The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Evil

Evil

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. ...
  11. 14
  12. 15
  13. 16
  14. All
i feel we often take the path of least thinking...this lack of forward/thinking..is often taken as evil...when..as cs wrote we got no concept,..of true evil

there is truelly good and truelly vile..
out there...as well as..in here..

i know i can have the darkest thoughts...and..its what i let these thoughts bring into realisation...that allows others to judge good or vile

no one can know..whats in our heart..except by that we made real..by our deeds are we adjudged..[by our others]..but that judgment..was created in their minds..so we need to see..what is in the mind of those..who blame evil...upon others...yet see their own vile..as pure

i could have much against..the religious texts,..that i got these thoughts from...the way they present the good..of the only god for just one egsample...as in any form, of bad..is alone by mens words..framing their thoughts

all the texts describe a living loving god of grace/mercy..just like any parent..will assume self guilt..at the negative deeds of their sprogs..[offspring]

what it boils down to david...is we had the bennifits of the thoughts and our annalasys of the teachings in the holy texts...seeing that no one can take gods name in vain...yet so many do and are

some yet still have the temerity and presuming jesus as good...when he himself say why call ye me good..good of god..not of jesus...lol

jesus forgiving us our sins..when its not our sin he is forgiving..for he sees us..and sees the father..sustaining life to live

see me ...see my father...who sent me...

i see you ..nd see the father who did send us all...

its by seeing reason/purpose..yes even my of own good/vile/bad..but knowing the motivations of my own heart..that i can forgive...or at least comprehend the evil...im judging in/..of others

but where im sadend..is that one..as wise as you..fails to see..your an..eternal living being...energy cant be created..[by men]...nor destroyed..[by men]...

see my beloved other...a living sperm..bought to your matriarchal..egg
..brought you..the living...you call life...

that first spark..of life...now consists of a burning fire/..passion of so much more..life...your one sperm..now has trillions of other lives..your living sustains
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 31 October 2009 8:17:38 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
from the worms..in ya gut..that regulate your health..to the life living..on your eyelash...life sustaining other lives..to live..your life is sustained by other lives...and sustains yet other life...

and you still thinking..life ends...when most of it lives..well past our death...and in being life forces..lives on as its various forms of energy
think of life as energy..that can change its form..and even the delusionaL..GOD HEAD REPLACEMEWNT..dorkins...CONCIEVES OTHER UNIVERSES..damm cap loc...

..so that..final totality..of your lifes..living forces lives on..in those other dimentions..beyond this one..[heaven and hell]..and the trillions of other realms inbetween...

as revealed..by the dorkins god head..in his multi-universe bubbles model..for this is the implication..behind multi-universes

im sad..you feel energy can be destroyed..

thats not even valid..in science...
see how like us..the dead are

the only difference is life enegy...spirit
is either home/within..[emmanuel....
or gone away/without..

<<anyone who is careful with the mitzvah of mezuza..will merit "length of days"..for himself and his children."

The question is..what does it mean..to be "careful with the mitzvah"? To put the mezuza up on the doorpost without delay?..Or to be careful to write every letter properly?..Or to put the mezuza in the right place?

Says the commentary 'Turei Zahav':..'to be very careful'..means to be aware that here,..in this doorway between rooms,..between inside and outside, between what has been and what will be,

in this mezuza,..is..'Yichud HaShem'..G-d's Oneness; &#1492;&#1513;&#1501; &#1488;.....

And if you can be careful..to let the mezuza focus you on this foundation of reality,..then you'll enjoy length..(depth)..of days.

We're always at a point..of moving from one..'room'..to another.

evil has its place...as does good...

and for every level in between..each has their own realm/room..
..in thy fathers house..of which jesus has his room...mahamoud his...the buddists and tha a-thiest..and everything inbetween...

all of their own passions..[gods rooms/dorkins bubbles/universes

each realm..doing only..to those..of their same passion/goats with goats tares from the wheat..chaff from the thorns...the stones from the dirt/waters from the dusts...

till in time the substance..of our god given energies..transformes into its next reveal..through the next doorway...from the one good..sustaining all our lives..to their own individual revealing...
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 31 October 2009 8:17:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David f,
Since we both agreed that you “do not bother with supernatural forces” I did not understand why you brought God into play. What I was asking was whether you thought moral criteria were reducible to aesthetic ones. This is not the same as “belief in objective morality” (see below).

An essential part of my world-view is a belief in the independence (and mutual irreducibility) of the three Platonic ideals beauty, truth and goodness corresponding to the aesthetic, rational and moral criteria of human contact with his/her environment. I believe they are independent, something like the five Euclidean axioms are independent.

As I said, I know there are atheists who do not believe that moral and aesthetic criteria are very different, and I am still not sure if you would be one of them. However, I think the independence of the three criteria, their three ideals, is compatible also with an atheist view that sees them - our awareness of them - as merely the product of evolutionary processes of adjustments to the environment.

The question of objectivity of these criteria is a different matter. Nobody speaks of “objective beauty” (c.f. the “de gustibus...”) but also science strives for truth (the objectivity being beyond dispute until QM) although it does not claim to know something it could call “absolute truth”. Perhaps something similar might hold about the moral value of human actions.

