Posted on 01/01/2007 9:10:09 AM PST by ventanax5
I have long been preoccupied by the problem of evil. Not being a philosopher, I have no satisfactory explanation of evil to offer, nor even, indeed, a satisfactory definition of it. For me, evil is rather like poetry was for Doctor Johnson: easier to say what it isn’t than what it is. All I know for certain is that there’s a lot of it about - evil, I mean, not poetry.
Why? Is the heart of man irredeemably evil, or at any rate inclined to evil? What are the conditions in which evil may flourish?
My medical practice, admittedly of a peculiar kind, in a slum and in a prison, convinced me of the prevalence of evil. I was surprised. I had spent a number of years in countries wracked by civil wars and thereby deprived of even minimal social order, precisely the conditions in which one might expect evil to be widely committed, if only because in such situations the worst come to the fore. But nothing prepared me for the sheer malignity, the joy in doing wrong, of so many of my compatriots, when finally I returned home. Every day in my office I would hear of men who tortured women - torture is not too strong a word - or commit the basest acts of intimidation, oppression and violence, with every appearance of satisfaction and enjoyment. I would once have taken the opening sentence of Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments for a truism:
(Excerpt) Read more at newenglishreview.org ...
You really think that L. Ron Hubbard actually believed the story he wrote was real? Come on.
Religions may be made up by men, but some of them serve the greater good. A lie doesn't always serve evil.
You state “ the moral non-believer's moral code is internally derived, based upon his percieved notion of right action alone.”
And that is the problem. If it is our subjective perceptions and/or experiences that determine what is right. Then the only valid moral behavior is that which fits within my own personal belief system. Two immediate dilemmas present themselves. The first is that since all persons will have a wide variety of experiences during their lifetime. With that variety of experience our perceptions may very well change. Does that mean our moral behavior must be flexible to reflect that change? The second dilemma is that while we assume that our own self determined notions of right and wrong would surely not be evil and that they would on the whole benefit ourselves, others and society. We know from history that tyrants, serial killers, terrorists and evil men of all stripe have always used their self understanding of morality to advance the most horrific events of all ages.
This is because they always believe that they alone, above and beyond God, law or policy, have true knowledge of right and wrong. A main component of this belief is that a persons value is not based on their innate human dignity but in how that person conforms and advances the evil man’s world view. If a person deters the world view of a Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao the person is a liability and must be disposed of. If a person enters the fantastic grimoire of a Dahmer, a Gacy, a Bundy or a Gein that person no longer has humanity but becomes the puppet in service to a sociopath’s desires.
Now fortunately if the moral unbeliever was to examine the source of his beliefs he would discover that they are rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethic or at least in the universal golden rule. The morals he embraces could probably be placed against the part of the 10 commandments on how we should live in community and found to be the same.
This at least means that they will not only use self experience to validate moral behavior. They will think of how their actions effect others. They will not discard the humanity of others. They will not justify ill behavior by claiming some superior, secret understanding of right and wrong.
That is true morality. It does not change with a whim, It always remembers others. It always causes us to appeal to a knowledge greater than our own in times of doubt or distress. The source of my moral behavior and beliefs is the Lord God. But no matter one’s source it must be external, it must love and dignify all persons, it must base condemnation of actions and not on existence. It compels us to do good and to reject evil. No person left to their own devices can be free of the prejudices, hatreds, selfish desires and petty envies that feed the roots of evil. That is why we must guard against selfishness and seek after Truth.
Doesn't Matter what L. Ron Hubbard believed. What matters is do his adherents believe it?...Given the dramatically increasing numbers they do.
That is the point about faith...What is believed is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is believed.
No time to read, is this about the clintons? :-)
To me, faith means trust. We stamp "In God We Trust" on our currency because commerce requires that we trust people. We trust that the goods are genuine and not stolen and that the money isn't counterfeit. We trust that the buyer and seller will use the goods and money for good purpose.
