What is EVIL? Who Defines?

by D wiltshire 56 Replies latest jw friends

  • jst2laws
    jst2laws

    Hello HS,
    I going to give you my take on the subject but I only concern myself here with the Christian Creek words for “sin” and “evil”.

    SIN

    Sin and evil are very different issues in the Bible, which is I believe the basis for this discussion. Sin as seen below is “1a) to be without a share in 1b) to miss the mark”. I personally do not object to the WT usage of “miss the mark”. To me it simply means we are not quite RIGHT with God. Add to this the issue of Perfection. I hate the word because the original languages do not convey the thought of infinite accuracy or flawlessness but simply mean “complete”.

    So for “Sin” we are simply talking about failing to be “complete” or “missing the mark” of being right with God. In comes faith in the ransom and we are made Right with God (Gal. 5:1) and sin is done away with. If this is the right perception then sin is no longer so ugly, but a blemish God had agreed to fix without charge.

    EVIL

    Notice the Strongs definition below uses the words “bad” and injury, unkind, as well as “deeds and action”.

    I see a great difference in this and Sin. As sin is defined, we all fail to be ‘complete’ (perfect) and we are ‘all sinners” (missing the mark), but we do not all do ‘bad’ ‘deeds’. It appears to me an evil person does not mind hurting others, deliberately does bad (things to the harm of others). There seems to be more of a deliberateness in the case of evil where as sin is a ‘mistake’.

    STRONGS DEFINITIONS

    SIN
    6 a`marti,a hamartia {ham-ar-tee'-ah}
    Meaning: 1) equivalent to 264 1a) to be without a share in 1b) to miss the mark 1c) to err, be mistaken 1d) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong 1e) to wander from the law of God, violate God's law, sin 2) that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act 3) collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many
    Origin: from 264; TDNT - 1:267,44; n f
    Usage: AV - sin 172, sinful 1, offense 1; 174

    EVIL
    7451 [r' ra` {rah}
    Meaning: adj 1) bad, evil 1a) bad, disagreeable, malignant 1b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery) 1c) evil, displeasing 1d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc) 1e) bad (of value) 1f) worse than, worst (comparison) 1g) sad, unhappy 1h) evil (hurtful) 1i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition) 1j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically) 1j1) in general, of persons, of thoughts 1j2) deeds, actions n m 2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity 2a) evil, distress, adversity 2b) evil, injury, wrong 2c) evil (ethical) n f 3) evil, misery, distress, injury 3a) evil, misery, distress 3b) evil, injury, wrong 3c) evil (ethical)
    Origin: from 07489; TWOT - 2191a,2191c
    Usage: AV - evil 442, wickedness 59, wicked 25, mischief 21, hurt 20, bad 13, trouble 10, sore 9, affliction 6, ill 5, adversity 4, favoured 3, harm 3, naught 3, noisome 2, grievous 2, sad 2, misc 34; 663

    Jst2laws

  • Introspection
    Introspection

    I was writing a fairly lengthy reply when I realized.. What good would this do? Does all this talk make you a good person by virtue of knowing what the opposite is? If I read a lot of books about fitness and bought a lot of exercise gadgets would that get me in shape? I can appreciate that it may be appropriate to revisit the topic every once in a while, but we have covered this before..

  • D wiltshire
    D wiltshire

    Farkel,

    Your argument postulates premises that allow for contradiction.
    These premises are not nessasarily true.:

    Oh, so then YOU either a) have a standard of your own that God must measure up to, or you believe that b) there is another standard that God must measure up to which is independent of his own standards.”
    Why do you postulate only 2 choices? Arn't their any more?

    And this:

    “That’s circular reasoning. You are using the conclusion to prove the premise, which you use to prove the conclusion, which you use to prove the premise which you use to prove the… See what I mean?”
    I never heard this type of reasoning did you make that up?

    And

    “God COULD order that torturing someone to death for being caught with a Donald Duck comic book is a “right” punishment. He might never do it, but he could do it, couldn’t he?”
    Oh come on now, lets be just a little bit real.

