# Evil and purpose.



## stringmusic (Feb 24, 2011)

Every definition of evil assumes a purpose for the particular person or group of persons' the evil is being carried out towards. 

Ex. Jim murders Harry for not sharing his candy bar. If Harry is time+matter+chance and has no purpose, how could Jims murder be evil? Harrys life had no ultimate purpose. A little more of an explanation is, evil is the way things ought not to be, if Harrys life has no ought, Harry just happens to be here, then when a person says "Jims murder is evil" that person is assuming that ought. If you think your life has no ultimate purpose, how can you assume what ought or ought not to happen?

Another question would be, what do you think your purpose for being here is? That is, if you have an opinion of good and evil.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 24, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Every definition of evil assumes a purpose for the particular person or group of persons' the evil is being carried out towards.
> 
> Ex. Jim murders Harry for not sharing his candy bar. If Harry is time+matter+chance and has no purpose, how could Jims murder be evil? Harrys life had no ultimate purpose. A little more of an explanation is, evil is the way things ought not to be, if Harrys life has no ought, Harry just happens to be here, then when a person says "Jims murder is evil" that person is assuming that ought. If you think your life has no ultimate purpose, how can you assume what ought or ought not to happen?
> 
> Another question would be, what do you think your purpose for being here is? That is, if you have an opinion of good and evil.



Good and Evil are constructs.

"Why am I here?"  Why should I care?  I am here.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 24, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Good and Evil are constructs.


Good and evil still assume a purpose



> "Why am I here?"  Why should I care?  I am here.


to help distinguish between good and evil.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 24, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Good and evil still assume a purpose
> 
> 
> to help distinguish between good and evil.



Are you talking about Good and Evil as if they were sentient, living entities?


----------



## SneekEE (Feb 24, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Every definition of evil assumes a purpose for the particular person or group of persons' the evil is being carried out towards.
> 
> Ex. Jim murders Harry for not sharing his candy bar. If Harry is time+matter+chance and has no purpose, how could Jims murder be evil? Harrys life had no ultimate purpose. A little more of an explanation is, evil is the way things ought not to be, if Harrys life has no ought, Harry just happens to be here, then when a person says "Jims murder is evil" that person is assuming that ought. If you think your life has no ultimate purpose, how can you assume what ought or ought not to happen?
> 
> Another question would be, what do you think your purpose for being here is? That is, if you have an opinion of good and evil.



I hate math, even worst, I hate math question that use words insted of numbers... ex.

time+matter+chance and has no purpose????????????

So the odds of me even beeing on topic are slim, but I couldnt help but think of Jacob beeing thrown into the well by his brothers then sold into slavery. In my opinion, this may not be evil, but it aint a good position to find yersef in. Yet when Jacob confronts his brothers about it, he says they ment it for evil, but God meant it for good. So, eye rekin it is about perspective. If you believe in God, I would think you have to believe He is in control, and when evil does occur, He has a way of turning it into good. Sort of like using a crooked stick to draw a straight line.

If you dont believe in God, then in order for somthing to be evil or good depends on you and how you view the situation, is it happening to you, is it positive or negitive, ect ect.. For those who believe in God  believe He and all His attributes are the definition of good, and anything contrary to Him or His word would be evil.In the one case, you are god, and you answer to you,you define what is or is not good. In the other case you are Gods servant and answer to Him, and He defines what is and is not good.

To answer the last part, eye think my purpose for beeing here is to glorify God.


----------



## JFS (Feb 24, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Every definition of evil assumes a purpose for the particular person or group of persons' the evil is being carried out towards.



I want to discuss but can't make it past the first line. Sorry, at 33,000 feet so have to keep short but could you clarify that? Maybe you should define "purpose" as I am having a hard time following your connection. Why does the purpose of the victim have to do with the crime? if Jim tortures a chicken, by what measure do I determine the chicken's purpose to then determine if the act of torture is wrong?

Also, assuming you can identify a purpose, how does that inform your decisions? If you assign Harry a purpose, what does that resolve? If Jim kills Harry for a candy bar, in self defense, to protect another, as an honor killing, for money, in combat, etc, all those have different connotations, none of which are resolved by the purpose assigned to Harry.

So are you just using purpose to say value, as in no harm (because no value lost), no foul?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 24, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Are you talking about Good and Evil as if they were sentient, living entities?



No.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 24, 2011)

JFS said:


> I want to discuss but can't make it past the first line. Sorry, at 33,000 feet so have to keep short but could you clarify that?



What you or anyone else is supposed to be doing on this earth is purpose.



> Why does the purpose of the victim have to do with the crime?


If the victim has no purpose, the murder of him was not evil.




> if Jim tortures a chicken, by what measure do I determine the chicken's purpose to then determine if the act of torture is wrong?



A chicken does not have human dignity or sacredness, don't you agree?



> Also, assuming you can identify a purpose, how does that inform your decisions?