I think everybody knowing the facts would call Hitler, more precisely his Holocaust, “objectively evil” (and the activity of many charitable organisations as “objectively good”). So I think a model of ethics where morality would be completely “in the eye of the beholder” would be unsatisfactory. Perhaps almost as unsatisfactory as a model of scientific knowledge, where the truth value of theories and experimental predictions would be completely “in the eye of the observer”.

Even if you can do without “absolute truths” in science, you cannot make scientific truth purely subjective, and I believe this is the case also with morality, or in our case rather “immorality”.
Posted by George, Saturday, 31 October 2009 8:27:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

I don't believe the analogy between the Euclidean axioms and the Platonic criteria is valid. The Euclidean axioms express mathematical relationships and are a triumph of human reason. Two points determine a line. The entities, point and line, can be interchanged, and the axiom will still have meaning. Two lines determine a point.

Beauty, truth and goodness are not independent axioms on which we can build a logical system. They are words that have many meanings. Goodness may have no moral connotation whatsoever. It may merely mean effectiveness as in being a good bomb-maker. The criteria are not independent either as shown in Dickinson’s poem.

I died for Beauty — but was scarce
Adjusted in the Tomb
When One who died for Truth, was lain
In an adjoining Room —

He questioned softly 'Why I failed?'
'For Beauty', I replied —
'And I — for Truth — Themself are One —
We Bretheren, are', He said —

And so, as Kinsmen, met a night —
We talked between the Rooms —
Until the Moss had reached our lips —
And covered up — our names -

'Beauty' and 'Truth,' in a way very nineteenth-century words, are often presumed to be in conflict (for all of Keats having written that 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty. — That is all/Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know'). In the poem the narrator died for Beauty and, interestingly, a man who died for Truth (a clergyman, most probably) is buried next door. It's as if the grave diggers knew that these two abstractions had something to do with each other, but weren't quite sure what. With all the time that eternity offers, the two 'spokespeople' 'talk between the Rooms' without a resolution, without either victory or compromise. Indeed, eventually, the moss of time covers over both concepts. (the discussion of the poem was from Geoff Page’s book, “80 Great Poems)

We both abhor what Hitler did. That does not make the Holocaust objectively evil. It illustrates that we think it was evil because neither of us likes it
Posted by david f, Saturday, 31 October 2009 9:19:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear davidf,
You ask "How can I lead a good life?" but I get the sense you are also asking 'How can I have a good death?'

I do not presume to have any answers so will try and refrain from any pontification by sticking primarily to observations.

I have heard it said we are only truly dead after the last time our name is spoken. So when you say "Eventually I will die, and that will be the end of it for me." it is rightly balanced by your evident joy at the thought of your granddaughter rereading your letters and reconnecting with your love for her long after your physical form has gone.

Perhaps we might think of the absence of love as a form of evil. Christ was struck by the importance of love as was Paul and indeed so are we all judging by the number of times 1 Corinthians 13 gets a run at weddings.

Once we strip away much of the more cultist aspects of any faith there often lies some very obvious truths about the how we should lead our lives. Surely Christ was attempting to get us to extend the love we have for family to the rest of humanity. For instance the patience with which we accept the slings and arrows that occasionally come our way from our teenage offspring evaporates immediately if we receive the same from non-family youth, although perhaps I'm speaking for myself.

While it might have served the Church's purpose to burden us all with guilt I not sure that was Christ's intention at all. There are primarily two ways to feel guilt, one is through empathy for those you may have hurt and the other is a fear of the authority you may have disobeyed. The Christian message is at its most powerful when it informs the first and at its weakest when it dwells on the second.

Cont..
Posted by csteele, Saturday, 31 October 2009 12:05:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Con't..

Do you think the psychopath is troubled by deep feelings of remorse? By confessing a wrong to someone you have hurt in a way signals ones return to being a complete person. It shows your empathy to be stronger than your pride.

The Church talks about the Kingdom of Heaven as something removed from this world, something that can only be reached through them after death. Christ talks about it a being all around us, attainable in this life. So how do we assuage guilt? Either by removing our capacity for empathy (an example is Howard's removal of incarcerated asylum seekers from the public gaze and Rudd's insistence that the most recent bunch are not to step foot on Australian soil) or by acknowledging past wrongs, apologising and seeking to correct them if possible.

This message is hardly unique to Christ and it is only that his teachings are more accessible to ourselves and a good deal of the West that I dwell on him.

I have a love hate relationship with the classic Russian authors. Dostoevsky tempts me with his truths but I want to slash my wrists after reading him. So it with a little trepidation that I invite you to examine the life of Tolstoi. Here is someone who thought deeply and only 'came to' Christ later in life. As is often the case with such people he was scathing of the Orthodox Church and its teachings. One gets the sense he was enraged by the actions of the Church in subverting the message of Christ to their own ends and thereby delaying his own exposure to that message. I find it interesting he was most enamoured by the story of Joseph. Tolstoi retreated from the literary world for a period to concentrate of the affairs of his estate and the education of the children of his serfs which he deemed a more "useful" pursuit.

cont..
Posted by csteele, Saturday, 31 October 2009 12:08:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. ...
  11. 14
  12. 15
  13. 16
  14. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy