Never asked question: Forsaken Inn Common Room edition

[Arthur_Vandelay]

Greetings, TTFers. I have often wondered why the brilliant "Never asked Question" thread of the Tolkienology section of the forum had never been adapted for use in the non-Tolkien rooms. (And this is the point where one of you taps me on the shoulder and says: "Umm, it has.") So I decided to open one myself.

The purpose of this thread is for TTFers to pick each others' brains on matters religious, philosophical, literary, political and topical--and indeed anything else that falls within the ambit of discussion in the Forsaken Inn.

As with the original "Never asked question" thread, we should respond to queries honestly and in good faith, providing references or sources of further information where possible.

Furthermore, we should not be afraid to correct errors where we see them, without doing so combatively.

So, who will start the ball rolling?

[Arthur_Vandelay]

So, who will start the ball rolling?

I guess I will.

What can people tell me about masonry?

[Barliman Butterbur]

I guess I will.

What can people tell me about masonry?

Aside from my paternal grandfather having been a Mason, I have only this to offer:
http://www.freemason.org/cfo/index.htm — modest, but it's a start!

The purpose of this thread is for TTFers to pick each others' brains on matters religious, philosophical, literary, political and topical--and indeed anything else that falls within the ambit of discussion in the Forsaken Inn.

Methinks thou hast thrown open the sluiceways to their widest capacity, my precious, my love! Navigating these whitewater rapids will take every one of us manning the raft of courteous friendly civil discourse with skill and aplomb.

Barley :)

[Beorn]

In your opinion...

What is faith?

[Barliman Butterbur]

In your opinion...

What is faith?

My definition of faith — I assume you mean religous faith — is the belief in the existence of various renditions of "God" or gods and an afterlife that cannot be proven to exist. Such faith — in its fundamentalist versions at any rate — has been the basis for some of the worst violence, intolerance and bigotry in human history.

Barley

PS: BTW Mike — can the Deep Thought text be wrapped to extra lines after about 30-40 characters? Sure would help eliminate extra-wide posts...

B

[Arthur_Vandelay]

In your opinion...

What is faith?

To have faith is to believe in what is beyond our capacity to know with absolute certainty.

[Inderjit S]

Faith can be to believe in god, but it can also to believe in the values which god is supposed to espouse- to love others and to live honestly, to treat other people as equals, to respect those who deserve it, to feel sorry for those who you see as evil people (rather than hate them, which is a hard thing to do) and not to violate the rights of others. I have no doubt people will err a lot whilst trying to accomplish the above, but erring is the path to faith. Faith is not exclusively a religious thing, but exclusively a human thing.

In other words, faith is whatever you make of it.

[Barliman Butterbur]

...Faith is not exclusively a religious thing, but exclusively a human thing.

In other words, faith is whatever you make of it.

Indeed, there is more than one type of faith. For instance, I have faith in the things that have proven themselves to be reliable over time.

There is also the faith that something can be done in the real world that has never been done before, which is at the basis of science. William James goes so far as to say that without that kind of faith there would be no advancement whatever. So I guess that kind of faith is a kind of confidence that reality can be manipulated to achieve new things. And of course, such has been proven over and over again, and is one of the most ubiquitious things in human experience.

Faith in miracles, prophecy and prayer — ah, there's a discussion I will leave for others to start!

Barley

[Hammersmith]

What can people tell me about masonry?

I found "this book" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0586070656/qid=1115513006/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-9916330-1359132) to be both exceedingly well researched and brilliantly thorough in its investigation of Freemasonry. While it is widely condemned in Masonic circles, the writer does actually end up lauding certain virtues of the sect. It's both well written and fantastically well argued and thought out.

[Inderjit S]

Do you know what Barliman, whenever I need such guidance I look to my Guru's.

http://allaboutsikhs.com/gurus/gurunanak7.htm

Here is my favourite quote from the above link

The Guru replied,"Without good deeds, both will repent. The superiority lies in deeds and not in mere creeds."

