But what do you mean duality, are speaking of substance dualism?
I speak of bitter and sweet, good and evil. This is how we guage the actions of others. You are good because you did this or, you are bad because you did that. It is a mixture of causallity and duality.
Does this make sense?
Are you saying evil began its existence as the absence of good?
No. I am saying that the principles of both are derived from the acknowledgement of this and that. Duality gave birth to religion and it was a result of people observing the premise of causallity. There are many things we do not yet understand. One is the why of things and there are many other things we have yet to ask.
So to you evil is a product of man's nature of expression?
Evil is a product of mans interpretation, through observation. It is in our nature to observe, but we can't shut up long enough to learn anything from it, so we have given it labels and they have stuck.
Evil is the absence of reason, with little or big acts harm,
Evil is a type of action not a being, it doesn't need to be "born".
Maybe it's simply a human concept. Evil is hard to define, much less trace to its origins.
If it is human, and it arises from that, how are we born evil?
We are. How does a baby know to rebel from what it's parents want him or her to do? For example a baby may hit its mother after the mother tries to feed it. No one taught that baby how to rebel. Therefore it must be innate.
Or it is the behavior of the primitave mind. Babys are primitive in thought and have no idea what is good or bad. No one is born evil, we are just born and it is how we live our lives between then and the end that determines if we are evil or not.
But it is we as humans who define that act as "rebelling." The baby is doing only what is natural.
The mother and parents define that action as "rebelling" or "bad" because they want him to do something different. The parents therefore define evil as simply the baby doing that which they don't want him to do.
Was the act of hitting the mother evil? According to the mother yes, because she sees is as rebelling. For the child, he was simply telling her he didn't want food. What is so evil about that? Interpretation and intentions.
The adult mind has everything to do with evil. A baby does not know and therefor it cannot be evil. I am not a christian, but I do bellieve that there is an age accountabillity and anywhere after that time, evil is a choice that leads to action or what have you.
What if there's no such thing as evil, even to an adult? What if it's simply an interpretation?
The baby is doing what is natural to it. That is why it is innate and affixed.
But you are the one which defined that natural action as evil. It is therefore a concept of interpretation.
A baby knows in a deep and never conscious level but always subconscious the soldering entity of evil. Evil is not evil because of intention, evil is evil because of its spliffication of good.
how do you know this if you can't ever remember being a baby?
So if I perform some sort of action in all honestly thinking it benefits someone, and it in fact kills them, was it an evil thing for me to do?
But if someone else performs this same action thinking and knowing full well it will kill someone, and it kills them, was it evil?
The act itself was only evil because of the intention.
Do you believe that morality is subjective?
I was challenging your concept of evil. You considered the baby as "rebelling" against its mother. You therefore considered the action (hitting its mother) to be evil. But you yourself were the one who made that interpretation of that particular act.
In your words: "How does a baby know to rebel from what it's parents want him or her to do? For example a baby may hit its mother after the mother tries to feed it. No one taught that baby how to rebel. Therefore it must be innate"
I was only using that example to show that the baby must appeal to something that is innate and affixed within itself. I was wrong in using that example, it was vague, and for that I do apologize. It is hard to project my views with language.
No, I am saying that the baby appealed to evil which was innate and affixed within itself, not an evil.
Evil is the absence of good and anything that is contrary to the perfection found in God.
"Evil is the absence of good and anything that is contrary to the perfection found in God"
I still don't see how one won't wind up discussing intention, in this case.
How does what the baby did, fit that description?
Then, according to your "logic" evil's origins are directly from religion.
As I said before that example was vague and wrong. However, I still hold to my belief that man is not naturally good.
Yes, despite reality, facts and evidence to the contrary.
And you would be adhering to a flawed philosophy debunked simply because it's mystic based.
God is beyond religion. And as for evil's origins, I do not know them.
I believe the Bible, and I have faith that whatever it says is true. The Bible speaks of man and says that he is not naturally good, so I believe it. My basis on this issue is purely faith.
Yes it does. It is just very hard for me to explain it in a way that has a recognition of understanding to it.
I will tell you what, let me study, put together some things and think, and I will write you a hub on it. Then you can, by all means, dismantle my beliefs and carefully scrutinize them and tear them to shreds, if would like to. Does that sound good?
As I have said before I do not think that I can explain my belief fully to you in a way that you may understand it.
That alone should make you question the belief. The fact that you don't? Is defying your own nature.
I was just letting you know that I'm not out to try to destroy your beliefs at all. No hard feelings. No antagonism. If I presented myself as such, I didn't mean to.
