@theoreticalbullshit (con't) can't fit 5 pages of material into 500 characters however 2 clarify this idea I should note that the bible continually suggests that impurity can't survive the presence of god. This idea of presence ironically fucks god over because it established a gradient of existence/occupancy. Because god is not "uniform" throughout all space-time & shouldn't be part of an "area" of pure evil (absolute absence, same thing), flaws emerge in the system, I'll let u examine further
A very good start, I think you could go even farther with this. Essentially at some point God had to create evil, since naturally he created everything. Part of the problem is we are looking at this too simply. In condensed form, I'll state that evil could also be defined as the absence of god in some area, a lack of righteous behavior. However in order for god to create his absence he must also surrender his omnipotence and for that matter many of his other qualities. comical correct?
lol you sound like stewie from Family Guy. Anyway just want to say i enjoy watching your videos. One of your videos was posted on a FB friend's wall and I enjoyed it. I shared with my friends and your videos have inspired deep conversations that have lasted for hours. Thank you!
those people, this would be a punishment, which of course God, in his omnipotence, COULD administer, but whose benevolence for those who reject Him prevails over any sense of "vengeance" or retribution. God gives his people what they want; if they choose Him, they will be reunited with Him after death; if not, they will not. Evil exists not BECAUSE of God, but because Satan, one of God's angels, rebelled against God and could no longer share in His divine presence, hence his descent to earth.
When we recognise evil in people, what we are seeing is the influence of Satan, who exists in spirit among us, and who will continue to do so until the book of Revelation is complete and God returns to earth, as Jesus Christ, to reassert his protection of his people and return them to His kingdom.
@brevicaudate When we recognise evil in people, what we are seeing is the influence of Satan.
-
So you don’t think people act on their own? Perhaps I should ask this way: Do you think that there’s ANYTHING – I don’t care what it is – that humans can do without a mover, whether it’s God or Satan moving us? Do you think we are completely empty vessels, or do we have ANY will on our own?
@jillum89 - Hi, thanks for the question. Yes, I believe we do have free will, but that it is limited by the choices that present themselves to us throughout life. The choices essentially always stem from good or evil, regardless of the scale, since all sins, whether "criminal" or not, are equally unsatisfactory to God, who is perfect and free of sin. The most we can do, with the free will we are given, is to resist our predisposition to sin and surrender ourselves to God's direction.
@brevicaudate Okay. So you realize that there are some things we do that are not to be explained by external intervention. I am just wondering why you don’t think ALL of our actions can be explained as such? This is a very harsh analogy, but essentially, I think it’s valid. It’s like someone looking at a tree, saying “these leaves were formed naturally, but these over here were fabricated by someone.” And I’m looking and thinking “if they look the same, what’s the difference?” ...
@brevicaudate ... Why not explain them all equally? If they are essentially the same – human actions – then I think they should be treated equally. Unless these demon possessions can be demonstrated of course – but so far I am completely unaware of any such thing.
As for the idea that the guy puts forward at the end, suggesting that if everything is attributable to God, then this must include evil, hence God himself is evil - no, God is just and will punish those who commit evil; but he is also benevolent, and wants to forgive those who repent for their sin and who seek a personal relationship with Him through Jesus Christ. Likewise consistent with a benevolent God, He will not force those who reject Him to spend eternity with Him in heaven, because for
There is in fact an explanation for the origin of evil within Christian theology, which is clearly laid out in the book of Genesis. Eve was not evil prior to eating the apple; she was virtuous, because she was made in God's image. It was the serpent, representing evil, which corrupted her virtue and tempted her to wilfully disobey God. Thus, the evidence for mankind's free will. True, evil intent precedes an evil act, but no one is BORN evil; they are MADE so by forces acting against God.
Bravo my friend, bravo... couldn't have stated it better myself and you just earned a new subscriber... keep up the kick ass observations mate, logic is beautiful!
first up, I am atheist. BUT I think the argument COULD be made by Christian apologetic s that EVIL was in fact started by The Devil, who CHOSE his evil intent to turn Gods creation against God so that they would then serve Satan.
And that would be, I suppose, a valid argument for how evil began.
It does NOT, however, validate why God then chose to punish ALL humanity for the fact that his first two humans were TRICKED, through evil intent, to break Gods commandment and hence, commit evil.
I don't think that that particular chapter is about that. (just my interpretation), I think that it's one of the few chapters in the Bible that can still be taken metaphorically & is worthy of study.
Here's a hypothesis that I think is bullshit, that I've just made up but, I'm gonna be charitable to the other team. Bring it on you heathens!!! Maybe there is not one God but two. One is god & the other is Satan. God created good things, satan created the other shit & the Devil trying to decieve you that both he & God don't exist so that he can trick you into sin & drag you to hell. He's also trying to convince Christians that he was created by God. A less flawed faith conjured in 40seconds. =D
Disagree totally. Intentions don't mean much except to simians. The act becomes good or bad based on its consequences. Judging moral differences only makes sense with a difference in other, relevant, qualities.
@Marcopolo965 Really? So killing someone takes the life of a person. That's the consequence. Does that make it evil? If it is, then killing in self defense is evil.
If by condequences you mean how people REACT to an action, like, getting arrested for killing someone, then ask yourself, why is it some people who kill are arrested, and some who kill aren't? Well...it has to do with their intention in their killing. Was it to defend themselves? Was it an act of passion? Was it premeditated?
@BigLundi It applies to particular situations not definitions. So in an abstract definition killing someone is neither good or evil. There has to be relevant differences to judge; in your example there would be. I wasn't talking about court, but motive is a useful way of categorizing actions in law; I'm not sure if universals exist in the objective world, but they are useful in mathematics, the same way a physicalistic view is more useful than a phenomenalistic one.
@Marcopolo965 Yes, you weren't talking about court, but the bigger question is WHY do we deem actions in court less punishable depending completely on all the different details of the intent court? The reason is because we recognize that intent is what makes or break an action as being either evil or good. I'm not talking about universals here, I'm talking about practicality, as well as conscience thought. when you see someone being killed, is it evil, or good? Or do you ask WHY did they die?
@BigLundi "I'm talking about practicality" Well then we agree about one thing. To identify an action as a certain sort of action, like murder in the first degree, you have to use motive. It is useful in that way. My example of universals was just to show that useful and 'true' are not the same things. "intent is what makes or break an action as being either evil or good" This is the subjective intuition of human beings, but it's (probably) false.
@Marcopolo965 Ooooh, I think I get what you're trying to say. You're trying to come up with an objective standard everyone ought to follow that is inarguable, and true, regardless of subjective human minds...that about right?
@BigLundi The major problem with the system I'm talking about is that you can't give a real guide to what you're supposed to do. But I don't trust motives at all, they are like masks. You can commit a terrible act with good intentions. In my view, evil becomes more common.Take failure of responsibility toward the helpless: A mother who fails to protect her daughter from being raped because she's deathly terrified of her husband has committed an evil act. Her fear doesn't absolve her guilt imo.
@Marcopolo965 I'm sorry...I can't agree with that at all. A mother who is afraid the husband will beat, or even kill her if she tried to stop hoim from raping her daughter isn't committing an evil act. Inaction isn't evil, it's just lazy, and sometimes justified. The real evil one should LOOK at is the father raping his daughter, that's far more important than asking, "Well what was the mother doing?"
There is no objective 'right and wrong' thaT EVERYONE has to follow no matter what.
@BigLundi Understandable, I thought the same once. Emotions are the glue that binds social animals together; they aren't mysterious things that absolve one of guilt. Emotions are treated like intent, irrelevant. The mother failed in her moral duty to the helpless; inaction IS wrong in this case. The father's failure is of an epistemic origin; he thinks it is okay to rape his daughter. Both are wrong. I believe evil is more prevalent than you think. Evil things can be done with "good intentions"
@Marcopolo965 It's not about emotion. It's about logical probability. Your situation literally means that if the mother tries to help her daughter and stop her husband from raing her, she may be harmed as well, or even killed. If a mother gets killed trying tostop her husband from raping their daughter...she didn't do a good thing. She did a dumb thing. Of course evil things can be done with good intentions, that's the only way they're EVER done. Nobody does what they find to b evil, just becaus
@BigLundi You just said that evil is only "EVER done" with good intentions. This is very contradictory to the deontological position which you have been defending. However, I think what you really mean is that everyone who does evil THINKS they are doing the right thing, i.e. Hitler thought he was doing good job killing Jews. But...if there was another Hitler, in a separate universe, who did all the exact same things, and for the same reasons would you say this 2nd Hitler was good or evil?contd
@BigLundi If they're the same, then you admit this 2nd Hitler is evil; adjudication between intent and consequence matters little yet; we have separate ethical systems from that point---we'll just be going in circles to argue anymore. The woman may be killed protecting her daughter; again, to me, this does not change her guilt in letting the rape happen. No good options; our empathy wants to save her. "Logical possibility" stemming from..emotion motivation. You're using motive to defend motive.
@Marcopolo965 You seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that the reasons people do things are always good. I'm saying people always CONVINCE themselves what they do is the right thing. That in no way convinces ME or anyone ELSE that they're doing the right thing. I'm not using motive to defend motive, I'm using consequence to defend motive. You're essentially saying unless someone is willing to die to save another person, they're evil. This is a rather useless view, as most people arent
@BigLundi I understood you, reread about Hitler thinking he was right. but being really wrong. I never said the woman was evil; she DID wrong; the other option would have been bad, but possibly less bad. If you are using POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES to defend her, then you are by def. a utilitarian and you have contradicted yourself about intent being the end all be all. You literally JUST used "possible conseq" to defend "actual conseq"...intent being, as I said earlier, merely a "useful" backdrop.
@Marcopolo965 ...Ok, can you go back to everything I said and point to where I said, "Intent is everything"? I never said that, and neither did TBS, whom you originally disagreed with. So really it's a red herring. you're misunderstanding me in so many way. Also, what you were saying is that we can simply disregard intent, because it's not REALLY important. Consequences are not the only criteria we use to determine whether an action is bad, and you agree with this.
