Imagine this. You are standing on high tower so you have a broader view on events happening down on ground. You may see some bad guy to throw a stone on windshield of some car goind by, just for fun. The car stops..... You can also see that if this bad guy didnt throw that stone, the car would hit small kid on bike which just came from behind a corner. The bad guy in fact have saved this kids life. The driver and bad guy cannot see that. Only you can see that since you can see behind the corner from above. What I mean is that unless we dont see broader truth, we cant distinguish what is really evil. If this driver knows that, he would be thankfull to God for sending this "bad" guy, because for saving kids life was needed some quick event. But because noone knows that, people call for punishment of this guy. Or imagine that somebody kills his own family in car accident. Wouldnt he be glad if day before would some guy have mugged him and even broke some of his bones so he ended up in hospital even for several months so he would not drive his car next day. That would in fact save his family. Knowing that, he would probably reward that robber for saving hisfamily.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Evil maybe dont exist.
- Thread starter PeterKovac
- Start date
D
Deleteriousnonsense
Guest
The very fact that you can concieve of this scenario demonstrates the human capacity for understanding the existence of evil. You will have to do better than this. It's silly, really.
Upvote
0
If you could chose between sliping on banana peel and broke your leg or not to and go drive your car and hit somebody and kill him, what would you chose? To kill somone even by accident or have broken leg?
Upvote
0
D
Deleteriousnonsense
Guest
Any idiot would chose the broken leg. It's not even a moral decision. It's just manners.
Upvote
0
Yes, any idot would chose the broken leg. If he would know that. If he didnt, he would be cursing on person who dropped that banana slip. But you dont have broad view on events. So evil is maybe just perception of men. One would consider something to be bad, and someone else good or at least not as bad as somebody else. There were many things in my life, when I thought that its something bad. Later I realized that it was something what pushed me forward in life. to something better. So was that event bad. Not at all!
Upvote
0
Yes, thats may be true. I dont argue with that. Could you share with me your view of what is evil then?
Upvote
0
I had a thought that the only evil is in mankind. We make our own evil. Following on from that there is no Satan or demons just our own intrinsic ability to create evil. And we are saved from our evil by the shedding of blood by Jesus Christ. This does mean, of course, that if the most evil person turns to Jesus for redemption he should be able to enter the Kingdom. This is pure supposition on my part and no doubt those of you who have greater knowledge of the scriptures will point out where I am erring.
Upvote
0
retrospect is always 20/20. meaning if we knew the result of all our actions we would be far more intentional. Perhaps if the "bad guy" knew that he was saving the kid he wouldn't throw the brick to begin with. We do not know the results of our actions and our actions that we end up doing ony reflect our current knowledge not the end result.
It is the condition of our heart where the evil begins, the action just reflects that condition. If we intended to do evil but good happens instead all this shows us is we do not have control over all things but it does not discredit the sin that took place in our heart.
Sin is a focus that cannot come from God because he is without sin. Since God created us, and he is without sin, he would not have created us with a "intrinsic ability to create evil". Sin then is something that has a source outside of God and outside of us. Sin has a constant re-birth in our lives, which is the sinful nature, not because it is a perpetual motion machine spawned inside of us but because of a source that pushes this focus on us. This source is Satan.
Satan also has been created by God, as all things are, but this does not mean God created Satan with sin. Satan is not human and is not dictated by the design of humans. We approach things very differently and the concept of disobedience to God with Satan is a lot different than our own concept and ability to sin for humans. I do not fully understand the law that Satan is govern by because I am not under his design but I do know we cannot apply our rules with Satan because we are not under the same system. I can use my knowledge from my own system to know that sin does not come from me and know it does not come from God so the sin that I am a part of is from an outside source.
Upvote
0
Isserus
Old Boy
are you suggesting you, as a human, cannot sin? I probably arrived at the wrong conclusion, but that's what the latter part of your post seems to imply.
I agree though that god can be seen as without sin. I've heard some pretty desperate, silly theorys to try and explain how god could create satan or sin. Free agency comes to mind as being one of those theories. I don't put much stock in them, especially that one, as much of a brain-picker as it might be.
To separate god from sin seems to repeatedly lead towards the idea of free will, which is am a strong believer am. Actually, i think it's that very idea that gives such value to the idea of gods omnipotence. To say it's either or, seems to restrict god, rather than understand him.
but back to the original post...
I think intention has a role in whether or not we are sinning. To be open to what it is that god wants for us, listening to the holy spirit. Above all else, reading his word helps provide us with an idea of how we should act in this world.
