What is EVIL? Who Defines?

by D wiltshire 56 Replies latest jw friends

funkyderek

Show me where I'm wrong clearly and I will repent with an admission.
Say I'm wrong with no proof does nothing.
You're not wrong, because you didn't day anything. That was my whole point.
I didn't think I needed to quote what you'd said just a few posts above, but apparently I do.
Why do you postulate only 2 choices? Arn't their any more?
Come up with some then. If there are more than two possible options, come up with a third one for Farkel to deal with.
I never heard this type of reasoning did you make that up?
You've never heard of circular reasoning? Do you ever read posts on this board? Most of the major logical fallacies come up repeatedly. How is anyone supposed to respond to an ill-considered, vapid comment like that?
And then to the crux of Farkel's argument (in a nutshell that if God is the source of morality, then the most absurd thing becomes moral if and only if God orders it) you responded:
Oh come on now, lets be just a little bit real.
Amazingly, you seemed to think you had refuted or dealt with Farkel's argument. All you've done in this thread is ask questions and ignore the answers. if you've got a point of view, share it. if you agree with Farkel, say so. If you think he's wrong, say why. But for God's sake, say something.
--
"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

Fark and Funk,
When I said I never heard of this type of reasoning, I was refurring to the circular reasoning you were discribing, not to circular reasoning in itself which must be obvious. That is why I asked if Fark made it up.
Next as to the 2 choices I will give you a third plus a few more:
c)God follows what is the wisest(best)(morally) coarse based on His total knowledge, that may not be fully comprehended by us very limited humans. Trust is God all other pay cash.
d)God may have a limitless options as to what is right and proper all of them being in the catagory of Best, haven't you heard what Jesus said: "all things are possible with God."
e)The absolute definition of evil is elusive and has infinite variable that determine whether it is evil or not.
As to your more down to earth illustration from Numbers(better than donald duck). I don't know enough and neither do your to call this right or wrong, and I direct you to my profile signature for the logic behind my refrain from judgement.
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

"Next as to the 2 choices I will give you a third plus a few more"
You say that it'd be more, but these are just sub-categories inside of Farkels all-inclusive two categories. So you haven't stated more, simply shown you never understood what Farkel said.
"As to your more down to earth illustration from Numbers(better than donald duck). I don't know enough and neither do your to call this right or wrong, and I direct you to my profile signature for the logic behind my refrain from judgement"
But given Farkel's reasoning, then we DO know enough to say whether it's right or wrong. Farkel uses the biblical definition of right ie an action God performs, and asks you to say whether THIS is an action God performs or not, hence whether it is right.
And your profile signature, asking whether, essentialy, someone more intelligent than you would come up with the same conclusions, well, that depends whether he had more data on the given situation, and I suggest that you alter your signature to fit in with your attempt at a point, or alter your point to fit in with your signature.
Interestingly, we're getting into how to define RIGHt or WRONG, not GOOD and EVIL.
Odd how many people confuse the two.
============================
The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126 "As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible "
D wiltshire

oscar,
That's right the whole thread is about Evil, and who defines, it's not about right or wrong but some times rigth or wrong can be interchanged with good and Evil, just as bad can be.
And evil is hard to define precisely. Since it carries the thoughts of bad, and wrong.
So then Farkel was off topic according to you.
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

Not necessarily off topic, but certainly starting to sway a little...
jst2laws

How about we get back to EVIL. This is not such a mysterious issue is it? Am I still a fundamentalist or something? I hope not but Evil and Sin are two different things.
As with civil laws most of God’s laws have a purpose that can be discerned and that is usually to avoid harm to others or encroachment on their freedom. To fail to conform to his laws by mistake are even a moment of weakness is SIN. This fails to live up to the “mark” or standard God wants of us for a peaceful coexistence.
Most of what is considered evil in the Bible is HARMFUL to others but done purposely. That’s why in a previous post on this thread I said ‘there is a deliberateness to evil’ and gave the Greek word definitions to support this.
WHO DEFINES EVIL
Let me postulate a third possibility: The outcome defines evil. Does God always make the rules? NO! The rules of the Hebrew scriptures were part of a system that was given the Jews that God knew would not work from the start but would lead to what does work.
A new approach to life, a new covenant with man, a contract with stipulations was to be written in the hearts of man and they would ‘through use have their perceptive powers trained to distinguish right from wrong’ (HEB 5:14) MAN would be able to make these judgments without extensive definitions of what was evil. Our decisions would be trained and improved upon as we ‘through use’ learned to make choices that do not HARM others.
Those who choose not to train these powers and go on hurting others would be EVIL. Their actions would be evil. The evil would be defined as evil by the harmful outcome. God is not intervening nor defining here. This sums up the objective of God writing the ‘new law into hearts’ so man can live by this law of LOVE, choose not to harm others and therefore avoid evil. This is done today by many of us who are still SINNERS but not EVIL people.
I guess I sound like an evangelist or fundy here, but by Bible definition we are all ‘sinners’ but we are not all ‘evil doers’.
Jst2laws
DannyBear

