Does Evil exist?

So what was Hitler's excuse?

Ill fitting pants.

Nothing is real.

Humans are not, "basically good." Much like the Conquest of Grenada was fiction. Humans are animals; neither good nor evil.

Granada.

I hate to use the beauty queen answer of "everything's relative" but it is when it comes to good vs. evil. One man's good is another man's evil.

However, I do believe it is rare for someone to know evil and do evil for the sake of doing evil. Such malice does exist, but I see it to be rare. For the most part, when Person A hurt Person B, it's only so that Person A may benefit. Rarely does Person A go out of his way to hurt Person B if it will not better Person A in any way.

Well, let's examine Hitler's motivations. He wanted to lead his nation and people to back to greatness. He wanted wealth and prosperity for his descendants. He wanted to start a nation that would last for a thousand years. These are motivations shared by many men, good and bad. Every nation needs war to establish itself as a power. Every superpower has it's own punic war or World War II in order to ascend higher than other nations. This was Hitler's aspiration.

In the beginning, he was no more anti-semitic than your average German or more racist than the average redneck american. His goal was the ascendency of Germany, not even necessarily the aryan race. In the beginning, even Himmler was not too concerned with the Jews. The holocaust began in earnest only when Germany was losing the war and looked desparately for a scapegoat and a legacy to leave behind in case the reich fell. The True architect of terror was Heinrich Heydrich and his final solution did not go into place until 1942.

The point of this? It is that power was the true motivation of Hitler. He never set out to be evil and it's not that his sense of right and wrong didn't exist, it's that he saw what he did as necessary. That's the primary problem with morals and ethics. Everyone has a different definition of right and wrong. The bible can say straight out that it's wrong to kill, but "good" men can find ways to justify it. Men disagree with each other and use religion to justify the elimanation of their enemy by labeling them evil. It makes it easier to kill them when you truly believe that what you are doing is good. That is, of course, our current situation. We are good, and Saddam is evil. It makes our crusade easier to compute.

Nordling, this is a great question. I would like to ask the god fearing not to answer because we know your stance on this. We understand the various moral codes that you live by. I would like a forenic discussion of ethics here though I ask you to correct us if we are wrong with facts concerning religion.

Let's ask some very basic questions. What motivates man? I believe everything is done for a reason. No action is taken without a motivation. If you can think of one, please let me know. Even what seems like senseless killing is justified by someone, somewhat who has authorizied it to be done. Even if it's just for "fun", that is still a motivation. It is very important that we try and understand the motivation behind "evil" acts so that we can identify the type of thought that can lead to horrific events.

Let's discuss some examples. Many would call serial killers and rapists evil. But do they simply act out of a need for malice or is there a deeper reason? What may seem senseless to us is obviously justified by them, but how? .....

TBC...

I'm at work right now, so I don't have time to write a whole lot, but this should get you started:

<a href="http://www.genchurch.com/library.php?file=howDoYouPlead.html" target="_blank">How Do You Plead?</a>

My basic assumption is that there are evil forces at work, but that people are ultimatly responsible for what they choose to do. I'll try and write more if I get the chance.

I would like to ask the religious people in a religious forum not to respond to a religious question.

C'est la vie, I suppose.

Allow me to ask a question: if there is no God, no source of absolute truth, nothing by wich we can judge human standards, what point is there to an ethical discussion? As we are both human beings, you can come to the conclusion that murder is wrong and be just as right as I am in coming to the conclusion that murder is right if it benifits me.

This question has little to do with the moral codes I live by; rather, it has to do with why I live by them, and why, when I fall short of those standards, I do so.

Do you really need an invisible skydaddy and the threat of eternal damnation in order to have ethics? I don't really think so. I think humans are quite capable of coming up with ideas of right and wrong based on experience and culture (which in fact is what I believe they have done, but have ascribed said ideas to diety rather than to themselves through time). I think the Golden Rule is not a religious precept, but a practical one--it's better for everybody if you treat everyone else how you yourself would like to be treated in return. When you do this despite the fact that others don't treat you the same way, that's ethics.

The claim that ethics are too malleable without supernatural sources doesn't stand up, because we can see how malleable they are even WITH such ascribed sources. Existentialists put forward the rather brave idea that you can be a moral person even if God doesn't exist and there is no meaning--it's taking responsibility for your own ethics, and answering for them.

At least imho.

(Reductionist, I know, but hey, it's a msgboard, not a college course. )

Oddly enough most non-Christians I know have NO idea what most Christians' stances are on evil. Most Christians would not agree precisely on evil or it's nature any more than most non-Christians would agree. Thanks for insulting all the religious folks here. wink

No insult intended Scott. It's just that many times I see arguements from hot headed religious types that destroy threads.

And you are correct, many people within each of the major religions cannot agree where the lines are drawn when it comes to morality and ethics. At work each each day, I myself see conservative christians and liberal christians and the rift between them is extremely wide. We see people use religion to explain love while we see other use it to justify war. If such extremes exist, then I submit that religion is somewhat useless in any moral/ethics debate other than as a guide. No person can say with certainty what their God wants and how he defines "good and evil." If man can use religion to justify the extremes of their personality, then it doesn't do much good since it covers the whole spectrum of human acts whether it's good or bad.

I may have started ahead of myself. We should first ask what we consider evil in the first place. Someone here said it is the desire to do harm to other beings for the sake of harming other beings. Is this a good definition? My details of Hitler's actions is incomplete in this thread, but I can elaborate on why I don't believe he was strictly evil. He wanted good to come out of war. He had a vision for a better future. I don't think that an evil person would car about the future at all. I can go on but, can anyone name someone else who they believe really was? Who did harm just for the sake of harming? We will discuss.

We butted once or twice Scott and I think you know I never intend to insult. I don't care to change your mind on anything, but simply to learn from it. Let's discuss.

You must take your personal perspective out of the picture to really understand the mind of the enemy. When I say Hitler had a vision for a better future, I do not mean I endorse it. I mean that he had a vision for the ascendacy of his people. From the fires of war, he intended to build a better tomorrow for his people. We see him as evil because we are not his people. Regardless, he did not order the death of millions simply because he wanted to kill as many people as he can. He saw it as a means to acheiving his goal. It was all for "The greater good." This is a phrase that I heard on the news just yesterday when they discussed torturing the recently captured al qaeda suspects for information. Whenever you hear this, it should get you thinking about the horrors of what the men in power are trying to justify.

Hitler was in many ways goaded into authorizing the final solution. He was, of course, slightly insane at that point due to the turning tide of war, but he was not the one who conceived, orgnaized and carried out the holocaust. For that, we must blame the command of the SS. As I mentioned, it was Heinrich Heydrich who bears the most blame. I would say that he is far closer to evil than Hitler is because he did not have any grand vision of a better tomorrow. His goal was short term and immediate: the destruction of the Jews. But even in this, one can argue that he did it for a reason that can be understood as rational. From his perspective, society will never purge it's immorality if there are Jews among it. When we look at what some can define as moral and immoral, we realize that it is not a good measure to help keep human kind in check because it can be so broadly interpreted.

That's why I put that winky thing at the end. I know you didn't intend to insult but merely wanted to point out were you were grossly oversimplifying. Something like me saying that all atheists are immoral and can't in any way define or see evil for what it is.

I wouldn't say that because I believe that atheists and relgious folks (and all those in-betweeners) can see evil. It's just a question of being able to call a spade a spade. To me defining evil is a tricky thing. It's a bit like a definition I heard for pornography. I can't tell you what it is but I know it when I see it.

That's simplifying it a bit too actually. Evil is that which is morally reprehensible. But see then I have to go and define morality and since I believe that morality is objective and I would guess that most people here believe it is subjective that may just be pointless.

Do I believe in a personal evil force a la Satan? Yes I do. Does he cause all of the evil in the world to happen? No, I give lots of props to good ol' human nature. We are a fallen people. But here I am treading onto religious grounds. That's it for now.

Humans are quite capable of coming up with ideas of right and wrong; we've been doing it for millenia. The problem is, we aren't very good at it.

Most people are "pretty good." They don't kill anyone, they don't cheat on their spouse, they pay their taxes. But everyone, and I mean everyone, does things that are morally ambiguous, if not outright wrong. The problem is, where do you draw the line?

Human beings once thought that it was perfectly reasonable to enslave someone based on the color of their skin. Human beings once thought it was acceptable to kill a person of a certain ethnic heritage. Human beings once thought that justice would be served if you cut off a thief's hands. And, you can still find human beings today that hold all of these beliefs.

