Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The reason for evil

Page 3 of 4 [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Lecks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,987
Location: Belgium

21 Feb 2010, 1:06 am

Maranatha wrote:
Quote:
And you don't see anything perverse in that? 8O


Perverse as in that's what "sin" is?

Seems beautiful to me that God would be able to purge and redeem it from a man's heart.

After putting in him to start with.

Seems pretty perverse to me.


_________________
Chances are, if you're offended by something I said, it was an attempt at humour.


Wombat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2006
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,051

21 Feb 2010, 5:17 am

Yes there is evil.

I might want to live well. I want to have more "stuff" than you.

But do I want to kill you?.. painfully? And torture you? And eat your heart?

Do I want to rape young children?

That would be evil.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

21 Feb 2010, 5:29 am

Wombat wrote:
Yes there is evil.

I might want to live well. I want to have more "stuff" than you.

But do I want to kill you?.. painfully? And torture you? And eat your heart?

Do I want to rape young children?

That would be evil.


And when economics demands that food prices be raised to give distributors a better profit and thereby starve huge populations, is that evil?



ValMikeSmith
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 977
Location: Stranger in a strange land

21 Feb 2010, 7:22 am

Sand wrote:
Wombat wrote:
Yes there is evil.

I might want to live well. I want to have more "stuff" than you.

But do I want to kill you?.. painfully? And torture you? And eat your heart?

Do I want to rape young children?

That would be evil.


And when economics demands that food prices be raised to give distributors a better profit and thereby starve huge populations, is that evil?

YES
THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL.
That is the "meaning" of 666, BTW.
It appears twice, first as how many 100 pound gold bars Solomon had,
and second as the mark of the beast.

Yes, because people get less food so that others get more money.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

21 Feb 2010, 7:32 am

ValMikeSmith wrote:
Sand wrote:
Wombat wrote:
Yes there is evil.

I might want to live well. I want to have more "stuff" than you.

But do I want to kill you?.. painfully? And torture you? And eat your heart?

Do I want to rape young children?

That would be evil.


And when economics demands that food prices be raised to give distributors a better profit and thereby starve huge populations, is that evil?

YES
THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL.
That is the "meaning" of 666, BTW.
It appears twice, first as how many 100 pound gold bars Solomon had,
and second as the mark of the beast.

Yes, because people get less food so that others get more money.


And if people produce so many children that there is not enough food to keep them all alive, is that evil?



NobelCynic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 600
Location: New Jersey, U.S.A.

21 Feb 2010, 4:01 pm

Moses wrote:
For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. - Gen 3:5 NAS

That might have been the first lie told in the history of creation and it still stands as one of the best ever told, for it was true as far as it went. Man did obtain knowledge of good and evil and God has the same attibute; what the serpent neglected to mention was that they wouldn't have the wisdom to tell them apart.

Much of the evil that is done in the world is done by people who are trying to do good; even Hitler thought he was doing what was best for his country. There are over six billion sovereign beings in this world and each of them thinks that their goals and apersions are of paramount importance, and those of other people, not to mention lower forms of life, are inconsequential. That is the nature of evil.


_________________
NobelCynic (on WP)
My given name is Kenneth


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

21 Feb 2010, 7:44 pm

NobelCynic wrote:
Moses wrote:
For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. - Gen 3:5 NAS

That might have been the first lie told in the history of creation and it still stands as one of the best ever told, for it was true as far as it went. Man did obtain knowledge of good and evil and God has the same attibute; what the serpent neglected to mention was that they wouldn't have the wisdom to tell them apart.

Much of the evil that is done in the world is done by people who are trying to do good; even Hitler thought he was doing what was best for his country. There are over six billion sovereign beings in this world and each of them thinks that their goals and apersions are of paramount importance, and those of other people, not to mention lower forms of life, are inconsequential. That is the nature of evil.


In other words, that apple was a fake.



NobelCynic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 600
Location: New Jersey, U.S.A.

22 Feb 2010, 8:27 am

Sand wrote:
In other words, that apple was a fake.

That's not the word I would have chosen but I won't argue the point.

I don't take that story to be literally true either though I don't know for a fact that it is not, I just think it is far more likely that the process by which Man obtained the knowledge of good and evil was a lot more complicated than eating a piece of fruit. My main problem with religious people is that they claim that belief has to entail certainty, my main problem with atheists is that they basicly agree with that.


_________________
NobelCynic (on WP)
My given name is Kenneth


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

22 Feb 2010, 8:47 am

NobelCynic wrote:
Sand wrote:
In other words, that apple was a fake.

That's not the word I would have chosen but I won't argue the point.

I don't take that story to be literally true either though I don't know for a fact that it is not, I just think it is far more likely that the process by which Man obtained the knowledge of good and evil was a lot more complicated than eating a piece of fruit. My main problem with religious people is that they claim that belief has to entail certainty, my main problem with atheists is that they basicly agree with that.


Perhaps some atheists merely consider the data insufficient to pragmatically accept religions. That's not certainty, that's mere practicality. There are lots of theories floating around but no reason to accept those with no reasonable confirming data.