Words like evil and good are abused, and in the secular world, reduced to things that cause us pain, or on some level discomfort. These are incorrect definitions of evil, and so, and have nothing to do with sin.
True, even our smallest actions can cause a ripple effect, like out in some great big pond. That's one reason why i've never understood why people ask for blessing from god. For what might seem like a blessing one day, might turn out to be trouble the next.
Upvote
0
The rock thrower has to pay to have the window repaired.
The robber still needs rehabilatation or incarceration.
Just judgment. End of issue.
Upvote
0
Harry3142
Regular Member
PeterKovac-
Irregardless of the outcome, the mindset of the perpetrators determines whether their acts were evil or not. For example, the Passion and death of Jesus Christ is seen by us Christians as the means whereby we can have eternal life. But Pilate and the chief priests didn't crucify Jesus in order to gain for us salvation. They crucified Jesus in order to (1) silence him and (2) make an example of him as a warning to others not to raise their heads above the crowd.
God used their evil in order to bring salvation into the world. But that did not cleanse them of the evil in their own hearts that initiated their actions. Because their purpose for causing Jesus to suffer originated in motives that were evil, their actions must be seen by others as having been evil, irregardless of the actual outcome.
Irregardless of the outcome, the mindset of the perpetrators determines whether their acts were evil or not. For example, the Passion and death of Jesus Christ is seen by us Christians as the means whereby we can have eternal life. But Pilate and the chief priests didn't crucify Jesus in order to gain for us salvation. They crucified Jesus in order to (1) silence him and (2) make an example of him as a warning to others not to raise their heads above the crowd.
God used their evil in order to bring salvation into the world. But that did not cleanse them of the evil in their own hearts that initiated their actions. Because their purpose for causing Jesus to suffer originated in motives that were evil, their actions must be seen by others as having been evil, irregardless of the actual outcome.
Upvote
0
wayseer
Well-Known Member
- Jun 10, 2008
- 8,226
- 505
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
Secular morality write large.
The rock thrower was attempting to hit a snake that was about to bite a child.
The robber had no money and was looking for food.
Your one size fits all theology is devoid of God's mercy.
Upvote
0
wayseer
Well-Known Member
- Jun 10, 2008
- 8,226
- 505
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
Evil is not about 'bad things'
Evil, in many instances more often displays the face of 'I'm so good for you'.
Evil is that which stops others performing otherwise virtuous acts. At one extreme this might be the act of homicide. At the other, the simply act of laughing at a son or daughter's attempts at reading.
Evil is subversive. It attempts to undermined the inherent goodness that exists within humanity. It is narcissistic in that it thinks only of itself.
It is rightly symbolized as a snake for just as a snake will use stealth to remain undetected until the moment it strikes, evil too remains undetected until the awful reality of its presence strikes home with bitter reality.
Evil then is not necessarily equated with criminality. In fact the worst evil is that which is committed with the blessings of otherwise 'good' people more often hiding behind the mask of popularism.
The evil that killed Jesus was not the authorization of the death penalty imposed by Pilate but the silencing of someone who had done nothing other than promote 'goodness'.
Evil does not exposure.
Evil, in many instances more often displays the face of 'I'm so good for you'.
Evil is that which stops others performing otherwise virtuous acts. At one extreme this might be the act of homicide. At the other, the simply act of laughing at a son or daughter's attempts at reading.
Evil is subversive. It attempts to undermined the inherent goodness that exists within humanity. It is narcissistic in that it thinks only of itself.
It is rightly symbolized as a snake for just as a snake will use stealth to remain undetected until the moment it strikes, evil too remains undetected until the awful reality of its presence strikes home with bitter reality.
Evil then is not necessarily equated with criminality. In fact the worst evil is that which is committed with the blessings of otherwise 'good' people more often hiding behind the mask of popularism.
The evil that killed Jesus was not the authorization of the death penalty imposed by Pilate but the silencing of someone who had done nothing other than promote 'goodness'.
Evil does not exposure.
Upvote
0
bricklayer
Well-Known Member
- Dec 26, 2009
- 3,928
- 328
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Evil is not in-and-of-itself a thing.
Evil is a privation of good. (The absense of a good that should be present.)
This is not unlike cold, which is the absense of heat;
or darkness, which is the absense of light.
So you see, evil isn't so much the opposite of good
as it is the absense of it.
Evil is a privation of good. (The absense of a good that should be present.)
This is not unlike cold, which is the absense of heat;
or darkness, which is the absense of light.
So you see, evil isn't so much the opposite of good
as it is the absense of it.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