When you give people freedom, you are trusting they will not do evil. You have faith they act for the greater good.
Even mathematicians have faith. They call them axioms, a postulate accepted without proof.
L. Ron Hubbard was very influenced by Aleister Crowley. Any person who has knowledge of Crowley will find many reaons to be wary of Scientology.
It should be noted that like the gnostice and mystery religions of old, Scientology as revealations of truth that are reserved for the most " worthy" adepts.
In some religions these worthies were those who survived grueling rituals or learned arcane teachings. In Scientology is is those who are willing to relinquish the most dead presidents in search of sacred knowledge. Should thou bundle of cash be great and folding the Thetan shall be yours.
I think it matters a lot what they believe. If you believe you should tolerate Jews that is a lot different than believing you should go out and kill them.
There is no such thing as evil.
If there was, it would have to have been created by God.
If God created evil, God would be evil.
By association, Jesus and the Holy Spirit would be evil.
Evil is a word, made up by man, to explain things humans do
when they are separated from God.
What you believe matters to you...What you believe is irrelevant to the guy in Papua New Guinea who believes in the cosmic tortoise. You,however, find his cosmic tortoise belief irrelevant. As general principle what is believed is only relevant to those who believe it. To those who don't, the belief is irrelevant. provided of course your belief or his belief does not incense you enough to kill him or he you.
Yes, but in most cases, religion deals with more earthly matters. And, as you pointed out earlier, faith can sometimes give justification for mayhem. (see Islam).
So in practice it does matter and is relevant to others what a person believes.
When that milk truck driver savaged those Amish girls, the Amish responded with an act of charity towards the deceased killer's family. This was intentionally done to demonstrate to the world that they are absolutely non-toxic to their neighbors. If they can forgive that, they can forgive anything.
In knowing what they believe we have to realize 1) That the Amish are no threat to us. And 2) If they are to survive, they must be protected from others who are a threat.
Even if we don't believe in a bearded god in the sky who commands us to be pacifists, it is good and practical to have neighbors who do believe because we won't have to worry about defending ourselves from them. People like the Amish also produce a lot of excess nontoxic children who are a net benefit to society.
It is a truism to say that a people get the ruler they desire, and, at his origins, Saddam was a leader that balanced Iraq in a way that Iraq wanted to be balanced. It could be said that he was exactly what Iraq's Sunni's wanted. A secularist, he also stood strongly against Shiite religious fanaticism, and against Iran, their national enemy.
And to a great extent, the Shiites and Kurds accepted him, if for no other reason than fatalism: he was typical for the region and their experience.
There is a cardinal rule of government, a unique form of the word "efficiency". If a government promises and delivers on those promises, it will survive. If it cannot deliver, then it will be replaced. Ironically, it doesn't matter *what* the government promises, only that it delivers.
Well, for many years, Saddam delivered on his promises. And he did it in a way acceptable to the Iraqi peoples.
He was raised to be an assassin, and well knew the punishment of an assassin who fails, or even one who succeeds. When he ordered the gassing of the Kurds, it was as punishment for them trying to kill him. Ordinarily, for a dictator in the region, he would have just ordered his secret police to shoot everyone in those towns; instead he ordered the use of poison gas.
The Kurds knew the punishment for failure, too.
I mention all of this to again exhort context. For a thousand years, the ME has behaved in this manner, and it is accepted, if not loved, by all. But from our vantage point we see that it is evil and know it as such.
The Europeans loudly proclaim that we are evil for executing mass murderers. But I disagree that we think of it as a "necessary evil". Capital punishment goes back to our origins as a nation, and many Americans see it as a positive good.
We strip from executing even the worst of offenders a context of eternal punishment--we do not damn them to Hell--instead we shorten their life as some small remittance to the lives they in turn shortened. We do not even seek that their punishment be painful, we go to great lengths to insure that it is not.