    Need I go on?

    If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
  • jst2laws
    jst2laws

    Big D Wiltshire,

    Your taking on Fark??

    (Jst2laws quietly takes several steps backward)

    Jst2laws

  • D wiltshire
    D wiltshire

    jst,
    Don't make this so personal, it's not it's just grown ups having fun from different points of veiw.

    We test things that way.

    If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
  • Introspection
    Introspection

    D, circular logic is a known fallacy, I certainly don't think Farkel was trying to justify it. If you're interested, there's more info about that at this page: http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/circular.html

    Of course, the whole business of the authority of God in terms of what is right and wrong makes a lot more sense if you look at it from the perspective of natural law. Rather than a strict black and white understanding of written laws, an appreciation of certain operating principles helps you understand what will work for you as a human being, dealing with other human or living beings. You're not going to live a happy life with things going smoothly if you are addicted to drugs, or anything else for that matter. If you're not nice to other people, they will probably not be nice to you. Frankly, there's a lot of things God doesn't have to command. If you're engaged in addictive behavior, you're going to suffer at some point. If you're a jerk, you're not going to be receiving good will from most people. Anyways, all this brings to mind the whole business with love doing away with the law. If we say love is good, and the opposite of good is evil, then that's where it's at. Remember that the opposite of love has been said to be selfishness. It would be the difference between being inclusive and exclusive. So.. I guess that's my answer, hope it's not too vague.

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek
    Need I go on?

    Well, yes, seeing as you didn't make any points at all in your post. If you want to continue this debate you have to actually say something. Farkel made some excellent points in a post that obviously took him some time and considerable thought. You responded without saying anything of substance. Do you disagree with the points Farkel made? If so, why? If you think there is more than the two choices Farkel gave, offer a third? If you don't understand, ask for clarification.

    --
    "The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794.

  • D wiltshire
    D wiltshire

    Funky,

    Show me where I'm wrong clearly and I will repent with an admission.
    Say I'm wrong with no proof does nothing.

    If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
  • oscartheduck
    oscartheduck

    "--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    “That’s circular reasoning. You are using the conclusion to prove the premise, which you use to prove the conclusion, which you use to prove the premise which you use to prove the… See what I mean?”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I never heard this type of reasoning did you make that up?"

    Well, actually, no he isn't. The argument he is describing is called a tautology, from the latin word for circle.

    ============================
    The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126 "As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible "

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    D Wiltshire,

    : Your argument postulates premises that allow for contradiction.
    These premises are not nessasarily true.:

    :: quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    :: Oh, so then YOU either a) have a standard of your own that God must measure up to, or you believe that b) there is another standard that God must measure up to which is independent of his own standards.”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    : Why do you postulate only 2 choices? Arn't their any more?

    I stated that good and evil (right and wrong) is either defined by God or it isn't. If you can come up with any other options, you are either an incredible genius, or are taking serious medication!

    : And this:

    : quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    : “That’s circular reasoning. You are using the conclusion to prove the premise, which you use to prove the conclusion, which you use to prove the premise which you use to prove the… See what I mean?”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    : I never heard this type of reasoning did you make that up?

    Yeah, I made up the concept of "circular reasoning!" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Are you incapable of understanding such a simple concept? Here's a dirt-simple example:

    "We have the truth."

    "How do you know you have the truth?"

    "Because we tell everyone we have the truth, that's why."

    : And

    : quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    : “God COULD order that torturing someone to death for being caught with a Donald Duck comic book is a “right” punishment. He might never do it, but he could do it, couldn’t he?”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    : Oh come on now, lets be just a little bit real.

    Ok, let's be real. Read Numbers chapter 31 where God ordered everyone slaughtered except virgin girls who were to be spared so the Israelites could take home sex-slaves for themselves.

    You want "real." The Bible is full of "real." My example is less ludicrous that what's actually found in the Bible. I got lotsa more. You want more?

    : Need I go on?

    No, I think it's better to quit before you embarrass yourself further.

    Farkel

    "I didn't mean what I meant."

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit