This is a blog devoted to discussing belief,
whether you are a Christian, an Atheist, an Agnostic, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or something else.
It's called "Exploring Christianity," because when Christian doctrine and life meet, there are going to be questions.
Although the format of this blog may change from time to time, it will usually be one question.
This question may be one I want to know the answer to, one I think I know the answer to, or one I'm curious if you know the answer to.
I ask. You answer.
The problem with this format is that it really requires you.
Without your comments, this blog will be an unanswered question.
So debate away! Take a stance! Support it!
I invite you to use logic, experience, the Bible, and/or other sources.
Do we know the answers?
So...
First question (or in this case, a series of questions):
What is good? What is evil? And is everything either good or evil?Don't be shy, comment away!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI used to have a strict belief of what good and evil was. A black and white view of life so to speak. Ever since I met my boyfriend and got out of my house and experienced the real world my views and beliefs have changed dramatically. First off I believed abortion was evil but now I see in some situations it is necessary. I used to be a hard core conservative but now I am more liberal than ever and I dont know why. What is good, what is evil honestly I have no idea but I do know that everything in life you have to figure out for yourself otherwise there would be no point in living and learning life lessons.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of good and evil is an invention of man-kind and relative to a persons perspective. This perspective changes over time, Examples: Slavery & Treatment of women.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, for people who don't have accounts here, you can still have your name with your comment rather than anonymous by clicking "Name/URL" on the "Comment as:" scroll thing.
ReplyDeleteOr you can stay anonymous. But that's not as fun. :)
-Jake
I was reading the Shack last night and it actually talked about this...the author conveyed that good and evil as black and white distinctive concepts are inventions of mankind. I'm not sure I agree with that. It seems to me that any sin could be classified as 'evil' since it goes against the will of God and doesn't bring Him glory. If you think of it this way, then 'good' would be anything that glorifies God and works to promote his Kingdom.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Kristen. I truly believe in moral obligation, you feel guilty for something that is "evil" because it goes against God and deep down He has given you this conscience to know whether or not you are honoring Him.
ReplyDeleteSo guilt is our indicator of what good and evil is? Could one feel a false sense of guilt? Could one feel no guilt and it still be evil?
ReplyDeleteIf guilt is a litmus test for good and evil, there must be some standard by which we define our concept of guilt (or else it is a meaningless emotion). I feel that there is an absolute good and evil. Certain things strike us as abhorrant naturally without being learned behaviors. Whether this instinctive reation is the result of evolution or divine prompting is moot. What is important is that there are some things (such as depriving an innocent of life) that will strike nearly everyone, regardless of background, as wrong. Those without an inherent sense of right and wrong are dubbed "sociopaths" and are considered dangers to society.
ReplyDeleteGuilt is not the standard of what is right and wrong, but it is an indicator. It's pretty hard to feel guilty about something that you've done that's acceptable, and pretty hard to not feel guilty about something you've done that's wrong.
ReplyDeleteBut what's wrong? What's right? Who's to decide?
Morality cannot be limited to the individual, that's for certain. Relativity and post-modernism...ridiculous. Through the history of mankind, in each nation, there have been laws established to keep peace and allow safe living. If morality depended on the person, why should anyone adhere to the law? Well the thing is, the majority tends to agree with the law. Murder is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Rape is wrong. These are innate ideas within most human beings. Those who deny it are lying, or sociopaths, like Leigh said. Basic morality has been pretty consistent through the ages. There are some cultural taboos, certainly, and ultimately I get my morality from the Bible, and I find no fault in it.
Basically, evil boils down to what harms you or other people, their present or future, body or mind, spirit or heart.
The spectrum of good and evil is artificially applied to human actions as a way to protect the herd of humanity. "Good" is applied to an action that benefits the herd; "evil" is applied to an action that harms the herd.
ReplyDeleteExtrapolate that to the Christian church: Christianity sees itself as an entity that helps the masses; it provides them with peace of mind and an environment in which harmful actions are discouraged. So anything that would threaten the power of this benevolent force is equated to a direct opposition to its charity; if I threaten Christianity, I'm threatening the benefits it bestowes upon society. Thus, the actions of empirical refutation and blasphemy are deemed "evil", as they run the risk of diminishing the peace-fostering power of the church.
Or, to put it more formulaically:
At some point, all actions that are deemed "good" or "evil" boil down to one of two things:
1) direct benefit or harm to the human herd
or
2) benefit or harm to the institution of religion, which charges itself with the protection of the herd
Take the example of murder. Murder directly harms human beings, thus it is "evil" for reason #1, direct harm to humanity.
Take also the example of extramarital sex. Infidelity harms the bond of trust between married people. How and why marriage exists is irrelevant; the point is that a cheating person breaks a contract and destroys trust. That's a direct harm to the unlucky spouse who was cheated upon, and thus to humanity, "evil" for reason #1 again.