But they have forfeited life. So it is not a necessary evil that they die, it is just an expulsion, a deportation, from life.
not true sir- what I beleive IS relevent to thos in new guinne precisely because the Holy Spirit is at work in everyone's life giving testimony to the fact that the God of my religion is the One True God- to put it bluntly- any other religion follows false Gods that do NOT have the testimony of the Holy Spirit at work in EVERYONE'S life- that 'still small voice' that convicts EVERY person is the work of the Spirit regardless of where they are located OR regardless of their knowledge of God. In order to beleive in a false god, one MUST stifle and go against that still small voice of the Spirit- shut it out completely- because the conviction goes directly against whatever religion they choose be it the cosmi turtle or whatever-
As proof of this- God has sent missionaries directly to those who KNEW that their religion was false, and these people became saved- God has promissed to do just this- & indeed talks about the man in the bible far removed from the Christian religion who called out for hte truth and was answered by an apostle who travelled and met hte fella.
dude- brainwashing isn't faith- it's mind manipulation- You state faith is independant of reason? Since when? It takes a tremendous amouint of reason to deduce that God created the world and that He is involved in people's lives in a personal way- MANY people BEFORE they becoem saved observe people who have been saved and observe that God indeed is present in their lives- they reason that the actions of the persons are NOT their own and that something vibrant is at work- heck- they even observe that God gives these saved people that they are observign special reveleations that come from on high- (No, I'm not talking about the hocus pocus revelations of cults like mormons etc- I'm talking watching God direct people's path in VERY specific ways that are quite obvious IF you observe and see it correctly)
It takes reason to deduce evolution is a lie based opn faulty science and blatant outrigfht lies, and it takes reason to explore the massive intracacies of life to deduce that there IS design behind them- Just ask any scientist who set out to prove God wasn't real but ended up astonished at what they found- their reasoning led them directly to faith in the God they once could NOT see due to their own blindness. http://sacredscoop.com
There are two faces to "necessary evil." The obverse is something like spanking a child who has unknowingly risked its life in some dangerous activity. It is very necessary, and it is devoid of true evil, in fact, it may in future save the life of the child.
The reverse, however, is called "necessary", but its true emphasis is evil. Such as Stalin's quote that "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs." (Noting that he broke a vast number of 'eggs', yet never made anything like an omelet.)
So the first case is not evil, and the second case is not necessary.
Even in an extreme, like war or capital punishment, the term "necessary evil" may be an oxymoron. I could cite the truly revolting cliques of past, such as the Thuggee and the Aztecs, where the only good that could arise from them was by their annihilation.
Or I could even use those leaders of Iran who both crave nuclear weapons and so much as state they intend to use them. They should face destruction alone, but they hope to drag their people with them.
But even in that, their people are not without sin, because the man on the street in Persia believes that nuclear weapons will be like Aladdin's djinn, and that all their wishes will come true when Iran has such weapons.
So there is no evil involved in stopping such a thing. And even greater good if it involves minimizing the number of innocents whose blood is shed in the process.
It is not evil, but beyond any doubt, it truly may become necessary.
Faith is independant of reason?...of course it is. If faith were dependant on reason it would be called science not faith. I don't want to get into a dense epistemological argument here but in the end faith is rooted in belief in the unseen , unmeasurable, and unknowable. To assert otherwise is to assert you can see,measure and know the mind of God. If you are willing to assert that then allow me time to step away from you because the assertion alone makes me tremble.
ping
Your conversation comes from a soulish perspective.
There are three generally accepted forms of perception at the time of the Incarnation.
Rationalism, which is similar to Platonic reasoning,
Empiricism, say similar to Aristotlean perception, and faith which is purely from God which is a spiritual perception.
Once a person exercises faith in God through Christ, a human spirit is reborn in the man which he was dead to beforehand.
From the perspective of a soulish person, one only with body and soul, but without a living spirit, rationalism and empiricism are the primary methods of perception.