It informs my decisions by helping me define what the ought is in the situation between Harry and Jim. Jim ought not to have murdered Harry because Harry has a purpose.



> If you assign Harry a purpose, what does that resolve?


The purpose that Harry has lets me know that he shouldnt have been killed.





> If Jim kills Harry for a candy bar, in self defense, to protect another, as an honor killing, for money, in combat, etc, all those have different connotations, none of which are resolved by the purpose assigned to Harry.


Jim killed Harry for the sole reason that Harry would not share his candy bar.



> So are you just using purpose to say value, as in no harm (because no value lost), no foul?


Correct, you cannot call the murder evil because Harry had no purpose, so his murder meant nothing to anything.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 24, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> What you or anyone else is supposed to be doing on this earth is purpose.
> 
> 
> If the victim has no purpose, the murder of him was not evil.
> ...



I dont understand. Since Harry is human, it gives no one the right to murder him whether he has purpose or not. He still killed another human being, and for something as small as a candy bar. Therfore, it cant be constituted as evil because Harry had no purpose? why would that be considered ok?


----------



## JFS (Feb 25, 2011)

Sorry, still don't get it.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 25, 2011)

"EVIL" or what is morally wrong or bad or wicked is defined by the current civilization and that definition changes over time and from place to place.  Human sacrifice is one example of an act that some civilizations did not consider morally wrong.  Another example would be the Temple Prostitutes, both male and female, which were memtioned in the Old Testamant.  Since the definition of "EVIL" is not consistent then it is not possible to clearly define the opposite of "EVIL" based solely on the definition of "EVIL".


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Feb 25, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> If the victim has no purpose, the murder of him was not evil.


----------



## Oak-flat Hunter (Feb 25, 2011)

If You put Good and evil in it's basic construct.. You'll find through  out. That different cultures uses Good and evil. Through different  meanings. But if You want too apply moral application's too good and evil.. You don't have too apply religion.. You can have moral's with out religion.. Some times things happen without a purpose..


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 25, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


>



 care to explain why it _was_ evil?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 25, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> Since Harry is human, it *gives no one the right to murder him* whether he has purpose or not.



Why? Who gets to decide this?





> He still killed another human being, and for something as small as a candy bar. Therfore, it cant be constituted as evil because Harry had no purpose?


correct, it cannot be constituted as evil IF Harry has no purpose.




> why would that be considered ok?



If Harry has no purpose, why would it not be ok? If Harry has no ultimate purpose for being here what does it matter that he is murdered, he's just gone, poof, who cares.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 25, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> "EVIL" or what is morally wrong or bad or wicked is defined by the current civilization and that definition changes over time and from place to place.  Human sacrifice is one example of an act that some civilizations did not consider morally wrong.  Another example would be the Temple Prostitutes, both male and female, which were memtioned in the Old Testamant.  *Since the definition of "EVIL" is not consistent then it is not possible to clearly define the opposite of "EVIL"* based solely on the definition of "EVIL".



I disagree, just because people accept evil, does not mean evil doesnt exist anymore.

Here is a definition of evil.... the opposite of the way things should be.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 25, 2011)

laskerknight said:


> If You put Good and evil in it's basic construct.. You'll find through  out. That different cultures uses Good and evil. Through different  meanings. But if You want too apply moral application's too good and evil.. You don't have too apply religion.. *You can have moral's with out religion*.. Some times things happen without a purpose..


I agree


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 25, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I disagree, just because people accept evil, does not mean evil doesnt exist anymore.
> 
> Here is a definition of evil.... the opposite of the way things should be.



Do you believe that there "should be" Temple Prostitutes?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 25, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Do you believe that there "should be" Temple Prostitutes?


No.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 25, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> No.



Based upon your definition, then do you believe that it was "EVIL" for the early chuches to have Temple Prostitutes?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 25, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Based upon your definition, then do you believe that it was "EVIL" for the early chuches to have Temple Prostitutes?



Yes, it deviates from the sacredness of marriage


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 25, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, it deviates from the sacredness of marriage



Moses gave one law regarding Temple Prostitutes.  A Temple Prostitutes could not be an Iraelite man or woman.  To go one further, the laws that Moses gave were reportedly directly from God.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 25, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Moses gave one law regarding Temple Prostitutes.  A Temple Prostitutes could not be an Iraelite man or woman.  To go one further, the laws that Moses gave were reportedly directly from God.



I believe God chose to reveal Himself to the culture of the time, either way the law is obsolete because of Jesus.

We are getting a little off topic, I want to try an keep the thread on the course of evil and purpose, if thats good with everbody.


----------



## JFS (Feb 25, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Here is a definition of evil.... the opposite of the way things should be.



That's not much help.  I think objections to moral relavatism are losing hands, if for no other reason than your epistimology is fatally flawed.  But if you want to argue for an objective good and evil, you don't need god for that, Plato did just fine with out one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms

And don't ask me where Platonic forms came from, like somehow that's more insightful then the question where God came from.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 25, 2011)

JFS said:


> That's not much help.  I think objections to moral relavatism are losing hands, if for no other reason than your epistimology is fatally flawed.  But if you want to argue for an objective good and evil, you don't need god for that, Plato did just fine with out one.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms
> 
> And don't ask me where Platonic forms came from, like somehow that's more insightful then the question where God came from.