:)

[Barliman Butterbur]

Do you know what Barliman, whenever I need such guidance I look to my Gurus.

The writings of Guru Nanak are indeed a treasure trove of wisdom. There was a time when I had much to do with Sikhs, starting with a Sikh physician I had for a few years. I had at one time considered becoming a Sikh, but alas, I wasn't up to the required discipline!

As a matter of fact I think I still have a copy of the Adi Granth around here somewhere — and if I don't, I may just amble over to the Bodhi Tree Bookstore and get another copy!

We used to go to a wonderful Sikh restaurant in L.A. called The Golden Temple, but it closed for some reason. And it was there that I used to buy cassettes of the most gorgeous and transporting Sikh chants — incredible music! :)

Barley

[Inderjit S]

Great post Barley. :)

You are the second person here who was thinking about converting to Sikhism, the other was Ciryaher. As for the "required discipline" you probably have more of that than lots of Sikhs I know, who view their contravention of our religious tenets as a continuation of some non-existent policy favoured by some non-existent guru in their, seemingly non-existent minds. I am not talking about keeping your hair, wearing a turban or abstaining from alcohol or meat but compassion for your fellow man and treating women as equals-parts of Sikhism seem to have become obsessed with caste (ironically, one of the reasons for the conception of Sikhism was that it believed the caste system was unfair and had no place in Sikhism, casteism has now become prevalent in Sikhism i.e. some castes are better than others), there is also a lot of intereligious tensions, namely between Sikhs and Muslims, born out of historical accidence and continued by modern day ignorance. (Sikhs and Akbarian Muslims are naturally historically antagonistic-it was the Sikhs after all who worked towards the overthrow of Mughal India, who were forcing others to convert or die) Sikhs seem to think that the actions of Muslims some five hundred years ago somehow mirror the attitude of all Muslims, past and present, they seem to think that the rise in fundamentalism supports this glib hypothesis, but as I pointed out to them many times, they are working with logical and religious fallacies-our Guru's were saved and befriended by Muslims on a few occasions and preached for us to see people all religions as being humans and to be treated with as much respect as Sikhs. It is also a logical fallacy as if all Muslims were fundamentalists the world would have ended a long time ago! They choose to pigeonhole all Muslims under the banner of a few. Though perhaps I am guilty of the same mistake, not all Sikhs are of course like this, but a lot are, and it infuriates me that they so contravene the tenets of their religion whilst not only considering themselves Sikhs but claiming they do so because of their religion. They are a bunch of sophists, but lacking the sophistry of sophists. :)

Er...anyway, long, angry rant over. Thankfully. :D

We seem to have diverged, so back onto the original point of the thread-I have a question-What were the reasons for the Orthodox and Protestant schisms from the church?

[chrysophalax]

Can't speak for the Orthodox viewpoint, but if I remember my church history, Martin Luther was among those who spear-headed the Protestant movement. He flet that the Church had drifted too far from it's main intent, which was to spread the Word. Catholicism had become so embroiled politically that it had lost touch with the masses it was supposed to defend.

Among Luther's main points were the fact that salvation is a gift of God, nothing that had to be earned, which really annoyed the priests who made a living selling indulgences...and that confession no longer should be conducted through a priest, but rather, directly to God through prayer.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html

Here are his 95 theses he nailed to the church door in Wittenburg.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Great post Barley. :) ...They choose to pigeonhole all Muslims under the banner of a few. Though perhaps I am guilty of the same mistake, not all Sikhs are of course like this, but a lot are, and it infuriates me that they so contravene the tenets of their religion whilst not only considering themselves Sikhs but claiming they do so because of their religion. They are a bunch of sophists, but lacking the sophistry of sophists. :)

Rant forgiven! Everyone gets frustrated with the ever-present minority of hypocrites and spiritual scoundrels in his own group, don't feel bad!

BTW, the Sikh site you supplied is very interesting; I have it bookmarked. And as I read it, I still say: I lack the necessary discipline (not willing to go into the particulars)! ;)

Barley

[spirit]

Faith. Hmm, interesting question. ;)

Every individual in the world has a unique view of faith. There are similarities in what people believe, and well, what ever they believe I respect that, I expect them to do the same of why belief of “[/b] FAITH [/b]”

(I’m a part Hindu (through blood) and part Wiccan. Confused? :eek: )

Faith. I suppose you can split it up into two categories. The faith in God (which I regard as most important), and the daily faith you have on other people – e.g.: “I have faith she’s not going to let me down today”...

The faith in God, is infinite. :) There is no doubting him, EVER; and by doubting I don’t only refer to his existence, but also all that he does. God sends everything that comes your way in life, and I believe you’ve just got to accept everything. It’s called having faith in God, and believing that whatever he does, he does for the best. (Even sometimes, I don’t really understand why things really happen, but at the end, there’s usually a lesson to be learnt.)
:eek:

[Barliman Butterbur]

The faith in God, is infinite. :) There is no doubting him, EVER...
:eek:

That depends. ;) See http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=16664 , posts 7 and 8.

Barley :)

[spirit]

...to feel sorry for those who you see as evil people (rather than hate them, which is a hard thing to do) I dunno... I myself think that love is just an illusion in the world. By that, I mean love for each other (humans, animals, e.t.c.). Love for God is true love, which will never end. And same with good and evil. It's just an illusion. I belive that we all see thing as good and evil becuase we're attached to the physical plane. In the spiritual plane, there is no good or evil. Just nuetral.

[Inderjit S]

I dunno... I myself think that love is just an illusion in the world. By that, I mean love for each other (humans, animals, e.t.c.). Love for God is true love, which will never end. And same with good and evil. It's just an illusion. I belive that we all see thing as good and evil becuase we're attached to the physical plane. In the spiritual plane, there is no good or evil. Just nuetral.

They are your views I suppose, but it is nice to debate them. I don't see how love for _others_ is an illusion whereas love for _god_ is true when we have no idea whether god exists-I cannot prove it, we may believe he exists, but it cannot be backed up by tangible facts because it doesn't need to be backed up by tangible facts. It can be backed up by my faith, since facts are not pertinent to gods existence but faith is as faith transgresses facts.

Perhaps the last paragraph was a bit of a non sequitir, I will move in with my point, you cannot say that god exists and you know it is a infallible fact, (well you can if you wish) but I am debating against such logic-for you have no proof of his existence but faith and faith alone is not tangible proof of his existence, tangibility is important for proof because humans need a fait accompli to base their views on and that fait accompli is missing.

Claiming love is only true when you love a being who you believe to exist and is an illusion when you love a being who you knows exist is a paradox, you are applying the wrong criterion to humans and god. Love for humans is not illusionary, it exists, it is everlasting not ephemeral and it is the greatest gift you can give another person-to love them-it is not an illusion but an actuality.

To claim that good, evil and love are not actualities because we exist on the physical plain is also a fallacy. They exist-just look around you. For example, Hitler was evil. His deeds and thought were evil.

I could argue more about this, but I don't really know your viewpoint well enough to do so, plus I need to revise for my exams. Feel free to post back so I can get a better picture of your views so that we can have a decent debate. :)

[Arthur_Vandelay]

To claim that good, evil and love are not actualities because we exist on the physical plain is also a fallacy. They exist-just look around you. For example, Hitler was evil. His deeds and thought were evil.

That leads onto another question: What is evil (assuming that we must know what evil is is order to say that evil exists)?

What were the reasons for the Orthodox and Protestant schisms from the church?