Any effort to define EVIL is just an exercise, or more directly mental masturbation.
Sources of authority are relied upon in every attempt at definition.
Perhap's a better question would be; In the genesis of languages, when did the need for a 'generalized term' for not good, bad, hurtfull, become necessary.
Was it after a brother slaughterd brother in a jealous rage? Was it when one cave dweller used his 'club' on his next door cave dweller?
Was it when a newly formed ancient village, made a bad selection of shaman or spiritual leader, who exacted inhumane sacrifices for his/god's services?
There are cultures discovered in the twentieth century, who had no word for 'war', yet had somehow been able to concoct words, which identified what was considered bad, or hurtfull. So in thier case it was based solely on village or community understanding of what was bad (evil). They had no written law's or talmud's, just plain ole word of mouth.
Every east-west holy book, you name is full of god's view of EVIL (bad). And all the consequences to any that disobey his directives.
Should we pay more attention to these written utterances, just because the society (culture) that had the language, the ability to write it, then christen it's work with the sanctifying 'holy spirit' inspired utterances. All designed to make the Bible, Quoran, Book of Mormon, Talmud, carry more wieght with the rank and file?
Evil imo is anything that cannot be considered good for you and your fellowman.
Knowing the above, does not make it easy to apply, either to myself or other's around me. But it sure is alot simpler concept for me to adhere to, than trying to measure every nuance of human action and deed, against some rigourous written 'no no'.
Based on the above EVIL becomes a very easy concept for me to understand. By the way EVIL understood, allows the the so informed to repay EVIL to those who practice it, without one bit of remorse or second guessing.
Danny
Farkel

D Wiltshire,
I've been doing this long enough to notice devious people when I see them. Such people will clip out small chunks of an argument (especially in a long thread) in attempt to divert issues, or in an attempt to cover their butts when they are caught with their pants down.
Unlike you, I'm going to clearly show how you did that with me. I posted an article I'd written on the Divine Command Theory of Ethics. In that article, I presented an argument (that wasn't directed towards you personally and little to do with anything you said, btw.) that religionists use, and pointed out that that argument was circular.
I stated in that article (and not in reference to you at all, since I wrote that article months and months ago) the following:
: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?
Your comment was this:
: I never heard this type of reasoning did you make that up?
You clearly stated "I have never heard this type of reasoning." Even a moron could see that you were unfamiliar with the concept of a circular argument. Had you just stated that were NOT familiar with that concept, it would have been no big deal. But you tried to cover you tracks and THAT is where you buried yourself. I will show you why.
I and others explained to you what circular reasoning was, and you replied:
: When I said I never heard of this type of reasoning, I was refurring to the circular reasoning you were discribing, not to circular reasoning in itself which must be obvious. That is why I asked if Fark made it up.
Well then, let's all see what you did NOT paste into your thread and what I was ORIGINALLY talking about in my article.
Here is what I originally stated:
"They are forced to take a) which is that God’s decisions HAVE to be arbitrary.
"But God would NEVER make an arbitrary decision. He would always make the RIGHT decision, believers will say.
"Well then, who determines that his decisions are right?, critics ask.
"HE does, they say.
"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?
Are you going to be so foolish to dare say that IF you understood what a circular argument really was, you could not see that I had presented the easiest-to-understand and classic case of a circular argument?
The answer would have to be "yes," you did NOT understand a simple and classic example of a circular argument, because this is exactly what you said:
: When I said I never heard of this type of reasoning, I was refurring to the circular reasoning you were discribing, not to circular reasoning in itself which must be obvious. That is why I asked if Fark made it up.
In otherwords, you were saying, "Oh, yes. I understand circular argumentation, but I just didn't understand the example you provided." Bullshit.
Later you said:
: Show me where I'm wrong clearly and I will repent with an admission.
Wrong is not the right word. You are devious at best and a liar at worst. What saddens me is that I'm sure you mean well, but such tactics on a board will not go unnoticed or unchallenged.
With regards to all your other "possibilities" about how evil is determined, you again did not paste my original statement and refute it. You merely gave a list of your own "other possibilities", again hoping to divert readers from my real argument, which was:
: 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!
Are you so stubborn that you cannot see that in the argument as I presented it, there can be NO other possibilities other than that 1) evil is defined by God, 2) evil is NOT defined by God?
With regards to your little strawman about me being off topic when I was talking about right and wrong and you were talking about evil, I will just ask you this question: If God defines evil, is it logical to conclude that he then does NOT also define right and wrong? If not, why not? If your answer is "no," you will have been shown to toss in a strawman, because you are agreeing that the concept of definition of such things all rest with God. If you answer "yes", then you'd better be prepared to show why God does NOT define right and wrong in face of the fact that the Bible clearly states otherwise.
Either way, your argument is toasted. I warned you about not stepping forward and embarrassing yourself any further, btw.
Farkel
"I didn't mean what I meant."
oscartheduck

"With regards to your little strawman about me being off topic when I was talking about right and wrong and you were talking about evil, I will just ask you this question: If God defines evil, is it logical to conclude that he then does NOT also define right and wrong? If not, why not?"
It was me who originally brought this up.
Now, it's ten to eight, so I might not be functioning correctly. Mytypos are far more vast, and the delete key is being used liberally to correct this. But I'll try to explain it, anyway.
According to the dictionary, RIGHT means, in part: "2 : being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper <right conduct>
3 a : agreeable to a standard" and GOOD means, in part,: " a (1) : VIRTUOUS, RIGHT, COMMENDABLE <a good person>", so we can see the distinction here between right and good, namely that right UPHOLDS to a standard, and good IS that standard.
So, the attempt herein is either to define GOOD and therefore negatively define EVIL (because that is, after all, the point of this thread), or to define EVIL, and come to a conclusion.
Describing RIGHT actions can help us come to a conclusion about some of the features that GOOD entails, but it can never tell us what GOOD actually IS. IT's like showing people a beautiful flower, a beautiful woman, a beautiful painting, and a beautiful scene, and telling them you have defined beauty. You haven't, you've simply shown some aspects of it.
Thus, in claiming that through defining right as actions performed by God, you're telling us that we can see things upholding to the standard of GOOD. However, for the purposes of the negative definition of EVIL it becomes necessary to cut to the chase, so to speak, and say that if the actions of God are RIGHT then the definition that we are after, ie GOOD, is...and then state whatever the logical conclusion is (which is, I believe, in this case, whatever moral code God adheres to).
============================
The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126 "As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible "
D wiltshire

oscar,
What you just posted I agree for the most part. I don't care about typos as along as I can understand what you have said easily. Making yourself understood is far more important.
And I feel this is very germain to our discussion:
Describing RIGHT actions can help us come to a conclusion about some of the features that GOOD entails, but it can never tell us what GOOD actually IS. IT's like showing people a beautiful flower, a beautiful woman, a beautiful painting, and a beautiful scene, and telling them you have defined beauty. You haven't, you've simply shown some aspects of it.
You've done a good job to show the problem of defining good and Evil.
I want to stay on topic thanks.
Part of my purpose in starting this thread was to explore my feeling that we can't really say with definity what is Evil absolutly in every case, unless we have absolute knowledge.
Example:
Man guns down little old lady in the mall. We could say that was evil based on our limited knowledge.
Then more facts come to light and we find that the little old lady was part of a terrorist group and she had a atomic bomb in her suit case and the man that gunned her down was a government agent who saved every one in the mall and surrounding area.
We can keep adding more facts to this senerio and each time change it from evil to good and back again.
Fark,
Go ahead and accuse me of what ever, it matters little to me. You are off topic so I see no point in deverting my attention further to your points unless they are on the topic.
I'm not in the habit of spending lots of time defending myself, it's simply not that important to me. To explore (some)ideas and learn it's good to be as emotionally unattached as can be humanly possible.
Danny,
While I don't agree with every thing you posted,(which is normal), I think you feel like I do:
Any effort to define EVIL is just an exercise, or more directly mental masturbation.
Sources of authority are relied upon in every attempt at definition.
Source of authority(man made authority)base their opinion on what?
Nuremburg(?) trial of the Nazi war criminals.
Thanks for the post.
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?

What is EVIL? Who Defines?

Share this