If Evil was Ugly, Wouldn't it be Easier?

by metatron 16 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Abaddon

  Evil is attractive, no doubt about it.

  Eh? Sorry, you must be talking about HOLLYWOOD evil; you know , the dapper, dry, stylish English bad guy in the Die Hard movies, the charasmatic little serial killers in Natural Born Killers, the hypnotic murderer in Silence of the Lambs.

  Come on Yeru; do you find these depictions of evil attractive?

  • A man, hidden from view in undergrowth, watching children and waiting, his face a mask of desire.
  • A guy, dropping Rohpinol into a woman's drink so he can take her home and rape her.
  • A group of men, laughing and cheering as their leader kicks a gay man on the floor repeatedly.
  • A politician, smiling at the clever wording of a speech he's going to deliver, fully aware of its spin and desired impact, and of the cracks it papers over so well, and of the course of action that it will justify him taking, even at the cost of lives.
  • A man deciding that skimping on the spec of the house just a little will still get it through safety checks, just, and nothing bads likely to happen anyway, and will mean he can make the down payment on that yacht.

  Is evil attractive Yeru? God have mercy on your soul if it is to you.

  Whether from a secular or religious point of view if we found evil repulsive, it'd be easy to conquer or avoid. We sin not so much because we WANT TO DO EVIL but because the evil is something we desire.

  Ah, now, that's a religous viewpoint, isn't it? I am so glad I am an athiest. I don't desire evil; if theists desire to do evil, I have great sympathy for you.

  Sex,

  Told you, religious viewpoint. Sex is evil? Since when? Either very twisted thinking or very simplistic thinking. Sex isn't evil Yeru. Show me one scripture where it says sex is evil. You might mean that sex out of specifically ordained and allowed scenarios is evil. If so, say so, and we can discuss how these contradict basic human sexual biology, and whether you think this is god's idea of a joke, or whether you think that following a moral code written by bronze-age pastoralists with no knowledge of human biology is intrinscially superior to following the adage of 'do what you will but do no harm'.

  money,

  Money isn't evil Yeru. What you do with money can be good (like running hospitals or providing clean drinking water), or bad (bribing poltiicans to support your business interests). But money isn't evil. It's normally pieces of paper or metal without a moral value. If money is evil, and the Roman Catholic church is rich, then what does this mean using your argument? Use logic man!

  power,

  Power isn't evil Yeru. What you do with power can be evil... it can also be good; Ghandi had power. Martin Luther King had power... they were not perfect, but compare the use of their power to that of Stalin or Hitler. If power is evil and the Roman Catholic church is powerful, what does this mean using your argument? Use logic man!

  Satan doesn't tempt with things that horrify us, but rather, that attract us.

  Satan doesn't tempt us. We tempt ourselves. There is nothing wrong with finding sex, money, power, attractive. What is wrong is when our desire for those things overides our concern for our fellow man. Simplistic view of things (money, sex, power) as intrinsically evil is a classic black/white thinking technique used by religous to reduce individual responsibility, as it is not the THINGS but the ACTIONS that can be wrong.

  Or are you now going to tell me that guns kill people, and people don't kill people? Money, sex, power, guns; no of it is evil, it's what you do with them that can be.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Abbadon,

  Let's look at it.

  • A man, hidden from view in undergrowth, watching children and waiting, his face a mask of desire.

  The evil is attractive to HIM, the fulfillment of his (or her) sick desires. On the other hand, he doesn't lure these kids with his face of evil, but his mask of Kindness "help me find my puppy"

  • A guy, dropping Rohpinol into a woman's drink so he can take her home and rape her.

  Again, the fulfillment of HIS desire is attractive to him. And apprarently he's made her feel at ease enough to be with him.

  A group of men, laughing and cheering as their leader kicks a gay man on the floor repeatedly.

  or the two gay guys in Alabama that raped the straight guy...The folks doing this feel like BIG MEN< justified...

  • A politician, smiling at the clever wording of a speech he's going to deliver, fully aware of its spin and desired impact, and of the cracks it papers over so well, and of the course of action that it will justify him taking, even at the cost of lives.