(Chrysophalax has already addressed Protestantism . . . )

A good place to begin would be to visit A brief overview of the early history of the Orthodox Church (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_orthh.htm) at religioustolerance.org. History is not my strong point, and much of what I have to say here is contained in that article. But to put it crudely, the Pope in Rome was for much of the first millennium a bishop of roughly equal stature to other bishops. Over the course of those first few centuries, "authority within the church began to coalesce around the Bishop of Rome in the west and the Patriarch of Constantinople in the east," as a corollary, I suppose, of Rome's separation into Western and Eastern empires. The formal schism occurred in 1054, when the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches excommunicated each other--the culmination of a long process of alienation and separation influenced by:

1. The Slav invasions in the Balkans.
2. The religious language in the west was Latin, while the eastern church used Greek. Bilingual theologians became increasingly rare.
3. The Eastern churches encouraged national languages for the litergy, whereas Roman Catholicism insisted on Latin.
4. "While the intellectual thought of Eastern Christianity was driven by Greek teachers, Western Christianity came to be dominated by the teachings of Augustine of Hippo." (354 - 386 CE)

[Inderjit S]

That leads onto another question: What is evil (assuming that we must know what evil is order to say that evil exists)?

Evil is as inherent in humans as is good, it is the diametric opposite of good because good cannot exist without evil as we would have no way of knowing what a good deed was without knowing what a bad deed was, or whether a deed was more good than another deed.

We can use literature to expand upon this. For example, when Jersad sets fire to the sages house Zadig is horrified, when he later kills the widows nephew Zadig is again horrified. When Jersad later reveals himself to be an angel and tells Zadig that the sage would find a pot of gold under his house which he set fire too, and that the widow’s nephew would one day kill his aunt Zadig ponders the nature of evil. Jersad proved that the ends justified the means, as Milton Friedman points out; the ends always justify the means as any justification would be nullified if the means did not produce the desired end. So it was ok for Jersad to set fire to the sage’s house and to kill the widow’s nephew as in both cases the "victim" benefited from the crime committed against him.

Another argument is one employed by Kierkegaard in "Fear and Trembling".
Kierkegaard argues that Abrahams sacrifice of Isaac at the request for god was a good deed-he argues that "if you simply remove faith as a nix and nought there only remains the raw fact that Abraham was willing to murder Isaac"-without faithAbraham's deed would have been seen as evil, yet if you look at it with, faith in infallible god, then it was a good deed as he was told by the infallible to commit a deed-any contravention of the infallible would be a contravention of good as the infallible personified and designed good, ergo Abraham's deed may have been seen as evil, but that is a glib interpretation of Abraham's deed, or a faithless view of it. Kierkegaard may have been pointing out (notice _may_have-I am not Kierkegaard) that a deed which we may interpret as being evil, may, under closer scrutiny be good. So evil is not as straightforward as it may seem. (I am here, by and large ignoring the other factor in Kierkegaard's analogy-faith.)

Another book which looks at evil is Dostoevsky's "Note from the Underground"-one of the first existential novels. In it the Underground Man explains why he is so nefarious, and why humans are so nefarious and do evil-because they can. Humans are evil because of free will, they are evil because they have a choice, whether to be evil or not. Naturally humans are not perfect, therefore they will do some good but at the same time, due to their imperfection they will do evil. What then comes first-the imperfection or the free will? Well one can reasonably have free will and not do evil, one can do as one likes and yet do good theoretically speaking, but imperfection automatically means a perversion of perfection (i.e. good) and therefore it diverges from good and produces effects which aren't good. Imperfection and free will may be the cause of evil because they are inherently human traits, evil is inherently a human emotion and so long as we are human evil will exist in some form-we cannot get rid of it, nor do I see getting rid of it as being desirable as it is through erring that we learn.

In a previous post I offered Hitler as a paradigm of "evil". There may have been eviller men or have killed more people or had more distorted views, that it not my point. He was not wholly evil either, no man is. Yet his actions were evil, his sanctioning of genocide was evil, and him believing he was not doing evil but doing good was the evillest thing of all. A man may commit a evil deed and yet repent of it, yet Hitler would never repent as he saw his deeds as being good, when they were evil. Many murderers follow similar logic. Many wise men do too. Plato supported eugenics because he thought that through eugenics man could be bettered, ignoring the fact that eugenics Man would be bettered as the infirm would be weeded out. He also advocates censoring Homer (who he admires) as he thought certain scenes and characters had a negative affect on the audience. Plato's utopia was no utopia. We can come back to the idea of ends justifying means here. If we weed out the infirm then does the end justify the means? (i.e. a better race of humans.) No, because the means are unjustifiable so it is useless to discuss whether the ends are justifiable. Plato was a casuist.

