrong from right - but we choose to ignore it. I don't believe as much... conscience is a learned aspect of our psyche.


Or what about a person who is sitting peacefully in his boat on a lake and sees a person drowning? This person has a boat and can swim, but he doesn't rescue the drowning person because the water's cold and he might get wet. Is that an act of evil--or a vastly underdeveloped superego? The guy in the boat didn't cause the harm to the drowning person, nor did he do anything to make it worse. He just did nothing for selfish reasons.


There is a reason I placed the "...living being for reasons beyond self-preservation" qualified in my definition of 'evil'. You could extrapolate that to mean that unless the guy in the boat would have been put in mortal danger for helping the victim, he is morally obligated to help - and inaction could be considered 'evil' because, while he didn't cause the victim's current circumstances, he does have a responsibility in everything that happens after he is conscious of the drowning victim. This classification of his inaction is under an objective standard... so I'm not sure the superego would enter into it because ignorance isn't an excuse ;)

Hm... on a grander scale, this could be a question about Switzerland ;)



I'm simply trying to take this out of the context of any traditional biblical or religious definitions of good and evil and look at it more from a psychological standpoint. Does evil simply stem from living in a really bad environment?

Perhaps. If you have twins and lock one in a basement for 20 yrs while actively supporting the second, who do you suppose would emerge with a ****ed up sense of right and wrong?

It really brings into focus the question of free choice, doesn't it? No choice I can make today will be without the direct influence of my previous -edited- years of existence. Now, the choice I make may be evil according to societal standards - it may even be evil according to the objective definition of 'intentional harm' - but is that choice actually born out of an 'evil' impulse?

-JC

[Garrett]

Any god that requires worshipping and faith of him by us is petty. A loving god would never send anyone to eternal torment, or whatever your version of hell may be. This is really a different topic though than what is being discussed here, and I apologize for taking it off-course with my fervent dislike of religion.

As to the original question of whether we are born good or evil, I tend to think tabula rasa, clean slate, and its all molded into us over time.
God doesn't require us to worship, if he did, you wouldn't be calling him an evil tormenting God. He gives us the option of something better than human fate, it is our fault we sin. Not God's, you seem to think it is God's responsibility to cover our sin with rewards. It is not. But it is his loving will that we have another option than Hell, which is why Christ did what he did.

[JoeR]

God doesn't require us to worship and have faith.....he only requires it to get into heaven???

Why was the death of Jesus necessary at all? God couldn't bring everyone up to heaven without that? Is there some cosmic loophole that needed to be closed?

[Churlant]

Why was the death of Jesus necessary at all? God couldn't bring everyone up to heaven without that? Is there some cosmic loophole that needed to be closed?

Ooh... I have a better one:

What if Judas hadn't been a backstabbing little sissy-girl bastard? Jesus wouldn't have died for us and we'd be in big dookey!

SO... shouldn't we thank Judas for saving our souls more than Jesus?

-JC

[Garrett]

God doesn't require us to worship and have faith.....he only requires it to get into heaven???

Why was the death of Jesus necessary at all? God couldn't bring everyone up to heaven without that? Is there some cosmic loophole that needed to be closed?
See, you trash religion, yet you know nothing about it. Sin cannot enter Heaven, which is why one sin is worthy of death. Christ dying on the cross was a sacrifice made for our sin, and if we accept that sacrifice, then we are cleansed of our sin.
God is definetly worthy of our worship, and you are going to ignore what reward he has to offer and spend eternity suffering just because you refused to give him that worship. You should be honored to have the opportunity to worship the Lord.

[Garrett]

Ooh... I have a better one:

What if Judas hadn't been a backstabbing little sissy-girl bastard? Jesus wouldn't have died for us and we'd be in big dookey!

SO... shouldn't we thank Judas for saving our souls more than Jesus?

-JC
What??????

[JoeR]

Why in the world is a sacrifice needed to cleanse sin? I find sacrifice, either animal or human, to be primitive and barbaric.

God shows no characteristics as being worthy of worshipped out of anything but fear, and I don't play that game.

[Churlant]

What??????

What what?

It's not as if Jesus wanted to die. At one point he even whined to Dad about it (of course, by then it was too late).

So that said, Jesus was carted off because of Judas? Yes or no?

We have to assume that without Judas, he might have lived. If he had lived until old age got to him, then, his death wouldn't have had the same soul-cleansing meaning.

So we have to ask ourselves whether Judas deserves a 'thank you' for being a catalyst for what became our soul-saving grace.

:shrug:

-JC

[JoeR]

Well I think the idea would be that if he were 200% mangod he would be able to do anything, hence get out of the hole situation - that he didnt have to go along with it, but he did. Of course don't even get me started on the mangod thing, since Paul contradicts it. I mean....no...the Bible is absolute truth and has no contradictions.

[Churlant]

Well I think the idea would be that if he were 200% mangod he would be able to do anything, hence get out of the hole situation - that he didnt have to go along with it, but he did. Of course don't even get me started on the mangod thing, since Paul contradicts it. I mean....no...the Bible is absolute truth and has no contradictions.

True... anyone who can walk on water can get out of a jam such as that one... I once posed the question of whether Jesus's refusal to stop his own death could be considered passive suicide...

...but then, Jesus wasn't big on messing with free will. Sure he did a few tricks - fed a few people, healed a few people... but he drew a line at changing minds or altering events with force of miracle alone. I can respect that.

-JC

[JoeR]

Sorry to any Christians by the way, I'm in a hostile mood today.

[Garrett]

What what?

It's not as if Jesus wanted to die. At one point he even whined to Dad about it (of course, by then it was too late).

So that said, Jesus was carted off because of Judas? Yes or no?

We have to assume that without Judas, he might have lived. If he had lived until old age got to him, then, his death wouldn't have had the same soul-cleansing meaning.

So we have to ask ourselves whether Judas deserves a 'thank you' for being a catalyst for what became our soul-saving grace.