  A not so veiled reference to Bush...so how about the evil he stopped, namely Saddam, Uday and Qusai...it was all worth it. That and the fact that when he delivered that State of the Union address congress had ALREADY VOTED AUTHORIZING THE WAR. What of the evil of little men who's hearts are so full of hatred that they would see this country brought down to it's knees just to see Bush out of power?

  A man deciding that skimping on the spec of the house just a little will still get it through safety checks, just, and nothing bads likely to happen anyway, and will mean he can make the down payment on that yacht.

  And the fulfillment of his desire is attractive to him...he doesn't see the uglieness of evil, but the "beauty" of his yacht.

  Evil is attractive when it TEMPTS us not when it HURTS us. Man, that chick was HOT last night, she turned me out...six months later, HIV...she knew she had it...she sure didn't seem evil...until after the hurt. (Not MY story, but my Brother in laws.)

  Sex is not evil, illicit sex is. (HIV would be almost nonexistant if we all did that monogamy thing, nor would there be illegitamate kids every 10 feet or so)

  Money is not evil, the love of money is (see the mafia, or any other crime organization)

  power isn't evil, the pursuit of power as an ends in itself is evil (Hitler and Stalin come to mind)
• 

  Abaddon

  I’m confused Yeru; you said;

  ‘Evil is attractive, no doubt about it.’

  That sounded like a personal statement… and whilst I disagree with you on quite a few areas and think your avoidance of answering certain questions regarding malpractise by government in the past is nothing short of hysterical, I cannot think of anyone who is so obviously devoted to his daughter as a bad man (something you said in a post a while back that, as a dad, I utterly identified with). So you saying that evil was attractive was a bit surprising!

  So perhaps your view is that 'when our desire for certain things overrides our concern for our fellow man, then we desire to do evil'?

  If so (sit down, this may come as a shock), then we agree.

  Sex is not evil, illicit sex is. (HIV would be almost nonexistant if we all did that monogamy thing, nor would there be illegitamate kids every 10 feet or so)

  Illicit sex is a religious definition. There is no evidence in human biology that long-term monogamy is another other than a societal creation. Quite why god would give us laws that didn't match our sexual biology is a question belivers in god can answer.

  Just 'cause some sex by some religions definitins is illicit doesn’t mean it is evil.

  HIV would be almost non-existent if people were educated about sex properly and followed the heath advice this training would equip them with. ‘Illegitimate’ kids (that ‘s SO old fashioned! It stigmatises the person who had nothing to do with not having married parents. Don’t you think ‘single parent families’ is a fairer statement as it descriptive without sounding like a moral condemnation of an innocent child?) would be far fewer if people were educated about sex properly and followed the contraceptive advice this training would equip them with.

  Come to

  I disagree; the misuse of power is also evil, even if acquiring that power was not an end to itself.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  A,

  You said,

  Illicit sex is a religious definition.

  Get a grip here, we're talking about evil, which has no meaning outside a religious context.

  HIV would be almost non-existent if people were educated about sex properly and followed the heath advice this training would equip them with. ‘Illegitimate’ kids (that ‘s SO old fashioned! It stigmatises the person who had nothing to do with not having married parents. Don’t you think ‘single parent families’ is a fairer statement as it descriptive without sounding like a moral condemnation of an innocent child?) would be far fewer if people were educated about sex properly and followed the contraceptive advice this training would equip them with.

  The key to your little spiel about HIV, if people FOLLOWED the health advice...that's just it, they don't. Monogamy would have the same effects. Ya see, the only real guard against HIV is monogamy. Even with condoms there are rips, tears and spills.

  "Single Parent Families" and illegitamate kids are two seperate issues. I was the head of a single parent family, but my kids were legitimate. And yes, the term "illegitimate kids" is as old fashioned as two parent families. Again, even with the "training" you advocate" pregnancy results. Whereas, with the possible exception of one single woman, no one has ever gotten pregnant from abstaining from sex.

  It's been my experience that when kids are taught sex ed at school, it sends them out to experiment, and they often ignore the advice they learned. Parents are the better teachers of sex ed. Finally, I'm not against sex ed IN schools...as long as the value and benefits of abstaining from sex are taught as well. I mean, how often to you hear in sex ed that there are STD's you can get condom or no condom, or that even when properly used condoms break, etc etc etc.

  Finally, to my mind, without reference to diety, there can be no conversation about evil.
• 

  Abaddon

  Get a grip here, we're talking about evil, which has no meaning outside a religious context.