@BigLundi I'm not misunderstanding, in fact you misquoted me: "Intent is everything" you didn't say that, but I DIDN'T SAY THAT EITHER. I said for you, it's the "be all end all" which means 'the quintessential or all-important element' : "intent is what makes or break an action as being either evil or good"---your words match the def. TBS says evil comes from what's in your head beforehand. I say no, motive, examined to the core, is hollow, flimsy, and a lie. But I'm not against it's use in law.
@Marcopolo965 I never said intent was the end all be all either. YOU said that it's irrelevant. en I said, "Ints or breaks whether it's evil or D" Imeant AFTER al other things have been determined. People are put under arrest when it's determined they've done something, and they're later released if they did it for an excuseable reason. If I'm jogging, and I nudge a brick on a bridge accidentally, and it fals and kills soemone, was that evil act that I committed? No, it was an accident.
@BigLundi If you're using it AFTER everything else, then technically it's the end all thing. Anyway, it don't even matter. Look you're saying people commit actions..then we examine their actions to determine the conseq, to see if they violated an (unstated) action principle (killing someone, etc). Then, AFTER everything else is considered, we examine motive. So, you nudged a brick, someone died=bad, but then we examine intent... which isn't there, so ultimately you're careless but not evil. Yes?
@BigLundi Okay, that's a system full of holes, but regardless, you seem to think you're agreeing with TBS: 5:00: "It takes an evil intention for an action to be evil" I believe I have debunked this. And before you go on about someone who THINKS they are doing good ACTUALLY committing an evil (leave psychology out of this), I mean someone who REALLY WAS acting through an OBJECTIVELY good intention, who ended up committing an evil. Such a thing does not exist in TBS's world as his words show.
@Marcopolo965 ...Yeah, because such a thing doesn't exist in ANY world view. I mean are you saying that there is an objective standard that all people use to determine whether or not an action is evil or good, and that we measure actions by this standard? There's no such thing as an objective reality without subjective situational preferences. What is good and bad is subjective, arbitrary, and situational.
@BigLundi That's fine, but if you listen, you'll hear this is NOT what TBS says. You espouse confused existentialist ethics, the belief that standards come from subjectivity. TBS IS saying your 2nd sentence, that moral duties DO exist in the external world (through Categorical Imperative maybe; unstated) otherwise a proposition such as "without intent an act isn't evil" 3:34 would be MEANINGLESS and LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to say. This entire vid would be saying nothing logical under your system.
@Marcopolo965 Yes, he's said many ties that moral duties are subjective to preference.
HAve you seen his treatise on morality video? He said the following, "A theist might object and say 'but that's not a real objective morality, you're just putting your own subjective values onto the word morality'. Well...yeah, there's no such thing as an objectively right and wrong way to efine words. What meaning we assign to any combination of vowles and consonants is always arbitrary."
@BigLundi Ahh, okay. None of that is said here, forgive me if it seemed I was ripping up a straw man(I just realized this vid is old) I'll ignore the Treatise's problems and focus on something he admitted to: there is such a thing as a useless definition. And what I'm saying is that his definition of evil here (an action with malicious intention) is (mostly) useless. It is also inconsistent. BTW, his "untangling" of the is/ought problem at the end is straight off Sam Harris...not that that's bad
humans are into the events course of the universe, accusing someone to be evil is nothing more than saying you act different from me which is totally plausible, but not an excuse to act the same, otherwise breaking the only reason of your action therefore its logic to hurt again another person, by human language it would be defined as "harmful stupidity"
So was Nazi Germany evil? Consciously he thought that letting Jews mix blood with Aryans was evil. Was him killing 11 million people evil sense consciously he didnt think it was evil?
@ItsSolaFide I do not agree with the concept of "evil." Someone who does something evil, for example, Hitler killing Jews, it is because they are brainwashed, deluded, mentally unstable... etc.
Killing people for no reason is not biologically beneficial to humans. If we could cure Hitler, morally that would be the way to go. Since we can't, the best way we have to deal with him is to say he's bad and to lock him up. Medicating someone with turrets is more moral than punishing them for cursing.
@hughdiock The dictionary's. "Evil" means intentional suffering inflicted upon sentient creatures (which have the capacity for experiencing harm, emotionally and physically). That is a deviation from what humans, as the most intelligent and emotionally mature beings on earth, have deemed good. As for what is praise-worthy, that is any force that promotes the well-being of sentient creatures to an extent that puts our human efforts to shame. God does not do this, if he exists.
I want you to be aware that I personally will NEVER purchase anything with the T-Mobile brand name SPECIFICALLY because you placed advertisements for it over top of this and other videos.
I refuse to reward this behavior and I want to be sure you are aware that YOUR actions are harming their business.
Enjoy your day. :]
And as for this video, as always, very well presented, good sir!
The issue is that evil, by definition, is undesirable. It is a deviation from what ought to be, and any being who creates evil, however indirectly, is not worthy of praise.
Of course God created evil. Of course God created man to sin. Read Genesis again. God doesn't say "if you eat"...He says "WHEN you eat". Also check out Isaiah 45:7.....I don't think you can get any clearer than this..."I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Does the Bible ever make a claim that God didn't create anything that was made? I don't understand the issue here....
@hughdiock The issue is that original sin doesn't make sense. Christians argue that everyone has to be saved from damnation due to sin as Eve committed a sin and this has made us all culpable. That is a crazy idea. If she did something wrong, only she can be blamed. And if you allow that, how can someone else (like Jesus) take the blame? If I kill someone, I should go to jail. I can't send my girlfriend in my place. That isn't justice.
@jgonsalk Original sin makes perfect sense when you actuall apply it to life. Think of when you were a child, or better yet, if you have children of your own, think of them. Who is it that teaches them to lie, or who was it that taught you how to lie? That's right, nobody had to....it's in our nature. It's quite simple really. Furthermore, if you want to understand the Sacrifice of Jesus and Biblical dogma, try reading the Bible...
@hughdiock I have to disagree. Parents will lie to their children all the time, whether it's because they don't think the child will understand, or the they don't feel like explaining something. Children can, and do, catch on to it. Furthermore, I have never known a small child (i.e very young toddler) to lie in order to cause harm to someone else, which seems to be the only "true" evil. Lying in order to protect yourself is not necessarily wrong unless it causes harm to someone else.
@beakerthefrog If you are saying that children are far more perceptive than most people would think? I agree. This in no way means that this is where children "learn" how to be dishonest. Secondly, I think trying to justify dishonesty simply because it might be easier on the dishonest person to lie rather than be honest....is simply nonsense. Furthermore, who makes the judgement call on whether or not harm is caused? You? Me? A child?
@hughdiock Ninety-nine times out of a hundred it will be clearly obvious whether or not harm is caused to someone else, so your final rebuttal doesn't hold water. If someone else is harmed by a lie, then obviously the lie would be immoral. If harm is not caused, than why is lying immoral? Until you can provide a reason for why a lie that does not cause harm is immoral, your entire scenario is pointless. Is it more admirable to always tell the truth? Perhaps, but admirable =/= moral.
@hughdiock And yes, I'm not providing conclusive evidence that children learn how to lie from their parents, but it is definitely a plausible hypothesis. Likewise, you haven't provided any conclusive evidence that children are born with the inclination to lie; that it is simply part of our nature. It IS true that children learn by example, and it IS true that a vast majority of parents lie to their children on a regular basis, in order to protect them, or to avoid answering difficult questions.
Hm..well there is a large disparity between invisibility and non-existence just to be clear. Regardless, I don't want to argue religion, but it's not that the act of biting the apple itself was evil, it's that god instructed her not to and she disobeyed him. It was still the consciousness behind the act. Similarly original sin is not "evil", it is the presence of this consciousness. There's so much faulty misrepresentation of sin, evil, and biblical interpretation in this post. It's a shame.
I want you to know that all your videos, especially ones like this (practically all of them), inspire a certain cognitive ecstasy in me. You have given me many ideas and interpretations of those ideas to ponder and play with. Thank you so much
I want you to know that all your videos, especially ones like this (practically all of them), inspire a certain cognitive ecstasy in me. You have given me many ideas and interpretations of those ideas to ponder and play with. Thank you so muich
But what is an evil intention??? You don't give a definition for that so your explanation is incomplete before you began and nobody thinks of the acts he does as evil.
It is easy what the origin of evil is, it's SCARCITY.
The environment is the origin of evil. It's that simple!!
Hello TheoreticalBullshit, I am glad to hear your perspective on the origin of evil. I myself was stuck in a loop with good and evil but was only thinking of the actions and not the intent. You really helped me out. You keep thinking and reasoning out loud and I will point my ear your way to try and gain some insight and come to a realization.
I love your videos because of the logical and clear explainations included with them. You have got me hooked sir. You should write a book or something. I would buy it.
In the brick scenerio the man who drops the brick may be committing an evil act if he enjoys the act of harming another person. If he is indifferent to the suffering and harm he has caused, then I don't consider that evil. So I don't think evil comes from the intent to harm but rather in the enjoyment of harming. If I kill in self defense, I don't think my actions are evil even though my intent is to harm or kill.
For me, evil is the enjoyment of an act that involves another person being in pain. Now that is a rather simple definition and by all means doesn't cover all evil, but it's a start. Of course not all enjoyment of anothers pain is evil. Take for instance when someone stubs their toe in the middle of the night on a coffee table. One might laugh and take some measure of enjoyment in that pain because we know it's not permanent. It hurts and we've done it before.
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi I am guessing you only read the first line of what I wrote. The rest of what I wrote covers the part about laughing at people who get hurt.
@Imreason A tornado is not just wind, and the visible part of a tornado is not the wind portion, it's the cloud. At what temperature(s) do you supposedly "see" the wind?