What about repentance? Everyone repents of their bad deeds-this does not erase them of course, but if means we know what we did was evil, therefore we are forgiven as we can discern whether our action was evil or good and so are wiser and less likely to sin. When Theodosius committed David’s crime Ambrose told him to submit to David's repentance. Theodosius did so, and realised his actions were bad rather than fallaciously supporting them.

Well I must stop as I think I may have sent everybody to sleep!

[Barliman Butterbur]

...Well I must stop as I think I may have sent everybody to sleep!

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... JUST KIDDING! ;) :D

For me, evil is the deliberate commission of harm.

Barley

[Inderjit S]

For me, evil is the deliberate commission of harm.

Good lord Barliman, aren't you going to back up your idea with a mindlessley long post glibly pointing out the various manifestations of evil before coming to a boring conclusion? ;) I must be getting old, because that is clearly the way to go. :D

[Arthur_Vandelay]

Thanks, Inder, for your response. You define evil here in "relative" terms: (i) in the sense of being the "diametric opposite of good," and (ii) in the sense of being a label that we can apply to something of which we vehemently disapprove (such as, for example, Hitler's thoughts and deeds--something of which I imagine most of us would vehemently disapprove).

(i) raises the further question: What is goodness?
(ii) is problematic (through no fault of your own, of course: this is how "evil" is commonly used) insofar as while most of us would have no reservations about applying the label "evil" to Hitler's thoughts and deeds, there are some who would also apply the term "evil" to abortion, same-sex marriage, the "wardrobe malfunction," and so forth (even if they might not perceive all of these to be "evil" in the same degree). For example, Pope John Paul II labelled endeavours to legalise same-sex marriage part of "a new ideology of evil. (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1499590,00.html)"

So I suppose what I'm asking is this: is there--or can there be--a positive definition of "evil?" Is there a positive definition of "goodness?"

[Barliman Butterbur]

Good lord Barliman, aren't you going to back up your idea with a mindlessley long post glibly pointing out the various manifestations of evil before coming to a boring conclusion? ;) I must be getting old, because that is clearly the way to go. :D

I just wanted to get a rise out you. ;) All right just for you, I'll qualify the statement further: Evil is someone deliberately harming another, as opposed to its being some sort of force that exists outside of human behavior. Evil as opposed to tragedy: If an avalanche buries a ski resort and everyone in it as a manifestation of nature, it's a tragedy. If the avalanche was deliberately started by someone, then it's an act of evil.

And its opposite is "good": the deliberate commission of a benefit from one person upon another. If I find a $50 bill on the sidewalk, that's a bit of good luck; if you deliberately put it there for me to find, that's an an act of charity — of goodness. "Good" and "evil" exist as manifestations of man's behavior, sez I.

That man is loathe to claim responsibility for his behavior at both ends of the spectrum seems to be part of his nature. He credits God for "good" and blames Satan for "evil."

And since AV brought up abortion, I might as well weigh in on that too.

First of all, abortion is many times the body's decision to expel the fetus when something has gone irreparably wrong. But murdering a doctor who performs an abortion — that's something else again. That to me is murder in the service of an extreme position of illogic. The position of never allowing an abortion under any circumstance is just ridiculous. There are times when, IMO, abortions should be done: when the mother's pregnancy is the result of rape; when the mother's life is in danger; when the child is monstrously deformed and/or retarded to the point where it would have no independent life, where it would hate itself for being as it is, and hate its parents for allowing it to live. The thing is, as far as I know, those against abortions have little to say about what is to be done with the child after it has been born. Who's going to raise it? What kind of life will it have?