Take lastly the example of blasphemy. If Aaron the atheist travels from town to town blaspheming, getting people to doubt their Christianity, Aaron is weakening the power base of Christianity. So, to those who feel that Christianity is a helpful thing to have around, Aaron has perpetrated an "evil", as identified by reason #2.
However, to those who feel that the world would be better off without Christianity, not only is reason #2 not considered a valid criterion for judging the goodness of an action, but the action of blaspheming is considered "good", as identified by reason #1, for having weakened the power base of an institution thought harmful by the atheist.
So good and evil, for the religious person, are defined within two contexts: effects on humanity and effects on religion. But for the non-religious, good and evil are only measured in the former context.
I don't think that every thing is either good or evil, I believe that anything that is a transgession against God is evil and anything that gives glory to God is good. But there are things are people do that are neither good nor evil. Like, reading or myspacing/facebooking those things aren't evil but there not good either. But some people will argue that it is evil because because you could use that time doing someing that gives glory to God. Monica S.
ReplyDeleteSo PD do you believe evil exists? Or is it just in someones DNA to behave in such a way that might hurt the herd? Do we as humans have free will? Or are all of our decisions just off of instinct? For the animal (who has no free will in my opinion) I believe they have no sense of right or wrong. But we can see that child molestation is just sickening and purely evil. Or do you not see that as evil, just causing damage to the herd?
ReplyDeleteWithout religion, good and evil are relative. Religious texts are the playbook of both. This is good, this is evil. But the reason its under debate is because not everyone is religious and not all religions are the same.
ReplyDeleteI don't think PEOPLE are either good or evil.
Their ACTS are good or evil. But a person can't be defined purely by act. For example, I watched "Dead Man Walking" last night about a man on death row (if you havent seen it, go and rent it, stat). He's a murderer and rapist, but you feel sorry for him and cry for him. Do I think he's evil? No. Did you do an evil thing? Absolutely.
In my philosophy class we discussed the issue of inherent evil which I found fascinating and had my mind blown. He said "No one is inherently evil. When they do an 'evil' act it is for their own 'good.'" So a man's daughter has been killed, he hunts down the person who did it and kills them. Is that evil? To the person he killed and their family that was 'evil' but to him and HIS family, it was 'good'.
EX: Sweeney Todd. Evil?
my opinion: No. He was a victim of circumstances that drew out his proverbial dark side. He did evil things, but he was not an evil person.
The question of Evil vs. Good is why we have a court system. If we pointed at a killer and said "Evil. Prison" that wouldn't be justice. Everyone is an individual, there is a story behind their act, and its up to them, the courts, and God to decide the ultimate penalty.
Good and Evil are relative. There is a difference between good and evil and sin. Don't forget that.
Good does not try to hurt anything or anyone, but will if need be, to stop Evil. Evil is when is you do not care ever if you are hurting anyone or anything else.
ReplyDeleteSin is hurting God and others, and therefore is Evil. God does not have an innate desire to hurt anyone or anything, and is therefore Good.
Guilt is felt when you do something Evil. It can be confused though with innocent worry. One who has really done nothing wrong, probably something right, (such as killing someone who was about to kill someone) can still worry about what they did, and this is confused with guilt.
The question of good or evil's existence is essentially nondebatable. Even if good v.s. evil is something perrinial and inherent to the condition of existence (like Leigh said) or is merely a mechanism by which humanity defines behaviors conducive or inconducive to communal living (like P.D. said), the conditions of being either "good" or "evil" exist because the concepts have been defined and accepted by the mass of humanity (or at least the most basic concepts of good and evil). Because concepts, whether real or not, are the human means of giving meaning to our world, what is widely accepted as standards of behavior/morality are no less real than the physical properties of our world precisely because they are viewed as such. Ultimately "good and evil" exist because the common view is that they do.
ReplyDeleteAnon above me: I wish you had a name. I like what you're saying. You should read Friedrich Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil". It carries what you're saying and extrapolates it to the point of asking whether "reality" or "truth" exists apart from our interpretation of it. We humans take existence (which is inert, meaningless, and nondescript) and use the power of imaginative interpretation to create meaning and infuse reality with descriptions of our own design. The trouble arrives when we renounce authorship of our reality and start behaving as if we don't have the collective power to reconstitute it. It's a riveting read.
ReplyDeleteKatie: I agree completely! Only actions are good or evil. The spectrum is relative. Context and intent are key.
Holmes: Yes. Evil exists, insofar as it is used as a comparative value judgement. Good and evil are not concrete, inherent properties of an action, but a way of evaluating it. Essentially, though, it seems to me that the root of the morality disagreement is a discrepancy between bases* for measuring benefit/harm.
