I wrote a hub called Being Unique... In it I state,
"Being evil to evil is good, but it is also evil. Being brilliantly good saints at doing evil to evil is a greater evil to evil, but it also a greater good. This I call God's Paradox, because only God could have possibly created something this complex and it, to me is the proof that God is a being of Goodness even though God allows evil to exist.
Another way of saying this is, you really only have two choices, 1- to do good or 2- to do evil...either way you choose...your doing evil.
Remember do evil to evil by doing only good, the greater the good you do, the greater the evil you do to evil, and that makes it all alright."
I'm starting to think maybe this is where the term 'eye for an eye' came from (doing evil to evil), and it became over time about revenge and doing harm to 'Anyone' that did a person any slight....
i don't see it that way. It doesn't matter how much Good you do, Evil won't increase nor decrease. Evil is one thing, and Good another. Let's say that while a war is going on, and a lot of people get killed, there's a Mission doing charity in another country. what the 'good' of the mission can alter the 'evil' of the war ?
If people only do GOOD , Good and Evil disappears all together. If there's no action against one or the other, the word loses its meaning. If you only have beauty and no ugliness, you don't need the word beauty anymore. you couldn't say: How beautiful is miss X, if there's no ugly people you can't say Mr. Q is so good, if there's no evil anymore.
It would never happen in a bipolar world.In a world of opposites.
Only works if you define "doing evil" in some unconventional way which, IMO, you cannot do (because if we ditch the agreed-upon meanings of words and phrases we cannot get anywhere... I can't arbitrarily to decide to start calling turnips "carrots").
"Doing evil" is doing damage to something of worth (like a person, a great work of art, a planet, and so on). I am not doing evil when I destroy a big pile of garbage, for example, unless, as I say, you want to define "doing evil" in an idiosyncratic way (but, again, if I want to define "eating radishes" as "climbing Mt Everest" that's up to me... doesn't mean I am right)
from Wikipedia; Evil, in many cultures, is a broad term used to describe what are seen as subjectively harmful deeds that are labeled as such to steer moral support. Evil is usually contrasted with good, which describes acts that are subjectively beneficial to the observer. In some religions, evil is an active force, often personified as an entity such as Satan or Ahriman.
from Dictionary dot com;
e⋅vil /ˈivəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ee-vuhl] Show IPA Use evil in a Sentence See images of evil Search evil on the Web –adjective 1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life. 2. harmful; injurious: evil laws. 3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days. 4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation. 5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
–noun 6. that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils. 7. the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin. 8. the wicked or immoral part of someone or something: The evil in his nature has destroyed the good. 9. harm; mischief; misfortune: to wish one evil. 10. anything causing injury or harm: Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil. 11. a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence: the evils of alcohol. 12. a disease, as king's evil.
–adverb 13. in an evil manner; badly; ill: It went evil with him.
As psychologically poor as the bible is written, I don't think that much thought was put into "an eye for an eye". I think it was simply another law in attempts to find an equal punishment to criminals.
We still use eye for an eye punishment in our justice system along with others. The death sentence is an eye for an eye.
Interesting. In one of my recent hubs on Israel I've illustrated how God actually uses the Adversary's evil designs to bring about a greater good. The Adversary dwells on the satisfaction of the "here and now" and does not have the eternal perspective capability that God has. This is actually good for the great plan for the human species. The bondage of the tribes of Israel was allowed to take place to justify and enable their eventual exodus. There are many other examples as well.
As far as "eye for an eye". Much of the laws in Biblical text are based on the Law of Moses. What is not well known is that the Law of Moses was fulfilled with the Atonement of Jesus Christ. After that the replacement for the Law of Moses was the new covenant established by the Savior. Many in the forums have repeatedly said that they are not saved by works. This is a misunderstanding of scripture. That passage refers to the works within the Law of Moses and is not a part of the new covenant. He was saying that we are not saved by the acts of the rituals under the Law of Moses. In other words He was teaching us that we can qualify for salvation upon our works under free agency unto our fellow man and not through blind works under the Law of Moses. Eye for an eye was correct but is under a law that has been fulfilled.