And this raises still another question: how long are we going to be able to keep this worldwide situation going where births far outnumber deaths? What are we to do with all these people, and how are they going to be fed, and how are they going to make a living, and what will their lifestyle be?

As far as I'm concerned we have about 4 billion people on the planet too many as it is — and counting — to say nothing of the vast numbers of pigs and cattle and their concomitant planetary pollution and deforestation. But that discussion is probably for another thread. (Perhaps "Soylent Green" is our inevitable fate...)

Barley

[chrysophalax]

For some reason what comes to my mind here by way of comparison is the Terry Schaivo case. Now...look at the one things that seemed to raise so many people's ire. She was denied sustenance. It would be considered an evil thing to deliberately starve a healthy, adult human to death...I think we can agree on this.

Terry was denied sustenance because she had no quality of life, nor any prospect for one. Therefore, after a short period of time, she died. Many of us would call this merciful (good) as she was no longer suffering.

The act was the same in both cases, the denial of food. But with markedly different motives. What I'm getting at is, it's not the actions themselves, but the motivations behind them. Is harm and/or pain the end desire...or is kindness and mercy?

Good and Evil, many of us are taught are absolutes. However, at least in my case, I've been astounded at how fuzzy the demarcation line between the two is. It almost becomes an act of will in some situations not to allow the two concepts to merge.

[Inderjit S]

(i) raises the further question: What is goodness?
(ii) is problematic (through no fault of your own, of course: this is how "evil" is commonly used) insofar as while most of us would have no reservations about applying the label "evil" to Hitler's thoughts and deeds, there are some who would also apply the term "evil" to abortion, same-sex marriage, the "wardrobe malfunction," and so forth (even if they might not perceive all of these to be "evil" in the same degree). For example, Pope John Paul II labelled endeavours to legalise same-sex marriage part of "a new ideology of evil."

You are right in saying evil is relative since evil is a mannish concept-Mens opinions are always relative. Evil is defined by the definer and each man has his own concept as to what evil is. There are, as you say, lesser evils from the mundane to the more important, but they are still lesser evils in that there is a degree of amibguity about them. But I think that there are perhaps greater, more universal evils. Murder for example. I am not talking about killing another person-you may kill another person for self-defence etc., I am talking about cold blooded murder-the taking of another persons life when you have no authority to do so.

[spirit]

I don't see how love for _others_ is an illusion whereas love for _god_ is true when we have no idea whether god exists- That, my friend, is called Faith! Blind faith or not, it IS faith. I trust God with my whole heart, and I don’t ever doubt him.

you cannot say that god exists and you know it is a infallible fact,
God does exist. And I may not have factual poof about that, but I don’t see the fact that the non-existence of God has been proven. I’m one of those odd people who likes believing on some non-proven facts... :p

Love and hate are both in the eye of the beholder. I’m not a fan of pink, which is what you’d expect more girls to like, but that does not make me any less of a girl. So colours are an illusion; same way, everyone has their own perception about what love and hate are.
Most people tend to confuse real love for lust.

To claim that good, evil and love are not actualities because we exist on the physical plain is also a fallacy. They exist-just look around you. For example, Hitler was evil. His deeds and thought were evil.
The physical plane is the one you, me and everyone one else is in. We don’t really know that evil was really there? It’s just an illusion what we see/feel. It’s like when someone came one day and said: “Oh, Black’s a dark colour, I’m going to classify it as evil.” What Hitler did, people have classified it as good and evil. Hitler did what he did because it was his Karma. There’s no way that you can change your Karma. The only think one has the power of manipulating is the way that they react to it. In his mind’s eye, he perceive it as the “right” thing. Personally, I don’t really agree with what he did, but then again, I shouldn’t be judging because I’m not perfect. If I were perfect, I’d be God. :D

[Barliman Butterbur]

God does exist. And I may not have factual poof about that, but I don’t see the fact that the non-existence of God has been proven. I’m one of those odd people who likes believing on some non-proven facts... :p

Interesting points! I don't understand how you can say that God exists even though it's never been proven, that is a non sequitur. You cure the non sequitur by going on to give the other side of it: The existence of God hasn't been proven either.