:shrug:

-JC
Jesus was willing to make his own body a sacrifice, he also said to let LORD'S will be done, not his own. So you have no idea what you are talking about. Simple enough.

[Garrett]

Why in the world is a sacrifice needed to cleanse sin? I find sacrifice, either animal or human, to be primitive and barbaric.

God shows no characteristics as being worthy of worshipped out of anything but fear, and I don't play that game.
Jesus did not sin once here on earth, and all of our sins fell on him. This is why God had to turn his face when the sacrifice was made.
You only say that fear is how God works because you have not allowed yourself to accept what the Lord offers.

[Churlant]

Jesus was willing to make his own body a sacrifice, he also said to let LORD'S will be done, not his own. So you have no idea what you are talking about. Simple enough.

There is a big difference between being willing to die and walking into the death chamber.

Now, unless you are telling me it was God's will that Judas betray Jesus (another interesting question... it would make Judas's actions divinely inspired, yes?), then we have to assume Judas was acting of his own free will.

In which case, if it hadn't been for Judas, would Jesus have been crucified?

Possibly... but certainly not then and there and under those specific circumstances.

So rather than hiding in the sand and claiming I haven't a clue, why not debate the concept itself... which is that without Judas, we may very well not have had Jesus's sacrifice to save us.

?

-JC

[Garrett]

There is a big difference between being willing to die and walking into the death chamber.

Now, unless you are telling me it was God's will that Judas betray Jesus (another interesting question... it would make Judas's actions divinely inspired, yes?), then we have to assume Judas was acting of his own free will.

In which case, if it hadn't been for Judas, would Jesus have been crucified?

Possibly... but certainly not then and there and under those specific circumstances.

So rather than hiding in the sand and claiming I haven't a clue, why not debate the concept itself... which is that without Judas, we may very well not have had Jesus's sacrifice to save us.

?

-JC
How can I hide from a question you didn't ask until now?
First of all, what is the difference in being willing to sacrifice yourself, and then allowing it to happen? We are talking about the son of God here, who could have at any moment called 10,000 angel in to destroy the men who had captured him. But he chose to stay on the cross and fulfill what he had came on earth to do. And regardless of what Judas had done or not done, his power is not greater than that of the Lord's. So the sacrifice would have been made.

[Churlant]

How can I hide from a question you didn't ask until now?


I guess you missed post #80.


First of all, what is the difference in being willing to sacrifice yourself, and then allowing it to happen? We are talking about the son of God here, who could have at any moment called 10,000 angel in to destroy the men who had captured him.


Ah, yeah, I already addressed this bit as well... see below...


But he chose to stay on the cross and fulfill what he had came on earth to do. And regardless of what Judas had done or not done, his power is not greater than that of the Lord's. So the sacrifice would have been made.

Oh? Really? So if Judas had not handed Jesus over (for cash no less - for shame!), Jesus would have walked into the local police station and surrendered for execution?

Come on. I know it isn't comfortable... but truly answer my question. If Judas had been wiped from the face of the Earth the day before he made his dealings (charriot accident maybe), would Jesus have been crucified under the same circumstances as he was?

Logically - the answer is no, for one action led to another which ended in another. So while Judas is the man we love to hate, we must consider what might not have come to pass if he hadn't been a backstabing bastard.

ie no crucifixion, no redemption, etc

-JC

[Garrett]

I guess you missed post #80.



Ah, yeah, I already addressed this bit as well... see below...



Oh? Really? So if Judas had not handed Jesus over (for cash no less - for shame!), Jesus would have walked into the local police station and surrendered for execution?

Come on. I know it isn't comfortable... but truly answer my question. If Judas had been wiped from the face of the Earth the day before he made his dealings (charriot accident maybe), would Jesus have been crucified under the same circumstances as he was?

Logically - the answer is no, for one action led to another which ended in another. So while Judas is the man we love to hate, we must consider what might not have come to pass if he hadn't been a backstabing bastard.

ie no crucifixion, no redemption, etc

-JC
You keep refering to Jesus as some weak man, and not as the son of God. You talk as if he was having to live day by day not knowing what would happen at the end. He knew what his purpose was here on earth, and he knew how it would happen. Remember, he knew peter would deny him 3 times, and he knew Judas would betray him. So there is no other option in this case. But if there was, God is still in control.
There is no difference in being willing to die, and not doing anything to stop it. You must be willing to be crucified, otherwise Jesus would have gotten down from the cross when they told him to.

[Churlant]

You keep refering to Jesus as some weak man, and not as the son of God. You talk as if he was having to live day by day not knowing what would happen at the end. He knew what his purpose was here on earth, and he knew how it would happen. Remember, he knew peter would deny him 3 times, and he knew Judas would betray him. So there is no other option in this case. But if there was, God is still in control.
There is no difference in being willing to die, and not doing anything to stop it. You must be willing to be crucified, otherwise Jesus would have gotten down from the cross when they told him to.

Yes yes, fate, destiny... etc... you claim it can't be escaped - debateable. However, whether or not you can avoid your fate is not the same as who we thank for it.

All I ask is one simple question - Did Judas have a choice in his actions, or not?

Now under the usual definitions of human free will, I assume he did. Of course, Jesus knew what he'd do... he knew Judas's choice - and he accepted it... but the fact remains that, as a technicality, Judas still had a choice... yes or no?

If we imagine he had a choice, then we also have to imagine he could have chosen otherwise. He is the crux... a point at which Jesus's fate could have gone quite a bit differently. So again I pose the question:

If we want to accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as a saving grace for humankind, do we not owe thanks to anyone involved in that death?

Sure Jesus was the one who died... but without Judas's choice, Jesus might have escaped his fate. That he knew he wouldn't is beside the point.

So why not thank Judas for making the easy (or tough (not to mention greedy), depending on perspective) choice and fulfilling Jesus's fate for all of mankind?

