Theology of evil

[Questioner]

The body is everywhere.

Even in the District of Criminals? Or Hitler? Or John Chivington? Or those who believed Manifest Destiny and determined they weren't evil for attacking "savages" (who didn't even know your god existed) savagely? The one who said the only good Indian is a dead Indian? Those bodies? Nah- it exists in the mind. Period. As does evil.

Or the only good Mayan is a dead Mayan, said the Aztecs presumably, which is why some of the Indian tribes favored the Spanish over their fellow Azetic warriors and conquerers.

 

[Gdjjr]

presumably

To presume is arrogance- to assume is ignorance-

 

[Gdjjr]

Yea, okay. When Jeffrey Dahmer cannibalized those teenagers, it was in the mind.

Straw man assertion doesn't change the facts- evil is as evil does- Double Standards is the American (and christian) way-
Double Standards lead to evil manifested- so, yes, in the mind, manifested physically- I guess that could be called Manifested Destiny- LOL-

 

[alang1216]

I'm curious what others thoughts on the problem of evil is.

Some say evil is essentially the "opposite" or antagonist of good, while others say evil is an absence of good, much as black or dark is an absence of light.

Sometimes "evil" didn't just mean malevolent human behavior, such as violence, rape, and warfare - but also meant adversity or suffering in general, such as famine, natural disasters, illness, and things of that nature.

There was an author I read from who believes we are in a "war" between good and evil, and that evil adapts and takes more subtle forms, or the evil beings like Hitler or Jeffery Dahmer believed themselves to be part of a "hierarchy" of evildoers, much as their might be a "hierarchy" of good beings like Jesus Christ - his philosophy on it was fascinating.

Good and evil are societal constructs and therefore relative only to that society. Different societies have very different views of good and evil and those views change over time as the society evolves. There is no evidence of any absolutes. Even the Bible has changed over time.

 

[Questioner]

I'm curious what others thoughts on the problem of evil is.

Some say evil is essentially the "opposite" or antagonist of good, while others say evil is an absence of good, much as black or dark is an absence of light.

Sometimes "evil" didn't just mean malevolent human behavior, such as violence, rape, and warfare - but also meant adversity or suffering in general, such as famine, natural disasters, illness, and things of that nature.

There was an author I read from who believes we are in a "war" between good and evil, and that evil adapts and takes more subtle forms, or the evil beings like Hitler or Jeffery Dahmer believed themselves to be part of a "hierarchy" of evildoers, much as their might be a "hierarchy" of good beings like Jesus Christ - his philosophy on it was fascinating.

Good and evil are societal constructs and therefore relative only to that society.

Not all social constructs being created equal of course; a society which approximates that raping children is good, being decidedly inferior to one which approximates that it is evil.

Different societies have very different views of good and evil and those views change over time as the society evolves.

That's presuming that it is evolving, to begin with. such as creating more human rights, such as preventing the rape of children, rather than de-volving, as in justifying that.

There is no evidence of any absolutes.

The statement that

"Good and evil are societal constructs and therefore relative only to that society."

Is, indeed an absolute

Even the Bible has changed over time.

Minutia change here and there, much as the Common Law system has thousands of different minor laws, of which likely no one is completely aware of, nor the original reasons for any or many of them, however the basic premises are founded on the Golden Rule, such as respect for people, their property, their family, the public, and so forth; the Golden Rule being a concept and premise of many societies, modern or ancient.

Likewise, a society which didn't view anything wrong with raping or murdering its own members and kind would very quickly cease to be a society to begin with.

 

[alang1216]

I'm curious what others thoughts on the problem of evil is.

Some say evil is essentially the "opposite" or antagonist of good, while others say evil is an absence of good, much as black or dark is an absence of light.

Sometimes "evil" didn't just mean malevolent human behavior, such as violence, rape, and warfare - but also meant adversity or suffering in general, such as famine, natural disasters, illness, and things of that nature.