I believe that God created us to be moral beings, but that over time, we started to attribute those moral leanings to our own nature. Because of this, we now get to write our own rules. I don't think the government does enough for me, so I'm not going to pay my taxes. Who are you to tell me I'm wrong? That guy hurt my friend, so I'm going to kill him. Who are you to tell me I'm wrong?

God's standards are not malleable; people's perception of them are. The bible has said the same thing for thousands of years, and that is the standard I try to hold myself to. The fact that that standard is there is not alterd by the fact that I fail to grasp it. I will fall when I jump off a bridge, even if I really, really believe that I can fly.

In regards to the Existentialists, you are again left with the same problem I mentioned earlier. If my morals are completely pragmatic, if I vow to lie only if it is really, really convenient, cheat only if it helps me get ahead, and murder only when it advances my cause, am I a moral person? In my own eyes, yes. In your eyes, maybe not. Who's right?

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." Proverbs 16:25

As someone mentioned above, there are very, very few people who believe that what they are doing is evil. There are very few people who wake up in the morning and say "how can I cause the most suffering today?" there are very few people who go to bed mumbling "I really made the world a worse place today. Great job!" No, most people are trying to do what's right, trying to live a moral life, or at least not do anything "that bad." But what's the standard? Who gets to say what's moral and what's not? There are people that believe George W. Bush is a great man, leading his country on a moral quest to end terrorism, and there are people that believe the same about Usama Bin Laden. Hitler thought he was doing great things for his country. Staling the same. That guy in the basement mixing plastic explosives thinks he's God warrior. The doctor that just gave his cancer patient a bottle of morphine and said "Don't take it all at once, or you'll die &lt;wink, wink&gt;" thought he was helping a man die with grace, while another thinks he's a killer. Who's right? Who decides?

I believe that either God decides, or it's all open to interpretation. This is not, of course, meant to show what He decided, rather that He is the only one in a position to do so. Religion has been used to justify a number of horrid things, but if there is a standard for morality, it must come from something higher than ourselves.

Exactly. The winner gets to write the history books. Either there is a higher standard for morality than ourselves, or morality is nothing more than popular opinion or the ablity to force your views on others.

I think we basically agree on these things, except that in the end, I believe that there is a moral standard, and one that is not subject to human frailty. We can debate the pros and cons of torturing an al quieda member at length, but in the end, it is just humans talking amongst themselves. If there is a God, He is qualified to answer the question difinativly, and He is the only one in a positio to do so.

Probably off topic, but Heydrich was a fairly devout occultist. It's been a while since I read up on the subject, but if memory serves, he mixed various flavors of paganism with outright devil worship. The swastica was actually as buddhist symbol; it corresponded to the black half of the yin-yang people used to wear all the time. He rejected the light for the dark, and all that.

I know Scott, you've always been courteous.

And it seems that you and I and Thomas here more or less agree. God's notions of good and evil are simply mis-interpreted by humans. Continuously. Thomas, you bring up an excellent point, that everyone believes they have what it takes to decide what is moral or not. This is what makes discussing this so difficult. Everyone has a different idea of how to define morality.

So we've said that we can't define morality for certain, but we know what evil is when we see it. How can this help mankind? Regardless of beliefs, we need to find a way to formulate some code that almost everyone can adhere to. Otherwise, we begin to decide for ourselves and justify everything we do despite what your religion or philosophy of life may say. Is it even possible to formulate a universal code of ethics if there are many people out there who can easily justify killing? This is one of the most sacred Taboos and yet, as Thomas said, you'll find many eager to adopt an eye for an eye policy in modern society. And these are supposedly the "good" people who want to make society better.

Can we transcend our current notion of morality and develop a way of living that can ensure peace among men?

[quote]thomas.galvin:
Off topic, but...

Yes, he was an occultist, but he did not want a devil like figure to be worshipped. The SS wanted themselves to be worshipped. They saw themselves as successors to Arthur's knights and that all lesser races would follow their lead. The occult allowed them to view themselves as supermen while at the same time, providing a pseudo-religion for it's members to follow. The history of the SS is a complicated and very interesting one. It is definitely not black and white.