@eny1103 It's not evil if your intentions are actually good. If it is because of legitimate ignorance/naivety or an accident it's not a problem. Remember, it is each action we judge, not the person. If you hit someone because they offend you that is an evil action but if you accidentally kill someone while breaking up a fight and genuinely didn't mean it, that's not evil. There are some difficult cases but generally it's straightforward.
@RealityFD thoughts and feelings are mental and not physical so invisibility does not apply to them. The wind is not invisible. you can actually see the wind in the right temperatures and are you unaware of tornadoes?
saying the wind is invisible is like saying bacteria is invisible. we can't see them which just our eyes but with the right technical tools we can.
@Imreason A tornado is not just wind, and the visible part of a tornado is not the wind portion, it's the cloud. At what temperature(s) do you supposedly "see" the wind?
satan indeed is the most loved in this world, may god have mercy, satan ended up in hell because of pride, but gods people were already chosen from the start, and to me, you seem to hate god over slandering the verses yourself, well we will see how far the gets you, but you are programed to deny the bible, satan won in you, unless you take control, i used to be alot like you, i love music also, but alot of the most beautiful art is of lucipher
you honestly think you know right and wrong more than the rest of the world, sorry, but your not blessed my friend, in fact cursed, that why you sing so good and play guitar good, and your keep yourself clean and attractive, and that is exactly what type of person satan is, god doesnt send us to hell, he rejects us, and satan can do whatever he wants, i know you have all the knowledge of the universe and noone could ever take that away from you, but the devil was the seal of perfection
If you're using Biblical context for the discussion of what "evil" is, then you're not approaching this correctly. Evil is the lack of good (which comes from God), like dark is a lack of light. Sin is the separation of ourselves from God's will, and temptation from Satan is what gives us the choice to sin or to obey God's commands out of love for him. We could not be in physical presence with God on earth after the Fall. We are born with sinful nature, not with sin filled lives. Sin is a choice.
Your interpretation is the One Correct interpretation.
LMAO
However since i do not go by an Interpretation you entire premise is flawed.
I use Logic & Reason combined with Historical evidence as well as looking at what things meant in their original language. Then comparing that with what we know historically about the sociology of the culture in question.
There is No God because if there were we would have evidence to support that!
Evil is the illness, is the antimatter, is the war. In other words evil is a force regulating matter from growing without inner control. To eliminate evil we have to learn to control ourselves, learn not to exist without boundaries (greed, hate, intolerance, etc.). After we reach balance, evil wil be harnessed (but will never cease to exist).
Why not just use the inquisitions. There is no clearer picture of pure evil in action.
you are correct a shark eating someone isn't evil because there was no malice behind the sharks actions.
The original sin story is about Self awareness really. The knowledge of Good & Evil, Pain & Pleasure doesn't give us a disposition towards either but only the ability to make the choice.
Self awareness is also the basis of Freewill since animals do not have self awareness & no comcept of freewill.
@NEXTCMedia - Laughter is contageous. Because what makes me laugh are comments or statements made without an attempt and ability to support them. Think about it.
I am going to get an army of babies and goad the world into evil. Kill the baby or die fucker! 10 years later I have conquered the world.
Oh, and I can scarcely believe that you are actually bothering to try to ascertain the origins of something as contrived as the bible and its factoid contents.
I've been enjoying your videos a lot- your style is clear and you're obviously very intelligent and well-reasoned. I thought it stopped there. Then you employed the correct use of the phrase "beg the question". You, sir, are a paragon.
@poopoopaula101 By a talking snake? And didn't god tell them they would die THE VERY SAME DAY they ate from the tree? They did not die. So god lied, and your talking snake told the truth...hmmm.
Thomas Aquinas' answer to the origin of evil is that evil is not a thing, it is a privation (absence of) good. Just like darkness is the absence of light, cold is the absence of hot, etc. They actually made this into a commercial in Macedonia which depicts Albert Einstein making this argument (even though Snopes debunked it).
The commercial is on YouTube titled: "Does God Exist ? -- Albert Einstein answers"
I think it's a bunch of "theoretical bullshit." But what are your thoughts on this?
How could they be disobedient when they had no knowledge of right and wrong? Sorry, but the biblical story fails. It's really not the moral stories you may think it possesses.
Which begs the question why would a god give an order he knew couldn't be followed? Sort of like punishing an infant for being disobedient, eh? And that's where you get your morals? Like Dillahunty says, is there anything your child could do where you would lock your child in the basement and torture them forever? If you answer no, you are more moral than the god of the bible. It was written by ancient people with an ancient understanding of the world. Thanks for the discussion!
@futurepsycdoc God gave us free will and although he knew that Adam and Eve wouldn't have followed his command, he also knew all of what Satan did. He created the Universe to glorify his son and why he did it this way, I do not know, but one thing I DO know is that it was done this way by God and we must deal with it. But since you seem to believe that you know of the God of the Bible, answer this: What is the Gospel and it's purpose? What is the call of Christianity?
You're not addressing the issue. It's not that God knew we wouldn't, but that we couldn't. We did not have knowledge of good and evil. Why is Satan so powerful that he is allowed to torment everyone? Is this the best an omni-everything supernatural Creator can do? I don't care to get into your proselytizing. I am a former Theist and know the Christian tenets. No matter what you state about a god, it is only based on faith. I'm just someone that needs knowledge to believe.
@futurepsycdoc No, it's not that we didn't have knowledge of good and evil, what the fruit of the tree of knowledge did was not give us a sense of good of evil but instead, it made us view morality independent of God. It made the human race decide for itself what is good and what is evil. For example, you and other atheists have your OWN sense of morality.
The hoops you have to jump through to make sense out of the text of that ancient book is sad. The bible clearly states they had no knowledge of good and evil since they were forbidden from eating of that fruit. Taking the bible literally will require you to make various leaps of faith. I agree that Atheists have their own sense of morality and it far exceeds the morals of people 2,000+ years ago.
@futurepsycdoc Well this independence from God and arrogant nature is exactly the result of the fall. You are sinful and God hating, but you obviously don't have a problem with that. Anyways, it was nice speaking to you, I hope that God regenerates your heart and opens your eyes to the Gospel, I'll see you on judegement day, thanks for reading and I pray that God Blesses you with salvation.
I hate God like you hate Zeus. How can you hate something that you don't believe exists? You are too comfortable making claims you cannot back-up with any sort of evidence and relies completely on faith in supernatural. That's fine if that's what comforts you, but it has no more credibility than anyone else's supernatural beliefs. Thanks for coming this far. Many others just refuse to question their beliefs because of the comfort it provides. Take care.
Why is it so easy for your types to make assumptions about people you don't know? I realize your dogma trains you to distrust others. That's cult-like behavior and I feel sorry that you're susceptible to it. Since you're arguments have no merit, it is easier to run back to your fear and the comfort it provides you. Don't believe in your God, sin doesn't exist, and I am probably more moral than anyone you have ever met, definitely more so than any character in the bible. Peace!!
@futurepsycdoc If you read the fall, Eve CLEARLY stated that God told her not to eat of the fruit (Gen 3:2-3) but after Satan's temptation Eve saw that the fruit was a delight to her eye (v.6) and DECIDED to disobey God even when she knew not to. Read Genesis chapter 3 and you will see that Eve was conscious of the fact that she shouldn't have eaten from the tree.
Sorry your religion requires these leaps of faith, but you've yet to explain how someone without knowledge of good and evil can be blamed for committing evil. Also, if that is the morality of God, what makes it something to worship? So much for the concept of it being an all-loving God. It actually has the characteristics of an abuser and we know they don't behave regarding to love.
About the brick falling, it was an attempt to hurt someone which is against Gods Word "... love thy neighbors...". Now if you threw a brick to defend yourself from harm that you did not instigate, then that would not be sin. We have the right to defend ourselves.
my point was if "evil" is simply defined as "against your particular gods word" then you quite clearly have a pretty messed up notion of right and wrong.
@disastrous123 Does the bible you live by state that it was only for that time? Is there new portions of the bible that I have not read yet? Because you have no way of proving what you just stated. Your bible says your god doesn't change. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, right? So if he didn't want women teachers yesterday, why is okay today? Where is the logic in that?
Evil or Sin is basically anything that goes agaist Gods will. Lucifer served God until he decided not to. The orgin of sin. Eve ate of the fruit thus went into a sinful state. Adam only ate of the fruit because he did not want Eve to get cursed alone.
I'm sorry no one has corrected your logic earlier. How could Adam or Eve go into a sinful state from disobeying God when they had no knowledge of right and wrong? As far as you belief that some fictional character made some sacrifice to accompany Eve in sin, that really is far-fetched, but no stranger than other biblical stories. Do you really believe that is a literal interpretation of an event that actually occurred? Even after what we know of human history/evolution?
@falconjblack2008 but if God knew this would happen why did he not interfere? What exactly is he testing here? If the world was perfect before the origin of Sin why not simply erradicate sin altogether prior to it's inception? God knows everything a person will do, yes? Then why does he allow Lucifer to even exist...why not prevent this seemingly needless chain of evil?
@yarealpoof Sin is not SOME THING. Sin is the absence of something; the absence of the good that ought to be. Sin originates in the will, the intent of intelligent beings, angels (once) and man (repeatedly). Those who are blessed, the angels who did not sin and the men who sought after righteousness, are as knives made sharp by the betrayal of those who turn away.
@yarealpoof You can't have the possibility of love in created beings unless they are free to love. If they are free to love, they must needs be free to choose love. It is entirely a mystery why some choose other than love, but that possibility and actuality must needs be risked if there is to be those who are free to love. They are allowed, those who go astray, for the glory of those who remain faithful.
@Xpistos2 why should it be a test to win this "glory"? If God is all you say he is He has absolutley no clear reason to impose these rules on us and expect us to believe...based on nothing but a book which was written by other men...just like every other religious doctrine. why should I believe in a book that has been cherrypicked to death by people who refuse to follow the scripture word for word. A female Christian teacher is acting in violation of her scripture is she not? Hypocrisy.
