Good & Evil

[repentandbelieve]

But being good to an extreme causes pride & intolerance of those that are not good.

It is not the act of doing good that is causing these wrong dispositions. The problem is within the human heart. The carnal heart loves itself and hates God.

 

[Phred]

Good and evil are perceptions. How you perceive them determines what formula you may or may not feel is useful.

.
​

 

[elman]

Good and evil are perceptions. How you perceive them determines what formula you may or may not feel is useful.

.
​

It is objective and not subjective that the murder of innocent people including children is evil. It is objective and not subjective that the feeding of starving children is good.

 

[Zippythepinhead]

Are both always in conflict? Is there never a truce between good and evil?

Isn't it evil for a good person to be violent towards an evil person? How does good triumph over evil?

I would have to say that good and evil are always in conflict. Evil cannot be good or good evil. It is just like light and darkness cant exist in the same room. Take a dark room, turn on a light, darkness is gone. Turn off the light darkness returns.

Do good and evil coexist together? Yes. There are people doing good acts(such as helping the poor, being a friend) and evil acts( rape, murder, slander) simultaneously. But ultimately there is a struggle for supremacy of one force over another.

 

[morningstar2651]

To me, good and evil are not words that should be used to describe people or groups of people.

Hitler wasn't good, Hitler wasn't evil, but Hitler was a person.

Hitler didn't wake up one morning and say to himself "I want to be Evil today". Most people that we consider Evil do not see themselves as Evil. It is because we have labelled Hitler as "evil" that we focus entirely on his darker actions and intentions rather than the fact that he rebuilt Germany after WW1.

Good and Evil are ways of describing actions and intentions.

Genocide is evil. Intentionally causing harm is evil. Stealing is evil. Interfering with freewill is evil.

When good and evil are used to describe people, rather than their actions, it becomes a form of insult/praise. There aren't good people. There aren't evil people. There are good and evil actions and intentions.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

To me, good and evil are not words that should be used to describe people or groups of people.

Hitler wasn't good, Hitler wasn't evil, but Hitler was a person.

Hitler didn't wake up one morning and say to himself "I want to be Evil today". Most people that we consider Evil do not see themselves as Evil. It is because we have labelled Hitler as "evil" that we focus entirely on his darker actions and intentions rather than the fact that he rebuilt Germany after WW1.

Good and Evil are ways of describing actions and intentions.

Genocide is evil. Intentionally causing harm is evil. Stealing is evil. Interfering with freewill is evil.

When good and evil are used to describe people, rather than their actions, it becomes a form of insult/praise. There aren't good people. There aren't evil people. There are good and evil actions and intentions.

Such a... Christian view and description.

 

[morningstar2651]

Such a... Christian view and description.

I wasn't aware that was the Christian perspective as well. That's neat.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I wasn't aware that was the Christian perspective as well. That's neat.

I'm sure that you have heard the old adage, "Hate the sin, love the sinner."

 

[morningstar2651]

I'm sure that you have heard the old adage, "Hate the sin, love the sinner."

Yes I have. At one point, I was so tired of hearing it said by hateful people that I created a thread called "Loving the sinner" to show people whether or not they truely felt that way.

I had heard it most in debates about homosexuality so I used that as an example. It's great to hear that some other people actually follow it. It's a good addage regardless of whether you believe in sin or not.

The questions are worded kinda funky, but you can easily get the gist of what I'm getting people to ask themselves.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Yes I have. At one point, I was so tired of hearing it said by hateful people that I created a thread called "Loving the sinner" to show people whether or not they truely felt that way.

I had heard it most in debates about homosexuality so I used that as an example. It's great to hear that some other people actually follow it. It's a good addage regardless of whether you believe in sin or not.

The questions are worded kinda funky, but you can easily get the gist of what I'm getting people to ask themselves.

I think you have to realize that our American English isn't as well suited for what is meant. Examples would be the word love; which could be Philo love, Agape love, Eros love. Also digging out my Spanish knowledge... the 'to be' verb as in "I am happy" is known to be a conditional or temporary state as opposed to our over generalized "I am" usually taken to mean something more permanent - such as "I am stupid" in America tends to be understood to mean it is a permanent state rather than a conditional one that COULD change in the future.
Anyhow - usually when someone says someone is evil, I usually see it as they are speaking as in the conditional/temporary and not in the permanent sense or that they simply don't articulate themself as well as they should and phrase things more properly. The alternative would be that they are ignorant of such things... which I like to refrain from jumping to that conclusion for exactly the same reasoning as your 'evil/good' topic.
... but then again, I have made mistakes in phrasing and actions too.