A chair has "chairness" because it resembles the "form" of a chair. If I sit on a table, it also has "chairness" through its resembalance to the "form" of a chair.

This is why humans are not in charge of defining good and evil or morality. There is an absolute truth we must all answer to. Call it what you will, but it exists.


----------



## JFS (Feb 25, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> This is why humans are not in charge of defining good and evil or morality.





Yep, need to leave that stuff up to the talking snakes and burning bushes.


----------



## vowell462 (Feb 25, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Why? Who gets to decide this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because Harry is another human being. If Harry lived under a bridge all of his life, did nothing, knew nothing about religion, had no purpose in life, its ok to kill him because he had no purpose? What would happen two days later when it was broadcasted that a homeless man that really had no purpose in life was murdered for no apparent reason? Should the killer be held responsible? Would you pray for him after his death even if he had no purpose? Im sorry, I dont comprehend what you are saying. Not being offensive, but your belief is just not making much sense to my little brain.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 25, 2011)

JFS said:


> Yep, need to leave that stuff up to the talking snakes and burning bushes.



Nice job quoting a portion of my statement out of context. I said nothing about talking snakes etc., you have assumed this.  So much for intelligent conversation.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 26, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> A chair has "chairness" because it resembles the "form" of a chair. If I sit on a table, it also has "chairness" through its resembalance to the "form" of a chair.
> 
> This is why humans are not in charge of defining good and evil or morality. There is an absolute truth we must all answer to. Call it what you will, but it exists.



As a matter of fact they are in charge.  Even with the same book, believers will argue and interpret.  Discernments will differ.  Ultimately, you and you alone will decide what is good and evil.


----------



## JFS (Feb 26, 2011)

Regardless of the existence of an absolute, us lowly humans have to figure it out, so whether it's relative or not, it's up to us to define it.  Unless you resort to revelation, in which case you are relying on [can't say since it apparently offends some people].


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 26, 2011)

JFS said:


> [can't say since it apparently offends some people].



The revelation of scriptural/biblical 'absolute' truth can be offensive, no doubt about it.  Even Christians must come face to face with what offends them, from the standpoint of not getting free of the things that ensnare us.  As we draw closer to the Lord and ask for help in His truth, His revelation of these things become more clear, even if our 1st gut reaction is to push truth away. 
Anyone saying they have it all together ("arrived") is lying... we all have more to go on this side of eternity.  God is the giver of life and truth in Christ, and we gain these in small steps at a time.

My answer, however 'simple' to the purpose of evil, is that it can either create hunger (FOR God) or bitterness (drawing AWAY from God), and the choice is up to the individual.  How we react to bitter circumstances is more important than those circumstances themselves.  If one wants to put the blame on God for them, then they are 'stuck' there.  If another chooses to 'accept the things he cannot change' but by faith releases such bitter events to the Providence of God, heart growth takes place.  

If I/we have hope in Christ for only those earthly blessings and loose sight of heaven's riches, misery is the result. See: *1 Corinthians 15:19*

Also consider the book "Hinds feet in High Places" by Hannah Hurnard. 
The book is an allegory, wherein the main  character, Much-Afraid, takes a journey up a rocky mountainside for  which she must develop “hinds’ feet” to reach the “high places.” She is  encouraged on her way by the Chief Shepherd, who comes to her aid  whenever she calls, and is accompanied by the companions he chose for  her, Sorrow and Suffering.

The theme of this book is crucifying your own will for that of your  Lord. Every acceptance of His will is an altar of sacrifice that helps  us to progress and mature in our walk with Him.

Peace.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 27, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> As a matter of fact they are in charge.  Even with the same book, believers will argue and interpret.  Discernments will differ.  Ultimately, you and you alone will decide what is good and evil.



And you may be wrong.


----------



## JFS (Feb 27, 2011)

StriperAddict said:


> How we react to bitter circumstances is more important than those circumstances themselves.
> 
> 
> The theme of this book is crucifying your own will for that of your  Lord.



For a Sunday morning stretch of ecumenism, I agree with you on these points, sans the theism.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 2, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> Because Harry is another human being. If Harry lived under a bridge all of his life, did nothing, knew nothing about religion, had no purpose in life, its ok to kill him because he had no purpose?


This is the question I am asking, if Harry has no purpose, why is it evil to kill him? The question has nothing to do with the amount of knowledge Harry has on religion.



> What would happen two days later when it was broadcasted that a homeless man that really had no purpose in life was murdered for no apparent reason?


If Harry has no ULTIMATE purpose, what is the reason not to kill him, why is it evil to kill him?





> Should the killer be held responsible?


