by Farkel 119 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
How comes I didn't see this post YET ! whatever ... my point of view on this matter is
Will come back on this to read every point of views ...
(sorry if it has already been said for the "doublon")
Euphemisme and others in other ways : our fundamental tendency has to be towards good, because otherwise, we would not consider it good.
REMAIN : There was a day were children and there parent were looking “some people” got burn out and was laughing together (JWs – are only a light version of that)
But still I do believe that a child is just INNOCENT ! He only knows the feelings and that’s on what all his acts will be based on … BUT the brain got a place in the process … What if you learn the inverse of what you feel ? PSYCHO ISSUES …
Thank you everyone for sharing!
Several people have stated that one needs to define "good" and "evil" before this discussion can be relevant. This is a red herring (dragging a smelly old dead fish over the actual evidence and/or argument in order to draw attention away from the argument) and I'll show why. No matter how broadly or how narrowly one defines "good" the opposite which is evil will be only the opposite of how "good" is defined and can be nothing more. "Evil" will not be part of any relevant set unless it is the exact opposite of one of the definitions of a set that is called "good."
I'll make it even more clearly understood than that: suppose that "evil" is defined as someone who shoplifts, and that is the end of the definition about evil. Therefore, by definition "good" could only mean someone who never shoplifts, and by the strict definition of "evil" it means no more than that. That being the case, my question still has merit: are people "born" with the tendency to shoplift, or are they "born" with the tendency not to shoplift?
Those of you who are stuck on the meaning of "evil" and/or "good" are missing what I'm asking, because I asking about a concept for which strict definitions do not apply: only the fact that opposites do apply to every aspect of human existence. If anyone dares to challenge me, then name any noun that you think does not have an exact opposite and I will name it's exact opposite. I guarantee this.
Many fine people have said we are not "born" as good or evil. We are just "born." However, the facts show that some people who are born into the best and most loving of famlies, and have the best and most loving friends and lives as they grow up, then turn into evil people despite tons of love and nurturing throughout their lives.
Why? Someone said I was just trying to argue. I'm not. I'm trying to learn and maybe some of you people can teach me.
What say ye? Again I ask this.
Farkel
Man is not inherently evil, but is inherently good since God creates good things and since God created man. Original sin gives man a "fallen" not evil nature.
However, the facts show that some people who are born into the best and most loving of famlies, and have the best and most loving friends and lives as they grow up, then turn into evil people despite tons of love and nurturing throughout their lives.
I asked the question.....at WHAT POINT in the life of the individual are you trying to derive your answer from? At 6months in the womb....at 8 months,at the moment of delivery....or at 2 - 20 years of age? What point of life are you asking? I think this needs to be met before an answer can have guesses thrown at it. Yes, people can DEVELOP an evil side....WHILE they are growing up as you mentioned, even though they had good influence, but I believe the soul or conscious part of the individual is developed at whatever point, whether in the womb or out........in other words....by it's surroundings and NOT a blueprinted good or bad side. Why a person chooses good over bad is another tough one and is another point in itself.
I thought I was done with this one but I had a second wind in my brain
Gumby
Gumby
ignorance is strength (appropriate moniker) said,
: Original sin gives man a "fallen" not evil nature.
Define the distinction. Don't expect anyone to assume we know what you think it means.
And please be precise or I will shred your comments. Furthermore, please explain how "original sin" means dick in my original question. My question had nothing to do with "motives", i.e. "original sin", it only had to do with what is.
(Anyone notice how people with agendas are braindead when it comes to the core of an issue beyond them and their religious fantasies?)
Farkel
I will come back to this tomorrow when I have slept on it. Fascinating - just fascinating
Thanks Farkel You are making me think
Saint Satan said:
There are some glitches to this paradigm, though. For instance, why the massive extinction (70%) just before the age of the dinosaurs. Then of course, the extinction of the dinosaurs themselves. However, it could be that they were mistakes that heeded to be displaced. Then again, nothing lasts forever, not even humans. Flukes seem to happen.
Extinctions are caused by a change in climate or some such event that makes that adaption no longer viable. Or a more highly developed predator that won the arms race in nature. Actually, 99% of species that have been have gone extinct. So, probably will humans unless we can affect our own evolution or climate. The reason there are "living fossils" only deep in the oceans is because those beings are not as subject to great climactic changes, such as droughts, floods, ice ages, etc., and therefore their species is "successful" because the conditions didn't change for them.
See? Good and evil don't exist. We are just a link in a chain of development from the past into the future. Wrong/negative turns/decisions are just paths that are explored and discarded, generally, although sometimes it takes a long time. But they do increase the knowledge base.
I think this is mostly true. Good and evil are biased religious-type labels. Is a monkey "good" or "evil"? Of course, we have more choices available, but I prefer to think of it as just some decide (whether by nature or nuture or free choice) to be more predatory. The nature:nature issue may be balanced a little more on nature. Humans are simply highly developed, more intelligent animals.
So, it would seem to me that the question is flawed in that it presupposes the terms "evil" or "good" are applicable. An accurate question is "Is it nature (genetic), nurture, or choice?" The answer would have to be a combination of all three.
Even though people have argued about it for centuries, this seems to be irrelevant because they had no information on how humans developed. Humans are "the third chimpanzee" and should be referred to in that context, not in any theological sense. Actually, Richard Dawkins stated that it was sensible to believe in God in the 19th century because of the dearth of evidence known about evolution. Evolution is not something that is "believed" as is religon, but pretty much "proven" scientifically, with a great deal of evidence.
my $.02,
Pat
Good thing Pat is my sister. I agree with her, and am somewhat in awe of her total response.
So, it would seem to me that the question is flawed in that it presupposes the terms "evil" or "good" are applicable. An accurate question is "Is it nature (genetic), nurture, or choice?" The answer would have to be a combination of all three.
"Is it nature (genetic), nurture, or choice?" is being debated by psych & soc researchers still today. It's almost never totally one or the other.........but a combination which makes the human animal tick.
We are born neither evil nor good. We are simply born. Evil and good are societal/ethical/religious labels attached to us by others, or expected of us to attach to ourselves. -CraigWhich fits in too. We are simply born with our genetic makeup....then we're nurtured (or not)....and we make choices. But at birth? Neither good nor evil....just a baby.
Farkel said:
Several people have stated that one needs to define "good" and "evil" before this discussion can be relevant. This is a red herring (dragging a smelly old dead fish over the actual evidence and/or argument in order to draw attention away from the argument) and I'll show why. No matter how broadly or how narrowly one defines "good" the opposite which is evil will be only the opposite of how "good" is defined and can be nothing more. "Evil" will not be part of any relevant set unless it is the exact opposite of one of the definitions of a set that is called "good."
Agreed. "Evil" is defined as the opposite and maybe absense of "good". So this means "evil" can only be known if "good" is defined. So that still leaves us with the problem of defining what "good" is. This is a relevant issue to tackle before anwering your question.
Example:
Question: Are people born blarbs or twurps?
If we define "twurps" as: 'the exact opposite of blarbs', we still can't answer this question until we define what being "blarbs" means
So...my dear friend, tell me how would you define "good"?
Greven
