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.
Quite the opposite, actually.
Saying that evil is anything that goes against God doesn't really define evil at all. How do you get to determine what exactly evil is by such measure? It's infinitely vague.
It makes the task much more simple. We only need to know God. Then we know evil.
Otherwise, you need to know TWO. And neither of them is easy to know.
Agape is good.how would you go about defining these terms?
The whole point is that "Knowing God" is not a concrete action like "Opening the door" or "Reading a book". First of all, God is not "known". God is believed.
Secondly, good and evil concepts are predicated on the issue of "situational proper". For example, cutting someone open may be good or evil depending on a situation. Thus, context plays a role. "Knowing God" doesn't really help to clear out these situations. Only understanding the consequences can.
But interpretations as to the nature of YHWH vary significantly from person to person, so how would this be any less chaotic a measure, being that it is equally inconsistent?Knowing God and believe in God is mutually enhancive. They can not be separated.
Using a situation to determine the nature of good/evil is the worst thing one can do. It would render the decisions into a totally inconsistent chaos.
But interpretations as to the nature of YHWH vary significantly from person to person, so how would this be any less chaotic a measure, being that it is equally inconsistent?
-_- yes, I get that the words stay the same, but the point is that people interpret them differently. You will interpret scripture differently than the person you sit next to in church. It's a consequence of us having individual thoughts and variable personalities and other traits.No variation. Everything is recorded in the Scripture in black ink on white paper.
If you are not sure on any nature of YHWH, I can point out those words to you.
Jumping from a different thread on a different Christian forum, there tends to be a halt in discussion when I ask for a clear definition of good and evil that avoids one of the following:
1) Explaining good as synonymous with "everything God says and does", and evil everything Satan says and does. It doesn't really advance the discussion in a pragmatic meaning of good and evil in our scope of existence.
2) Explaining good and evil in terms of synonyms that don't really explain these, like good is everything "right" or "righteousness". Evil is everything bad, or detrimental, etc.
3) Explaining good and evil by appealing to opposite, like "good is everything that's not bad"
So, in general, there's a semantic problem with these terms, especially when it comes to religious appeal to meaning. I find that Christians and Muslims don't do really well with breaking down the precise meaning of concepts and words, and what these mean in our reality.
I would argue that good and evil are merely a judgement of any given entity or action based on the generalized outcome, thus these are stereotypical judgements that we as humans make to form some form of provisional morality. But it's very difficult to pin down the precise meaning of these words apart from a subjective appeal to one's judgement and preference, or some sort of collective judgements and preferences that form stereotypical understanding and associations of these terms.
If you are play by the above rules, how would you go about defining these terms?
-_- yes, I get that the words stay the same, but the point is that people interpret them differently. You will interpret scripture differently than the person you sit next to in church. It's a consequence of us having individual thoughts and variable personalities and other traits.
Good or evil can not be defined without having God.
You tell me one thing which is either good or evil without referencing to God, then I can reverse your classification.
We only need to know God. Then we know evil.
Otherwise, you need to know TWO. And neither of them is easy to know.
-_- yes, I get that the words stay the same, but the point is that people interpret them differently. You will interpret scripture differently than the person you sit next to in church. It's a consequence of us having individual thoughts and variable personalities and other traits.
Good is whatever action that leads to an increase of maximised well-being for all sentient creatures.
Evil is whatever action that leads to an increase of maximised suffering for all sentient creatures.
They are actually rather easy to know once you understand that well-being is good and suffering is bad.
I guess you can easily give examples that go against what you said.
(if you can not, please let me know and I would be happy to show you.)
No, I'm pretty confident that well-being is associated with "good" and suffering is associated with "bad".
You disagree with that?
Of course I do. The reason is obvious and is everywhere.
Do you also care to explain, or will you leave it at this one-liner rejection?
The examples are EVERYWHERE.
Take a quick one: win a lottery is not necessary good.
Take another one: married to a rich girl is not necessary good.
Want more?
More?
You didn't give a single one.
Your "examples" are not actions/decisions with moral/ethical implications.
Like eating cornflakes instead of a sandwich or taking a dump.
Quite silly.
You want examples and I gave examples.
And you called me silly.
You can figure out the rest.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?