@yarealpoof If you were to make a sword, you would need to temper the steel in the fire and beat upon the metal to fashion an excellent sword. So it is with the human being. Man is fashioned as iron in the fire. The fact that many people who claim to be Christian act contrary to the teachings in Scripture is not any proof that Christianity is wrong. The question is who has the truth? I say the Catholics have it.
@Xpistos2 Fair enough, but there are far more cherrypicking apologists in the world than there are true Christians. The hypocrisy behind this is made even more atrocious by the fact these same people deem others faithless and chastise them for this. Perhaps this is simple human error and has nothing to do with Christian values...but it makes them harder to accept at least from where I'm standing.
@yarealpoof I quite agree that they are far more cherrypicking apologists than true Christians. GK Chesterton, a convert to the catholic Faith and a famed autor wrote that "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has never been tried." I quite agree with this post of yours.
Scott, surely you don't believe that what is invisible equates to what is non-existent?
There are two kinds of evil, one is moral evil (evil intention), the other is simply evil (the brick falling without intent by anyone). Evil is the absence of that which ought to be present. The doctrine of original sin as you explain is not the doctrine of original sin. As to Eve and Adam, the proto parents, they had a perfect human nature unswayed by concupiscence.
Since God(s) don't exist, evil doesn't exist. Bad things happen and they can occur w/ or w/o intention. There is no comic karma. Sometimes bad actions go unpunished and sometimes good actions go unrewarded. Adam and Eve could not have occurred and the story only exemplifies an immoral nature of the God of the bible.
They chose with malice to seek what was forbidden to them, ie, they sought to know the difference between good and evil. Now that was a grave departure from their nature as constituted by God, but the latter nature was free to act and choose, and so they did and they chose to do evil, to know evil, which is not any thing but the very absence of good. Nemo dat quod non habet. Nobody can give what they don't have. This primal sin caused their pristine human natures to become impaired.
How could A & E choose evil when they had no knowledge of good and evil? Your logic isn't rational. Knowing human history, when do you supposedly think this occurred and what stage was the homo sapien primate in it's evolutionary progression?
This imparement is fallen human nature to which we all are heirs. Nemo dat quod non habet. So, now, all humans tend toward sin rather than toward virtue. They are screwed up. In seeking lesser goods we all are seeking to be, what shall I say[?], content, at peace, fulfilled. By as Augustine wrote: "Thou hast made us for Thyself alone and our hearts are restless til they rest in Thee." Only God is good and all good that is comes from God. Evil is the absence of good.
@Xpistos2 If God has the omniscience that is so often ascribed to him, why did he bother allowing Lucifer to tempt Eve? Why did he not simply endow them with understanding so they would not have to seek out the "difference between good and evil?" why even create Lucifer if God knows full well that he will betray him and tempt the original humans into an act that would influence all of their heirs? Why did God do this? If we are all is creations then all of our good and evil rests at his feet.
in a destructive manner, God would not have made these intelligent beings truly free. To grant freedom, God necessarily allowed evil. God in making these intelligent beings, angels and men, offered them Love, God's very Being to live in, be in. In allowing that some would choose otherwise, God allowed such ill choices and wisely used those very evils to give triumph to the blessed.
@Xpistos2 what is the reason for this? If we are ALL his creations then responsibility for all of our nature (Both the Good and the Evil) Ultimately are on Him for allowing them to come to pass. It's absurd and in many ways cruel. What do you say of people who have NEVER heard of Christianity because of where they live in the world? Are they doomed to never inherit his Kingdom because of simple obliviousness? What kind of "love" is that?
@yarealpoof Like I said before; we are not going to clear up the great mysteries involved in this reality we are engaged in. I don't look at reality like you do. I don't see God as cruel. As for those who have never heard of the Gospel, they can still be saved. If you take certain basic principles, the rest follows. God is. God is good.
@Xpistos2 It's cruel to test a people that have no access to the criteria you are evaluating them on. They are not living there lives the way God wants them to because they don't know of Him and this is an impossible test to pass At least from the context that I see this in. And yes the question is Who has the truth: I don't think anyone does...so I'm not an atheist, but not a member of any organized religion. Religion brings comfort where uncertainty is scary IMO. It isn't the truth.
@yarealpoof If no one has the Truth, then God doesn't exist. If no one has the Truth, then Christ isn't God. But God is and Christ is Himself God, and therefore He Himself is the Way, the Truth and the Life. To some this is foolishness, to others a stumbling block, to those who are called "Christ [is] the power of God and the wisdom of God." (1Cor1:24)
@yarealpoof God is not cruel. "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation..."
@Xpistos2 Just to be clear I fully believe that the principles behind Christianity are valid, I simply don't believe in the stories and analogies written within the Bible. I don't believe in organized religion but I do believe in a higher power of some sort, I just don't believe in any scripture. Nor do I believe that whatever deity is out there requires worship or bestows glory. It would be above such vanities.
@yarealpoof Get away from the primitive idea that God demands worship as if God were vain and arrogant. Get away from the idea that if you are sufficiently obsequious toward God, God will give you glory. Neither has any truth to it. Think rather of the implications of Creator/creature and of the relationship as being one of LOVE in the most excellent sense of that word.
@theoreticalbullshit (con't) can't fit 5 pages of material into 500 characters however 2 clarify this idea I should note that the bible continually suggests that impurity can't survive the presence of god. This idea of presence ironically fucks god over because it established a gradient of existence/occupancy. Because god is not "uniform" throughout all space-time & shouldn't be part of an "area" of pure evil (absolute absence, same thing), flaws emerge in the system, I'll let u examine further
thejfactors 6 days ago
A very good start, I think you could go even farther with this. Essentially at some point God had to create evil, since naturally he created everything. Part of the problem is we are looking at this too simply. In condensed form, I'll state that evil could also be defined as the absence of god in some area, a lack of righteous behavior. However in order for god to create his absence he must also surrender his omnipotence and for that matter many of his other qualities. comical correct?
thejfactors 6 days ago
Evil is the result of facing life with inadequate abilities, which means one must cheat to make ends meet. Hence, all the sins materialized.
JBC814 1 week ago
lol you sound like stewie from Family Guy. Anyway just want to say i enjoy watching your videos. One of your videos was posted on a FB friend's wall and I enjoyed it. I shared with my friends and your videos have inspired deep conversations that have lasted for hours. Thank you!
tiltheendoftim3 1 month ago
May I recommend a book? "Dark Nature: A Natural History of Evil" by Lyall Watson. He was a biologist who tried to examine "evil" scientifically.
s4n7i460v 1 month ago
those people, this would be a punishment, which of course God, in his omnipotence, COULD administer, but whose benevolence for those who reject Him prevails over any sense of "vengeance" or retribution. God gives his people what they want; if they choose Him, they will be reunited with Him after death; if not, they will not. Evil exists not BECAUSE of God, but because Satan, one of God's angels, rebelled against God and could no longer share in His divine presence, hence his descent to earth.
brevicaudate 1 month ago
When we recognise evil in people, what we are seeing is the influence of Satan, who exists in spirit among us, and who will continue to do so until the book of Revelation is complete and God returns to earth, as Jesus Christ, to reassert his protection of his people and return them to His kingdom.
brevicaudate 1 month ago
@brevicaudate When we recognise evil in people, what we are seeing is the influence of Satan.
-
So you don’t think people act on their own? Perhaps I should ask this way: Do you think that there’s ANYTHING – I don’t care what it is – that humans can do without a mover, whether it’s God or Satan moving us? Do you think we are completely empty vessels, or do we have ANY will on our own?
jillum89 1 month ago
@jillum89 - Hi, thanks for the question. Yes, I believe we do have free will, but that it is limited by the choices that present themselves to us throughout life. The choices essentially always stem from good or evil, regardless of the scale, since all sins, whether "criminal" or not, are equally unsatisfactory to God, who is perfect and free of sin. The most we can do, with the free will we are given, is to resist our predisposition to sin and surrender ourselves to God's direction.
brevicaudate 1 month ago
@brevicaudate Okay. So you realize that there are some things we do that are not to be explained by external intervention. I am just wondering why you don’t think ALL of our actions can be explained as such? This is a very harsh analogy, but essentially, I think it’s valid. It’s like someone looking at a tree, saying “these leaves were formed naturally, but these over here were fabricated by someone.” And I’m looking and thinking “if they look the same, what’s the difference?” ...
jillum89 1 month ago
@brevicaudate ... Why not explain them all equally? If they are essentially the same – human actions – then I think they should be treated equally. Unless these demon possessions can be demonstrated of course – but so far I am completely unaware of any such thing.
jillum89 1 month ago
As for the idea that the guy puts forward at the end, suggesting that if everything is attributable to God, then this must include evil, hence God himself is evil - no, God is just and will punish those who commit evil; but he is also benevolent, and wants to forgive those who repent for their sin and who seek a personal relationship with Him through Jesus Christ. Likewise consistent with a benevolent God, He will not force those who reject Him to spend eternity with Him in heaven, because for
brevicaudate 1 month ago
There is in fact an explanation for the origin of evil within Christian theology, which is clearly laid out in the book of Genesis. Eve was not evil prior to eating the apple; she was virtuous, because she was made in God's image. It was the serpent, representing evil, which corrupted her virtue and tempted her to wilfully disobey God. Thus, the evidence for mankind's free will. True, evil intent precedes an evil act, but no one is BORN evil; they are MADE so by forces acting against God.
brevicaudate 1 month ago
Bravo my friend, bravo... couldn't have stated it better myself and you just earned a new subscriber... keep up the kick ass observations mate, logic is beautiful!
zombienationnews 2 months ago
....the world DIDN'T get the way it is, till "THE MAN" ATE OF THE TREE.....THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF "GOOD AND EVIL".....
letmeseeto 2 months ago
@letmeseeto good to know
puckle3 2 months ago
first up, I am atheist. BUT I think the argument COULD be made by Christian apologetic s that EVIL was in fact started by The Devil, who CHOSE his evil intent to turn Gods creation against God so that they would then serve Satan.