You have not presented yourself in that way. It was inconsistency on my part that caused the long discussion. I did not know fully how to present my belief concerning this matter.
Cagsil, I understand it. I just do not know how to tell you.
Then since you cannot explain it to others then you should realize the impact that your words(or lack thereof) is having on yourself and with others. Maybe, it would be best that you don't speak about them until you can communicate them.
Just something to consider.
Yes sir, you are correct and that is what I wish to do.
supliffication has nothing to do with purity. Babies are clean and have not yet developed a conscience, so they cannot be held resonsible for any of the actions they commit. A baby cannot speak, so they either cry, hit or scratch. Something has to get our attention and it is up to us to teach the child how those methods can be right or wrong.
Utter garbage. Babies have no concept of evil or rebellion. If what you say were true, babies would almost always hit their mothers trying to feed it.
Why sir? Babies have a conscious and they have a choice. I would differ from baby to baby. So what you say is not true but is based solely on the environment and the effects and causes that inhibit the baby to do so.
Babies are conscious but they have not yet developed a conscience. It takes time to develope into an adult and within that time, we learn what is acceptable and what is not. A baby has no concept of right and wrong, so therefor a baby cannot be evil.
If babies have so many choices, why do they poop their diapers?
Babies haven't the intellectual capacity to do anything let alone have a choice about what is good and what is evil. Seriously, dude.
It's instinct but the baby doesn't sin, it's too young to know.
Even Yahshua said if you anger without cause, it's wrong.
But notice he said without a cause (a reason).
21. Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Rather than attempting to intellectually understand evil and its origin, I recommend instead grappling with and overcoming evil. Check out on Amazon a book that has been helpful to me, God At War by Gregory Boyd.
One cannot overcome evil fully, for it is innate and affixed within us.
Agreed, we need help. That's one reason I recommended the book to you.
A book written by man in the same state as me will not help me overcome the same thing he is trying to overcome, this is where God is immensely needed, to overcome evil and grapple with it.
If we understand our own propensity toward good and evil, then we can make adjustments accordingly. One must understand the natures of the 2 sides, not overcome them more, live with them and act as is appropriate to the feeling. I am not saying to act on whim, but more, to pay attention and observe how it would affect you in the long run.
The long run effect is not the deciding factor. The deciding factor is what is correct to do regardless of the consequences.
Evil, in a word, comes from and in all it's manifestations is a form of - selfishness. We are created as relational creatures; we start as partners, produce families, and seek-out community - we are each parts of a whole and were designed for unity. Selfishness, thinking first and caring most about 'self' rather than others is where all evil originates.
That's what God's redemption through Jesus of Nazareth is all about, uniting us together with Himself and bonding us together with one another - and the evidence that selfishness is at the core of evil . . ? . . the bond of our perfect unity with God and man is love, the opposite of selfishness.
Like, for example, when believers do anything, it is an action they will take ONLY to appease their gods. Pure selfishness.
Evil comes from the same place that good comes from. The mind of Man/God. We conceived both, and in truth, that is the only place where evil exists. The shark isn't evil...it does what sharks do. The snake isn't evil, nor is it good. A snake is a snake.
From your sniper-like assaultive insults and accusations, rather than an honest sharing of ideas, I'm not surprised you confuse love with a selfish appeasing of gods. When you were little and took it upon yourself to do the dishes for your mom, or when you prepare a meal you know she likes for your wife, or when you spend time playing a game with your kids that you don't actually enjoy playing, etc, etc, are those purely selfish acts? You're so determined that your set in concrete view of Christianity be celebrated that you draw the exact wrong conclusions from things you just don't understand.
My comment isn't considered terribly christian. In fact, I'm considered a heretic.
The way these threads are set-up can be a bit confusing - if you click on the "this" part of "in reply to this" you can see I was responding to A (very) Troubled Man.
(and I agree, you are certainly a heretic - though, I do agree, a snake is a snake)
I think "heretic' is specifically a church term, like, if you stand opposed to some particular church's teaching then you are heretical to that particular church . . . to God there are simply those who are His own children through the atonement of Jesus and those who reject Jesus and His atonement and are not God's children.
Then, if God isn't everyone's father, who created them? Can God deny responsibility? Make him take a test. Sounds like a deadbeat to me. If the kids are good they're his, and if they're bad they are SOMEONE ELSE"S KIDS? Pretty crappy handling of the whole mess. No wonder everything is screwed up. A little tinkering with the DNA would have saved everyone including Jesus the whole charade. God playing games.