I have profound respect (and even envy) for all those whose deep belief in God drives them to lead a moral and ethical life, one of kindness, compassion and caring for others. That is religion at its best; that is religion fulfilling its ultimate purpose. But it doesn't prove the existence of God! :)

Barley

[joxy]

Well I must stop as I think I may have sent everybody to sleep!
Sleep could never be inspired by someone who can begin a discourse with Jersad and Zadig, of whom I have never heard, continue with erudite references to Kirkegaarde and Dostoevski, with whom, unfortunately, I am familiar, go on to link Hitler with Plato, and end with Theodosius (who he?!) and (Saint?) Ambrose! Brilliant, and so young!

B B: I didn't read Spirit's comments on the lack of formal proofs of God's existence, or non-existence, quite the way you did, as consitituting a non-sequitur.

[Inderjit S]

That, my friend, is called Faith! Blind faith or not, it IS faith. I trust God with my whole heart, and I don’t ever doubt him.

I do too, but that doesn't mean I see my love for others as an illusion; my love for others is as concrete as it is for god, perhaps more so-neither should detract from the other and all that should matter is that it is love.

Love and hate are both in the eye of the beholder. I’m not a fan of pink, which is what you’d expect more girls to like, but that does not make me any less of a girl. So colours are an illusion; same way, everyone has their own perception about what love and hate are.

Relativism doesn't mean love and hate are illusions it means they are relative (sorry for sounding tautological)-everything is relative in the eyes of man, even god. Colours do not define the girl, the girls define the girl-pink is merely a colour which girls tend to like.

Most people tend to confuse real love for lust

That was pretty profound. It made me sit up and think about it. :D (And I agree wholeheartedly. :))

Hitler did what he did because it was his Karma. There’s no way that you can change your Karma

We are humans-we have a free will, we are not puppets of karma, but puppets of our own will and liberty, however paradoxical that may sound. I have discussions like this with my uncle. :D Your karma is just Calvinism without Calvin.

[/QUOTE]Sleep could never be inspired by someone who can begin a discourse with Jersad and Zadig, of whom I have never heard, continue with erudite references to Kirkegaarde and Dostoevski, with whom, unfortunately, I am familiar, go on to link Hitler with Plato, and end with Theodosius (who he?!) and (Saint?) Ambrose! Brilliant, and so young![QUOTE]

Thank you. :) Jersad and Zadig are characters in Voltaire's "Zadig". Theodosius was a Roman Emperor who had a dispute with a Greek tribe, the Thessalonians. He then invited them to dinner and slaughtered them. Bishop Ambrose was aghast and he ordered Theodosius to repent, but Theodosius told him that King David committed homicide for love, (though Theodosius did it for pride and because one of his military commanders had been killed my them) to which Bishop Ambrose told him that since he replicated David's crime he would replicate David's penance-which involved dressing like a beggar and asking for the pardon of Ambrose.

[spirit]

I've been wondering the reason of evil...

...and the other day, I found a book by Paramhansa Yogananda, called "Why God Permits Evil". Is said:

"Good and evil must ever be complents on this earth. Everything created must bear some guise of imperfection. How else could God, the Sole Perfection, fragment His one consciousness into forms of creation distinguishable from Himself. There can be no images of light without contrasting shadows. Unless evil had been created, man would not know the opposite of good. Night brings out the bright contrast of day; sorrow teaches us the desirability of joy. Though evil must come, woe to him by whom it comes. He who is enticed by delusion to play the villans part must suffer the villan's sad karmic fate, whilst the hero recieves the hallowed reward of his virtue. knowing this truth, we must shun evil; becoming good, we ultimately rise to God's high estate- beyond both and bad."

