George wrote: “When I was a child my father explained the difference to me thus: if you decide to stab in order to kill your neighbor, but are clumsy, slip or what, and the neighbor escapes, without him or anybody noticing your intention, you are not guilty before any worldly court, because there is no evidence. But you are guilty before God, you sinned in your mind which He can read. (And there is a third, the psychological, meaning of guilt that I am not going into.)”

Dear George,

I do not recognise intent as wrongdoing or sin even if the action was aborted through accident in the hypothetical case which you cited of intending to stab your neighbour and not being effective in that act.

The fact that your neighbour was unharmed and did not know of your intent makes you guilty of nothing in my opinion. You can recognise your potential for doing wrong and try to curb your impulses in the future, but I think you are not guilty of anything at all. I think the concept of being guilty because you thought of doing evil but didn’t do it for some reason is neurotic.

I read St. Augustine’s confessions in which he described his guilt as stealing pears from an orchard as a teenager. He also broke with a woman with whom he had a child as being a Christian meant to him being celibate. He managed to foist the insanity of Original Sin on Christianity - the idea that people are born in sin. He was one sick, brilliant, neurotic puppy. Some of his ruminations were fascinating.

Sometimes sanity shines through. There is a story of two monks at the banks of a stream with a woman who also wanted to cross. The three of them crossed with one of the monks carrying the woman. After some time one monk said, “Our order forbids touching women, but you carried one across the stream.” “I put her down at the bank. You should, too.”

http://www.neh.gov/humanities/2013/septemberoctober/feature/why-spinoza-was-excommunicated tells of a God I might accept

.

Dear David & George,

.

« The evil in the Bible continues in the New Testament. An arbitrary God who commands his follower to murder his son in the Jewish Bible in the New Testament subjects his own son to torture for sins he didn’t commit.

As I said the Bible is an evil book. If there is a God it cannot be the arbitrary, sadistic one described in the Bible.”

.

In the Judeo-Christian context, evil is anything which is contrary to the character of God. In Islam it is considered that everything derives from Allah.

Evil, therefore, does not appear to be the most appropriate term to describe either the bible or the quran.

There is, however, a good case for considering certain passages of both books as offensive to common decency and accepted standards of morality (“contra bonos mores”).

Legal action could be brought against any media published today containing an incitement to murder, torture or hatred. If such action were upheld by the court, a restraining order could be issued to prevent publication or have it withdrawn from circulation until the incriminated passages were deleted.

There is ample evidence of such incitement as, for example, the nine crusades of the middle ages plus those of the 14th and 15th centuries as well as the more recent terrorist actions perpetrated by fundamentalist Christians and Muslims around the world (including the Norwegian, Anders Breivik who identified himself as a Christian crusader).

However, despite all this evidence, I doubt that any tribunal would have the courage to take such a decision as to declare either the bible or the quran as “contra bonos mores”. If it did, the political pressure would be such that the decision would either be overturned by a court of appeal or simply never executed.

But, as George’s father seems to have taught him when he was a little boy: legality is one thing and morality is another.

Amusingly, it seem that bible possession was even once banned by the Catholic church, considered as not suitable for everyone :

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/banned.htm

.

bannjo..adds much to the conversation..[i feel we all are]

banji/quote..<<..In the Judeo-Christian context,..evil is anything which is contrary..to the character of God.>>

true at its essence..but sadly..
creed..that says the whole book[s]..is from god..
but..[which plainly is more wishful thinking..than falsifiable fact]

god CANNOT take sides..
[who would you chose]..which..of your children..to accept pain..as their due..?..and which to gainsa.. some implied eternal..glory for gore?

no-one..here..im sure
before god..[lol..under god]..
we are all equally..second..only to god

<<..In Islam..it is considered
that everything..*derives from Allah.>>

so much..involves context..
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Fisher/Topical/ch14.htm

context..is everything..
[in ITS..present living/live moment..*not ours
eg...[what specifically..precedes..the quoted line..and what its proceed]..

eg..when mosus begged satan..
to be allowed to walk with him..then judged him harshly
errant-ly*
http://islam101.net/real-tales/238-three-strange-events-when-moses-met-khadir.html

hence
i agree..<<Evil,therefore,..does not appear to be..the most appropriate term..to describe either the bible..or the quran.>>

karma?
balance?