Science has value, but generally more from an empirical and rational perspective.
Upon a saving faith and regeneration of the spirit, man also has a spiritual perception through faith.
From the perspective of the soulish person, the natural man, faith appears to be a leap of logic without substantiation. it is foolishness, yet soulish men observe others involved in religion and attempts to understand what religion means. Without a living spirit, the soulish perspective will tend to interpret the observations and place them in terms of comparative religion. To the soulish man, policies such as those held by freemasons appear very reasonable, i.e. just believe God exists, but don't get mired in the details, therefore Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all appear comparatively coequal, just different perspectives or variations on a theme.
This misses the unique feature of faith through Christ which is very, very real. Namely the regeneration of the spirit and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in each believer through faith in Christ. This doesn't occur in any other flavor of religion.
An additional facet of Christianity and the Church Age, is the continueing sanctification of the believer by a continuing ministry by God the Holy Spirit in the mind, soul, heart and spirit of the believer.
Just because a person isn't a believer, doesn't mean they aren't influenced by the spiritual domain. Without the Holy Spirit, though they may be deceived and lack discernment of spiritual truths, which are required in discerning spiritual phenomenon from deception. There do exist deceiving spirits, so the issue isn't moot.
Many other religions might segue from a point of truth provided and revealed to man by God, with a counterfeit substitution. Some of these substitutions might emphasize physical, soulish, or spiritual aspects of perception.
For example, in Islam, there are many facets within their architecture, their 'holy books', their culture, their rituals, which strongly indicate spiritual involvement. The issue really is whether that spiritual information is trustworthy and true. Without God revealing and enabling the believer, one might be influenced or even possessed by demonic spirits.
God provides a solution through faith in Christ, at which time God the Holy Spirit performs all the work in the believer and provides all the faith from Himself.
Strictly speaking, faith is not rooted in the unseen, unmeasurable, and unknowable. That definition might be closer associated with the word "Hope". Hope is faith in things not seen. An intersting thing about faith through Christ is that upon saving faith, hope becomes seen, known, and perceptable through grace. A second hope then arises for the believer to continue in sanctification and renew his mind daily, putting on the mind of Christ. The mind of Christ, leads to changing the heart, which in turn provides the tools to apply in daily problem solving, again through faith in Christ.
Since this faith is from God and involves the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, providing the temple for the Son who is one with the Father, all three persons of the Godhead indwell the believer through faith in Christ.
This doesn't occur in any other religion and it is very, very real. It is so real that no power is able to overcome that faith. All things are possible through it.
It a nutshell, that's why Christian believers tell others about it. It isn't to inflate our own egos, it's a recognition of a power system, faith, love and relationship with God which is provided by no other, in main part because it is all provided by God Himself.
Is it possible to know the mind of God? When He reveals it to a believer through faith in Christ, it not only is knowable, He actually indwells the believer and makes what He wants us to know available to us on His terms. Since He is omniscent and omnipotent, it's a bit foolish to rely on any other teacher except those who He also indwells and provides spiritual gifts, such as the spiritual communication gift of pastor-teacher.
Don't take my word for it,..take His, it's trustworthy for all eternity, regardless the time, place or circumstance.
I have to dissagree- Faith is based upon observation of the work of God as I tried to explain in my previous post- Not all faith of course- but faith is not exclusively independant of reason.
To explain a bit- when You ask specifics from God as an unbeliever, and God grants requests that could not have resulted in any other explainable manner- then you are an observer to the workings of God- you then reason that God is real and therefor base you faith on reason.
A bad example I guess would be soemone who perhaps run out of gas with no money- walks to a store without anyone witnessing & doesn't know what they're going to do- they offer up a quick request & a stranger out of the clear blue comes up and for no reason insists the person take some money. (I've had this happen)
Another might be a person who needs guidance in a matter and God leads them to the answer in most unusual ways.
A relationship with God is a dynamic personal experience- I've only listed a few bad examples, but I can assure you that all these little things do add up & these are things that go way beyond mere coincidences- the odds being such that they are impossible to be coincidences tiem and time again. When God comes calling, the person who is the recipient knows beyond doubt. A person absolutely CAN see God's hand at work and can correctly reason that God means to get their attention. To rule out reason altogether is blind devotion to the fact that faith and reason have no connection.
The scientist that delves deep into the workings of biology and sees clear patterns of design reasons that a designer had to be present just as astutely as someone never havign seen a watch before and breaking one open can correctly reason that a designer created the watch.
The 'science' you claim trumps reason is nothing more than blind faith that disregards reason and takes a leap of faith in order to beleive as far as evolution goes. In order for evolution to be viable, it MUST transcend biological boundaries that goe directly against natural laws and HAS to be based on the faith that DNA is eternal and was so prevelent that it completely choked the universe so that someday, after 10 billion years of lightening strikes on a pond would produce just the right mutation to start an impossible leap from single amino acids to protiens- Scientifically, it has been pretty well established that it would take 10 billion years of constant 24/7 lightening strikes to create just one NEUTRAL mutation that wouldn't be detrimental to the whole process of evolution even if it were biologically possible.
That takes a HEAP of faith- yet incredibly, it is presented as 'science' and therefore noone should question it? Sorry- but as I stated, the whole process of evolution takes an amount of blind faith that HAS to disregard reason in order for the model to be perceived as sound.
Yuo claim science has to see, measure and know in order to be sound right? Mind explaining how we can 'see measure and know' events in the past? Evolution does away with the 'know', does away with the 'see' (We were NOT there to see what was going on and therefore we can't know- we HAVE to have faith that our reasoning is right if we are to believe the theories of evolution)
Ah you say, but we can assemble many present knowns and make a reasonable judgement on certain things that happened in the past. You would be correct- BUT let me point out that a person seeking God does the exact same thing- the only difference being that the person assembles an assortment of knowns that happen in the present as well as some knowns of past happenings based on sciences of archeology, geographical histories, eye witness testimonies from the past etc. and DOES make reason a part of faith.
If you're attempting to state that science is the end all be all of reason, I would caution you that science of the past is based upon faith every bit as much, if not more, than religious faith is. There has NEVER been an instance of evolution that we can point to- the closest any have come is asserting that Pyrokytes (sp?) evolved into another organism- BUT upon closer scrutiny, science HAD to back away from this lie when they wer3 pressed with the truth and facts- the organism they supposedly evolved into (can't remember the name right now- think it was eukoroytes or somethign liek that) was NOTHING but a symbiotic relationship much the same as a parasite invading a host.
Yet, this science you assert is based on reason, told us all along that this WAS an example of evolution.
I'm not going to get into the evolution debate here- but suffice it to say, it takes a whole heap of faith to beleive in a process that is biologically impossible, and it takes a profound audacity to claim that because it is 'science' that it is above being labelled what it really is, and that is faith. To insinuate that it is superior to religious beleif is just wrong and perhaps even an attempt to look down ones nose on religious faith when in reality, the same faith is need3d to beleive in the science one calls immutable.
Cvengr- thank you- you said it better than I could- Faith is an experiential issue- one experiences a real and personal relationship with a very real God who is active in our lives in ways that at tiems are hard tro explain unless experienced- that is not to say however, that it is entirely unexplanable and lacking in solid reasoning aspects. It very much is based on reasoning, and the more that is revealed, the stronger the faith becomes due to reasoning.
You said "An additional facet of Christianity and the Church Age, is the continueing sanctification of the believer by a continuing ministry by God the Holy Spirit in the mind, soul, heart and spirit of the believer."
That is basically what I've been fumbling my words over trying to explain- but to make it clear to someone who hasn't experienced it is quite hard for me- but perhaps not for some.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.