There was an author I read from who believes we are in a "war" between good and evil, and that evil adapts and takes more subtle forms, or the evil beings like Hitler or Jeffery Dahmer believed themselves to be part of a "hierarchy" of evildoers, much as their might be a "hierarchy" of good beings like Jesus Christ - his philosophy on it was fascinating.

Good and evil are societal constructs and therefore relative only to that society.

Not all social constructs being created equal of course; a society which approximates that raping children is good, being decidedly inferior to one which approximates that it is evil.

Different societies have very different views of good and evil and those views change over time as the society evolves.

That's presuming that it is evolving, to begin with. such as creating more human rights, such as preventing the rape of children, rather than de-volving, as in justifying that.

There is no evidence of any absolutes.

The statement that

"Good and evil are societal constructs and therefore relative only to that society."

Is, indeed an absolute

Even the Bible has changed over time.

Minutia change here and there, much as the Common Law system has thousands of different minor laws, of which likely no one is completely aware of, nor the original reasons for any or many of them, however the basic premises are founded on the Golden Rule, such as respect for people, their property, their family, the public, and so forth; the Golden Rule being a concept and premise of many societies, modern or ancient.

Likewise, a society which didn't view anything wrong with raping or murdering its own members and kind would very quickly cease to be a society to begin with.

You may not approve of it but all social constructs are equal. If you are outside of a particular society you may well judge that society as inferior but you are not master of universe and don't get to decide for anyone but yourself. That other society will likely be judging you as inferior by their standards.

All culture evolve, there is no such thing as 'de-volving'.

The OT is a very different animal than the NT. So different in fact that many early Christians believed they were the product of different gods. If you believe the morality of the OT and NT are the same you'll have to explain how the killing of men, women, children, and even animals, by Joshua was moral in relation to the NT.

 

[onefour1]

The problem of evil is only a problem to those who believe in ex nihilo creation. The question arises as to why a being who is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving would create from nothing creatures that are imperfect. If God, who has all power and knowledge to create whatever he pleases, and is also an all loving being, then shouldn't he have created his creatures to be perfect like unto himself? If He has all power and knowledge certainly He had the capability to do so. If He is an all loving being then it seems logical that he would not want his creatures to suffer as they do in this life but to make them immortal and free from sickness, suffering and death. If God is an ex nihilo creator, why didn't he make us all to be like Christ, who, when he came to this earth lived a perfect sinless life and always chose to use his free will to choose good?

I believe that evil is the opposite of the will of God who is the epitome of goodness. Simply by establishing what is good, the opposite (evil) then exists. At least in principle. When beings choose to follow the opposite of good, then evil exists in our actions. It is the will of God that we eventually become immortal and live a life free of sickness, and death. So, in a way, those things are not as good as what God has planned for us.

It is my belief that ex nihilo creation is a false principle. I do not believe that creation from nothing is ever possible. I believe that God creates from things that already exist. I believe that the intelligence or mind of man is self-existent and has always existed. I believe that God took the intelligences that existed and combined them with spirit matter through the process of procreation to create our spirits. I believe that our spirits pre-existed our physcal life on this earth. I believe that the elements are eternal and have always existed. I believe that Adam, the first man on earth, received a physical body from the dust of the earth.

If God created our spirits from already existing intelligence, then those self-existent intelligences could never be created and made and were formed in the imperfect state that they existed in before spirit creation. Thus it was not possible for God to create them with a perfect mind since they already existed. The only way to perfect these spirit beings is to allow them to choose good over evil and to send them to a school ground where good and evil co-exist (this earth life), so that they can learn that good and evil exist and that they can choose in and of themselves to be good beings. Nobody forces God to be good. He does it of his own free will. For us to become more like Him, we too need to learn to choose good over evil of our own volition. In this way God has made a way for us all to progress and receive more joy in our existence by learning to choose good over evil. On the path we are going to make mistakes but God has provided a way for us to receive forgiveness through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Doctrine and Covenants 93:29
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

Abraham 3:18
18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

Hebrews 12:9
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Acts 17:28-29
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

 

[Questioner]

You may not approve of it but all social constructs are equal.