And that would be, I suppose, a valid argument for how evil began.
It does NOT, however, validate why God then chose to punish ALL humanity for the fact that his first two humans were TRICKED, through evil intent, to break Gods commandment and hence, commit evil.
DJMaul1031 3 months ago
I don't think that that particular chapter is about that. (just my interpretation), I think that it's one of the few chapters in the Bible that can still be taken metaphorically & is worthy of study.
MrLittletomdj 3 months ago
Here's a hypothesis that I think is bullshit, that I've just made up but, I'm gonna be charitable to the other team. Bring it on you heathens!!! Maybe there is not one God but two. One is god & the other is Satan. God created good things, satan created the other shit & the Devil trying to decieve you that both he & God don't exist so that he can trick you into sin & drag you to hell. He's also trying to convince Christians that he was created by God. A less flawed faith conjured in 40seconds. =D
MrLittletomdj 3 months ago
Disagree totally. Intentions don't mean much except to simians. The act becomes good or bad based on its consequences. Judging moral differences only makes sense with a difference in other, relevant, qualities.
Marcopolo965 4 months ago
@Marcopolo965 Really? So killing someone takes the life of a person. That's the consequence. Does that make it evil? If it is, then killing in self defense is evil.
If by condequences you mean how people REACT to an action, like, getting arrested for killing someone, then ask yourself, why is it some people who kill are arrested, and some who kill aren't? Well...it has to do with their intention in their killing. Was it to defend themselves? Was it an act of passion? Was it premeditated?
BigLundi 4 months ago
@BigLundi It applies to particular situations not definitions. So in an abstract definition killing someone is neither good or evil. There has to be relevant differences to judge; in your example there would be. I wasn't talking about court, but motive is a useful way of categorizing actions in law; I'm not sure if universals exist in the objective world, but they are useful in mathematics, the same way a physicalistic view is more useful than a phenomenalistic one.
Marcopolo965 4 months ago
@Marcopolo965 Yes, you weren't talking about court, but the bigger question is WHY do we deem actions in court less punishable depending completely on all the different details of the intent court? The reason is because we recognize that intent is what makes or break an action as being either evil or good. I'm not talking about universals here, I'm talking about practicality, as well as conscience thought. when you see someone being killed, is it evil, or good? Or do you ask WHY did they die?
BigLundi 4 months ago
@BigLundi "I'm talking about practicality" Well then we agree about one thing. To identify an action as a certain sort of action, like murder in the first degree, you have to use motive. It is useful in that way. My example of universals was just to show that useful and 'true' are not the same things. "intent is what makes or break an action as being either evil or good" This is the subjective intuition of human beings, but it's (probably) false.
Marcopolo965 4 months ago
@Marcopolo965 Ooooh, I think I get what you're trying to say. You're trying to come up with an objective standard everyone ought to follow that is inarguable, and true, regardless of subjective human minds...that about right?
BigLundi 4 months ago
@BigLundi The major problem with the system I'm talking about is that you can't give a real guide to what you're supposed to do. But I don't trust motives at all, they are like masks. You can commit a terrible act with good intentions. In my view, evil becomes more common.Take failure of responsibility toward the helpless: A mother who fails to protect her daughter from being raped because she's deathly terrified of her husband has committed an evil act. Her fear doesn't absolve her guilt imo.
Marcopolo965 4 months ago
@Marcopolo965 I'm sorry...I can't agree with that at all. A mother who is afraid the husband will beat, or even kill her if she tried to stop hoim from raping her daughter isn't committing an evil act. Inaction isn't evil, it's just lazy, and sometimes justified. The real evil one should LOOK at is the father raping his daughter, that's far more important than asking, "Well what was the mother doing?"
There is no objective 'right and wrong' thaT EVERYONE has to follow no matter what.
BigLundi 4 months ago
@BigLundi Understandable, I thought the same once. Emotions are the glue that binds social animals together; they aren't mysterious things that absolve one of guilt. Emotions are treated like intent, irrelevant. The mother failed in her moral duty to the helpless; inaction IS wrong in this case. The father's failure is of an epistemic origin; he thinks it is okay to rape his daughter. Both are wrong. I believe evil is more prevalent than you think. Evil things can be done with "good intentions"
Marcopolo965 4 months ago
@Marcopolo965 It's not about emotion. It's about logical probability. Your situation literally means that if the mother tries to help her daughter and stop her husband from raing her, she may be harmed as well, or even killed. If a mother gets killed trying tostop her husband from raping their daughter...she didn't do a good thing. She did a dumb thing. Of course evil things can be done with good intentions, that's the only way they're EVER done. Nobody does what they find to b evil, just becaus
BigLundi 4 months ago
@BigLundi You just said that evil is only "EVER done" with good intentions. This is very contradictory to the deontological position which you have been defending. However, I think what you really mean is that everyone who does evil THINKS they are doing the right thing, i.e. Hitler thought he was doing good job killing Jews. But...if there was another Hitler, in a separate universe, who did all the exact same things, and for the same reasons would you say this 2nd Hitler was good or evil?contd
Marcopolo965 4 months ago
@BigLundi If they're the same, then you admit this 2nd Hitler is evil; adjudication between intent and consequence matters little yet; we have separate ethical systems from that point---we'll just be going in circles to argue anymore. The woman may be killed protecting her daughter; again, to me, this does not change her guilt in letting the rape happen. No good options; our empathy wants to save her. "Logical possibility" stemming from..emotion motivation. You're using motive to defend motive.
Marcopolo965 4 months ago
@Marcopolo965 You seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that the reasons people do things are always good. I'm saying people always CONVINCE themselves what they do is the right thing. That in no way convinces ME or anyone ELSE that they're doing the right thing. I'm not using motive to defend motive, I'm using consequence to defend motive. You're essentially saying unless someone is willing to die to save another person, they're evil. This is a rather useless view, as most people arent
BigLundi 4 months ago
@BigLundi I understood you, reread about Hitler thinking he was right. but being really wrong. I never said the woman was evil; she DID wrong; the other option would have been bad, but possibly less bad. If you are using POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES to defend her, then you are by def. a utilitarian and you have contradicted yourself about intent being the end all be all. You literally JUST used "possible conseq" to defend "actual conseq"...intent being, as I said earlier, merely a "useful" backdrop.
Marcopolo965 4 months ago
@Marcopolo965 ...Ok, can you go back to everything I said and point to where I said, "Intent is everything"? I never said that, and neither did TBS, whom you originally disagreed with. So really it's a red herring. you're misunderstanding me in so many way. Also, what you were saying is that we can simply disregard intent, because it's not REALLY important. Consequences are not the only criteria we use to determine whether an action is bad, and you agree with this.
BigLundi 4 months ago
@BigLundi I'm not misunderstanding, in fact you misquoted me: "Intent is everything" you didn't say that, but I DIDN'T SAY THAT EITHER. I said for you, it's the "be all end all" which means 'the quintessential or all-important element' : "intent is what makes or break an action as being either evil or good"---your words match the def. TBS says evil comes from what's in your head beforehand. I say no, motive, examined to the core, is hollow, flimsy, and a lie. But I'm not against it's use in law.
Marcopolo965 4 months ago
@Marcopolo965 I never said intent was the end all be all either. YOU said that it's irrelevant. en I said, "Ints or breaks whether it's evil or D" Imeant AFTER al other things have been determined. People are put under arrest when it's determined they've done something, and they're later released if they did it for an excuseable reason. If I'm jogging, and I nudge a brick on a bridge accidentally, and it fals and kills soemone, was that evil act that I committed? No, it was an accident.
BigLundi 4 months ago
@BigLundi If you're using it AFTER everything else, then technically it's the end all thing. Anyway, it don't even matter. Look you're saying people commit actions..then we examine their actions to determine the conseq, to see if they violated an (unstated) action principle (killing someone, etc). Then, AFTER everything else is considered, we examine motive. So, you nudged a brick, someone died=bad, but then we examine intent... which isn't there, so ultimately you're careless but not evil. Yes?
Marcopolo965 4 months ago
@Marcopolo965 Yes, it was a careless action, not an evil one.
BigLundi 4 months ago
@BigLundi Okay, that's a system full of holes, but regardless, you seem to think you're agreeing with TBS: 5:00: "It takes an evil intention for an action to be evil" I believe I have debunked this. And before you go on about someone who THINKS they are doing good ACTUALLY committing an evil (leave psychology out of this), I mean someone who REALLY WAS acting through an OBJECTIVELY good intention, who ended up committing an evil. Such a thing does not exist in TBS's world as his words show.
Marcopolo965 4 months ago
@Marcopolo965 ...Yeah, because such a thing doesn't exist in ANY world view. I mean are you saying that there is an objective standard that all people use to determine whether or not an action is evil or good, and that we measure actions by this standard? There's no such thing as an objective reality without subjective situational preferences. What is good and bad is subjective, arbitrary, and situational.
BigLundi 4 months ago
@BigLundi That's fine, but if you listen, you'll hear this is NOT what TBS says. You espouse confused existentialist ethics, the belief that standards come from subjectivity. TBS IS saying your 2nd sentence, that moral duties DO exist in the external world (through Categorical Imperative maybe; unstated) otherwise a proposition such as "without intent an act isn't evil" 3:34 would be MEANINGLESS and LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to say. This entire vid would be saying nothing logical under your system.
Marcopolo965 4 months ago
@Marcopolo965 Yes, he's said many ties that moral duties are subjective to preference.
HAve you seen his treatise on morality video? He said the following, "A theist might object and say 'but that's not a real objective morality, you're just putting your own subjective values onto the word morality'. Well...yeah, there's no such thing as an objectively right and wrong way to efine words. What meaning we assign to any combination of vowles and consonants is always arbitrary."