I didn't say anything about good kids being God's and bad kinds not being God's - that is what religion teaches, it is the opposite of what Christianity teaches. God did indeed create man, and in a sense creates every man, and in that sense you could say He is the Father of all - but the Bible is clear that all of us having rejected God, He now adopts those who are His to be His. You're all riled-up about ideas in your own head and not at all what Christianity presents as the truth.
I don't confuse it, I read it everyday right here on these forums from believers.
Those are selfish acts for a believer because they put their gods as the highest priorities in their life, much higher than family and friends. They simply follow a program like any automaton that's been programmed through indoctrination.
What is your indoctrination and what makes it any different than what you count as indoctrination in others?
ATM > Those (do the dishes for your mom, prepare a meal for your wife, spend time playing a game with your kids, etc) are selfish acts for a believer because they put their gods as the highest priorities in their life, much higher than family and friends <
You think you understand the Christian teaching and the Christian mind, but, I'm a Christian and you simply do not . . . did you grow-up in a 'Christian' abusive home or attend a 'Christian' oppressive school or something? I understand that many review the history of the world and the sway of American churches on our culture and conclude that Christianity is the source of nothing bu evil, but you seem like one of those folks who go beyond an kind of public observation and own a deep personal grudge - I know I could very easily be way off, I'm not asserting anything about you, I'm just asking.
When we worship God we are not flagellating ourselves chanting 'you're so great, you're so great' and when we seek to obey God's law we're not making sure our 'insurance' for the afterlife is all in order, etc - God is love, all that is good comes form Him, when we worship Him and obey Him we are celebrating being kind to others and helping others and loving others. When i do the dishes for my wife I do indeed do them because of who God is and what He reveals to us - but I am doing them because of the love I have for my wife as one taught by God, not as one hoping to appease a scrupulous overseer. You fight and struggle against a god of your own imagination and then fault me (or whoever) for following the god you make-up - but, you simply don't know what you're talking about.
Knowing the difference between indoctrination and teaching is one.
Only by what they say and do.
No, did you?
I have no grudge against Christianity. All religions are sources of great evil.
From your words, it appears you needed your God to teach you to love your wife and that you do the dishes because what God reveals to you.
God is not all love and not all love comes from God, that is your first mistake in understanding reality.
M >> What is your indoctrination and what makes it any different than what you count as indoctrination in others? <<
ATM > Knowing the difference between indoctrination and teaching is one <
So, do you simply cast whatever you don't agree with as 'indoctrination' and whatever you do agree with as 'teaching', or do you just practice a bigotry against those who disagree with you and assume they must obviously so foolish that they've been indoctrinated and haven't been deliberate and thoughtful in what we've investigate and considered?
I assume that you are a smart guy who has thought seriously about these ideas and that you believe what you believe through a critical process of examination - but you seem to simply cast any who believe differently than you on this as necessarily indoctrinated and foolish . . . that doesn't support the "smart guy who has thought seriously about these ideas" assumption I prefer to practice. A Troubled Man, if you look honestly at the historic record some of the most brilliant minds of ever age have been Christians . . . whatever you personally think about Christian teaching, that is simply a fact.
Not at all. If you knew the difference, you wouldn't ask that question.
Deliberate and thoughtful investigation?
It's an understanding, not a belief.
And if they didn't say they were Christian, they would have been ostracized, alienated or worse, if one were to look at that honestly.
. . . so, when you put a laughing icon next to "deliberate and thoughtful investigation" are you suggesting that authentic deliberate and thoughtful investigation cannot reasonably lead anyone to Christianity?
Asserting that the vast multitude of brilliant thinkers in more ancient times only feigned faith so as to avoid persecution, that is not at all an honest reading of history but is a ludicrous propping up of a lame assertion.
Absolutely not. It is ridiculous to even consider.
Back then, everyone believed in myths and superstitions, but when you begin to explore the background of "brilliant thinkers" we find for the most part they had no interest in religion even though publicly they said they did.
I think Gracchus said it best when he spoke to a young Julius Caesar about making an old fashioned sacrifice to the gods...
"Privately I believe in none of them. Neither do you. Publicly I believe in them all."