-JC

[Dangerrmouse]

" Remember, he knew peter would deny him 3 times, and he knew Judas would betray him. So there is no other option in this case. But if there was, God is still in control."

I see no free will in this assertion. in "reality" they had no choice in the matter, God was in control. It was a set-up from start to finish.

[Boldnold]

The bottom line is; 'God Rules'. Right? Right!

Boldnold

[Cedars]

Seems if god really loved us he would save everyone regardless of a childish demand to be believed and worshipped. If god excludes for such a petty reason, I would no sooner follow him than I would a dictator.
You ask good questions. This is a question many Christians struggle to understand – why didn’t God just make us all choose the good so we can all go to heaven? The key issue here is that if God had made us to always choose good, then we would not have had free will. The next logical response to this is, so what? If we all go to heaven then who cares if we have free will? The logical answer to this is that God must have deemed it better for man to have free will. Think about it: How much greater the reward for man for something earned rather than for something simply given? God could have simply made us to always choose good. But would we feel the joy of reward had He done so? Would eternal happiness be as sweet? I think not – there would have been no reward because we would not have earned anything – and everything we earn is actually done through God’s grace anyway through CHOOSING Him with our free will and actively pursuing a relationship with God; so God HAS given us the way to salvation. He just wants us to choose it.

Of course I give Genesis and the moral code of your supposed god as about much weight as See Spot Run. Anything with a moral code would not commit genocide (see Canaanites and the flood)
Genocide is not the correct term here. God is not prejudiced. He created all of mankind, of every race. The flood was a punishment, not a genocide.

We can agree on certain points, that murder is wrong, etc. It is the fight for the definition of it at this point. To that extent it is subjective. It is absolutely impossible to define morality seperate from culture and history.
If you believe that morality is subjective, then you have to believe that I am correct in what I believe is right and wrong; and you must also believe – at the same time – that you are correct in what you believe is right and wrong. That is the nature of subjective morality, that right and wrong are according to the values of our culture and upbringing. That is the paradox of moral relativism, that right and wrong are subjective because of differing cultures or values. So if you really believe that morality is subjective, then it is moot to define what is right and what is wrong or whether we agree or disagree on anything – because it doesn’t really matter whether we agree or not – we are both right according to subjective morality and, further, the definitions of right and wrong do not really matter because they change with each culture and history.

[Cedars]

God doesn't require us to worship, if he did, you wouldn't be calling him an evil tormenting God. He gives us the option of something better than human fate, it is our fault we sin. Not God's, you seem to think it is God's responsibility to cover our sin with rewards. It is not. But it is his loving will that we have another option than Hell, which is why Christ did what he did.
JoeR is correct. God DOES require us to worship Him. It is mentioned many times in the N.T. God is Goodness. To love and worship God is to love and worship Goodness -- so we will DO goodness through God's grace, which pleases Him (and which also makes us happy). In other words, if we worship God, we are making an effort to choose what is Good.

[Cedars]

God doesn't require us to worship and have faith.....he only requires it to get into heaven???

Why was the death of Jesus necessary at all? God couldn't bring everyone up to heaven without that? Is there some cosmic loophole that needed to be closed?
Yes, the "cosmic loophole" that needed to be closed was the salvation of mankind. God deemed it necessary for Jesus to die because only God could right man's wrong -- only the death of God incarnate (Jesus) could wash away the sins of the world. Man on his own was simply incapable of doing this -- as the O.T. had shown over and over again.

[JoeR]

Why could only the death of God incarnate do so? If God is omnipotent, then he could easily wash it away from people upon death.

I don't think that morality is totally subjective, there are many overarching moralities. Some aspects of it are without a doubt defined by society and change over time, even from the OT to the NT.

[Cedars]

Well I think the idea would be that if he were 200% mangod he would be able to do anything, hence get out of the hole situation - that he didnt have to go along with it, but he did. Of course don't even get me started on the mangod thing, since Paul contradicts it. I mean....no...the Bible is absolute truth and has no contradictions.
Where does Paul contradict that Jesus is both God and man?

[Cedars]

Why could only the death of God incarnate do so? If God is omnipotent, then he could easily wash it away from people upon death.
Because man was incapable, as evidenced by the O.T. It literally took an Act of God to help us. You are right -- God COULD have just washed it away; but as man has free will, man had to CHOOSE for God to wash it away (in baptism). Otherwise, our free will would not mean anything if God is making all our choices for us.


I don't think that morality is totally subjective, there are many overarching moralities. Some aspects of it are without a doubt defined by society and change over time, even from the OT to the NT.
I do not believe that morality is subjective at all. I think what is subjective is that some people ALLOW themselves to be convinced of what is "right" and what is "wrong" to suit themselves. And you obviously agree with me on this on some level because you do not believe morality is totally subjective. I guess the next question is, When do you think that morality is NOT subjective?

[JoeR]

"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." Romans 1:3-4

Born of the seed of David (which seems to imply intercourse to me, since it is through Joseph that the Davidian line is traced, not Mary. According to the flesh, and declared Son of God by his resurrection, not both at the same time. Another example of a similar disagreement is in Acts 13:33:

"God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee"

[JoeR]

I guess the next question is, When do you think that morality is NOT subjective?

The Golden Rule.

All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:1

Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Analects 12:2

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana-Varga 5,1

This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Mahabharata 5,1517

No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Sunnah

What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 3id

Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien

That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.
Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5

An' it harm none,
Do what ye will.
Wiccan Credo

That is the sole concrete morality you need.

[Cedars]

Yes, he was pointing out here that Jesus was man -- and there are many meanings to seed (and obviously intercourse was not meant by "seed" here because Jesus was not the natural born son of Joseph); but it does not follow or lead us to conclude that Paul then means to exclude here that Jesus was also God. In Philippians 2, Paul also states:

"5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death–even death on a cross!"

[Cedars]

I'm not sure I understand your message. When do you think morality is NOT subjective?

