Is doing evil a necessity of life?

Post Reply New Topic

Ok.

Regards
DL

I don't see a problem with competition except if it's at the expense of others. You could argue that competition is always at the expense of others.

Indeed, and you would be correct, but if we did not compete, we would weaken as a species and go extinct.

We would never find and reward our fittest.

In the biological sense, our fittest get reproductive opportunities while the least fit do not.

Regards
DL

Nonsense...and if we actually did compete to "find and reward our fittest", social sickness would grow proportionally and the disabled, for example, would be left behind in ways far worse than merely having difficulty finding employment.

??

The disabled are already left behind in way too many instances.

You indicated above that the disabled do not need to compete to get jobs and that employers do not try to get the most qualified employees. Yet the stats show poorly for the disabled as compared to those who are not.

Make up your mind.

Regards
DL

No, I did not...and the continual confusion in this thread is related to various definitions and merely-rhetorical uses of the term "compete". Nobody ever has to "compete" for a job simply because employers do not use the results of competitions for making their selections. Nevertheless, the job market quite often feels "competitive" -- a mere perception -- simply because the numbers of applicants are typically greater than the numbers of available positions...and there is where we get back to the actual topic of this thread:

"Is doing evil a necessity of life" in the sense of trying to gain something at the ultimate expense of someone else's life?

If that is how things actually worked, then giving guns to the disabled would at least solve their employment problems so they could work to eat.

Really!

What do they use then? First come first to get the job?

Let's look at a real life scenario.

If a legal firm can hire a candidate who has competed to be top in his class, or one that graduated at the bottom of the class, --- for the same price, --- you think that the guy from the bottom of the class might actually get that job. Right?

Regards
DL

Who says he had to compete -- "doing evil a necessity of life" -- to be at the top of his class?

The plight of the candidate at the bottom of the class was not caused by the one at the top.

Your ignoring my questions says it all.

Regards
DL

I have not ignored your questions, I have challenged their rhetorical loading.

"Ray Charles was blind" plus "Love is blind" plus "God is love" does not prove Ray Charles was God.

The fact that two people might work equally hard and one ends up with a higher grade score than the other does not prove either was competing. Hence, most of your questions must be de-bunked before anyone can offer a valid answer.

I must have missed your answer. Please repeat your answers to these questions.

What do they use then? First come first to get the job?

Let's look at a real life scenario.

If a legal firm can hire a candidate who has competed to be top in his class, or one that graduated at the bottom of the class, --- for the same price, --- you think that the guy from the bottom of the class might actually get that job. Right?

Regards
DL

Whoa! Who says he has competed?! If you truly want to discuss this stuff, begin at some basic truths/facts and move forward rather than using tainted rhetoric to try to make mere perceptions or beliefs into inarguable truth.

All students know that passing at the top of the class in gaining their degree enhances the job potential.

I asked a question in my last post and if you do not answer it, we are done.

If a legal firm can hire a candidate who has competed to be top in his class, or one that graduated at the bottom of the class, --- for the same price, --- you think that the guy from the bottom of the class might actually get that job. Right?

Regards
DL

That does not prove anyone competed, and your question remains unworthy of response because it is loaded to push your personal agenda I have yet to understand. Has life been so difficult for you that you are convinced it is an inescapable dog-eat-dog competition or are you trying to say our Maker set us up so we had no option but to do evil...or what?

If any could go through life without doing evil as described in the O.P., we would have some examples of it.
Since we do not, we obviously have to do evil to the losers of our competition.

My creator is nature but if yours is a God then it would be unjust for punishing you for doing evil.

I have spoken to may who play the free will card on this.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin. That being the case, for God to punish us for following the instincts and natures he put in us would be quite wrong.

Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

When conceived and born, we are controlled and governed by our instincts and those instincts, while defaulting to cooperation when we are weak, must be ignored when we get stronger and the need to compete rears it's head.

And yes, the question you ran from was loaded for my position. Would you expect I would argue against myself or do your thinking for you?

Load a question for me and see that I do not fear honest debate the way you seem to.

Regards
DL

Possibly, but that is not the question of this thread! The question of this thread is whether it is *necessary* to do evil in order to survive...and at least in my own case, that led more toward my demise.


You are a hoot! I never ran from anything here!


Your loaded question would indicate you propose to do the thinking for the ill-informed, vulnerable or gullible, and yes, arguing against oneself can be quite helpful at times.


You claim your loading is honest?! Once again: What a hoot!