They began as a wannabe Praetorian Guard, but Himmler took his lead from the Knights Templar, the Teutonic Knights, and Arthurian legend. They saw themselves as the ultimate good in fact. Like you said, not many men get up in the morning and say to themselves, "well, let's get on with the evil and all that.." Even SS members couldn't stand for that and despite all the propaganda, the average rotation of men in the killing squads were quite short. Not many could handle the actually work of it.

Hey Imp, here's a good start.

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"You shall not murder.
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"You shall not commit adultery.
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"You shall not steal.
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And I even left out the ones involving the spirit in the sky.

You're talking about Slimer right?

And those are indeed a good start. Very basic taboos that mankind should adhere to, but I think both of us can come up with very good reasons to justify breaking each and every one of those rules. Does it makes you evil if you do break them?

Let's take the killing one. Are you evil if you kill an evil person and prevent him from hurting others? We say that killing is bad, but good people can do it if they justify it. It's only bad if bad people do it. Killing a bad man like Saddam is a good thing, but him killing kurds is a bad thing. You see it's not the act itself that we really consider evil is it? It's the motivation behind it that we judge by. What motivates bad men and how can we stop it? That's the real fundamental question I think. The act of killing is just a tool of society building, not one that's inherently good or bad.

What do you think about this?

"Thou shalt not kill" is a bad translation. The parent poster got it right; the hebrew word is actually "murder." There are several instances where the God of the bible commanded His people to kill; it became murder when it was done outside of His command.

Edited to add: His command or His permission. For instance, self-defence wasn't a command, but allowed under the law.

Killing another human being is bad, period. Even in self defense, it is bad. Is it always "Evil" or "sinful"? No. Much of it does get back to motive. Looking at it without God in the picture (hard for me to do) I would say if it improves society over all then it is not evil. Killing Saddam would accomplish that. But without God in the picture even that gets hard. WHo's the arbiter of what is good for society? WHo are you to say that killing Kurds or even killing the Jews was wrong?

[quote]thomas.galvin:
the bible does no such thing. God is not a 2-face. He would not command people to kill in the OT, and then preach love and forgiveness in the NT.

I think that the people who wrote those book ASSUMED that it was God's will to kill, much like the Islamic extremist believe it is Allah's will to kill the infidels.

it all goes back to understanding eastern mentality.

And Scott, that is probably the bulk of what my point is as well. There is no arbiter of what is right and wrong. There is no absolute definition of good and evil. One can never be sure in what context their actions may be interpreted in the future.

My next question would be then, if you believe that you are doing a good thing, is that enough to absolve you? If you kill, as you say, to better society, does that absolve you of what you may call sin? Since there is no arbiter, we decide for ourselves (in your case, you decide that the christian god is your arbiter of right and wrong). If Hitler believed in every bone of his body that he was doing a good thing by killing jews ( and he no doubt did) does that let him off the hook? He was trying to better society after all. Just as you said, no one can say for sure whether it's evil or not, only the victor in war usually writes whatever history suits them, but it's not always right.

.....

So who is right here between nelson and Thomas? I must defer to those who know the bible for this before continuing this discussion. Did God ever order man to kill? Did man assume? If man assumed it and did it for god and believes he is right, does that give him moral authority?

[quote]Nelson:
Old Testament:

Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.
Genesis 9:6

You shall not murder.
Exodus 20:13

The LORD said to Moses,
"Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people."
So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD's vengeance on them.
Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel."
So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel.
Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.
They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man.
Numbers 31:1-7

Do not gloat when your enemy falls;
when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice,
or the LORD will see and disapprove
and turn his wrath away from him.
Proverbs 24:17-18

If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
Proverbs 25:21

New Testament:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Matthew 5:43-44

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.
Luke 22:36-38

I could go on. The bible clearly instructs certain people to kill in certain circumstances. It is also clear that we are to live with forgiveness and peace. Figuring out which is the appropriate response is where the hard part comes in.

The bible says a lot more than many people think. There are reasons they teach college courses on it. These things aren't always clear-cut.

<strong> To a certain degree, you are right. We look at things more from a Greek perspective; we see "Thou Shalt not kill" and "If a man murders another, he shall be put to death" as contradictory; that is not how the Hebrew mind worked. They dealt with the big picture; to them, the bible is a whole, and to pick out any single piece is to distort the whole truth. God is not two-faced, but His opinions on the sanctity of life are not what many assume them to be. The largest support for war against Iraq comes from conservative Christians.