No they are not, the social construct which falsely asserts that all social constructs are created equal, is decidedly inferior, say, to one which justifies rape and child molestation.

Much as the myth of all societies being irreconcibily "different to begin with", when in reality there are common positive traits existing across the spectrum of good societies, and common negative traits existing across the spectrum of bad societies, many of which, if they were a "norm", habit, or practice allowed unabated, such as murdering people left and right, they would quickly cease to be a "society" to begin with.

[quote
If you are outside of a particular society you may well judge that society as inferior
[/quote]
Inside of it or outside of it, I can and I will judge it on its inherent grounds or merit, much as those thinking men and women who helped to create better societies and civilizations did judge and object to things which were allegedly common practices in certain areas of societies which they were apart of or observing from a distance, and without which such discernment, no modern society or institution of rights, crimes, civility and such would have existed to begin with, such as Marcus Aurelius rightfully condemning the pedastry and sexual deviancy, and other immorality which some corrupt rulers such as Caligula or Nero engaged in, contrary to myths used by the weak and immoral to attempt to justify said sick things and practices.

So no, in reality, you ironically saying that it is "inherently immoral", no matter what society you are apart of, to judge another society by "your own standards", therefore ironically contradicting yourself in the process, as well as the fact that societies, such as that of the Common Law do not merely judge societies within or outside of their official or legal domain by "their own standards", as though their own standards existed or developed "in a vacuum" to begin with, but developed out of systems of law, justice, morality, and so forth which existed across societies and cultures which came before it, and were incorporated into it and the development thereof to begin with, perhaps akin to how the English language, in its modern or older incarnations, did not develop or become what it is in "a vacuum", but developed or evolved out of many different and various sub-languages, vernaculars, jargons, and so forth which proceeded it, cultures, to be specific - to the point that something such as "Old English", or "Anglo-Saxon" may not even be recognizable by today's English, viewed instead as almost an entirely separate or different language altogether.

Much

but you are not master of universe and don't get to decide for anyone but yourself.

No, I get to decide for others as well, not just myself.

That other society will likely be judging you as inferior by their standards.

Their inferior standards of judging inferiority not equal to mine and others, of course, which are decidedly superior.

All culture evolve, there is no such thing as 'de-volving'.

If there is no such thing as "devolving" then likewise there is no such thing as "evolving", as the term "evolve" is meaningless to begin with.

Such as how, in the Common Law, Judge Holmes asserts that law and the chivalric notions which it is based on as an institution, is an "evolution" up from older and more archaic systems, in which conflicts were resolved by blood feuds and private vendettas, rather than a centralized system of courts, civil rights, judges, juries, lawyers, and so forth.

The OT is a very different animal than the NT. So different in fact that many early Christians believed they were the product of different gods.

You're talking about Gnostics, and how the God of the Old Testament was viewed as a "Demiurge", or an imperfect or even malevolent lesser deity, with the Serpant not actually being a Devil, but the true God in disguise, leading Adam and Eve away from the deception of the Demiurge.

If you believe the morality of the OT and NT are the same you'll have to explain how the killing of men, women, children, and even animals, by Joshua was moral in relation to the NT.

Please explain how the laws or rules of warfare, in the Iron Age, such as in the nation of Israel, compared to standards warfare practiced by other civilized nations of the day and age, or how ancient warfare as a whole actually compares to modern warfare, such as in the Dresden Bombings or ancient legal systems to modern, for that matter.

Most people haven't read the law, or history of law and legal systems, or rules of warfare past or present, and from a serious historical perspective or study, most of their arguments would simply be childish appeals to emotion and naivete, rather than serious, credible arguments within the context of serious discussions and histories of the subjects, it's that simple.