<<There is, however,..a good case..
for considering certain passages of both books..as offensive to common decency..and accepted standards of morality..>>

often..in fully explaining
the more words used..the more chance of error..slipping through the cracks

holding *words..MORE sacred..than life..
[is clearly bias..thus/[beyond god]
which insults..the living love
[good/god]

the life giver..must have a clear separation..from say a life taker
who..saw the words inspired..written/preserved..isnt clear..
but by what fruits..the words produce

[only god..can give and sustain life..
but sadly men..subvert life..to preserve the word

the wrongness comes...when the words..bear ill fruit

there is the maker..and its fruit/product
this is clearly..a product..
but the title says read me
http://www.seventhfam.com/temple/books/black_man/blk55.htm

THE MAKING OF DEVIL..isnt even proper english [yeah i should talk]..
;}
[so translation error..
cant be ruled out..from its first words]

Dear david f,

Please understand, that I was just trying to EXPLAIN the Catholic practice of personal confessions, not to convince you about its potential usefulness to non-Catholics, not to mention convert you. Here in Germany the confessionals are empty but in the house next to where I live there are four psychotherapists, apparently offering the psychological service the confessionals used to. Only time will tell, whether this is an improvement on them or only a plastic replica.

>> I think the concept of being guilty because you thought of doing evil but didn’t do it for some reason is neurotic.<<

I agree that it is neurotic to feel guilty in the face of a God you do not believe in. It follows, I think logically, from you not believing in God who can read your mind, that you cannot feel responsible to anybody about intents that only you are aware of.

Nevertheless, I think even without God there are things also contemporary post-Christian society condemns (and would like you to feel guilty about), like racism, antisemitism, homophobia etc even if it only POTENTIALLY can lead to “wrongdoings”, i.e. actions harmful to the society (agitation, incitement).

Dear Banjo,

>>There is, however, a good case for considering certain passages of both books as offensive to common decency and accepted standards of morality (“contra bonos mores”).<<

Books written thousands of years ago condemned as “offensive to common decency standards” of the post Christian West of the 21st century? Something like using the authority of such ancient book to condemn those 21st century scientists who claim the Earth is older than 9000 years, only in reverse.

>>But, as George’s father seems to have taught him when he was a little boy: legality is one thing and morality is another.<<

I don’t know were my father comes into it, but the difference is obvious even to “little boys”: Driving in Australia on the right hand side is illegal but not immoral; in Nazi Germany denouncing a Jew to the authorities was immoral by all standards, but certainly not illegal.

Dear Banjo,

The term, Judeo-Christian, is questionable. The Christian religion centres around the worship of Jesus. The Jewish religion does not in any manner regard Jesus or the New Testament as connected with their religion. Although Judaism and Islam do not share any scriptures they have much more in common. They both are monotheists with no other divine figure. They have similar dietary laws and have no formal hierarchy. They both are more concerned with practice than belief – orthopraxy over orthodoxy. To the best of my knowledge the term Judeo-Islamic is not used, but it makes much more sense than Judeo-Christian.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian Judeo-Christian as commonly used is a political rather than a theological term and was formulated as a term used in the cultural wars in the US.

There is no reason that one should accept a religious definition of evil if one does not subscribe to a religion. “Profoundly immoral and malevolent” is a definition of evil. Of course a book in itself is not evil, but a book can advocate evil. Blind, unquestioning submission to authority, slaughter on the command of an imaginary entity and stifling of human curiosity and questioning in meeting the demands of faith, all found in the Bible, are, as far as I am concerned, profoundly immoral and malevolent. I think evil is a most appropriate term to describe much of what the Bible teaches. In my opinion following the Bible is inconsistent with living a moral life.

In addition the Bible is contradictory within itself from the beginning. The two accounts of creation are incompatible. We regard the Greek, Roman, Norse, Japanese and other old legends as attempts to explain the world in which those peoples lived. They are neither guides to conduct, scientific texts nor histories although they contain beauty and wisdom in the midst of fantasy. It is reasonable to regard the Bible and the Qur’an as well as the sacred books of all religions in the same way that we regard other legendary material.

Dear George,

I realise you are explaining not trying to convert. However, if one explains a view that one holds it is difficult to put away the hope that the other person might be brought to have the same point of view that you have. I recognise having those feelings within myself, and I may be projecting them onto you.

Apparently there is a closure in the Catholic confession which does not exist in psychoanalysis. I once spent an hour with an analyst on the request of a girlfriend. At the conclusion of our session he asked me if I would see him again. I told him that he had not said what he would try to do, had offered no comment on my words, had not said how long I would be seeing him or given any criterion for a successful treatment. Therefore I saw no reason for seeing him again. I have never been to a Catholic confessional, but I have heard that the priest describes a penance and may offer some words of advice. He may even be a more sympathetic listener than the analyst I visited.

You wrote: “Books written thousands of years ago condemned as “offensive to common decency standards” of the post Christian West of the 21st century?”

If one is expected to take those books seriously than it is appropriate to apply current standards. I contend that the Bible should be treated like other ancient legendary material.

I don’t think one should feel guilty about having feelings of ‘racism, antisemitism, homophobia etc’. Suppose a person had intense feelings of doing evil but wished to be regarded well by his or her community. That person would act in such a way as to show consideration and caring to other people and would never even voice the feelings that he or she had in mind. That person’s acts would be completely inconsistent with what he or she would like to do if he or she felt free to do it. I would consider that individual a good person. Would you?