BigLundi 4 months ago
@BigLundi Ahh, okay. None of that is said here, forgive me if it seemed I was ripping up a straw man(I just realized this vid is old) I'll ignore the Treatise's problems and focus on something he admitted to: there is such a thing as a useless definition. And what I'm saying is that his definition of evil here (an action with malicious intention) is (mostly) useless. It is also inconsistent. BTW, his "untangling" of the is/ought problem at the end is straight off Sam Harris...not that that's bad
Marcopolo965 4 months ago
humans are into the events course of the universe, accusing someone to be evil is nothing more than saying you act different from me which is totally plausible, but not an excuse to act the same, otherwise breaking the only reason of your action therefore its logic to hurt again another person, by human language it would be defined as "harmful stupidity"
cipihevent 5 months ago
So was Nazi Germany evil? Consciously he thought that letting Jews mix blood with Aryans was evil. Was him killing 11 million people evil sense consciously he didnt think it was evil?
ItsSolaFide 7 months ago
@ItsSolaFide I do not agree with the concept of "evil." Someone who does something evil, for example, Hitler killing Jews, it is because they are brainwashed, deluded, mentally unstable... etc.
Killing people for no reason is not biologically beneficial to humans. If we could cure Hitler, morally that would be the way to go. Since we can't, the best way we have to deal with him is to say he's bad and to lock him up. Medicating someone with turrets is more moral than punishing them for cursing.
sk8tafrnk 7 months ago
my opinion is that evil directly stems from selfishness and egotism. evil is never committed in the interest of another.
itzahazylife 7 months ago
@hughdiock The dictionary's. "Evil" means intentional suffering inflicted upon sentient creatures (which have the capacity for experiencing harm, emotionally and physically). That is a deviation from what humans, as the most intelligent and emotionally mature beings on earth, have deemed good. As for what is praise-worthy, that is any force that promotes the well-being of sentient creatures to an extent that puts our human efforts to shame. God does not do this, if he exists.
ThatGuyWithHippyHair 8 months ago
This message is for YouTube's managerial staff:
I want you to be aware that I personally will NEVER purchase anything with the T-Mobile brand name SPECIFICALLY because you placed advertisements for it over top of this and other videos.
I refuse to reward this behavior and I want to be sure you are aware that YOUR actions are harming their business.
Enjoy your day. :]
And as for this video, as always, very well presented, good sir!
CRUSH3Rdlux 8 months ago
@hughdiock
The issue is that evil, by definition, is undesirable. It is a deviation from what ought to be, and any being who creates evil, however indirectly, is not worthy of praise.
ThatGuyWithHippyHair 8 months ago
@ThatGuyWithHippyHair Who's definition of evil is this? What is worthy of praise?
hughdiock 8 months ago
Of course God created evil. Of course God created man to sin. Read Genesis again. God doesn't say "if you eat"...He says "WHEN you eat". Also check out Isaiah 45:7.....I don't think you can get any clearer than this..."I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Does the Bible ever make a claim that God didn't create anything that was made? I don't understand the issue here....
hughdiock 8 months ago
@hughdiock The issue is that original sin doesn't make sense. Christians argue that everyone has to be saved from damnation due to sin as Eve committed a sin and this has made us all culpable. That is a crazy idea. If she did something wrong, only she can be blamed. And if you allow that, how can someone else (like Jesus) take the blame? If I kill someone, I should go to jail. I can't send my girlfriend in my place. That isn't justice.
jgonsalk 8 months ago
@jgonsalk Original sin makes perfect sense when you actuall apply it to life. Think of when you were a child, or better yet, if you have children of your own, think of them. Who is it that teaches them to lie, or who was it that taught you how to lie? That's right, nobody had to....it's in our nature. It's quite simple really. Furthermore, if you want to understand the Sacrifice of Jesus and Biblical dogma, try reading the Bible...
hughdiock 7 months ago
@hughdiock I have to disagree. Parents will lie to their children all the time, whether it's because they don't think the child will understand, or the they don't feel like explaining something. Children can, and do, catch on to it. Furthermore, I have never known a small child (i.e very young toddler) to lie in order to cause harm to someone else, which seems to be the only "true" evil. Lying in order to protect yourself is not necessarily wrong unless it causes harm to someone else.
beakerthefrog 7 months ago
@beakerthefrog If you are saying that children are far more perceptive than most people would think? I agree. This in no way means that this is where children "learn" how to be dishonest. Secondly, I think trying to justify dishonesty simply because it might be easier on the dishonest person to lie rather than be honest....is simply nonsense. Furthermore, who makes the judgement call on whether or not harm is caused? You? Me? A child?
hughdiock 7 months ago
@hughdiock Ninety-nine times out of a hundred it will be clearly obvious whether or not harm is caused to someone else, so your final rebuttal doesn't hold water. If someone else is harmed by a lie, then obviously the lie would be immoral. If harm is not caused, than why is lying immoral? Until you can provide a reason for why a lie that does not cause harm is immoral, your entire scenario is pointless. Is it more admirable to always tell the truth? Perhaps, but admirable =/= moral.
beakerthefrog 6 months ago
@hughdiock And yes, I'm not providing conclusive evidence that children learn how to lie from their parents, but it is definitely a plausible hypothesis. Likewise, you haven't provided any conclusive evidence that children are born with the inclination to lie; that it is simply part of our nature. It IS true that children learn by example, and it IS true that a vast majority of parents lie to their children on a regular basis, in order to protect them, or to avoid answering difficult questions.
beakerthefrog 6 months ago
Hm..well there is a large disparity between invisibility and non-existence just to be clear. Regardless, I don't want to argue religion, but it's not that the act of biting the apple itself was evil, it's that god instructed her not to and she disobeyed him. It was still the consciousness behind the act. Similarly original sin is not "evil", it is the presence of this consciousness. There's so much faulty misrepresentation of sin, evil, and biblical interpretation in this post. It's a shame.
XxVINCEROxX 8 months ago
I want you to know that all your videos, especially ones like this (practically all of them), inspire a certain cognitive ecstasy in me. You have given me many ideas and interpretations of those ideas to ponder and play with. Thank you so much
TheMindsmack 9 months ago 25
I want you to know that all your videos, especially ones like this (practically all of them), inspire a certain cognitive ecstasy in me. You have given me many ideas and interpretations of those ideas to ponder and play with. Thank you so muich
TheMindsmack 9 months ago
But what is an evil intention??? You don't give a definition for that so your explanation is incomplete before you began and nobody thinks of the acts he does as evil.
It is easy what the origin of evil is, it's SCARCITY.
The environment is the origin of evil. It's that simple!!
TheMrZipan 9 months ago
Hello TheoreticalBullshit, I am glad to hear your perspective on the origin of evil. I myself was stuck in a loop with good and evil but was only thinking of the actions and not the intent. You really helped me out. You keep thinking and reasoning out loud and I will point my ear your way to try and gain some insight and come to a realization.
Evnik13 9 months ago
You cannot cease philosophizing because you know the truth in your depths.
700bees 10 months ago
I love your videos because of the logical and clear explainations included with them. You have got me hooked sir. You should write a book or something. I would buy it.
SereneFire88 10 months ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
oops
prov 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
GodsArePeopleToo 10 months ago
In the brick scenerio the man who drops the brick may be committing an evil act if he enjoys the act of harming another person. If he is indifferent to the suffering and harm he has caused, then I don't consider that evil. So I don't think evil comes from the intent to harm but rather in the enjoyment of harming. If I kill in self defense, I don't think my actions are evil even though my intent is to harm or kill.
Rahn127 10 months ago
For me, evil is the enjoyment of an act that involves another person being in pain. Now that is a rather simple definition and by all means doesn't cover all evil, but it's a start. Of course not all enjoyment of anothers pain is evil. Take for instance when someone stubs their toe in the middle of the night on a coffee table. One might laugh and take some measure of enjoyment in that pain because we know it's not permanent. It hurts and we've done it before.
Rahn127 10 months ago
@Rahn127
"evil is the enjoyment of an act that involves another person being in pain. "
Have you ever watched America's Funniest Home Videos? The majority of the videos are about people getting hurt (in relatively minor ways).
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 10 months ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi I am guessing you only read the first line of what I wrote. The rest of what I wrote covers the part about laughing at people who get hurt.
Rahn127 10 months ago
@Rahn127
Oh my mistake... I was trying to multi-task when I wrote that.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 10 months ago
not bad. Good video. sure got me thinking.
QuestionAll1 11 months ago
@Imreason A tornado is not just wind, and the visible part of a tornado is not the wind portion, it's the cloud. At what temperature(s) do you supposedly "see" the wind?
RealityFD 11 months ago
some people have very good intentions but they do evil things anyways ...are they right???
eny1103 11 months ago
@eny1103 It's not evil if your intentions are actually good. If it is because of legitimate ignorance/naivety or an accident it's not a problem. Remember, it is each action we judge, not the person. If you hit someone because they offend you that is an evil action but if you accidentally kill someone while breaking up a fight and genuinely didn't mean it, that's not evil. There are some difficult cases but generally it's straightforward.
jgonsalk 8 months ago
@jgonsalk yes i know what you mean and i agree
eny1103 8 months ago
This guy is so pretentious that it makes my head spin.
ifinoxonifi 1 year ago
Invisible means non-existent? . . . like a thought, like feelings, like the wind . . .
RealityFD 1 year ago
@RealityFD thoughts and feelings are mental and not physical so invisibility does not apply to them. The wind is not invisible. you can actually see the wind in the right temperatures and are you unaware of tornadoes?
saying the wind is invisible is like saying bacteria is invisible. we can't see them which just our eyes but with the right technical tools we can.
Imreason 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Imreason A tornado is not just wind, and the visible part of a tornado is not the wind portion, it's the cloud. At what temperature(s) do you supposedly "see" the wind?
RealityFD 11 months ago
Invisible means non-existent? . . . like a thought, like feelings, like the wind . . .