The shift from separation in the Old testament to outreach in the New Testament is a completely different subject.

As an aside, I am a rather devout Christian myself; I'm not trying to slander God's Character, simply communicate what He said in His own word.

I don't know about you, but the people who wrote those text weren't the noblest of people. they had just come out of 400 years of slavery and were surrounded by pagan people. they became butchers and savages themselves. Look at king David, his last words before dying was a command for a hit on some old enemies.

I as a christian, refuse to accept the concept of God that is portrayed in the old testament. In fact, it is our nature that we want a God that sends ligthing and thunder. We as Christian are afraid to look at Jesus as the perfection reflection of God the father.

God has made it clear that it's his perogative to take and give life.

Hi scott. I think it all depends who you ask.

One of Dostevsky's character came to the conclusion that "If God doesn't exist, then all is permitted" (or something along those lines. That said, I remember once reading a paper or book about the 7 levels of morality and came to the conclusion that most Christians are stuck on level 3 (our morals are based on what others say) or level 4 (morals are based on the status quo).

I have a hard time not believing that humans are not inherently or instrinctically good (and yet, I believe at the same time that humans were made in the image of God). I don't subscribe to the Joe Campbell/George Lucas/New Age concept that we're all good. In fact, being good isn't in our nature, we have to struggle to attain goodness casue it is something we do not posses. I, like Paul the apostle, believe that we want to do good, but out nature tells us to do otherwise (I know that first hand). There lies our biggest struggle.

I believe that the answer of this world becoming a better place HAS GOTTEN out of our reach. we would like to believe we have the answer and the solutions because that would be easier to explain and deal with, plus it make us believe it's solveable and makes us feel all warm, cozy, secure, and full of hope. the fact remains that while some things have gotten better, the world as a whole has gotten worse, and will continue to get worse (in the words of stanly goodspeed "this world is being Fedexed to hell!").

Sometimes it seems that our drive to attain goodness we tend to screw everything up. It seems a paradox, but ultimately, I think our driving process to reach goodness will be our downfall. We have such a murky sense of what perfection is at best. We can't say what true perfection is because we've never experienced it. It's a concept that has barely been or even scratched at all. It's unreal like the fountain of youth, yet we embrace as if it were. I think Plato's "Theory of Forms" hits bullseye with what I'm trying to explain.

And to address the whole need of an invisible skydaddy and the threat of eternal damnation if you're not good, Jesus said that access to heaven isn't based on merits (and Paul went on to say that if it were up to our merits, we would glorify ourselves in our success). No one who does good to gain access to heaven will be there. If so, Jesus' sacrifice was in vain.

The bible says that God gave the Isrealites success against those nations, not because Israel was inherantly good, but because the nations were so wicked: paganism, child saccrifice, bestiality, etc. And David's command was not, I believe, out of anger, but in order to ensure his son's throne would be secure.

The Bible is quite clear in it's portrayal of the Hebrew people; they were, by and large, an unfaithful, sinful people. The blessings upon them were not because they deserved them; it was because God choose them as the people that would eventually bring the Savior into the world.

Jesus and His disciples repeatedly quote scripture as authoritative. Paul writes that all scripture is God-breathed. Both testaments paint a picture of a God that is loving and forgiving, but absolutly Holy; sin must be delt with in one way or another. If it is not washed clean by Jesus' blood, then it must be punished.

Jesus, the perfect reflection of the Father, mentions hell more times than anyone else in the entire Bible. Isiah, Daniel, and the Revelation all paint Him as a great warrior, destroying His enemies.

You might want to ask yourself if you believe in Christ and what He said, or if you believe in a god that suits your needs, and that you have labeled "christ." "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" Luke 6:46

Most people have a skewed view of God. Some only see Him as the forgiving, loving Father; He could never judge my sin, he's too good for that. Others only see Him as warrior and judge, believing either that He could never forgive them, or that they have been called to kill the infidel, etc.

The truth, as usual, lie in the middle. God is loving and gracious, slow to anger, but when He does anger, it is a terrible site to behold.

Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?
Luke 6:46

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17-20

He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man.
The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one,
and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age.
The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.
They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.
Matthew 13:37-43

And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.
And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.
And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell,
where
'their worm does not die,
and the fire is not quenched.'
Marl 9:42-48

Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels
Matthew 25:41

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Revelation 20:11-15

All of these, except the quote from the Revelation, are the words of Jesus. He believed in damnation and hell. Do you believe in Him?