M >>>> do you just practice a bigotry against those who disagree with you and assume they must obviously be so foolish that they've been indoctrinated and haven't been deliberate and thoughtful in what we've investigate and considered? <<<<
ATM >>> Bigotry? <<<
M >> are you suggesting that authentic deliberate and thoughtful investigation cannot reasonably lead anyone to Christianity? <<
ATM > It is ridiculous to even consider <
You are evidencing bigotry in the midst of asserting you practice no bigotry, and you are demonstrating the very narrow-mindedness you fault others for. Where would science be if we assumed only that which we see before us is possible, if the concept of microscopic material was instantly counted as "ridiculous to even consider" . The idea that there is another reality, an invisible to us spiritual reality, behind or aside or whatever of the material reality we observe ourselves in is not "ridiculous to even consider" unless you are either hugely unimaginative, massively fearful, gigantically arrogant, etc.
ATM > when you begin to explore the background of "brilliant thinkers" we find for the most part they had no interest in religion even though publicly they said they did <
I'm not wanting to sound rude or like I think I know it all, etc, but you are simply ill-informed and very wrong on this. Certainly there were many men who feigned some manner of religiosity (whether in ancient Egypt, among the Mongol hordes, in feudal Europe, etc) to either survive or advance their station, but you cannot explain away the great multitude of brilliant and accomplished men who fully believed and devoted their life to a sure confidence that the God of Abraham was the one true God and creator of all that is and the Jesus is the only way to know and be untied to Him. It is a fact observable from the historic record, and to deny, alter, or dismiss the historic reality is tact of the hugely unimaginative, massively fearful, gigantically arrogant, etc.
LOL! So, because I don't agree Christians use "deliberate and thoughtful investigation", that somehow makes me a bigot?
... if religion hadn't tried to stomp it out in order to defend the myths?
Please don't compare microscopic materials to a lack of "deliberate and thoughtful investigation". Thanks.
Or, simple grounded in reality. To imply people are unimaginative, massively fearful, gigantically arrogant, etc. because they don't believe an invisible spiritual realm exists is as absurd as it is dishonest.
LOL! See above, re: absurd and dishonest.
6That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
8Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.
9Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?
10Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?
- Isaiah chapter 45.
5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
- Genesis 6:5
Hey he asked, he's into biblical things, so here's some biblical reference. Besides, that last one kind of goes with what you're saying Caggy baby.
Bible says, "The heart of a man is wicked."
Cagsil says "Man-made concept"
Evel Knievel was born in Butte, Montana in 1938. I hope that answers your question.
Is evil the absence of good? Couldn't it be to go against God? In Lucifer's case evil was done because of love. He so loved God that he refused God's commandment to love Man and for that he was cast out for all eternity.
I read it on a paper which tried to explore why Lucifer turned proud and against God. Isaiah 14 just said that he became too ambitious and wanted to be God, and the paper was exploring why and how Lucifer changed form someone who loved God then ended up going against him. It was interesting and I thought I would put it out there for discussion.
It is also interesting that when Adam and Eve turned against God's one commandment they were cast out of Paradise. It was evil in the Serpent who tempted Man that caused Man's downfall. It suggests that evil was an outside force that Man experienced and remain vulnerable to, once they were cast out of Paradise.
And anyone who believes that EVIL can be done because of love, then doesn't understand love.
How about the LOVE of being EVIL. Charlie Manson loved twisting people's heads. He loved being able to tell them "Kill for me!" and they would. I've met people like that. Psycho-paths.
We gotta fess up! Cagsil and I invented evil on the Second evening of creation. Too much good ain't good for ya'
Bad example and leave me out of it.
As I said earlier in this thread. Evil is man-made concept.
Evil is a word we use to pick out a property of certain human actions, institutions and objects such as nuclear weapons. Evil has both a subjective and objective dimension of meaning. The most bald form of evil is intentional cruelty.
by VationSays10 months ago
"We must stop confusing religion, and spirituality. Religion is a set of rules regulations and rituals created by humans which were supposed to help people spiritually. Due to human imperfection religion has become...
by Alexander A. Villarasa5 years ago
The common thread that weaves thru all entities in the universe is their dual essence. Duality is the governing principle....it is what keeps all of nature in total symmetry and harmony. Energy/Mass,...
by Phil Perez2 years ago
I'm doubtful of hearing about the concept of evil. I honestly don't know how to feel about the term. Mainly because I've come to realize that it sounds like you know right from wrong, good from bad, but you still choose...
by janesix4 years ago
I don't think good can exist without evil.If everything were good, we wouldn't know it. There has to be something to compare it to. I think when God created the universe, he had to create duality, or pairs of opposites....
by OpinionDuck6 years ago
To answer the question, you have to have a definition of Evil.If you say that Evil is the opposite of Good, then you have to have a definition of Good.Can you define Evil and Good without using the words from the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.