  Ah, that would be another personal religious belief. I fairly clearly have no religious belief, but I believe evil has meaning. So do the people who make dictionaries;

  Main Entry: 1 evil
  Pronunciation: 'E-v&l, British often and US also 'E-(")vil
  Function: adjective
  Inflected Form(s): evil·er or evil·ler; evil·est or evil·lest
  Etymology: Middle English, from Old English yfel; akin to Old High German ubil evil
  Date: before 12th century
  1 a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked evil

  impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct evil reputation>
  2 a archaic : inferior b : causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive evil odor> c : disagreeable evil temper>
  3 a : causing harm : pernicious evil institution of slavery> b : marked by misfortune : unlucky

  ... defintion 1 requires no religious context; although the word sinful is religious, neither 'morally reprenhensible' or wicked are automatically religious. In any case, definition 3 is quite adequate to prove my point.

  Now, you can use loaded language if you so wish, but it reduces the chances of us having any meaningful discussion somewhat, as if I decide to use meanings for words I decide on that are not standard meanings of word, I think you'd object too!

  You also miss the point that whilst you're quite free to follow whatever religious code you wish, you have not proved 'illicit' sex is evil other than from the context of your relgious beliefs; again, my comment about loaded language applies.

  Ya see, the only real guard against HIV is monogamy. Even with condoms there are rips, tears and spills.

  Wrong. The only real guard to HIV is celebacy. You can contract HIV from an unfaithful partner in a supposedly monogamous relationship (condoms aren't meant to tear, they do, you're not meant to cheat on your spouse, but people do; seems both these 'products' suffer from defects). You can also contract HIV from a faithful partner in a monogamous relationship - and I bloody well hope you know what other methods of infection there are.

  "Single Parent Families" and illegitamate kids are two seperate issues. I was the head of a single parent family, but my kids were legitimate. And yes, the term "illegitimate kids" is as old fashioned as two parent families. Again, even with the "training" you advocate" pregnancy results.

  Whereas, with the possible exception of one single woman, no one has ever gotten pregnant from abstaining from sex.

  It's been my experience that when kids are taught sex ed at school, it sends them out to experiment, and they often ignore the advice they learned.

  What experience where? Details please. Your anecdotal evidence is completely disproved by the example I gave and others. In Holland they have sex education EARLY and THOROUGH. In Holland teen pregnancies are a fraction of what they are in the US and the average age of having sex for the first time is higher than in the US.

  Hard facts beat anecdotes every time; what are you going to trust your kids lives on? An untested gun a friend says works or one you've seen perform well on the range? Of course, it might just be that Dutch kids are prudes and American kids are easy... but I really don't believe that or believe you believe that (and don't try to make out there are major cultural differences, you can sit and watch American TV programs all night every night on Dutch TV).

  Parents are the better teachers of sex ed.

  How so? You can assert that, and I agree, kids should have their initial sex education from their kids before they get it at school. But to have no safety system to make up for the the incompetant bad parents, the embaressed parents, or the ones whose beliefs influence how well informed and educated their children become to is a bad idea. It's like saying if mum and dad don't teach Johnny that fire burns, then Johnny is going to have to figure it out himself; sex is just as natural as fire, and can hurt you if you don;t know about it.

  Finally, I'm not against sex ed IN schools...as long as the value and benefits of abstaining from sex are taught as well. I mean, how often to you hear in sex ed that there are STD's you can get condom or no condom, or that even when properly used condoms break, etc etc etc.

  I agree abstainance is something kids should be given the confidence to achieve,... judging from the Dutch system, where kids abstain longer than the US system, this is provided well for here in Holland.

  Which STDs can you get with a condom? Please don't go down the pores in latex route; if you do I suggest you do some serious research beforehand that is not based upon latex gloves (the one that gets quoted most is), and look at the evidence that the rate of transmission of couples where one is HIV positive where condoms are used, for want of a better word, religiously, are far far lower than the afore mentioned 'research' predicts. As for the example you give about sex ed programs that don't teach condoms can break or tear, please specify WHICH ones, and how many you are familiar with.

  Finally, to my mind, without reference to diety, there can be no conversation about evil.

  Yeah, I know that's by your definiton of evil though, not everyone elses. The old 'athiests can't have morals as they have no moral codes moral codes come from god' argument is absurd; you're smarter than that.

  Although if you mean that the concept of a diety has allowed more evil to be done by man to man under divine pretext than would have otherwise been possible, and therefore no conversation about evil is complete unless you bring religion into it, well, you have a very good point.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Abaddon,

  In your hunt of the definition for evil did you ignore this one word

  sinful,

  See, sin means nothing unless it's in reference to diety. Sure, both "sin" and "evil" have taken on secular connatations, but lets face facts, without reference to diety, "EVIL" and "Good" are relative terms...what's evil to you isn't evil to me, therefore, it isn't "evil".

  You also miss the point that whilst you're quite free to follow whatever religious code you wish, you have not proved 'illicit' sex is evil other than from the context of your relgious belief

  I have to talk about "evil" in religious context, because without that context, EVIL DOESN'T exist. But on a secular note, illicit sex destroys the basic fabric of society, the family.

  Wrong. The only real guard to HIV is celebacy. You can contract HIV from an unfaithful partner in a supposedly monogamous relationship (condoms aren't meant to tear, they do, you're not meant to cheat on your spouse, but people do; seems both these 'products' suffer from defects). You can also contract HIV from a faithful partner in a monogamous relationship - and I bloody well hope you know what other methods of infection there are.

  And I hope you "bloody well" know, that if people were monogamous and didn't use interveneous drugs there would be no AIDS epedemic. that's a fact! When I refered to monogamy, I meant by BOTH partners.

  What experience where? Details please. Your anecdotal evidence is completely disproved by the example I gave and others. In Holland they have sex education EARLY and THOROUGH. In Holland teen pregnancies are a fraction of what they are in the US and the average age of having sex for the first time is higher than in the US.

  Hard facts beat anecdotes every time; what are you going to trust your kids lives on? An untested gun a friend says works or one you've seen perform well on the range? Of course, it might just be that Dutch kids are prudes and American kids are easy... but I really don't believe that or believe you believe that (and don't try to make out there are major cultural differences, you can sit and watch American TV programs all night every night on Dutch TV).

  you've presented facts???WHERE?????

  The dutch kids are too damned high to get pregnant. I don't want american culture to go the way of the Dutch PLEASE GOD NO.

  Which STDs can you get with a condom?

  Genital warts, clamidia, those ring a bell?

  Although if you mean that the concept of a diety has allowed more evil to be done by man to man under divine pretext than would have otherwise been possible, and therefore no conversation about evil is complete unless you bring religion into it, well, you have a very good point.

  That is the F***ING B*LLSH*T statement used by freaking atheists all the time, who seem to forget that Stalin and Mao are responsible for more deaths in the 20th century than Christianity can claim in 2000 years of history. THAT, THE USSR AND COMMUNIST CHINA are what society look like with religion.
• 

  Abaddon

  Yeru, I point out that the word;

  sinful is religious

  ... but show that evil has non-religous meaning. You ignore this, blandly reassert evil has no meaning without a diety, despite the fact that this in itself is (drumroll) a RELIGIOUS opinion (which you're entitled to), and make the assertion that;

  what's evil to you isn't evil to me, therefore, it isn't "evil"

  ... when I think we both believe that when our desire for certain things overrides our concern for our fellow man we desire to do evil, so, yes, there are things we both agree are evil.

  As for the lower rate of teen pregnancy in Holland when compared to the USA, and the higher average age of first having sex in Holland when compared to the USA, these are facts, but I'm going home for the weekend so you'll have to wait until next week before I show your anecdotal evidence is convenient... oh, and I can probably show that less Dutch kids smoke pot regulary tham American kids, I'll dig up my University course work; I know that less Dutch kids smoke pot regulary than English kids, so I'm probably right on this, and you just show your bias and ignorance of the facts by asserting Dutch kids are too high to get pregnant.

  Yes, I thought my last paragraph would get your goat... it's just like theists claiming that without religion you can't have evil gets my goat. It's just normally phrased 'atheist cannot have a concept of evil', or something similarly assinine, and your phrasing was sloppy enough to allow me to use against you.

  Have a good weekend though Yeru, I hope you have a good time with your kid(s).