This, then, is how you should pray:
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.
Matthew 6:9-13

Jesus believed in His skydaddy. Do you? Also, and more germain to the question that started this topic, He believed in evil; more specifically, the evil one, the devil.

Very nice the way you back your arguments there Thomas.

Let's get back to trying to define good and evil though. We can agree more of less that there is no clear definition for these concepts. We can agree that even taboos like murdering or stealing can be viewed as good if taken in the correct context. Since such extremes can be found under each of these alignments, can we also agree that there is no such thing as good or evil? That they are merely adjectives we used to describe certain stiuations and people, but that does not have an absolute value?

Much obliged.

Not exactly. We can agree that without God there is no clear definition of these concepts.

You asked the religious types to refrain form entering into this debate since you already knew our moral codes and opinions on these matters. What I've been trying to show is that, without some concept of God, "ethics" and "morality" are no more than mental exercises.

Those are your choices. If you wish to remain secular, good and evil can be used as only as vague terms, adjectives that, as you said about pornography, no one can define but everyone knows when they see it.

If you believe in God, though, good and evil are defined on His terms; good being doing God's will, evil being opposing God's will. Jesus called the pharasies evil not because they were involved in gross sin, not because they killed thousands of people, but because their hearts were hard and their religion was an act.

In the circles I travel in, we differentiate between "religion" and "Christianity." Lots of people have religion. The crusaders that invaded the Holy Land had religion. The men who tortured and burned during the Inquisition had religion. None of them, though, had a relationship with Christ.

It is human nature to try and get away with as much as we can, to justify that which is expedient. Hitler wants his nation to become great, which, in his mind, justified war and murder. A doctor wants his patients to be at peace, which, in his mind, justifies euthanasia. Humanity's concept of "morality" is usually "how far can I go?"

That is not the way real Christianity plays out, though. We have a relationship with a living God, and we try to please Him. We do not ask "what can we get away with," but "what is right in God's eyes?" It isn't always easy, and we are far from perfect about it, but it is a definite change in perspective. The more we get to know His character, the easier moral questions become. Essentially, what I am saying is that my concept and definition of good and evil relies on my knowledge of God, and becomes clearer the better I know Him. Without that knowledge, they are simply ambiguous terms with no real weight.

This is a pretty big simplification, but the Biblical message is esentially that works (good deeds) without faith (in Christ) are useless, and that faith without works is dead. You can't earn your way to heaven, but if you have a relationship with God that will get you there, it will be reflected in the way you live your life. Paul was very big on explaining the need for faith, John was more focused on the change that faith would bring. Again, that's how the Hebrew mind works; both messages are a part of the whole truth.

Ok, but how does our favorite facist, Hitler fit into that? He is generally considered "evil" but he wanted to build. The Nazis were extremely efficient organizers and builders. If they did one thing really well, it was getting their country organized so efficienetly, it managed to take on the world for 6 years. Even towards the end of the war, their production barely slowed down. The facist mind is built on wanting order. Their kind of order though is one that is strict and un-compromising and un-forgiving. They wanted things perfect, but many of us would not consider such a world a good one.

Thomas, I'd like to address your points again. You said that without a belief system, good and evil cannot be define. Therefore, you use your religion to define what is good and what is evil. I ask how this helps mankind and society? Isn't this also a little facist? Perhaps I don't consider coveting my neighbor's wife as evil, but by such standards, every religion in the world would judge me as evil and punish me. Anything that doesn't agree with a certain religions belief system would be "evil." How can we reconcile this with all the different cultures on this planet?

Thomas is pretty much laying out word for word what I believe.

Thomas you are incredible.

Thank you for your time in this thread. God knows I wish I could explain such things in writing like you have been able. I just do a lot better in person. Something to work on wink

Nah, I just have a lot of free time while I'm waiting for my programs to compile. Thanks, though.

No problem. This place is good practice, and I get to hear a lot of viewpoints that I normally wouldn't.

When it comes to writing, you're right, it really is very different from speaking. I suppose the best advice I can offer is to read a lot, and try to emmulate the parts that seem effective to you.

When you're dealing with people face-to-face, you get a lot of visual cues as to how they are reacting to your message, you cna pump them for information and feedback, tailor your approach to their situation, etc... writing is much more like speaking to a large group. Some of the feedback is there, but it often comes after the fact, and you're never going to be able to tailor towards everyone. If you get the opportunity, I'd suggest grabbing a public speaking course at the local college; I find that I use a lot of the same techniques preparing a speach as when preparing an article or post.

Heh,

Well the funny thing about that is I regularly score high marks with the large groups I address from time to time. Speaking courses I usually scored the A. In fact I wanted to be a preacher at one point.

I think perhas I just have the most difficulty with the message board format. Many of my thoughts on subjects just come out in stream of thought which sounds good at the time but reading later makes you say "err?"

Ah, that's the great secret of message boards; know what you want to say, say it when someone else gives you the opportunity. ;-)

That's why we have faith that it is the Word of God.

And since the Bible is the origin of why we believe (all that is contained about God within) we will continue to "throw around" quotes from the Bible like it is written by God.

And if there is no ability to believe that then I guess the conversations won't go so far.

Hardly...its Old Covenant versus New Covenant.

God still took the lives of Annanais and Sapphias(sp?) and shook the walls to free Paul and another. But things have changed with the Covenant that Jesus brought. Now we actually have it "easier" I guess you could say. We couldn't fullfill God's Laws as we should of thus the Lord sent His Son and yada yada yada I am sure you have heard much of this again and again.

But there you go.

Thomas,

Let us consider the following to be true:

i) God created this universe.
ii) Morality is functioning part of this universe God created( a lot of ramifications here, I know).

You say — I'm interpreting here — that without God's definition of 'good' morality, one may not act in a morally 'good' manner.

God created morality as a functioning part of this universe, imbuing intrinsic concepts of 'good' and 'evil' into every possible action. God gave humanity free will; the ability to choose actions. But without God's definitions of what constitutes 'good' or 'evil' , action is blind; a walk through moral darkness. The word of God gives us vision and lights the path(of righteousness).

Now, about that free will — humans need not seek the word of God. You say those who chose to do so are acting blindly. Without God, human beings are oblivious to morality. But morality construct of this universe; a conceptual constant, much like mathematics. It must be. Morality follows the rules God set upon it in the beginning. (If it not, the resulting logical clusterfuck would undermine everything you believe in.) So, is 'good' moral action truely impossible without belief? ... who's to say that people aren't free to discover the patterns God set — patterns that exist.

I would say that we ARE free, that we can act in a moral fashion, and that we are able to perform good deeds without belief — moral goodness has already been set.

The whole "is the Bible we have the real Bible, is it historically accurate, is it divinely inspired" thing is a very, very long study, and while I went through it before I became a Christian, I didn't take a whole lot of notes. ;-)

I believe in the accuracy and inspiration of scripture, and I'm working on some articles that deal with all of these topics. Given that I'm rather busy these days, though, I'm not sure how long it's going to take me to finish them.

In regards to the "vengeful/loving God" dichotomy...

God, in both testaments, is portrayed as both loving and just. He loves the people He created, but is unable to tolerate their sin. He wants fellowship with us, but we have chosen to turn our backs on Him.

This is the overriding theme of the scriptures: God's love in contest with God's justice. By His nature, He loves those He made, but by His nature, He must also punish their sins.

Take a look at one of Jesus' first claims to be the Messiah:

Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside.
He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.
He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read.
The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him,
and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."
Luke 4:14-21

The scripture he quoted was Isaiah 61:1-2, but He did not finish the verse. Let's look at the whole thing:

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners,
to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn,
and provide for those who grieve in Zion-
to bestow on them a crown of beauty
instead of ashes,
the oil of gladness
instead of mourning,
and a garment of praise
instead of a spirit of despair.
They will be called oaks of righteousness,
a planting of the LORD
for the display of his splendor.
Isaiah 61:1-3

"The Lord has anointed me... to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor and the day of vengeance of our God."

There is a whole prophetic text that deals with the "seventy weeks" of Daniel. I don't have my reference books with me, so I'm going to have to be vague here, but the seventy weeks symbolis seventy times seven years, the last seven of which are known as the Great Tribulation, and herald then end of the world as we know it. From the time of the prophecy to the time of the Messiah, 69 of those "weeks" passed. We are now living in a time of grace, the "year of the Lord's favor," and have been since the arrival of Jesus; the "seventy weeks" have been suspended. That is why the focus is currently on the loving aspects of God; well, that and the fact that many "preachers" don't bother to proclaim the entire Gospel.

