|
Rule -> RE: Glenn Beck Reminds Us That Jews Killed Jesus (7/19/2010 3:22:09 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Evil is the violation of accepted moral standards or customs that may injure others, or maybe not. Immorality is behavior that violates social standards.
So evil is "the violation of accepted moral standards", and
"Immorality is behavior that violates social standards"?
Now pray tell us what moral and social standards are and what distinguishes them from each other.
I quote from wikipedia:
quote:
In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by people. For the most part right and wrong acts are classified as such because they are thought to cause benefit or harm, but it is possible that many moral beliefs are based on prejudice, ignorance or even hatred.
So any immoral act is not necessarily objectively wrong, but is perceived as culturally or socially or personally wrong. So if the Divine according to your morality acts wrong, it need not necessarily be an objectively wrong act.
However, I do not have too many problems with your definition of immorality, just with your apparent inability to comprehend its implications and limitations.
I do have a problem with your definition of evil, though, in particular your definition of evil in terms of morality, which confuses the concepts of evil and morality, leading into a quagmire of confused philosophy.
There are things that hurt people:
1. If this hurt is intentional and malicious, it is evil.
2. If this hurt is intentional and not malicious, it is not evil.
3. If this hurt is due to ignorance, it is not evil.
4. If this hurt is due to stupidity, it is not evil.
5. If this hurt is due to the statistics of natural causes, it is not evil.
So I prefer to define evil as that which intentionally and maliciously hurts people. (And I note that this may be a good thing, or may result in a good thing.)
Also, I do think that it is wrong to attribute characteristics such as good and evil to the Divine, for they are human concepts which apply only to our universe and which likely are incomprehensible to the Divine which is 'outside' our universe. To the Divine the difference in these concepts most likely is analogous to the difference in a right turn and a left turn.
The laws of conservation of all things require that as many left turns as right turns are made.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Moral Evil defines the evil of men.
But we observe immoral behavior that does not arise from human activity. This immorality is inferred through the agency of natural forces. It is the evil of an indifferent or malicious god. The terms moral evil and natural evil are distinguishing terms.
The terms moral evil and natural evil distinguish evil done by man and evil done by god. Nature is only his agency.
I note that you equate moral evil with immoral behavior. That is the result of your impure definition of evil in terms of morality.
You also err in your distinction between hurt done by man and hurt caused by nature. Sure, nature is one agency of the Divine - but so sometimes is man: he may be another agency of the Divine. The difference is that man may choose and is ultimately responsible for his own acts, even though sometimes being an agency of the Divine.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
When we see innocents suffering from non-human events we apply accepted moral standards to god.
Shit happens. They may have been victims of the statistics of nature. They may have desired to have their lives ended. Someone else may have desired an ice-cream, necessitating their lives to be ended.
Sure, we can say that what happened is bad, but attributing evil or good to the Divine is a bridge too far. It may simply have been a time for a left turn in order to maintain balance.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
If men pray for his guidance and intervention and if the saints and martyrs can intercede then it is presumed that god is present and active in history. He is part of our community.
Saints and martyrs cannot intercede, unless they are still alive. Dead saints and dead martyrs are dead. There is only the Divine. Polytheism - and worshiping dead saints and dead martyrs is polytheism - is a thing of the past, even though the avatars of the pagan gods are still among us and potentially are as powerful as they ever were.
Sure, the Divine is present and active in history - but not on its own volition. Only in response to the desires of the inhabitants of our universe.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
We can hold him to the same moral standards of good and evil to which we hold ourselves.
But them moral standards are subjective standards of good and evil, not necessarily objective standards of good and evil. (See the wikipedia definition above.)
Someone else with different moral standards might judge the Divine opposite to your own judgment.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Would we not condemn god if he appeared suddenly in the sky above and struck down an innocent child? Of course we would.
Why? First of all you do not know that this child is innocent. Secondly the child may have desired to die. Who are you to blame the Divine for granting the wish to die of this child?
Also there may be other reasons for why this child had to die.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
We are proscribed from using the term divine evil because by definition the judeo-christian god is good.
Um, that would be the last pagan god of the Jews. He was murdered many centuries before the birth of Jesus. In any case he was not all good. One does not get to rule by being nice to everybody.
Your problem again is the erroneous definition of the judeo-christian god.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Another god (Satan) of necessity was invented to explain the evil in the world.
Satan was not invented. He was born, just like all human beings are born.
(If you want to go the spiritual way, you may assert that he was created by the Creator.)
He was evil because that is his nature, lacking the 'Grace' from the Creator, to wit: a conscience. Doubtlessly he considered himself a fine human being. Anosognosiacs are unaware of their own inabilities.
I do note that whatever truths I tell you, they pass you by unnoticed.
|
|
|
|