 

[alang1216]

Most people haven't read the law, or history of law and legal systems, or rules of warfare past or present, and from a serious historical perspective or study, most of their arguments would simply be childish appeals to emotion and naivete, rather than serious, credible arguments within the context of serious discussions and histories of the subjects, it's that simple.

Lots of verbiage so let me summarize: "I, Questioner, get to decide the parameters of right and wrong for every human being, living or dead. And for God too of course."

To summarize my position: There are no moral absolutes. Like everything pertaining to humans, every person has good and bad characteristics (in the view of their culture) to varying degrees. Likewise, every culture has good and bad characteristics (in the view of other cultures) to varying degrees.

 

[Questioner]

Most people haven't read the law, or history of law and legal systems, or rules of warfare past or present, and from a serious historical perspective or study, most of their arguments would simply be childish appeals to emotion and naivete, rather than serious, credible arguments within the context of serious discussions and histories of the subjects, it's that simple.

Lots of verbiage so let me summarize: "I, Questioner, get to decide the parameters of right and wrong for every human being, living or dead. And for God too of course."

No, just point out what has been decided with higher degrees of correctness and correctitude to begin with, as opposed to inferior degrees thereof.

To summarize my position: There are no moral absolutes.

The statemen that "there are no moral absolutes" is not a moral absolute then

Like everything pertaining to humans, every person has good and bad characteristics (in the view of their culture) to varying degrees. Likewise, every culture has good and bad characteristics (in the view of other cultures) to varying degrees.

Yes, some degrees being much higher and much lower than others.

 

[alang1216]

No, just point out what has been decided with higher degrees of correctness and correctitude to begin with, as opposed to inferior degrees thereof.

Decided by you, sitting in judgement of the rest of humanity. Sorry to break it to you but your gavel is very, very tiny.

 

[Blues Man]

I do not believe in evil as some outside force

All behaviors are a choice

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Questioner]

No, just point out what has been decided with higher degrees of correctness and correctitude to begin with, as opposed to inferior degrees thereof.

Decided by you, sitting in judgement of the rest of humanity. Sorry to break it to you but your gavel is very, very tiny.

Too bad, it's not going to stop me for judging scum like yourself who apologize for child rapists, and I doubt I'm the only one who feels that way either.

I ran into another fool once who was doing the same thing, he was "nice" enough to, perhaps mistakenly leave his full name on his profile, which allowed me to locate his workplace - I could have contacted his superiors, send them screenshots of the posts where he was arguing and promoting immoral worldviews (at least under the Common Law systems of America, Britain, and the Commonwealth, but not exclusive to them, I'm sure) such as the defense of child rape and child marriages, but I was merciful enough that time, and would have felt bad having him fired from his taken-for-granted job.

I could have also attempted to locate his wife's contact information, and let her discretely know if she really wants to stay married to a child rape apologist, rather than excercize her feminism and independence via those good ol' no-fault divorce laws, but I didn't want to make her feel embarrassed at that time.

Next time I run into a freakshow advocating, defending, or associating with any worldview or ideologies which are in favor of child rape, I may not be so merciful and leninat in regards to collecting, locating them, their contact information, their families, employees, spouses, and so forth. (I have mental list of others advocating views like this which I may "check up on" sometime, such as one freak saying that pedophilia is merely "socially unaccepted", rather than immoral, as per the Common Law itself and its philosophy, holding that evils such as pedophilia or child molestation are so innately or inherently "abominable" that no one can claim ignorance of the law on things like that, so it's just one freaks' words against the Common Law which has been around in the States, since the 18th-19th century, and even longer in Great Britain, as far back as Magna Carta, I presume).

(This is not a threat to anyone here, just an honest description of what I would "like" to do to people with abysmal worldviews like that, who are stupid enough to espouse or broadcast it in the view of the public)