In fact the purpose of the Law of Moses was TO BE fulfilled and not to endure beyond the Savior's personal ministry. He fulfilled that and thus the new law and covenant was instituted.
In my belief system, I believe that there are things that exist even though we cannot yet prove they exist. For me however the proof that God exists is written in my hub 'why Mikel believes in God'... If your interested, and again more proof is shown in my hub 'Feelings as Proof'
well, there are different belief systems. In mine I only believe in myself. Anyway Good and Evil are human conditions. nothing to do with Religion. Even if religion wouldn't exist anymore, Good and Evil will remain.
I'm not trying to define what is evil and what isn't... I'm merely stating that doing evil to evil(whatever acts or entities that may be) is an act of evil, but it is also,at the same time an act of good, because it only hurts evil... Which I'm calling 'God's Paradox' ...
Doing evil to evil isn't a good thing. Finding out what cause them to do what they did and how to fix it? is the answer to explore. Not killing them.
Taking a life isn't warranted, regardless. It's morally wrong, as is what they did to deserve you taking their life.
No Human has the right to take another's life. It's morally wrong and NOT good in anyway. Attacking the problem that cause them to kill someone is better addressed, so as to prevent it from happening again.
I highly agree. I also think it teaches children that killing is an alright punishment when they see their government legally kill. When a person is killed, nothing is learned from them. If they are alive, things could be learned to prevent similar cases in the future. Agreed.
Will governments ever sacrifice power and money for morals? This is what I mean. I don't think it is logical to believe.
Not all children have parents to teach them morals and the ones that do sometimes have parents that teach them negative morals. I don't think there is a book of morals anywhere that is witten as absolute. Even if they were, how many would believe and act on them as absolute?
It is hard to teach to others when there is much confusion surrounding it. Sometimes killing is neccessary to prevent future killing at the same time saying the death penalty is wrong.
So if someone is intent on taking the life of my daughter, I am supposed to chat with them, psychoanalize their intentions and try to talk it out of them before I even try to defend my daughter? Life is harsh and sometimes it comes to having to choose between the lesser of evils.
Now, you're taking things to an extreme. If your own life is in jeopardy, it is instinctive to defend oneself. Killing itself, is morally wrong in a civilized society. But, instinctive life threatening defense is exactly that. It's not seen as a direct kill. You have to kill in that instance, survival accounts more than the kill.
There is no lessor of evils. Evil is evil and it can be seen by it's actions.
that goes back to the necessity of having opposites, which you used to argue your point earlier...
For Good to exist, Evil must also exist...
as written in my hubs 'Being Unique, the thing that makes us ALL the same.' and 'The Balance of Good and Evil' and 'Knowing Mikel G Roberts...A Piece in God's Puzzle' and 'My Brain... my mental navigator' and so on and so on...
@ Alessia Ok proof is the logic of the paradox...which by the nature of a paradox is confusing and self refuting...
All the hubs I listed in earlier text(on this thread) are where the proof and the rationalizing of the OP took place and reading those might help. There is no one or two word explanation though, it is a complex paradox and difficult to understand at best.
For every terrific, there is a terrible, in every terrible there is a terrific. There has to be balance, there is balance in absolutely everything. That is the human race, there can be no more evil than good, or no more good than evil, else we would evolve to something other than human. Which is possible, but highly unlikely.
God is perfectly MORAL. Morality is in always doing that which is RIGHT. Doing what is RIGHT requires one to know what is right from what is WRONG. God always knows what is right from what is wrong because God KNOWS...
How Does One Obtain The Knowledge of Sin?This is a question I posed to several leaders and believers, recently, in developing yet another element of literature. It was odd the responses, mostly the 'deer-headlights' or...