It according to whether you think its evil or not.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 2, 2011)

JFS said:


> That's not much help.  I think objections to moral relavatism are losing hands, if for no other reason than your epistimology is fatally flawed.  *But if you want to argue for an objective good and evil,* you don't need god for that, Plato did just fine with out one.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms
> 
> And don't ask me where Platonic forms came from, like somehow that's more insightful then the question where God came from.



This is not my argument, it simply the question represented in the OP.

BTW, I quit playing with Plato when I was a kid.


----------



## JFS (Mar 2, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> If Harry has no ULTIMATE purpose, what is the reason not to kill him, why is it evil to kill him?



Most definitions of wrong incorporate some application of the  golden rule and social utility.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 2, 2011)

JFS said:


> Most definitions of wrong incorporate some application of the  *golden rule and social utility.*



Which both assume purpose, which assumes a creator.(topic for another discussion) So, in the atheistic framework, how does one come to define evil, if they do not first assume purpose?


----------



## JFS (Mar 2, 2011)

Not at all.  I can discern how I want others to treat me without divine intervention.  I can also posit a system to promote the stability and perpetuation of society without consulting a burning bush.

Maybe it would be best if you give us an example.  Can you give me your list of evil that doesn't involve the occurence of something that you would not want to happen to you or the diminishment of social order or continuity?  Maybe if we focus on those we can get to the bottom of this.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 3, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I disagree, just because people accept evil, does not mean evil doesnt exist anymore.
> 
> Here is a definition of evil.... the opposite of the way things should be.



I want to make sure I understand correctly that you believe that if a specific thing or action was ever considered evil by God, then it must always be considered evil.  Evil does not change through time, correct?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 4, 2011)

JFS said:


> Not at all.  *I can discern how I want others to treat me without divine intervention.*  I can also posit a system to promote the stability and perpetuation of society without consulting a burning bush.


What about a situation that does not concern you? Like Jim murdering Harry? How do you discern if that is evil or not? And please stop with all the burning bush, talking donkey stuff, your taking all of it out of context and you know it.





> Maybe it would be best if you give us an example.  Can you give me your list of evil that doesn't *involve the occurence of something that you would not want to happen to you or the diminishment of social order or continuity? * Maybe if we focus on those we can get to the bottom of this.


This is STILL giving purpose to life, I dont want someone to murder me because I have a different purpose in this life. Same with social order.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 4, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I want to make sure I understand correctly that you believe that if a specific thing or action was ever considered evil by God, then it must always be considered evil.  Evil does not change through time, correct?


Yes, SOME things have been evil from the beginning.


----------



## JFS (Mar 4, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> What about a situation that does not concern you?



Asked and answered already.  If you need definitions see here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 4, 2011)

JFS said:


> Asked and answered already.  If you need definitions see here:
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism


See post #37, both still assume purpose for life, it seems your having a hard time getting around the point that there is purpose in this life and we didnt  just show up one day after a "big bang"


----------



## JFS (Mar 4, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> This is STILL giving purpose to life, I dont want someone to murder me because I have a different purpose in this life.




No, it's giving value to the experience of life.  I don't know what the ultimate purpose of life is.  Neither does anyone else (note, no burning bush reference here), and everyone's subjective purpose is likely different.  But people fairly uniformly want to live and don't want to suffer.  We can reason the rest from there.


----------



## JFS (Mar 4, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> See post #37, both still assume purpose for life



I still think your "purpose" concept is unintelligible, so unless you can explain it better than simply making conclusory statements, this is a dead end.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 4, 2011)

JFS said:


> I still think your "purpose" concept is unintelligible, so unless you can explain it better than simply making conclusory statements, this is a dead end.


Lets try this, name a situation that you would deem evil.


----------



## JFS (Mar 4, 2011)

The Holocaust


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 4, 2011)

JFS said:


> The Holocaust



Ok, when you say that the Holocaust is evil, your assuming that the Jewish people should not have been murdered during that time, correct? To say that the Holocaust is evil, your stating that the opposite of the Holocaust is not evil, by saying this your assuming that the lives of the Jewish people lost during this time were worth something and had more of a purpose than to be shoved in a gas chamber. I am not trying to be a smart alack, but I dont know how to make it any more understandable. If you get time watch the video in the new thread that I posted, that is where I got this question, maybe Ravi can explain it better.


----------



## JFS (Mar 4, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> To say that the Holocaust is evil, your stating that the opposite of the Holocaust is not evil, by saying this your assuming that the lives of the Jewish people lost during this time were worth something and had more of a purpose



No, I'm saying that we have collectively agreed killing each other is wrong because we don't want someone killing us and we don't want our families to suffer, etc.   And it's the act of intentionally causing harm to others that makes it wrong, not the effect of violating someone's purpose.  That's what makes the sliding scale of "wrong" work based on the sitatuion and intent of the parties, not just the violation of a single alternative "purpose" of the victim.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 4, 2011)

JFS said:


> No, I'm saying that *we have collectively agreed killing each other is wrong because we don't want someone killing us and we don't want our families to suffer, etc.*   And it's the act of intentionally causing harm to others that makes it wrong, not the effect of violating someone's purpose.  That's what makes the sliding scale of "wrong" work based on the sitatuion and intent of the parties, not just the violation of a single alternative "purpose" of the victim.