[JoeR]

I define morality on more utilitarian terms rather than as some grandiose struggle between good and evil, and I think the best way to judge actions are by their results. When the results are bad, it is immoral. When the results are good, it is moral. When the results are nebulous, so is the morality involved, if it is involved at all.

This is all just an intellectual exercise in my opinion though, I don't go about doing things based on some sort of moral code. I just follow my gut.

[Churlant]

I define morality on more utilitarian terms rather than as some grandiose struggle between good and evil, and I think the best way to judge actions are by their results. When the results are bad, it is immoral. When the results are good, it is moral. When the results are nebulous, so is the morality involved, if it is involved at all.

This is all just an intellectual exercise in my opinion though, I don't go about doing things based on some sort of moral code. I just follow my gut.

Hm... so you would base good/bad on whether using a sort of 'the ends justify the means' concept?

I would agree that there may be a cumulative aspect here... that is it may be morally sound to gain a greater good through sometimes evil options... such as the nuclear conclusion to Japan's WWII endeavors...

But damn if that isn't such a thin edge...

-JC

[JoeR]

Razor and then some, though I think it empathy plays an important part in the whole thing. Another problem, though empathy helps with it, is determining what the results will be. Other areas of nebulousness are good acts that result in evil, and evil acts that result in good. Its all just one big murky cloud.

P.S. Nebulous is a fun word.

[Boldnold]

Razor and then some, though I think it empathy plays an important part in the whole thing. Another problem, though empathy helps with it, is determining what the results will be. Other areas of nebulousness are good acts that result in evil, and evil acts that result in good. Its all just one big murky cloud.

P.S. Nebulous is a fun word.

As I mentioned before in a previous post, we'll all find out the difference between 'Good & Evil' when the 'Rapture' happens, that is if you believe in this up & coming so-called biblical event that may or may not take place in our lifetime. For those of you who do, if you're still hanging around down here after the 'Rapture', consider yourself 'Evil'. No need to worry about the definition of 'Good' after that. It won't matter to you anymore. Right? Right! Keep listening for those loud trumphets. Keep on Trucking.

Boldnold :)

[JoeR]

A world without fanatical christians? Thats a step in the right start. Other religious fundamentalists don't have things similar to the ratpure though, do they :-/

[Boldnold]

A world without fanatical christians? Thats a step in the right start. Other religious fundamentalists don't have things similar to the ratpure though, do they :-/

It really doesn't matter if the rest of the religious fundamentalists believe in the 'Ratpure' (as you spell it) or not. If it does happen in your lifetime, at least you'll probably go to hell knowing the 'true' definition of 'Evil' and what it means to you. For the rest of us? I just keep listening for those trumphets.

Boldnold :)

[DRMIZER]

Babies are born "innocent". We mothers, fathers and society as a whole take care of the future good and bad developements in children.

[Cedars]

I define morality on more utilitarian terms rather than as some grandiose struggle between good and evil, and I think the best way to judge actions are by their results. When the results are bad, it is immoral. When the results are good, it is moral. When the results are nebulous, so is the morality involved, if it is involved at all.

This is all just an intellectual exercise in my opinion though, I don't go about doing things based on some sort of moral code. I just follow my gut.
You surely must do more than follow your gut, though -- if not, then what separates your moral code from the serial killer who follows his own gut?

[Cedars]

Jews also believe in the resurrection of the dead, at a time when it shall please God. I understand that Muslims, like Christians, do not believe that the world will go on forever but that there will be a Last Day. They also believe that there will be a number of of signs that will precede the Last Day, including a lessening of morality, signs in the heavens, the appearance of an Antichrist, the resurrection of the dead, and the last judgment, followed by the consignment of all to their eternal destinies, either in heaven or hell.

[Cedars]

Many spend much time looking for signs in the heavens and in the headlines for signs of the "rapture" and the Last Day. Instead of trying to be like seers and fortune tellers, we should be more concerned with heeding Peter's advice to live our lives with holiness and godliness rather than concern ourselves with WHEN it will happen. God does not wish that ANY should perish but that all should reach repentence -- and none of us know the time when this might be.

"But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. . . . Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace" (2 Pet. 3:8–14).

[Churlant]

Razor and then some, though I think it empathy plays an important part in the whole thing. Another problem, though empathy helps with it, is determining what the results will be. Other areas of nebulousness are good acts that result in evil, and evil acts that result in good. Its all just one big murky cloud.

P.S. Nebulous is a fun word.

All the more reason I believe it comes down to 'intent'. A person might engage in evil actions (shooting someone) to end an even greater evil. This is intentional and then up for debate as to whether the end analysis should be this person is 'evil'.

Someone might intend for a good result, but get an evil one... I think there's a saying in here somewhere ;) Is that person 'evil' if his intentions were truly 'good' ?

-JC

[Boldnold]

All the more reason I believe it comes down to 'intent'. A person might engage in evil actions (shooting someone) to end an even greater evil. This is intentional and then up for debate as to whether the end analysis should be this person is 'evil'.

Someone might intend for a good result, but get an evil one... I think there's a saying in here somewhere ;) Is that person 'evil' if his intentions were truly 'good' ?

-JC

Shooting someone for whatever reason or motivation unless by accident, may not be on God's acceptance list. The word 'Evil' may have a totally different definition and meaning when it comes to whether or not you'll escape God's so-called 'Rapture Party' when and if it does happen.

Boldnold :)

[Churlant]

Shooting someone for whatever reason or motivation unless by accident, may not be on God's acceptance list. The word 'Evil' may have a totally different definition and meaning when it comes to whether or not you'll escape God's so-called 'Rapture Party' when and if it does happen.

Boldnold :)

I am approaching the question from a more rational viewpoint. Whether an action is good or evil depends entirely on an individuals intentions for harm. Very good acts can have very bad consequences... and we wouldn't call the individual responsible an 'evil' person if they were igorance of those consequences.

