Good vs Evil

[Shane Roach]

While confessing that I believe good and evil to be subjective judgement calls, it is apparent to me at least that most people agree on 90% or even more on what is good and what is evil. Indeed, many of the most strentuous objections I have heard regarding Christianity are ones based on some Biblical example of God doing something that the individual can not wrap their mind around except to say that God did something evil.

In a world like the one we have today, whwat then is the proper course to set in order to get the maximum number of people doing what we all seem to consider "good"?

Also, if anyone has a moral code that they think is based on something other than what is commonly understood to be "good", I would enjoy hearing about it.

To me, good is epitomized by the idea of something that is both pleasureable and causes no harm to others. The devilish detail here is what one considers "harm to others" I think....

One of the things that has maintained my faith through the years, is despite many cries to the contrary, the only religion (or lack thereof) that consistently supports this common good has been Christianity, in my observation. Now I admit disorganized and decentralized religions or single atheists or agnostics don't do a lot of HARM< but then too they don't do much good either. But all the other organized religions and philosophies seem to have intrinsic to their teachings something that leads in one fairly direct step to evil. Examples include the neeed to do away with religion and the violent overthrow of the elite by the proloteriat spoken of in communism and the idea that people outside the faith of Islam should be killed if they refuse to live under Islamic rule for Islam. Buddhism, as best as I have ever had it explained to me, leads directly to evil by blurring the line between good and evil and insiuating that "ballance" means a certain amount of evil as well as good.

THis has been a pretty disorganized post, but anyhow I hope it sparks some replies at least.

 

[Volos]

One of the things that has maintained my faith through the years, is despite many cries to the contrary, the only religion (or lack thereof) that consistently supports this common good has been Christianity, in my observation. Now I admit disorganized and decentralized religions or single atheists or agnostics don't do a lot of HARM< but then too they don't do much good either. But all the other organized religions and philosophies seem to have intrinsic to their teachings something that leads in one fairly direct step to evil. Examples include the neeed to do away with religion and the violent overthrow of the elite by the proloteriat spoken of in communism and the idea that people outside the faith of Islam should be killed if they refuse to live under Islamic rule for Islam. Buddhism, as best as I have ever had it explained to me, leads directly to evil by blurring the line between good and evil and insiuating that "ballance" means a certain amount of evil as well as good.

Have you looked at the ethical teachings of Neo-Paganism?

I can’t say if you will find them evil or not. I think that would depend on your definition of evil.

 

[Shane Roach]

Neo-pagans, at least as much as I understand them, tend to fall into that general category of folk that don't tend to organize and therefore seem neither harmful nor beneficial that I mentioned elsewhere in that last post. True pagan views as they were practiced when they were indeed influential enough to carry wright in public matters were full of the most horrific sorts of evil, in my oppinion, and I am afraid that if such beliefs were to wax poweful again that their rather harmless expressions would evolve along much the same lines that they did in previous ages.

Paganism's 'gods' are just anthropomorphised powers, and as such do not represent morality at all. Rather, society wove morality into the stories in accordance with whatever values were held at the time. This appeal-to-the-masses sort of theology seems to hold the same danger in religion as it often does in politics in that it lacks stability.

 

[David Gould]

I agree that Christianity in general promotes the most good out of all the religions and viewpoints around at the moment.

But is that because it is morally superior or because it is the dominant religion in the richest countries in the world at this point in history?

In my opinion, there seems to be a correlation between a societies wealth and its moral charachter, at least in modern times. The wealthiest countries in the world are democracies, and while democracy is argued as the way to wealth it might be at least partly the other way round - countries might only become democratic and grant rights to their citizens if they are wealthy enough to do so. Or maybe democracy only succeeds in countries wealthy enough to support it.

The rise of the middle class pushes democratic ideas. And these ideas include, among others, the basic equality of people. And this leads to the doing of good for others.


Anyway, in a rambling way I was trying to point out the correlation between Christianity and the doing of good is not necessarily a complete causal one. As a further point, there have been Christian nations and institutions that have not done good, either being neutral in a similar way to disorganised groups mentioned above or being actively harmful.

This is why I think that it is wealth and freedom that leads to a higher level of doing good, rather than any specific system of religious belief.

 

[Shane Roach]

One wonders where you think wealth and freedom come from? I think you have it backwards. wealth especially is achieved through physical exploits that work best in an organized and fair atmosphere which is fostered by the values expressed in Christianity. Christianity may have had its ups and downs, but it is the oen religion that doesn't seem to have any built in roadblock to peace and tolerance. One of the things I have heard folk complain about regarding Christianity is its tendency to urge people towards conformity, which I can only respond that I never really understood what was so great about non-conformity.

I mean conformity can get extreme, but so can libertinsism.

 

[David Gould]

One wonders where you think wealth and freedom come from? I think you have it backwards. wealth especially is achieved through physical exploits that work best in an organized and fair atmosphere which is fostered by the values expressed in Christianity. Christianity may have had its ups and downs, but it is the oen religion that doesn't seem to have any built in roadblock to peace and tolerance. One of the things I have heard folk complain about regarding Christianity is its tendency to urge people towards conformity, which I can only respond that I never really understood what was so great about non-conformity.

I mean conformity can get extreme, but so can libertinsism.

I think that wealth comes before freedom.

The barons in england who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta to give them more freedom were only able to do so because they were wealthy and could thus hire large groups of soldiers to put pressure on the King.

The rise of the merchant class had them getting their wealth first and then using that wealth to pressure for increased freedom.

The revolution in France came about because the freedoms that the middle class demanded were not granted by the king - he sided with the nobles in an attempt to retain centralised power. The middle class rose up and brought the peasants with them.

The US revolution came about because people living in America had money and paid taxes yet did not have representation.


As to Christianity fostering wealth acquisition, much of European wealth came from the empires that they obtained due to their technological edge. This gave them slaves, resources and land.

The technological edge may have been fostered by Christianity but I doubt it. The Muslims had the technological edge over Christianity for a few hundred years. They lost it due to social paralysation.


As to conformity, it depends exactly what you mean by conformity and in what context. Conformity in morality may be a good thing. Conformity in art, science, literature, industry and so on is more likely to be a bad thing.

 

[Arikay]

Ah yes the famous, Christianity contains the most morals arguments.

Tell me, where do morals come from? Do they come only from a religion?

How do christians support the ultimate good? I have seen many do harm against others, in multiple ways. How is this better than other people?

Atheists dont do much good? What atheists are you talking about?

So far I dont see anything very compelling in your arguments. You suggest that all other religions lead to evil, but never show that. You talk about other people, but not the religions.

Do you see the bad deeds (and words said) christians have commited in the past a smear on christianity or does it not reflect the morals of christianity, only of those people?

Suggesting that one religion is Morally better than other requires a lot of subjective evidence, that doesnt really lead to any conclusion. IMHO to even suggest moral superiority, is to dig and fall into some moral Pitfalls of your own.

While confessing that I believe good and evil to be subjective judgement calls, it is apparent to me at least that most people agree on 90% or even more on what is good and what is evil. Indeed, many of the most strentuous objections I have heard regarding Christianity are ones based on some Biblical example of God doing something that the individual can not wrap their mind around except to say that God did something evil.

In a world like the one we have today, whwat then is the proper course to set in order to get the maximum number of people doing what we all seem to consider "good"?

Also, if anyone has a moral code that they think is based on something other than what is commonly understood to be "good", I would enjoy hearing about it.

To me, good is epitomized by the idea of something that is both pleasureable and causes no harm to others. The devilish detail here is what one considers "harm to others" I think....

One of the things that has maintained my faith through the years, is despite many cries to the contrary, the only religion (or lack thereof) that consistently supports this common good has been Christianity, in my observation. Now I admit disorganized and decentralized religions or single atheists or agnostics don't do a lot of HARM< but then too they don't do much good either. But all the other organized religions and philosophies seem to have intrinsic to their teachings something that leads in one fairly direct step to evil. Examples include the neeed to do away with religion and the violent overthrow of the elite by the proloteriat spoken of in communism and the idea that people outside the faith of Islam should be killed if they refuse to live under Islamic rule for Islam. Buddhism, as best as I have ever had it explained to me, leads directly to evil by blurring the line between good and evil and insiuating that "ballance" means a certain amount of evil as well as good.

THis has been a pretty disorganized post, but anyhow I hope it sparks some replies at least.

 

[foolsparade]

The Zoroastorians 1000 b.c.e believed that murder were crimes, and that "good" entrails preserving life, that is following a useful occupation and raising a family. Confucius said "Don't do to others what you would not have them do to you." 500 years before Jesus. Shane it is your religion that has giving the world the concept of hell. How moral is that? You believe I will be tortured for eternity simply because of the way I chose to think, how moral is that? I could spend my entire life helping starving kids, I could even be the one that would save your family from a burning car crash, yet you and your religion would have me banished anyway. Your god would turn someone like me away. How moral is that?