PlatedDrake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,365
Location: Piedmont Region, NC, USA

22 Feb 2010, 9:27 am

Well, remember that the bible is filled with so many genetic impossibilities that its a wonder at all that the readers havent noticed, "What the hell . . . we're all the product of incest?!?!" Cmon, one man and one woman, or Noah and his kids being the only survivors (let alone the animals, since theyre susceptible to the same genetic factors all things in life are . . . save some plants and microbes). Besides, if he didnt want us to learn about things, why the hell put a tree that grants it in the garden (if someone says its a trial of temptation, imma hurt someone :lol: ). Heh, im to the point of saying, "well, if i wanted to know more about human nature, i'll just watch 'The Quest for Fire.'" If that isnt the best describer of human nature, i dont know what is. :lol:



NobelCynic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 600
Location: New Jersey, U.S.A.

22 Feb 2010, 9:46 am

Sand wrote:
Perhaps some atheists merely consider the data insufficient to pragmatically accept religions. That's not certainty, that's mere practicality. There are lots of theories floating around but no reason to accept those with no reasonable confirming data.

True, though I would hope that said atheist has a good reason for totally rejecting the possibility of there being a God who is deliberately denying us confirming data because he insists on people coming to him for philosophical reasons rather than practical.


_________________
NobelCynic (on WP)
My given name is Kenneth


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

22 Feb 2010, 10:00 am

NobelCynic wrote:
Sand wrote:
Perhaps some atheists merely consider the data insufficient to pragmatically accept religions. That's not certainty, that's mere practicality. There are lots of theories floating around but no reason to accept those with no reasonable confirming data.

True, though I would hope that said atheist has a good reason for totally rejecting the possibility of there being a God who is deliberately denying us confirming data because he insists on people coming to him for philosophical reasons rather than practical.


But as soon as a God is posited that can deny or radically modify the basic laws of nature the whole architecture of science collapses into philosophical rubble.



PLA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

22 Feb 2010, 4:40 pm

Sand wrote:
NobelCynic wrote:
Sand wrote:
Perhaps some atheists merely consider the data insufficient to pragmatically accept religions. That's not certainty, that's mere practicality. There are lots of theories floating around but no reason to accept those with no reasonable confirming data.

True, though I would hope that said atheist has a good reason for totally rejecting the possibility of there being a God who is deliberately denying us confirming data because he insists on people coming to him for philosophical reasons rather than practical.


But as soon as a God is posited that can deny or radically modify the basic laws of nature the whole architecture of science collapses into philosophical rubble.


*nod* And then it all becomes a shrug of the shoulders anyway.


_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."


ValMikeSmith
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 977
Location: Stranger in a strange land

22 Feb 2010, 8:30 pm

Sand wrote:
ValMikeSmith wrote:
Sand wrote:
Wombat wrote:
Yes there is evil.

I might want to live well. I want to have more "stuff" than you.

But do I want to kill you?.. painfully? And torture you? And eat your heart?

Do I want to rape young children?

That would be evil.


And when economics demands that food prices be raised to give distributors a better profit and thereby starve huge populations, is that evil?

YES
THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL.
That is the "meaning" of 666, BTW.
It appears twice, first as how many 100 pound gold bars Solomon had,
and second as the mark of the beast.

Yes, because people get less food so that others get more money.


And if people produce so many children that there is not enough food to keep them all alive, is that evil?


I think I was censored by the internet in my last attempted response.
It is NOT evil to produce children, but evil does stand between them and food.
Money doesn't grow on trees BUT FOOD DOES, AND MORE ABUNDANTLY
THAN CHILDREN. I lost the net when I asked "is working for money to buy
food the biggest source of taxable income?" That would be evil.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

22 Feb 2010, 8:33 pm

ValMikeSmith wrote:
Sand wrote:
ValMikeSmith wrote:
Sand wrote:
Wombat wrote:
Yes there is evil.

I might want to live well. I want to have more "stuff" than you.

But do I want to kill you?.. painfully? And torture you? And eat your heart?

Do I want to rape young children?

That would be evil.


And when economics demands that food prices be raised to give distributors a better profit and thereby starve huge populations, is that evil?

YES
THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL.
That is the "meaning" of 666, BTW.
It appears twice, first as how many 100 pound gold bars Solomon had,
and second as the mark of the beast.

Yes, because people get less food so that others get more money.


And if people produce so many children that there is not enough food to keep them all alive, is that evil?


I think I was censored by the internet in my last attempted response.
It is NOT evil to produce children, but evil does stand between them and food.
Money doesn't grow on trees BUT FOOD DOES, AND MORE ABUNDANTLY
THAN CHILDREN. I lost the net when I asked "is working for money to buy
food the biggest source of taxable income?" That would be evil.


You are fighting current economic and biological reality.



NobelCynic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 600
Location: New Jersey, U.S.A.

22 Feb 2010, 9:31 pm

ValMikeSmith wrote:
Sand wrote:
And if people produce so many children that there is not enough food to keep them all alive, is that evil?

It is NOT evil to produce children, but evil does stand between them and food.
Money doesn't grow on trees BUT FOOD DOES, AND MORE ABUNDANTLY
THAN CHILDREN. I lost the net when I asked "is working for money to buy
food the biggest source of taxable income?" That would be evil.

I have to agree with Sand here, bringing more children into the world than you can feed is evil. I also agree with him that evil does not have to have malicious intent; it wouldn't be necessary for the parrents to want or even acknowledge that these children are going to go hungry to classify the deed as evil: not caring would be enough.


_________________
NobelCynic (on WP)
My given name is Kenneth