I mean, if you hand a gun to a baby and they shoot you... well, outside of a Wes Craven movie, it is probably an accident and therefore the kid isn't evil at all. If you hand an adult a gun and they shoot you... assuming they knew what they were doing (exceptions made for mental issues), then they would be evil.

As to how God sees all of this... well, to assume the definitions 'good' and 'evil' are imposed by God is to assume God knows the difference ;)

Now, if we apply the restrictions of 'intent' on God, then we have an interesting answer. God, as an omnipotent being, would not only know the consequences of His (or Her ;) ) actions, He would also have a limitless number of alternative actions at His disposal - all of which might be a bit less harmful than, oh I dunno... killing all the first-born children in a certain city.

So if we count someone as truly being 'evil' by a few simple criteria:
1. The person is conscious of their actions.
2. The person causes direct or passive harm to another living entity.
3. This harm is intentional in nature and...
4. This harm is in no way self-defensive in nature.

I would be forced to conclude that God, at least as described through a literal interpretation of Biblical text, is indeed Evil.

As for the Rapture... my soul is prepared; how's yours?

-JC

[Boldnold]

I am approaching the question from a more rational viewpoint. Whether an action is good or evil depends entirely on an individuals intentions for harm. Very good acts can have very bad consequences... and we wouldn't call the individual responsible an 'evil' person if they were igorance of those consequences.

I mean, if you hand a gun to a baby and they shoot you... well, outside of a Wes Craven movie, it is probably an accident and therefore the kid isn't evil at all. If you hand an adult a gun and they shoot you... assuming they knew what they were doing (exceptions made for mental issues), then they would be evil.

As to how God sees all of this... well, to assume the definitions 'good' and 'evil' are imposed by God is to assume God knows the difference ;)

Now, if we apply the restrictions of 'intent' on God, then we have an interesting answer. God, as an omnipotent being, would not only know the consequences of His (or Her ;) ) actions, He would also have a limitless number of alternative actions at His disposal - all of which might be a bit less harmful than, oh I dunno... killing all the first-born children in a certain city.

So if we count someone as truly being 'evil' by a few simple criteria:
1. The person is conscious of their actions.
2. The person causes direct or passive harm to another living entity.
3. This harm is intentional in nature and...
4. This harm is in no way self-defensive in nature.

I would be forced to conclude that God, at least as described through a literal interpretation of Biblical text, is indeed Evil.

As for the Rapture... my soul is prepared; how's yours?

-JC

I'll put it this way, If you hear the loud 'Trumphets' coming from up above and all around you, earth starts shaking under you, skies turn dark with thunder & lightning and you see some of your friends disappear in front of you and you're still sitting there smoking your cigar, drinking a beer and listening to your favorite Dolly Parton records and watching the 'Simpsons' on TV, then I guess you've been left behind! In either case, just leave that day blank on your calendar!

Boldnold :)

[Churlant]

I'll put it this way, If you hear the loud 'Trumphets' coming from up above and all around you, earth starts shaking under you, skies turn dark with thunder & lightning and you see some of your friends disappear in front of you and you're still sitting there smoking your cigar, drinking a beer and listening to your favorite Dolly Parton records and watching the 'Simpsons' on TV, then I guess you've been left behind! In either case, just leave that day blank on your calendar!

Boldnold :)

Well, either it'd be the Rapture, or I mixed my beer with a medication I shouldn't have... :D

-JC

[Boldnold]

Well, either it'd be the Rapture, or I mixed my beer with a medication I shouldn't have... :D

-JC

Don't mix 'Viagra' with a beer unless your doctor tells you to. That way you have a good excuse to tell to God when you hear the trumphets!

Boldnold

[serenity]

I can't wait till I'm left behind! A lot of annoying people will have vanished into thin air, and some chaos and war and demons and whatnot are a small price to pay.

[Churlant]

I can't wait till I'm left behind! A lot of annoying people will have vanished into thin air, and some chaos and war and demons and whatnot are a small price to pay.

Well, it may be fun for a while... but you are forgetting that whole "Satan gets bound in chains but -oops- he escapes and does bad stuff" part. Luckily Jesus has enough playing and just kills Satan in the end... no more James Bond-like inprisonment...

...then again, I could never figure out why you'd actually chain Satan up when you know he's gonna escape... but hey, I didn't write the script. :)

-JC

[CallMeRoland]

:shrug: people are naturally born with both desires in them.
Exactly. People are born with the ability to do both good and bad, it's up to that person and that person only to choose. They may be influenced by outside forces, such as the religion one follows or family pressures, but it is ultimately up to that person. Osama bin Laden was not born inherently a bad person, he chose his lifestyle by his own accord. Mother Theresa was not born any better than any other person, she chose her own path and became the person she was by personal beliefs/choices.

[Boldnold]

I can't wait till I'm left behind! A lot of annoying people will have vanished into thin air, and some chaos and war and demons and whatnot are a small price to pay.

Welllllllll, according biblical prohecy, if you're one of those left behind (after you hear the trumphets), you will be one of the millions (lots of sinners down here) who will get to enjoy the full benefits of the 'Rapture'. Inother words, you didn't make it dude (to heaven that is) and now you'll have the pleasure of seeing the full wrath of God in action. I recommend that you start stockin up on those cans of Pork & Beans. You'll need them where you're going. I wonder if gas grills are popular in Hell? If not, get that coal shovel out just to be sure.

Boldnold :)

[JoeR]

I'm still confused as to how an all-loving God could have wrath

[Boldnold]

I'm still confused as to how an all-loving God could have wrath

Let's just say if God loved you a little more, and you're one of the unlucky ones, he probably wouldn't give you a oneway ticket to Hell, would he? In terms of 'Wrath? I suppose if you're one of the unfortunate ones still hanging around after the 'Rapture', if God decides to shake up the world a little more with a lot of big earth quakes, global floods, thunder & lightning, god awful storms and unlease a few demons from Hell just for fun, then I guess you could call it 'wrath from God' or something like it. Right? Right! Repent Sinners and do your Penance.

Boldnold :)

[Churlant]

I'm still confused as to how an all-loving God could have wrath


Easy - someone is lying.

Let's just say if God loved you a little more, and you're one of the unlucky ones, he probably wouldn't give you a oneway ticket to Hell, would he? In terms of 'Wrath? I suppose if you're one of the unfortunate ones still hanging around after the 'Rapture', if God decides to shake up the world a little more with a lot of big earth quakes, global floods, thunder & lightning, god awful storms and unlease a few demons from Hell just for fun, then I guess you could call it 'wrath from God' or something like it. Right? Right! Repent Sinners and do your Penance.

Boldnold :)

Uhm... to Joe again -

I'm not really sure about Bold sometimes... he gets on these rants which might be shrunk down to "why ask why?" I can never quite figure out the point, really...

As for the above, he's off on a few particulars anyhow..

-JC

[Boldnold]

Easy - someone is lying.



Uhm... to Joe again -

I'm not really sure about Bold sometimes... he gets on these rants which might be shrunk down to "why ask why?" I can never quite figure out the point, really...

As for the above, he's off on a few particulars anyhow..

-JC

I don't know of any individuals or so-called experts who have been around for a 'Rapture' do you? I imagine if you are one of the not-so-lucky ones who are 'left behind', then I guess you'll know what those 'few particulars' are won't you? Right now, I don't think anyone of us can really imagine what the 'Rapture' would really be like. We'd only be guessing wouldn't we? My guess is it would be worst than your worst nightmare!

Boldnold :)

[Churlant]

I don't know of any individuals or so-called experts who have been around for a 'Rapture' do you? I imagine if you are one of the not-so-lucky ones who are 'left behind', then I guess you'll know what those 'few particulars' are won't you? Right now, I don't think anyone of us can really imagine what the 'Rapture' would really be like. We'd only be guessing wouldn't we? My guess is it would be worst than your worst nightmare!

Boldnold :)

The only 'expert' on the Rapture anyone needs is the Bible :) It contains all the particulars, including the important stuff of who, what, where, when, and why.

And until you visit my worst nightmare, I highly doubt you'd have anything to compare it to... even the Rapture ;)

-JC

[Boldnold]

I don't know. Even the Bible might miss a few good points about the 'Rapture'. Only God knows what needs to be done when he feels the 'Rapture' needs to happen. If you've got it marked on your calendar along with the time, place & etc., perhaps you could give us sinners some advanced warning so that we can prepare ourselves for something 'less' than your worst nightmare. Sounds like you have had some bad ones dude. Keep on trucking.

Boldnold

[Churlant]

I don't know. Even the Bible might miss a few good points about the 'Rapture'. Only God knows what needs to be done when he feels the 'Rapture' needs to happen. If you've got it marked on your calendar along with the time, place & etc., perhaps you could give us sinners some advanced warning so that we can prepare ourselves for something 'less' than your worst nightmare. Sounds like you have had some bad ones dude. Keep on trucking.

Boldnold

Well, technically, the Bible doesn't call it the 'Rapture' at all ;)

Much the same as I would consult The Stand to find out how Stephen King plays out the end of civilization as we know it, I would check the Bible for information regarding its own end-of-world production. If anything, King's plot has a much greater chance of coming around on us... it's more realistic - even the supernatural elements. Something I can't say for the Bible.

In all practicality, why would God give us a date? That'd be like giving a drug dealer a date the cops are coming to arrest him... he'd drop the candy and walk - we'd drop our sins and walk. A story meant to keep people in line would hardly be effective if the consequences couldn't happen on any day, at any hour :)

As for my nightmares... 'you really don't want to know' sounds a bit cliche...

-JC

[Boldnold]

Well, technically, the Bible doesn't call it the 'Rapture' at all ;)

Much the same as I would consult The Stand to find out how Stephen King plays out the end of civilization as we know it, I would check the Bible for information regarding its own end-of-world production. If anything, King's plot has a much greater chance of coming around on us... it's more realistic - even the supernatural elements. Something I can't say for the Bible.

In all practicality, why would God give us a date? That'd be like giving a drug dealer a date the cops are coming to arrest him... he'd drop the candy and walk - we'd drop our sins and walk. A story meant to keep people in line would hardly be effective if the consequences couldn't happen on any day, at any hour :)

As for my nightmares... 'you really don't want to know' sounds a bit cliche...

-JC

I think the sound of loud trumphets coming from parts unknown would be enough to start the ball a rollin as they say. The 'Rapture' or whatever you want to call it, will probably take place when God feels he has taken enough 'crap' that we sinners are throwing around down here. My own opinion is that a good supervolcano eruption, like Yellowstone (approx. 40,000 years overdue) would probably produce a pretty good 'doomsday' scenario or even an 'endtimes' event (at least close to it), much like the supervolcano TOBA did approx. 74,000 years ago. After that, who or what is still alive (not many) would probably be better off in Hell anyway. An asteroid impact might just do it to. Who knows. Anyway, a good 'Rapture' event every now & then is just what the good ole planet earth needs. You know, to get rid of the trash and clean the streets up a little. Thank God for that.

Boldnold :)

[Churlant]

I think the sound of loud trumphets coming from parts unknown would be enough to start the ball a rollin as they say. The 'Rapture' or whatever you want to call it, will probably take place when God feels he has taken enough 'crap' that we sinners are throwing around down here. My own opinion is that a good supervolcano eruption, like Yellowstone (approx. 40,000 years overdue) would probably produce a pretty good 'doomsday' scenario or even an 'endtimes' event (at least close to it), much like the supervolcano TOBA did approx. 74,000 years ago. After that, who or what is still alive (not many) would probably be better off in Hell anyway. An asteroid impact might just do it to. Who knows. Anyway, a good 'Rapture' event every now & then is just what the good ole planet earth needs. You know, to get rid of the trash and clean the streets up a little. Thank God for that.

Boldnold :)

Are you actually equating 'natural' events with 'rapture' events? Seriously... this "we dunno until we know, you know?" line of reasoning is getting old.

Dude.. it's a book. A rather poorly-written book. It's always possible I'd sprout wings and grow lasers where my eyes are... but something tells me that ain't happening without a lot of genetic tampering :p

-JC

[Boldnold]

Are you actually equating 'natural' events with 'rapture' events? Seriously... this "we dunno until we know, you know?" line of reasoning is getting old.

Dude.. it's a book. A rather poorly-written book. It's always possible I'd sprout wings and grow lasers where my eyes are... but something tells me that ain't happening without a lot of genetic tampering :p

-JC

I suppose if God wanted, he could just about make anything happen, including supervolcano eruptions. So, just like you said, 'we dunno until we know, you know' unless you know something we don't know'. I imagine God has a plan for the so-called endtimes or the 'Rapture' as you call it. I'm sure it will all play out in due time. What form it will take? Who knows. We dunno until we know for sure that is. Keep us posted.

Boldnold :)

[Churlant]

I suppose if God wanted, he could just about make anything happen, including supervolcano eruptions. So, just like you said, 'we dunno until we know, you know' unless you know something we don't know'. I imagine God has a plan for the so-called endtimes or the 'Rapture' as you call it. I'm sure it will all play out in due time. What form it will take? Who knows. We dunno until we know for sure that is. Keep us posted.

Boldnold :)

And... uhm...

...nevermind. I give up.

-JC

[serenity]

The 'Rapture' or whatever you want to call it, will probably take place when God feels he has taken enough 'crap' that we sinners are throwing around down here.

Bring it on, god! I'm eagerly a-waitin' the end times! :)

[Boldnold]

Bring it on, god! I'm eagerly a-waitin' the end times! :)

Yea. It should be quite a 'Rapture' party. The only problem God is going to have is trying to find enough room in Hell for all of us sinners and man there are a lot of sinners down here. Listen for those 'trumphets!

Boldnold :)

[cpwill]

:shrug: in a non-spatial enviornment, space is not an issue.

[Boldnold]

:shrug: in a non-spatial enviornment, space is not an issue.

There will always be room enough down there for you to, seeing how you are a non-spatial dude, you probably wouldn't take up to much space anyway. Remember to read the sign upon entering, 'Abandon all Hope' if you're one of the lucky ones who get chosen to enjoy an eternity in Hell. Hey, what the heck, it's a free trip. Can't complain about that can ya? It's those pesky little demons with the pitch forks you have to watch out for I guess. Other than that, Hey, keep us posted.

Boldnold :)

[Cedars]

I'm still confused as to how an all-loving God could have wrath
Why does man go against God and thereby incur His wrath in the first place? Jesus referred to God as "Our Father," and Our Father is quite capable of punishing His children when we have failed to obey or refused to heed His Word -- much like our earthly parents have punished us by "grounding" us to our home or from the telephone -- but God's purpose for us is much grander and the punishment much more harsh in order for us to realize that without Him we are lost. That is why Jesus (God incarnate) came to save us -- so that none of God's children should perish.

[JoeR]

Do you answer a child who is beat by his father asking 'why does daddy hit me' with 'stop giving him a reason to'?

You see drowning neigh the entire world as just punishment?

God of the Old Testement is evil, or at the very least psychotic. Jesus is a good guy. Perhaps god realized what a total dick he was once he was in our shoes? Of course then god would have changed, and that doesn't fit the paradigm of an all-loving-knowing-etc god

[Boldnold]

Do you answer a child who is beat by his father asking 'why does daddy hit me' with 'stop giving him a reason to'?

You see drowning neigh the entire world as just punishment?

God of the Old Testement is evil, or at the very least psychotic. Jesus is a good guy. Perhaps god realized what a total dick he was once he was in our shoes? Of course then god would have changed, and that doesn't fit the paradigm of an all-loving-knowing-etc god

God will take care of 'business' when God feels he needs to. If he has done it before then he'll probably do it again. I imagine that it's getting pretty close to the time to 'shear' the Sheep again.

Boldnold :)

[Cedars]

Do you answer a child who is beat by his father asking 'why does daddy hit me' with 'stop giving him a reason to'?

You see drowning neigh the entire world as just punishment?

God of the Old Testement is evil, or at the very least psychotic. Jesus is a good guy. Perhaps god realized what a total dick he was once he was in our shoes? Of course then god would have changed, and that doesn't fit the paradigm of an all-loving-knowing-etc god
You are making an unclear comparison here. More specifically, you would answer a child who is PUNISHED by his father with "stop giving him reason to punish you." As far as mankind is concerned, some fathers hit hard; some fathers barely tap; some fathers hit so hard we consider it abuse. When I say, "stop giving him reason to punish you," I'm assuming the parent is loving and kind toward their child and is not abusive. If you are referring to an abusive father, then of course, this response would be ridiculous, because an abusive parent punishes indiscriminately and the "reason" could be anything that displeases that parent at any given moment.

God is not abusive. He does not punish on whim or fancy. God's punishment is just. Think about it. If God wants us all to be good and kind and loving, but there are men who refuse to be such and take advantage of and/or murder others (including those who heed God), and they (the "ungodly") are left unchecked (or unpunished), then how will those who heed God survive and set an example of the "godly" life? If "ungodly" acts are allowed to thrive without punishment, where is the justice for the others?

2 Peter 2:
4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell[a] and committed them to chains[b] of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;[c] 7and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8(for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); 9then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials,[d] and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, 10and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.

[heel31ok]

I do not belive in evil or good. We are what we are and we are shaped by our environment and DNA. Simple as that.

For example a murderer often has some damage to he's brain. So is the murderer evil or a defect human, which perhaps can be corrected in the future? I go for defect human, he is not evil just malfunctioning :p.
There was no " malfunctioning'' until sin entered the picture.

[Boldnold]

There was no " malfunctioning'' until sin entered the picture.

The only near-perfect individual was here 2,000 + years ago, who tried to show the way and guide the so-called human race at that time in the right direction and look what we did to him!

Boldnold :)

[julierep]

The only near-perfect individual was here 2,000 + years ago, who tried to show the way and guide the so-called human race at that time in the right direction and look what we did to him!

Boldnold :)


One correction....not near perfect, but completley perfect, for He was God in the flesh.

[JoeR]

Please tell me, HOW is flooding the entire earth just? That goes far far beyond abusive...

Inflicting childbirth pain
drowns every living thing on the planet sans Noah and those on the Ark
kills all the firstborn of egypt
condemns the sons of sinners for 4 genereations
death by stoning for gathing sticks on the sabbath

I could keep going about examples of the Old Testatment god being a villain, but I'll stop for now.

[Boldnold]

One correction....not near perfect, but completley perfect, for He was God in the flesh.

Having been devinely concieved, Jesus grew up as a normal boy and later he realized he was the son of God. 'Normal' means he to was the same as any boy of his race and culture at that time with the only possible difference was maybe in his DNA make-up, which was more possibly perfect.

Boldnold :)

[julierep]

Having been devinely concieved, Jesus grew up as a normal boy and later he realized he was the son of God. 'Normal' means he to was the same as any boy of his race and culture at that time with the only possible difference was maybe in his DNA make-up, which was more possibly perfect.

Boldnold :)

When I say perfect, I am referring to sinless.

[Cedars]

Please tell me, HOW is flooding the entire earth just? That goes far far beyond abusive...

Inflicting childbirth pain
drowns every living thing on the planet sans Noah and those on the Ark
kills all the firstborn of egypt
condemns the sons of sinners for 4 genereations
death by stoning for gathing sticks on the sabbath

I could keep going about examples of the Old Testatment god being a villain, but I'll stop for now.
JoeR, if you really think about it, you must know, as any sane man would admit, man does not have all the answers and know everything about everything. The very concept of an omniscient, all-knowing God is that He knows ALL, including what is right and wrong and what is just and unjust. You (none of us) know everything that was (or is) going on and understand the repercussions or cause and effect of everything happening. Sometimes things happen that we thought were bad but turned out to be good or, vice versa, thought were good but turned out to be bad. Any sane, logical man knows that we do not, and cannot, know EVERYTHING. The bottom line is that you either believe God exists, or you do not. But it is never logical for anyone to say they don't believe in an omniscient God BECAUSE they thought God was/is wrong or didn't do what they themselves would have done -- it defies the very logic of an omniscient God. Christian faith is very logical in this regard because we accept that even though WE (mankind) don't have all the answers, we realize that someone (God) does. As I said, I can accept you don't believe in God; but it is illogical to say that He doesn't or can't exist because He didn't do things the way YOU thought they should have been done.

[JoeR]

I'm not saying that an omniscient god could not exist, but that if it does, that it would not fit into the template of jehovah. If anything, god would be more like Jesus than the god of the old testament.

I don't believe in god because I have no reason to believe, not because of the idea of an omniscient God not doing things that I would have done. The events in the old testement are completely irrelevant to me in that regard.

Also if there is a god, I dont think any of the religions contain the absolute truth. If anything, if god does exist, each religion seems to me to be just a different valid path to that same end goal, just as you can take multiple roads and reach the same destination.

[Cedars]

What is the template of Jehovah? (By the way, a bit of religious trivia, the name "Jehovah" is a misinterpretaton of the Hebrew YHWH, which is actually Yahweh.)

And if an omniscient God does exist (which I believe He does), what makes you think YOU (a creature created by the omnisicient God) would know exactly what would and wouldn't fit the Being who actually created you? To make such a claim would mean that you believe yourself, through your own powers of deduction, to be at least equal to God. This is why I stated earlier that the bottom line is that you either believe in God or you don't -- but you cannot state that if God does exist, he would not fit into whatever template you deem appropriate because you are not omnisicient and you cannot fully comprehend Him enough to know all that He is or isn't.

I believe in God, and I also believe He became man (Jesus -- God incarnate) to show us the Way back to Him, and that is why Jesus established a Church and an earthly authority, which is the Catholic Church. I understand that you (and others) do not accept this -- that is your choice. But to me, it is very logical that God would establish a Church here on earth and give authority through the Holy Spirit to that Church so that man may have guidance until the end of time.

[el nopal]

Your not supposed to spell it out! It's supposed to be Y_hw_h.

Jesus established a church? Where? I don't see it, can you show me?

[JoeR]

Jehovah/Yahweh/ OT God/ etc - cruel, harsh, petty, wrathful, self-absorbed

Jesus - basicly the complete antithesis of the OT god.


I find the idea of all-loving more contentious than omniscient. Personally I can't write off evil as god working in a mysterious way, but to each his own. I don't need god and god doesn't need me.

[Boldnold]

I'm not saying that an omniscient god could not exist, but that if it does, that it would not fit into the template of jehovah. If anything, god would be more like Jesus than the god of the old testament.

I don't believe in god because I have no reason to believe, not because of the idea of an omniscient God not doing things that I would have done. The events in the old testement are completely irrelevant to me in that regard.

Also if there is a god, I dont think any of the religions contain the absolute truth. If anything, if god does exist, each religion seems to me to be just a different valid path to that same end goal, just as you can take multiple roads and reach the same destination.

Keep listening for those 'Trumphets'!

Boldnold :)

[JoeR]

Actually I could summon up the Old Testament God in a very simple manner, and considerably less inflammatory than my previous remarks.

God in the Old Testament acts like what a human would act like if having the power of God, or like an extremely powerful king. Considering the times in which all this arose, that projection of human qualities into a God figure makes sense.

Jesus on the other hand, in my opinion at least, acts more like what a surpreme being should act like. Divine or not, he would be one of the best people to have existed in history.