*why?*



If I use an automatic weapon on a couch and destroy it, is that evil?


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 4, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, SOME things have been evil from the beginning.



SOME?

Are ALL things that once were considered by God to be evil, still evil?  

Is there anything that once was considered by God to be evil that God no longer considers evil?


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 4, 2011)

The Golden Rule and Social Unity



stringmusic said:


> Which both assume purpose, which assumes a creator.(topic for another discussion) So, in the atheistic framework, how does one come to define evil, if they do not first assume purpose?



Do pack animals determine their purpose before exercising the Golden Rule and Social Unity?


----------



## JFS (Mar 4, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> *why?*
> If I use an automatic weapon on a couch and destroy it, is that evil?



I wouldn't say evil, evil is something of a superlative.   It would be immoral if it wasn't your couch and you didn't have permission.   Depending on your ethics, it might be an inappropriate waste of resources.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 4, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> SOME?
> 
> Are ALL things that once were considered by God to be evil, still evil?
> 
> Is there anything that once was considered by God to be evil that God no longer considers evil?



I probably shouldnt have said some, I confused myself with what I thought you were truly asking, either way, I believe in objective evil. Child molestation is an example that has been evil from the beginning.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 4, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> The Golden Rule and Social Unity
> 
> 
> 
> Do pack animals determine their purpose before exercising the Golden Rule and Social Unity?


Do you think pack animals know what evil is?


IMO, pack animals do not have human sacredness,therefor are disqualified from this particular discussion.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 4, 2011)

JFS said:


> *I wouldn't say evil,* evil is something of a superlative.   It would be immoral if it wasn't your couch and you didn't have permission.   Depending on your ethics, it might be an inappropriate waste of resources.



I asked you to name a situation or event that you deemed evil, you posted the Holocaust. If the Holocaust is not evil, what is it? If it is not evil, give me another example of an event or situation that you apply evil to.


----------



## JFS (Mar 4, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I asked you to name a situation or event that you deemed evil, you posted the Holocaust. If the Holocaust is not evil, what is it? If it is not evil, give me another example of an event or situation that you apply evil to.



Shooting a couch and the Holocaust are not in the same league.  I said the Holocaust was evil, you asked if shooting a couch was evil.  My saying shooting a couch may be wrong but to me is not "evil" doesn't mean the Holocaust wasn't evil.  Many acts are wrong, but they have to rise to a certain level to be evil.


----------



## JFS (Mar 4, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I believe in objective evil.



How about rape?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 4, 2011)

JFS said:


> No, I'm saying that* we have collectively agreed killing each other is wrong because we don't want someone killing us and we don't want our families to suffer, etc. *  And it's the act of intentionally causing harm to others that makes it wrong, not the effect of violating someone's purpose.  That's what makes the sliding scale of "wrong" work based on the sitatuion and intent of the parties, not just the violation of a single alternative "purpose" of the victim.




Ok, scratch the couch idea (I'm giving everything I got on this) so, about the part in red, why have we done this?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 4, 2011)

JFS said:


> How about rape?


I believe rape is evil.


----------



## JFS (Mar 4, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Ok, scratch the couch idea (I'm giving everything I got on this) so, about the part in red, why have we done this?



We have an innate desire to live, a consciousness that has evolved to fear being extinguished, an aversion to suffering, an empathy for the same feelings of others, and a set of emotions that influence how we interact with the world.  And we develop a culture that reinforces the framework we've created to deal with those.

But our framework and culture can change- see below.




stringmusic said:


> I believe rape is evil.



Has it always been?


1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead  (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

    So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children.  "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin."  Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

    The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives.  But there were not enough women for all of them.  The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel.  So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead?  There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever.  But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

    Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem.  They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards.  When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife!  And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding.  Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'"  So the men of Benjamin did as they were told.  They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance.  Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them.  So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.


2) Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites    (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

    They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men.  All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle.  They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.  Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder.  They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.  After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho. 

    Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded.  "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.


3) More Murder Rape and Pillage   (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

     As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.


4) Laws of Rape   (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

    If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.


5) Death to the Rape Victim   (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

    If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.


6) David's Punishment - Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God's "Forgiveness" (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)

    Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house.  I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor.  He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.  You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
    Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord."  Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die.  But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."  [The child dies seven days later.]


7)  Rape of Female Captives   (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

    "When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house.  But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb.  After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife.  However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion." 


8)  Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30 NAB)

    They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.   (Judges 5:30 NAB)

9) Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

    When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.   (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

10) God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

    Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.   (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 6, 2011)

What is the purpose of a t rex? A dog? A fish?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 6, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> What is the purpose of a t rex? A dog? A fish?



They have a purpose, but no human sacredness(not created in Gods' image)

Do you have a purpose? Does anyone have a purpose?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 6, 2011)

JFS said:


> We have an *innate desire to live, a consciousness that has evolved to fear being extinguished, an aversion to suffering, an empathy for the same feelings of others, and a set of emotions that influence how we interact with the world.*  And we develop a culture that reinforces the framework we've created to deal with those.



All in which STILL assume purpose or a way things ought to be.







> Has it always been?



Dont want to get the thread off course.


1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead  (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

    So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children.  "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin."  Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

    The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives.  But there were not enough women for all of them.  The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel.  So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead?  There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever.  But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

    Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem.  They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards.  When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife!  And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding.  Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'"  So the men of Benjamin did as they were told.  They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance.  Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them.  So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.


2) Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites    (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

    They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men.  All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle.  They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.  Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder.  They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.  After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho. 

    Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded.  "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.


3) More Murder Rape and Pillage   (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

     As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.


4) Laws of Rape   (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

    If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.


5) Death to the Rape Victim   (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

    If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.


6) David's Punishment - Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God's "Forgiveness" (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)

    Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house.  I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor.  He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.  You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
    Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord."  Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die.  But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."  [The child dies seven days later.]


7)  Rape of Female Captives   (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

    "When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house.  But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb.  After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife.  However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion." 


8)  Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30 NAB)

    They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.   (Judges 5:30 NAB)

9) Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

    When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.   (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

10) God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

    Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.   (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)[/QUOTE]


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 6, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> They have a purpose, but no human sacredness(not created in Gods' image)
> 
> Do you have a purpose? Does anyone have a purpose?



If they have a purpose but it isn't evil to kill them then that must not be the source of evil as you are claiming.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 6, 2011)

What if Harry's purpose was to be killed by Jim.....if this assumes a creator, what can we conclude about the creator?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 6, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> *What if Harry's purpose was to be killed by Jim*.....if this assumes a creator, what can we conclude about the creator?



In the Christian framework, nobody's purpose is to be murdered.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 6, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If they have a purpose but it isn't evil to kill them then that must not be the source of evil as you are claiming.


An animal does not have the same purpose as a human. For example, a buzzards' purpose is to clean up remains of  dead animals. That certainly does not fit the bill for a human.


Want to take a stab at the other two questions?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 6, 2011)

Would you consider it an evil act to microwave a puppy?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 6, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Would you consider it an evil act to microwave a puppy?


No, a little sick, but not evil in the sense of microwaving a child.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 6, 2011)

I didn't ask if it would be as evil as microwaving a child.

How about beastiality? Is that evil? If so, why?


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 6, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> In the Christian framework, nobody's purpose is to be murdered.



Oh? The edifice of your worldview is founded on the very idea. Was it not the purpose of Jesus of Nazereth to be murdered?

You are evading a much more sinister question in you're needling of unbelievers usuage of the concept of evil. Given your Christian framework how do you account for the existence of evil? It's a little dishonest of you to boast your worldview as superior given its ability to utilize the concept of evil, while not really explaining to us why there is evil at all. Especially given the fact that your God is supposedly powerful enough to rid us of said evil, whatever it might be.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 6, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I didn't ask if it would be as evil as microwaving a child.
> 
> How about beastiality? Is that evil? If so, why?


I think so, it is the opposite of the way things should be, sleeping with a racoon is not the way human sexuality was designed. 

This thread isnt about what I think is evil, you gonna take a crack at the OP?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 6, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> Oh? The edifice of your worldview is founded on the very idea. Was it not the purpose of Jesus of Nazereth to be murdered?


I thought you might say this, it was not His sole purpose, it was a part of it. Jesus aloud Himself to be sacrificed not murdered.



> You are evading a much more sinister question in you're needling of unbelievers usuage of the concept of evil.


I simply asked a question, not trying to "needle"



> Given your Christian framework how do you account for the existence of evil?


The redefinition (by humans) of what should and should not happen.





> Especially given the fact that your God is supposedly powerful enough to rid us of said evil, whatever it might be.


Free will.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 6, 2011)

You started out with the suggestion that murder would only be evil if the victims life had purpose. If that is truly a requirement for your concept of evil then start applying it consistently. If an animal has purpose and you violate or interfere with that purpose then by your principles you're engaging in evil. Or... they have no purpose and nothing you do with them could be classed as evil. Just be consistent and see if you really agree with all of the implications of what you are suggesting.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 6, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I thought you might say this, it was not His sole purpose, it was a part of it. Jesus aloud Himself to be sacrificed not murdered.



This is a little slippery don't you think. I can see how from your perspective he was sacrificed. To me he was clearly murdered.




> I simply asked a question, not trying to "needle"



I see...you learned a new apologetic magic trick and wnated some unsuspecting atheist to walk into your trap. I can assure you that you are in for a battle with me. I happen to see all existence as absurd and void of objective value, even microwaving children. That isnt to say it is unpleasent, on the contrary. Im just asserting that microwaving a child is no different, logically, than popping popcorn. As an aside, I have a child.




> The redefinition (by humans) of what should and should not happen.



What? How does that account for the existence of evil? In my worldview there is no such thing as good and evil, right or wrong, do's and dont's, etc...

Evil is something which _you_ claim exist. I make no such claims. In my worldview thngs just happen. There is no necessary purpose or reason behind any of it.


You claim free will is the solution? Strange. If God knows all things in advance, as the Bible suggest, then he certainly could have made a universe where evil is absent. To say God gives free will is almost satanic. Your are suggesting that man's will can override whatever purpose God has for any given situation or person. If this istrue than God is not all powerful.


----------



## JFS (Mar 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> take a crack at the OP?




The OP is pretty much cracked at this point.  We have A = not B, but not a lick of discussion from you how we determine B.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 7, 2011)

> I see...you learned a new apologetic magic trick and wnated some unsuspecting atheist to walk into your trap.


If asking a question is a "new apologetic magic trick" , then yes, you got me, that is what I have learned.




> I can assure you that you are in for a battle with me. I happen to see all existence as absurd and void of objective value, even microwaving children. That isnt to say it is unpleasent, on the contrary. Im just* asserting that microwaving a child is no different*, logically, than popping popcorn. As an aside, I have a child.


Microwaving popcorn and a child are no different? Would you be upset with someone if they microwave your child?


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Do you think pack animals know what evil is?
> 
> 
> IMO, pack animals do not have human sacredness,therefor are disqualified from this particular discussion.



Someone earlier mentioned the Golden Rule and Social Unity.  My point was that pack animals have developed social skills incorporating the Golden Rule and Social Unity.  

To answer your question, "NO", I do not believe that pack animals know what evil is, as the word evil relates to God.  

So my question to you is this:
If all morality and ethics come from God who is the founder of the Golden Rule, then how did pack animals develop the Golden Rule.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Someone earlier mentioned the Golden Rule and Social Unity.  My point was that pack animals have developed social skills incorporating the Golden Rule and Social Unity.
> 
> To answer your question, "NO", I do not believe that pack animals know what evil is, as the word evil relates to God.
> 
> ...



Actually the Golden Rule predates Jesus and his teachings....it was "probably" formulated first by Confucius.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

strin
gmusic;5842395 said:
			
		

> Microwaving popcorn and a child are no different? Would you be upset with someone if they microwave your child?




Yes. I value the life of my child, I admit. That said, it is an artificial value. It has an evolutionary function, however, it is arbitrary and irrational.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 7, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> Actually the Golden Rule predates Jesus and his teachings....it was "probably" formulated first by Confucius.



Confucius does not predate God.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 7, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> Yes. I value the life of my child, I admit. That said, it is an* artificial value*. It has an evolutionary function, however, it is arbitrary and irrational.



So your value that you assert on your childs life is fake?

Here is a quote....

"But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything"
G.K. Chesterton


----------



## gtparts (Mar 7, 2011)

I think what he is saying is that any effort to preserve the life of the child would be predicated on the idea that one might receive some measurable benefit from doing so. Otherwise, they are disposable.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Confucius does not predate God.




I said he predates Jesus' teaching. In other words you cannot claim th Golden Rule as solely a christian maxim.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> So your value that you assert on your childs life is fake?




I suppose. What else could it be? Some parents kill their children. Some parents create a mess of things only to have their children pay for their (the parents)blunder. This reminds me of the Christian God. He creates, things get all out of whack, then sends his only son to die for his own blunder. Strange. If someone in our society did that we would shun them and cast them out. Christians celebrate this every Sunday.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

gtparts said:


> I think what he is saying is that any effort to preserve the life of the child would be predicated on the idea that one might receive some measurable benefit from doing so. Otherwise, they are disposable.




In a nutshell....


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> So your value that you assert on your childs life is fake?




I'd like to see your reponse to the latter portion of my post #76.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 7, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> I suppose. What else could it be? Some parents kill their children. Some parents create a mess of things only to have their children pay for their (the parents)blunder. This reminds me of the Christian God. He creates, things get all out of whack, then sends his only son to die for* his own blunder*. Strange. If someone in our society did that we would shun them and cast them out. Christians celebrate this every Sunday.



..._ our_ blunder.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 7, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> What? How does that account for the existence of evil? In my worldview there is no such thing as good and evil, right or wrong, do's and dont's, etc...
> 
> Evil is something which _you_ claim exist. I make no such claims. In my worldview* thngs just happen.* There is no necessary purpose or reason behind any of it.



http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=596541
Is this about how you see it?




> You claim free will is the solution? Strange. If God knows all things in advance, as the Bible suggest, *then he certainly could have made a universe where evil is absent. *To say God gives free will is almost satanic. Your are suggesting that man's will can override whatever purpose God has for any given situation or person. If this istrue than God is not all powerful.


Love would not exist.

Here is a post from another thread.


Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

this(below) in response to above

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? -no
Then he is not omnipotent.- wrong
Is he able, but not willing?-not in his will
Then he is malevolent.-wrong
Is he both able and willing?-yes for the able, not in his will.
Then whence cometh evil?-see below
Is he neither able nor willing?-no
Then why call him God?"-explianation below

God could have made the world without evil.
God could have made the world with only good.
God could have made the world without either.
God made the world with both.
The last one of these is the only one were people have a choice and are shown love. Free will.

There will be two types of people in the end. the ones that say to God "I accept you and your will be done"
and the ones that say "I reject you" and God says to them "YOUR will be done"
ultimate love. 

It seems that the question like "why didnt God make the world like this?" has been asked in 100 different ways on this particular forum. I know that I personally have answered the question numerous times. Here is your answer,(see above).
GOD IS NOT A MEANY PANTS! Although God didn't make the world the way you think that He should have, He gave you the choice to accept or decline, its that simple. What more could you ask for?


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Confucius does not predate God.



Do you believe that the original sense of morality or ethics or whatever you wish to label it, that the Golden Rule is based upon, came from God?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 7, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Do you believe that the original sense of morality or ethics or whatever you wish to label it, that the Golden Rule is based upon, came from God?



Yes


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Yes



That's why I brought up the Golden Rule being demonstrated in pack animals such as wolves.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=596541
> Is this about how you see it?
> 
> 
> ...



It doesn't exist. What are you talking about?







> "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? -no
> Then he is not omnipotent.- wrong
> Is he able, but not willing?-not in his will
> Then he is malevolent.-wrong
> ...



Do you hate logic? You can't answer how you want to....




> God could have made the world without evil.
> God could have made the world with only good.
> God could have made the world without either.
> God made the world with both.
> The last one of these is the only one were people have a choice and are shown love. Free will.



God could have not made anything, yet, it did. The fact that you think God made the world and the way it is, says more about God and his nature than your assertions. 






> GOD IS NOT A MEANY PANTS! Although God didn't make the world the way you think that He should have, He gave you the choice to accept or decline, its that simple. What more could you ask for?



I would have asked for a briefing of some sort before my being concieved. I would have asked for a choice as to whether or not to be born. Apparently, humans don't have freewill until after God throws you into existence without your consent.


----------



## JFS (Mar 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Confucius does not predate God.



The Golden Rule may predate God, as it is more likely man created God than vice versa.  It is also possible or even likely altrusim predates man.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=596541
> Is this about how you see it?



This was a retarded thought experiment. No, I dont see it that way. The universe was not an _accident_. What does that even mean? I'm not even sur ethe universe is in need of an explanation. I can adhere to some form of _designer/s_, or a _prime mover _without subscribing to your God as a solution. 

Have you even considered that we could be in a Matrix? This is as real possibility as us living in a universe designed your God. 

The thought experiment you linked to is a "knock-off " of Alvin Plantinga's _Evolutionary Argument Againist Naturalism_..aka EAAN. Tell your brother-n-law to stop stealing other peoples work.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 7, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> This was a retarded thought experiment. No, I dont see it that way. The universe was not an _accident_. What does that even mean? I'm not even sur ethe universe is in need of an explanation. I can adhere to some form of _designer/s_, or a _prime mover _without subscribing to your God as a solution.
> 
> Have you even considered that we could be in a Matrix? This is as real possibility as us living in a universe designed your God.
> 
> The thought experiment you linked to is a "knock-off " of Alvin Plantinga's _Evolutionary Argument Againist Naturalism_..aka EAAN. Tell your brother-n-law to stop stealing other peoples work.



I am sorry, I cannot accept anything you post.


 I posted this in another thread to you but it was after to already responded to me, I will quote it again.

‘But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything"
G.K. Chesterton 


Your intelligence level is obviously much higher than mine, which stands to reason I cannot give fair diologue or argument. Thanks for your posts


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 7, 2011)

Hoyt Mathews said:


> This was a retarded thought experiment. No, I dont see it that way. The universe was not an _accident_. What does that even mean? I'm not even sur ethe universe is in need of an explanation. I can adhere to some form of _designer/s_, or a _prime mover _without subscribing to your God as a solution.
> 
> Have you even considered that we could be in a Matrix? This is as real possibility as us living in a universe designed your God.
> 
> The thought experiment you linked to is a "knock-off " of Alvin Plantinga's _Evolutionary Argument Againist Naturalism_..aka EAAN.* Tell your brother-n-law to stop stealing other peoples work.*



He never claimed he came up with it, nor did I.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Mar 7, 2011)

> Your intelligence level is obviously much higher than mine, which stands to reason I cannot give fair diologue or argument. Thanks for your posts



Faith, which you clearly have, is not about intellegence. Remember that and you will always believe. Chrisitan apologetics has destroyed more believers than any tragic event in life. Arguments for belief in God diminshes the life of faith. You might try reading Soren Kiekegaard.


----------