 

[morningstar2651]

I buy into Howard Becker's labelling theory (AKA social reaction theory). Stereotypes are unreliable generalized labels placed on a group. In some situations, we respond to stereotypes and act on them, causing the false definitions to become accurate -- a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Example: A Class Divided -- Book, Watch Video Online)

In the "Loving the sinner" thread, I created a variation of the Bogardus Social Distance Scale to allow people to see whether sexual orientation had any effect on choice of friends etc. -- to show them how far they try to remove themselves from the person labeled sinner while claiming to love them.

According to the bible -- everybody sins.
If everybody sins, then why do we only label certain people as sinners?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I buy into Howard Becker's labelling theory (AKA social reaction theory). Stereotypes are unreliable generalized labels placed on a group. In some situations, we respond to stereotypes and act on them, causing the false definitions to become accurate -- a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Example: A Class Divided -- Book, Watch Video Online)

I would be careful in taking a partial truth that is sometimes true to mean that it is a constant truth that transcends. The book of Proverbs is good wisdom, but it is not given as a truth that transcends all conditions etc.

In the "Loving the sinner" thread, I created a variation of the Bogardus Social Distance Scale to allow people to see whether sexual orientation had any effect on choice of friends etc. -- to show them how far they try to remove themselves from the person labeled sinner while claiming to love them.

I think you are confusing distancing one's self from sinful activity with some sort of prejudice towards the person. Although we are in the world and are to reach out to unbelievers and love some that are normally unlovable - that doesn't mandate that all should be in a crack-house 24/7 etc.... although there are some that have reached a maturity that they can do so unaffected. (i.e. Mother Teresa) It is also not reflective that a spiritual maturity is somehow at 100% and automatic at acceptance... there is growth that occurs and is needed there (generally speaking).

According to the bible -- everybody sins.
If everybody sins, then why do we only label certain people as sinners?

Yes, we live in a fallen world, all have sinned, etc.
What makes the difference are those that have received the gift of Salvation and STRIVE to sin no more.
IOW - one group sins and justifies or doesn't care, the other makes a sincere effort not to, does not justify and is only saved by Grace and Redemption given.

To put it plainly - I am a saint that has sinned and desires not to sin out of love for my God. Someone is free to call me a sinner all day long - it matters not to me.

 

[morningstar2651]

I would be careful in taking a partial truth that is sometimes true to mean that it is a constant truth that transcends.

Jane Elliot has consistently reproduced her experiment's results with various age groups. That having been said, I don't take one source as having the absolute and universal truth.

I think you are confusing distancing one's self from sinful activity with some sort of prejudice towards the person.

But people do have this prejudice -- I hope you don't.

The general idea of the thread is "If your best friend one day told you `I'm gay`...would you still be best friends, or would you avoid them? If everyone sins, including you, then what makes your friend not worth keeping?" and was inspired when I heard that a person on this board disowned their best friend upon discovering their sexual orientation.

What makes the difference are those that have received the gift of Salvation and STRIVE to sin no more.

This is true of other religions as well -- when someone feels that what they do is wrong, they strive to stop doing it. When someone feels that what they do is right, they continue to do it.

Someone is free to call me a sinner all day long - it matters not to me.

But they do not call you a sinner, ChristianCenturion...do they?

 

[Dogzilla]

Are both always in conflict? Is there never a truce between good and evil?

Good and evil are opposites that exist in harmony. They need eachother. Good could not destroy evil without destroying itself.

 

[elman]

Good and evil are opposites that exist in harmony. They need eachother. Good could not destroy evil without destroying itself.

Why would that be true? And even if it were true, why would evil distroy itself by distorying good?

 

[morningstar2651]

It is frequently said that good is the opposite of evil and vice versa -- this creates a circular definition. Each being defined by the other -- if one vanishes they both cease to exist.

 

[morningstar2651]

I'll explain this with another duality.

Pro-life opposes pro-choice and vice versa.

If there is no pro-life, then there is no opposition -- thus no pro-choice.

 

[Dogzilla]

Why would that be true? And even if it were true, why would evil distroy itself by distorying good?

As morningstar2651 has pointed out, destroying evil would define good right out of existence. But that wouldn't happen. If all evil (as we currently define it) were destroyed, other people or things would be defined as evil in their stead.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

It is frequently said that good is the opposite of evil and vice versa -- this creates a circular definition. Each being defined by the other -- if one vanishes they both cease to exist.

I believe you are avoiding known examples and existance of evil in past or other means of comparison. I disagree with your assertion if we can establish an existance of one regardless of present conditions.

 

[morningstar2651]

Things that were believed to be good in the past are now evil. (ie - Slavery)
Things that were believed to be evil in the past are now good. (ie - Bathing)

When all evil is destroyed -- the lesser good becomes the new evil.
When all good is destroyed -- the lesser evil becomes the new good.