RealityFD 1 year ago
satan indeed is the most loved in this world, may god have mercy, satan ended up in hell because of pride, but gods people were already chosen from the start, and to me, you seem to hate god over slandering the verses yourself, well we will see how far the gets you, but you are programed to deny the bible, satan won in you, unless you take control, i used to be alot like you, i love music also, but alot of the most beautiful art is of lucipher
doyce1000 1 year ago
you honestly think you know right and wrong more than the rest of the world, sorry, but your not blessed my friend, in fact cursed, that why you sing so good and play guitar good, and your keep yourself clean and attractive, and that is exactly what type of person satan is, god doesnt send us to hell, he rejects us, and satan can do whatever he wants, i know you have all the knowledge of the universe and noone could ever take that away from you, but the devil was the seal of perfection
doyce1000 1 year ago
If you're using Biblical context for the discussion of what "evil" is, then you're not approaching this correctly. Evil is the lack of good (which comes from God), like dark is a lack of light. Sin is the separation of ourselves from God's will, and temptation from Satan is what gives us the choice to sin or to obey God's commands out of love for him. We could not be in physical presence with God on earth after the Fall. We are born with sinful nature, not with sin filled lives. Sin is a choice.
ShadesAndRed 1 year ago
@ShadesAndRed i haz the one correct interpretation of the bible and it says your wrong.
pineconesaresmallnow 1 year ago
@pineconesaresmallnow
That is extremely arrogant.
Your interpretation is the One Correct interpretation.
LMAO
However since i do not go by an Interpretation you entire premise is flawed.
I use Logic & Reason combined with Historical evidence as well as looking at what things meant in their original language. Then comparing that with what we know historically about the sociology of the culture in question.
There is No God because if there were we would have evidence to support that!
We Don't
PastorIblis 1 year ago
@PastorIblis I'm making fun of the comment I responded to hence the "i haz."
pineconesaresmallnow 1 year ago
@pineconesaresmallnow
Ok
There are some that actually talk like that so I didn't take that as a sign of making fun of something.
PastorIblis 1 year ago
@pineconesaresmallnow I'm sorry to hear that. I'll be praying for you.
ShadesAndRed 11 months ago
@ShadesAndRed I will sacrifice a goat for you?
pineconesaresmallnow 11 months ago
@pineconesaresmallnow Not necessary :)
ShadesAndRed 11 months ago
The snake told Eve to eat the apple, Eve ate the apple, Eve was labeled evil. This means that evil is born from stupidity, 'Nuff said.
mikechis101 1 year ago
This inane shit kills my brain.. preserved by tuning out on your 3rd example.
DirtyBroker 1 year ago
Evil is the illness, is the antimatter, is the war. In other words evil is a force regulating matter from growing without inner control. To eliminate evil we have to learn to control ourselves, learn not to exist without boundaries (greed, hate, intolerance, etc.). After we reach balance, evil wil be harnessed (but will never cease to exist).
TheVadeem 1 year ago
@NEXTCMedia L2Spell wurdz!
Horathgar42 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
28 people is too stupid to understand what TBS says.
Th0usandMaster 1 year ago
or, you can just point to the verse in isaiah where god just flat-out says "I create evil"
blackplatypus 1 year ago
find Truth PLGB
google usccb naB
lockinglugnut 1 year ago
Why not just use the inquisitions. There is no clearer picture of pure evil in action.
you are correct a shark eating someone isn't evil because there was no malice behind the sharks actions.
The original sin story is about Self awareness really. The knowledge of Good & Evil, Pain & Pleasure doesn't give us a disposition towards either but only the ability to make the choice.
Self awareness is also the basis of Freewill since animals do not have self awareness & no comcept of freewill.
PastorIblis 1 year ago
@PastorIblis Animals are not self aware and do not have free will. How do you know that?
pineconesaresmallnow 1 year ago
@pineconesaresmallnow
Every animal responds to stimulus not a conscious intent of anything.
This is why people can study bears and have lions, tigers, etc as pets.
Freewill is a result of the higher brain and self awareness.
Monkeys aren't self aware because when they see a mirror they do not realize it is their reflection but act as if it is another monkey.
If you study how animals behave you will realize they only respond to stimulus.
THERE IS NO GOD!
PastorIblis 1 year ago
@NEXTCMedia - Laughter is contageous. Because what makes me laugh are comments or statements made without an attempt and ability to support them. Think about it.
CertainUncertainty 1 year ago
I am going to get an army of babies and goad the world into evil. Kill the baby or die fucker! 10 years later I have conquered the world.
Oh, and I can scarcely believe that you are actually bothering to try to ascertain the origins of something as contrived as the bible and its factoid contents.
omgletmeinjc 1 year ago
I am going to get an army of babies and goad the world into evil. Kill the baby or die fucker! 10 years later I have conquered the world.
omgletmeinjc 1 year ago
Very nice video, I really like your glasses too!
Sillybitch81 1 year ago
I've been enjoying your videos a lot- your style is clear and you're obviously very intelligent and well-reasoned. I thought it stopped there. Then you employed the correct use of the phrase "beg the question". You, sir, are a paragon.
pooryorick99 1 year ago 7
eve's act was an act of disobedience. she became that way because she was tempted.
poopoopaula101 1 year ago
@poopoopaula101 By a talking snake? And didn't god tell them they would die THE VERY SAME DAY they ate from the tree? They did not die. So god lied, and your talking snake told the truth...hmmm.
HellhathnoFury711 1 year ago
@HellhathnoFury711 they died spiritually.
poopoopaula101 1 year ago
Comment removed
succubusfan85 1 year ago
Thomas Aquinas' answer to the origin of evil is that evil is not a thing, it is a privation (absence of) good. Just like darkness is the absence of light, cold is the absence of hot, etc. They actually made this into a commercial in Macedonia which depicts Albert Einstein making this argument (even though Snopes debunked it).
The commercial is on YouTube titled: "Does God Exist ? -- Albert Einstein answers"
I think it's a bunch of "theoretical bullshit." But what are your thoughts on this?
jacqueline716 1 year ago
Man eating the fruit of the tree was "evil" because it was an act of disobedience towards God.
HDell1994 1 year ago
@HDell1994
How could they be disobedient when they had no knowledge of right and wrong? Sorry, but the biblical story fails. It's really not the moral stories you may think it possesses.
futurepsycdoc 1 year ago
@futurepsycdoc God told them not to do something and they did it. End of story.
HDell1994 1 year ago
@HDell1994
Which begs the question why would a god give an order he knew couldn't be followed? Sort of like punishing an infant for being disobedient, eh? And that's where you get your morals? Like Dillahunty says, is there anything your child could do where you would lock your child in the basement and torture them forever? If you answer no, you are more moral than the god of the bible. It was written by ancient people with an ancient understanding of the world. Thanks for the discussion!
futurepsycdoc 1 year ago
@futurepsycdoc God gave us free will and although he knew that Adam and Eve wouldn't have followed his command, he also knew all of what Satan did. He created the Universe to glorify his son and why he did it this way, I do not know, but one thing I DO know is that it was done this way by God and we must deal with it. But since you seem to believe that you know of the God of the Bible, answer this: What is the Gospel and it's purpose? What is the call of Christianity?
HDell1994 1 year ago
@HDell1994
You're not addressing the issue. It's not that God knew we wouldn't, but that we couldn't. We did not have knowledge of good and evil. Why is Satan so powerful that he is allowed to torment everyone? Is this the best an omni-everything supernatural Creator can do? I don't care to get into your proselytizing. I am a former Theist and know the Christian tenets. No matter what you state about a god, it is only based on faith. I'm just someone that needs knowledge to believe.
futurepsycdoc 1 year ago
@futurepsycdoc No, it's not that we didn't have knowledge of good and evil, what the fruit of the tree of knowledge did was not give us a sense of good of evil but instead, it made us view morality independent of God. It made the human race decide for itself what is good and what is evil. For example, you and other atheists have your OWN sense of morality.
HDell1994 1 year ago
@HDell1994
The hoops you have to jump through to make sense out of the text of that ancient book is sad. The bible clearly states they had no knowledge of good and evil since they were forbidden from eating of that fruit. Taking the bible literally will require you to make various leaps of faith. I agree that Atheists have their own sense of morality and it far exceeds the morals of people 2,000+ years ago.
futurepsycdoc 1 year ago
@futurepsycdoc Well this independence from God and arrogant nature is exactly the result of the fall. You are sinful and God hating, but you obviously don't have a problem with that. Anyways, it was nice speaking to you, I hope that God regenerates your heart and opens your eyes to the Gospel, I'll see you on judegement day, thanks for reading and I pray that God Blesses you with salvation.
HDell1994 1 year ago
@HDell1994
I hate God like you hate Zeus. How can you hate something that you don't believe exists? You are too comfortable making claims you cannot back-up with any sort of evidence and relies completely on faith in supernatural. That's fine if that's what comforts you, but it has no more credibility than anyone else's supernatural beliefs. Thanks for coming this far. Many others just refuse to question their beliefs because of the comfort it provides. Take care.
futurepsycdoc 1 year ago
@futurepsycdoc You hate God because you love sin...
HDell1994 1 year ago
@HDell1994
Why is it so easy for your types to make assumptions about people you don't know? I realize your dogma trains you to distrust others. That's cult-like behavior and I feel sorry that you're susceptible to it. Since you're arguments have no merit, it is easier to run back to your fear and the comfort it provides you. Don't believe in your God, sin doesn't exist, and I am probably more moral than anyone you have ever met, definitely more so than any character in the bible. Peace!!
futurepsycdoc 1 year ago
@futurepsycdoc If you read the fall, Eve CLEARLY stated that God told her not to eat of the fruit (Gen 3:2-3) but after Satan's temptation Eve saw that the fruit was a delight to her eye (v.6) and DECIDED to disobey God even when she knew not to. Read Genesis chapter 3 and you will see that Eve was conscious of the fact that she shouldn't have eaten from the tree.
HDell1994 1 year ago
@HDell1994
Sorry your religion requires these leaps of faith, but you've yet to explain how someone without knowledge of good and evil can be blamed for committing evil. Also, if that is the morality of God, what makes it something to worship? So much for the concept of it being an all-loving God. It actually has the characteristics of an abuser and we know they don't behave regarding to love.
futurepsycdoc 1 year ago
I love this guy
SpearofDestiny0 1 year ago
The origin of evil is no mystery.
YHVH boasts about it enough:
"I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and CREATE EVIL:
I the LORD do all these things."
Isaiah 45:7
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
shit man, you sounded just like stewie from family guy at 1:23
yarealpoof 2 years ago 9
About the brick falling, it was an attempt to hurt someone which is against Gods Word "... love thy neighbors...". Now if you threw a brick to defend yourself from harm that you did not instigate, then that would not be sin. We have the right to defend ourselves.
falconjblack2008 2 years ago
Bye your logic, it is evil to NOT beat your children daily with a rod.
Evil to not murder entire villages (except for the virgins, whom you can keep)
Evil for women to be teachers, ask their husbands questions outside the home or wear "apparel"
blackplatypus 1 year ago 5
It actually was like 200 years ago. Moral standarts constantly change as you can see in human history so I don't see your point.
darkimausi 1 year ago
@darkimausi
my point was if "evil" is simply defined as "against your particular gods word" then you quite clearly have a pretty messed up notion of right and wrong.
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@blackplatypus
/agreed :)
darkimausi 1 year ago
@blackplatypus no you have to not-know what your doing in order for you to be good
but doing things like that and knowing , purposely doing that you would be considerd evil
disastrous123 1 year ago
@disastrous123
So if a woman deliberately decides to be a teacher, she's evil?
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@blackplatypus that was in older times when everyone was exteemly sexist it dosnt fit into modern day times so no shes not
disastrous123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@disastrous123
Then, clearly, morality is not based on the bible!
I suggest you go back and read my posts again.
blackplatypus 1 year ago
@disastrous123 Does the bible you live by state that it was only for that time? Is there new portions of the bible that I have not read yet? Because you have no way of proving what you just stated. Your bible says your god doesn't change. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, right? So if he didn't want women teachers yesterday, why is okay today? Where is the logic in that?
HellhathnoFury711 1 year ago
Evil or Sin is basically anything that goes agaist Gods will. Lucifer served God until he decided not to. The orgin of sin. Eve ate of the fruit thus went into a sinful state. Adam only ate of the fruit because he did not want Eve to get cursed alone.
falconjblack2008 2 years ago
@falconjblack2008
I'm sorry no one has corrected your logic earlier. How could Adam or Eve go into a sinful state from disobeying God when they had no knowledge of right and wrong? As far as you belief that some fictional character made some sacrifice to accompany Eve in sin, that really is far-fetched, but no stranger than other biblical stories. Do you really believe that is a literal interpretation of an event that actually occurred? Even after what we know of human history/evolution?
futurepsycdoc 1 year ago
@falconjblack2008 but if God knew this would happen why did he not interfere? What exactly is he testing here? If the world was perfect before the origin of Sin why not simply erradicate sin altogether prior to it's inception? God knows everything a person will do, yes? Then why does he allow Lucifer to even exist...why not prevent this seemingly needless chain of evil?
yarealpoof 1 year ago
@yarealpoof Sin is not SOME THING. Sin is the absence of something; the absence of the good that ought to be. Sin originates in the will, the intent of intelligent beings, angels (once) and man (repeatedly). Those who are blessed, the angels who did not sin and the men who sought after righteousness, are as knives made sharp by the betrayal of those who turn away.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
@yarealpoof You can't have the possibility of love in created beings unless they are free to love. If they are free to love, they must needs be free to choose love. It is entirely a mystery why some choose other than love, but that possibility and actuality must needs be risked if there is to be those who are free to love. They are allowed, those who go astray, for the glory of those who remain faithful.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
@Xpistos2 why should it be a test to win this "glory"? If God is all you say he is He has absolutley no clear reason to impose these rules on us and expect us to believe...based on nothing but a book which was written by other men...just like every other religious doctrine. why should I believe in a book that has been cherrypicked to death by people who refuse to follow the scripture word for word. A female Christian teacher is acting in violation of her scripture is she not? Hypocrisy.
yarealpoof 1 year ago
@yarealpoof If you were to make a sword, you would need to temper the steel in the fire and beat upon the metal to fashion an excellent sword. So it is with the human being. Man is fashioned as iron in the fire. The fact that many people who claim to be Christian act contrary to the teachings in Scripture is not any proof that Christianity is wrong. The question is who has the truth? I say the Catholics have it.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
@Xpistos2 Fair enough, but there are far more cherrypicking apologists in the world than there are true Christians. The hypocrisy behind this is made even more atrocious by the fact these same people deem others faithless and chastise them for this. Perhaps this is simple human error and has nothing to do with Christian values...but it makes them harder to accept at least from where I'm standing.
yarealpoof 1 year ago
@yarealpoof I quite agree that they are far more cherrypicking apologists than true Christians. GK Chesterton, a convert to the catholic Faith and a famed autor wrote that "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has never been tried." I quite agree with this post of yours.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
Scott, surely you don't believe that what is invisible equates to what is non-existent?
There are two kinds of evil, one is moral evil (evil intention), the other is simply evil (the brick falling without intent by anyone). Evil is the absence of that which ought to be present. The doctrine of original sin as you explain is not the doctrine of original sin. As to Eve and Adam, the proto parents, they had a perfect human nature unswayed by concupiscence.
Xpistos2 2 years ago
@Xpistos2
Since God(s) don't exist, evil doesn't exist. Bad things happen and they can occur w/ or w/o intention. There is no comic karma. Sometimes bad actions go unpunished and sometimes good actions go unrewarded. Adam and Eve could not have occurred and the story only exemplifies an immoral nature of the God of the bible.
futurepsycdoc 1 year ago
They chose with malice to seek what was forbidden to them, ie, they sought to know the difference between good and evil. Now that was a grave departure from their nature as constituted by God, but the latter nature was free to act and choose, and so they did and they chose to do evil, to know evil, which is not any thing but the very absence of good. Nemo dat quod non habet. Nobody can give what they don't have. This primal sin caused their pristine human natures to become impaired.
Xpistos2 2 years ago
@Xpistos2
How could A & E choose evil when they had no knowledge of good and evil? Your logic isn't rational. Knowing human history, when do you supposedly think this occurred and what stage was the homo sapien primate in it's evolutionary progression?
futurepsycdoc 1 year ago
This imparement is fallen human nature to which we all are heirs. Nemo dat quod non habet. So, now, all humans tend toward sin rather than toward virtue. They are screwed up. In seeking lesser goods we all are seeking to be, what shall I say[?], content, at peace, fulfilled. By as Augustine wrote: "Thou hast made us for Thyself alone and our hearts are restless til they rest in Thee." Only God is good and all good that is comes from God. Evil is the absence of good.
Xpistos2 2 years ago
@Xpistos2 If God has the omniscience that is so often ascribed to him, why did he bother allowing Lucifer to tempt Eve? Why did he not simply endow them with understanding so they would not have to seek out the "difference between good and evil?" why even create Lucifer if God knows full well that he will betray him and tempt the original humans into an act that would influence all of their heirs? Why did God do this? If we are all is creations then all of our good and evil rests at his feet.
yarealpoof 1 year ago
in a destructive manner, God would not have made these intelligent beings truly free. To grant freedom, God necessarily allowed evil. God in making these intelligent beings, angels and men, offered them Love, God's very Being to live in, be in. In allowing that some would choose otherwise, God allowed such ill choices and wisely used those very evils to give triumph to the blessed.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
@Xpistos2 what is the reason for this? If we are ALL his creations then responsibility for all of our nature (Both the Good and the Evil) Ultimately are on Him for allowing them to come to pass. It's absurd and in many ways cruel. What do you say of people who have NEVER heard of Christianity because of where they live in the world? Are they doomed to never inherit his Kingdom because of simple obliviousness? What kind of "love" is that?
yarealpoof 1 year ago
@yarealpoof Like I said before; we are not going to clear up the great mysteries involved in this reality we are engaged in. I don't look at reality like you do. I don't see God as cruel. As for those who have never heard of the Gospel, they can still be saved. If you take certain basic principles, the rest follows. God is. God is good.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
@Xpistos2 It's cruel to test a people that have no access to the criteria you are evaluating them on. They are not living there lives the way God wants them to because they don't know of Him and this is an impossible test to pass At least from the context that I see this in. And yes the question is Who has the truth: I don't think anyone does...so I'm not an atheist, but not a member of any organized religion. Religion brings comfort where uncertainty is scary IMO. It isn't the truth.
yarealpoof 1 year ago
@yarealpoof If no one has the Truth, then God doesn't exist. If no one has the Truth, then Christ isn't God. But God is and Christ is Himself God, and therefore He Himself is the Way, the Truth and the Life. To some this is foolishness, to others a stumbling block, to those who are called "Christ [is] the power of God and the wisdom of God." (1Cor1:24)
Xpistos2 1 year ago
@yarealpoof God is not cruel. "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation..."
(CCC847)
Xpistos2 1 year ago
@Xpistos2 Just to be clear I fully believe that the principles behind Christianity are valid, I simply don't believe in the stories and analogies written within the Bible. I don't believe in organized religion but I do believe in a higher power of some sort, I just don't believe in any scripture. Nor do I believe that whatever deity is out there requires worship or bestows glory. It would be above such vanities.
yarealpoof 1 year ago
@yarealpoof Get away from the primitive idea that God demands worship as if God were vain and arrogant. Get away from the idea that if you are sufficiently obsequious toward God, God will give you glory. Neither has any truth to it. Think rather of the implications of Creator/creature and of the relationship as being one of LOVE in the most excellent sense of that word.
Xpistos2 1 year ago