After this "year of the Lord's favor," scriptures say that the final "week," the final seven years before the Lord's return, will begin. No one knows when this is due, but we do have a description of this period in the Revelation.

During the tribulation, God will have all but exhausted His grace; He is about to offer humanity one last wake-up call before judgment. The earth will be in turmoil; earthquakes, fire and hail, plagues, wars... it will be the most tumultuous time in all of history. And when that period is over:

I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war.
His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself.
He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.
Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.
On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, "Come, gather together for the great supper of God,
so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great."
Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army.
But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.
The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.
Revelation 19:11-21

This rider on a white horse is Jesus Himself, the same Jesus that mentioned Hell more times than any other person in Scripture, the same Jesus that many say is too loving to condemn anyone, or punish them for their sins.

The scriptures are internally consistent; it is our understanding and application of them that is not.

You misinterpret, or perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

God is the ultimate standard of morality; without Him, what we choose to label as "moral" or "immoral" has no more meaning than any other discussion between mortal human beings. You and I may independently come to a different conclusion about whether it is moral to take a human life, and without some higher power, each conclusion is just as valid as the other. It is God, and His standard, that ultimately dictates what is moral and what is not.

That does not mean, however, that everyone who believes in God is a moral person, or that a person who does not believe in the God of the bible is less moral than anyone else.

In regards to the believers:

"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?
Luke 6:46

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder.
You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?
James 2:19-20

And the non-believer:

All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.
For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,
since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
Romans 2:12-15

This is not to say, though, that they are saved, i.e. going to heaven:

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better ? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.
As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
Romans 3:9-12

So, if everyone is immoral, how do we get back into God's good graces?

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--
he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith.
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,
since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.
Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
Romans 3:21-31

In summary, God is the ultimate standard for morality: without Him, ethics are nothing but a series of arbitrary labels of "good" and "bad." God has given us all a sense of morality through our consciences, and we are all responsible for that morality before God. Finally, no one is sufficiently moral to earn God's grace; it is a gift to those who seek after and believe on Him.

[Edited for punctuation.]

I've given this a bit more though, and figured I'd share.

When I reply to someone, I very rarely write as if I'm talking to that person; rather, I consider my audience to be the people who read without comment, those who are on the fence and may be persuaded by what the first poster has said. I then try to see myself in the first poster's place, see why I thought the way He did, and why I no longer do. You'll notice that my replies are much shorter when I don't have a familiar frame of reference to go from.

Writing in this way makes for a more logical argument, as I'm writing to the "undecided" instead of the "you'll have to kill me to convince me" crowd, and also helps me keep the tone polite. It would be quite easy to go off on a rant here; even though I don't post anonymously, the chances of this message board effecting my daily life are rather slim. Writing as if people will judge me on what I write, rather than to someone who has already come to the conclusion that I am wrong and probably a bigot, helps me keep an even keel.

As an aside, almost everyone on this board has been wonderful, especially the regular posters. This is just my train of thought when I write.

In all fairness to Thomas, he's merely submitting a Christian — whatever denomination — viewpoint into the foray. For the most part, I think this is a reaction to certain bizarre attitudes expressed in the thread. Specifically, a request for religious types to "keep-out" of a discussion on 'evil'.

Frankly, asking the 'god-fearing' to stay out of a philosophical discussions on morality and 'evil' is like asking scientists keep-away from evolution debates.

As to the debate — clearly, I misinterpreted Galvin's stance earlier, but then, I never read his Bible quotes. And I'd like to add, voluminous scripture-quoting aside, that Galvin brings nice clearly-defined ideas to the discussion; as much as anyone can ask in debate such as this one.

This is a completely ethereal topic.

I qoute the Bible because I am an bible-believing Christain; I believe in the divine inspiration and accuray of scripture, and that it is the sole authority on the matters it addresses.

I actually don't belong to any denomination; I shy away from "evangelical," and don't call myself a protestant. My church has a lot of simmilarities with the pentecostal and charasmatic movements, but we don't stricly identify with them, either. Basically, we think that our relation to Christ is more important than the various divisions that have arisen over the centuries.

Both of these, though, are topics for other threads, which I am too tired to start right now.

Much abliged.