That was fairly interesting; although I don't think that God created evil. IMO, it's more as though his creation seem to "stray" away from the path of good (due to free will).There's individual differences to take into account.

A certain action may be considered as good by one person, but totally evil by another person. Everyone had their unique opinion. The thought's accompany an action. With Inderjit's example about Jersad and Zadig's example, Jersad set fire to the Sage's house for a reason, not just for "Oh, lets have some fun. :rolleyes: " pointless reason.

Also, I ask myself, was the view of good and evil there from the beginning or did it gradually grow?
It's hard to imagine good and evil when there were no humans in the world. There may have been nature before the existance of humans, and nature is neutral. (Me and my Wiccan views... :)) Balance.

So, if the humans came, and decided to split things up into good and evil, surely its never going to be flawless!

For me, evil is the deliberate commission of harm.

Does the situation now have importance?
Killing another human being is considered to be wrong. What if you were in this situation:
- Man with a gun, threatening to kill 10 innocents.
- You had a weapon
- what would you do? Would you shoot the guy to save the 10 victims?
(And don't even think about saying you'd just hurt him enough because he's wearing full body armour with one very weak spot. And you're a good shooter with all that ps2 you've been playing...)

And now to conclude, I - Oh, look, a dime! :D

[Hammersmith]

Interesting points! I don't understand how you can say that God exists even though it's never been proven, that is a non sequitur. You cure the non sequitur by going on to give the other side of it: The existence of God hasn't been proven either.

Ah, but by the same token, saying that God doesn't exist (which I don't know if you have in this post) has also not been proven. Were you saying that? Besides, I would argue that one man's proof is another man's folly. Which brings us to the question "what is reality", and a whole bunch of equally unwinnable arguments.

I have profound respect (and even envy) for all those whose deep belief in God drives them to lead a moral and ethical life, one of kindness, compassion and caring for others. That is religion at its best; that is religion fulfilling its ultimate purpose. But it doesn't prove the existence of God! :)

Barley

And to that (aside from pointing out that it does not disprove God's existence) I would point out that from my perspective at least, the moral and ethical life is the symptom of belief, and not the cause. It is the fruit of a walk with God, and not even the most important fruit.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Ah, but by the same token, saying that God doesn't exist (which I don't know if you have in this post) has also not been proven. Were you saying that?

Let me try to be clear about what I believe regarding "God:"

• As far as I know, there may very well be a Primary Sentient Presence acting with purpose. As far as I'm concerned there's no way for humans to know that one way or the other. This is why I call myself an agnostic rather than an atheist.

• For me, the descriptions of "God" in all the world's holy books are no more than figments of man's imagination and exist noplace outside of man's mind: they are myths, fables, early attempts to explain what man has so far been unable to explain with unassailable proof.

Barley

[Hammersmith]

And if such a "Primary Sentient Presence acting with purpose" did exist, would it not seek to make itself known to us? I would say your cynicism with regards to world religions is slightly at odds with your distancing from athiesm, just as your belief that there is no way for humans to know gives any "Primary Sentient Presence" a bit of a poor presentation. An interesting view though, and one worthy of some respect. I would say that you're somewhere between an agnostic and a deist, but then I say a lot of things :)

[Barliman Butterbur]

And if such a "Primary Sentient Presence acting with purpose" did exist, would it not seek to make itself known to us?

Why? Have you ever had the need to "seek to make yourself known" to a ladybug? You are projecting your own values.

I would say your cynicism with regards to world religions is slightly at odds with your distancing from athiesm, just as your belief that there is no way for humans to know gives any "Primary Sentient Presence" a bit of a poor presentation.

HUH???

An interesting view though, and one worthy of some respect. I would say that you're somewhere between an agnostic and a deist, but then I say a lot of things :)

Your need to neatly categorize me is duly noted. :p

Barley

[joxy]

A belated thank you Inder, for the information in posting #31. I suppose I should have known about Ambrose.......