Worthy Keeper/Bree Roué
- Dec 7, 2003
- Reaction score
- Prancing Pony, Bree
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.For me, evil is the deliberate commission of harm.
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.Inderjit S said: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.
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.(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."
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 don't see how love for _others_ is an illusion whereas love for _god_ is true when we have no idea whether god exists-
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...you cannot say that god exists and you know it is a infallible fact,
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.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.
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.spirit said: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...
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!Inderjit S said:Well I must stop as I think I may have sent everybody to sleep!
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.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.
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.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.
That was pretty profound. It made me sit up and think about it. (And I agree wholeheartedly. )Most people tend to confuse real love for lust
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. Your karma is just Calvinism without Calvin.Hitler did what he did because it was his Karma. There’s no way that you can change your Karma
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.
Does the situation now have importance?For me, evil is the deliberate commission of harm.
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.Barliman Butterbur said: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.
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 said: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!
Let me try to be clear about what I believe regarding "God:"Hammersmith said: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?
Why? Have you ever had the need to "seek to make yourself known" to a ladybug? You are projecting your own values.Hammersmith said:And if such a "Primary Sentient Presence acting with purpose" did exist, would it not seek to make itself known to us?
HUH???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.
Your need to neatly categorize me is duly noted.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