People do things we call evil because, as Katie said, what is beneficial for the actor is not necessarily also beneficial for others. Lester the molester is doing something that is beneficial for him, in that he enjoys molesting. His victim, we assume, wants very much not to be molested, so being molested is harmful to that person.
I disagree with your assertion that animals other than humans lack free will, but that is another discussion for another time. Maybe Jake will ask about free will in a post some day.
*here meaning the plural of "basis", not of "base". "bay-seez", not "bay-sez".
I don't think Christian concepts of good and evil were invented to help the masses, because when the Jews "came up with" the Ten Commandments, they had just escaped from slavery and didn't really have any power over the masses.
ReplyDeleteWhen the new-testament Christians addressed issues of good and evil, they were the most persecuted group in their nation. I don't think they had much power over the masses either.
But now for my answer to the question:
I believe that there is an absolute good and evil. Society can define what they think is good and evil, and that's not a bad thing, because we need to implement justice.
But that doesn't mean that what society says are good and evil are what good and evil actually are.
Good is the imitation of God's nature. Evil is anything that is not an imitation of His nature.
When God created man, not wanting us to be machines that simply did as He wanted, He gave us freedom, or free will (PD called it. I brought it up.). The creation of freedom allowed mankind to act on the opposite of God's nature, or do evil, or sin.
Many people often think of God as an entity who wrote a bunch of rules, or "do's" and "don'ts," because he wanted us to act a certain way and prevent us from having too much fun or something. But I think God simply informed us of His nature, or His goodness, because He desires us to be LIKE Him.
"Let us make man in our image." -God (Genesis 1:26)
Genesis tells us that we were created in the image of God, which I would interpret to mean, we were created with the NATURE of God, or with "good."
However, "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks God...no one does good, not even one." (Romans 3:10-12
Apparently, we also are bad. So I'd say that we were created to be have God's nature, but due to God creating freedom and us not being God, we are unable to always act in God's nature. Aka: We suck.
Whether all actions are either good or evil or not is still something I'm not quite sure about. I believe most actions have a certain attitude behind them, which is either an imitation of God's nature, or not. It's hard to judge a lot of the time.
Concerning the concept of guilt, which was discussed quite a bit in this post, I agree with most of what Forrest said, except I think guilt CAN be, not is, an indicator of right and wrong.
For instance, I felt pretty guilty the first time I said "crap." I don't think that was an indicator that I've done something wrong and offended God. I believe that was some weird idea I defied placed in my mind by my elementary school teachers. I've also heard many stories about married couples who feel guilty about their sexuality when they first get married. According to the Bible, it's very clear that sexuality in marriage is acceptable. That guilt is also culturally created, due to the Christian teaching which encourages you to repress your sexuality until marriage.
Guilt also can be a false indicator in many cases because you become desensitized to something. For example, when you steal a candy bar the first time, you may feel guilty. By the seventeenth time, you might not feel so guilty about it anymore.
To reiterate my main points,
-Good is the imitation of God's nature.
-Evil is doing the opposite of God's nature.
-Guilt CAN be an indicator of right and wrong, but won't always be.
Jake: I can find no fault with your argument except this: You say that the Jews were not controlling the masses with their invention of morality. Sure; the Jews were not in power over society at large. But consider that they didn't get together and hold a "town hall meeting", as it were. Keep in mind that this ancient society was not a democratic one. It wasn't the Jews commanding everyone else. The Jews were themselves being controlled. It was Moses (or by his account, God) controlling the Jews.
ReplyDeleteThe Jews were being unruly and wild. They were out of control, and Moses (or his god) sought to change that. So, to begin with, the "masses" was just the Jews.
Then Rome starts to see the power of Judaism and capitalises upon its growing offshoot, Christianity (which initially they tried to supress), to create the Roman-Catholic church, by which they experimented with controlling the private lives of the masses (now in reference to the whole of the Roman empire, not just the Jews anymore). If you can't beat them, join them. Or just steal their methods.
I understand that not everyone sees the comeupance of religion in the same unflattering light, but in regards to the establishment of the Catholic church, is it unreasonable to draw a connection between the power that Christianity asserts over its members through God and the power that the Roman empire sought to gain over its citizens?
This is not to say that this is indicative of how modern Protestantism works. I'm just saying that you can't ignore where it came from. The motives are different now, but the effects are the same. And those effects are not all bad. Some people need morality to keep from harming others, but the people who don't need morality are not necessarily "evil" people.
PD, Christianity is not about controlling people. It has never been about controlling people. The Catholic church is irrelevant to us protestants in that regard. It had corrupt, misguided leaders, as have all religions. Those men can be likened to dictators and tyrants, but when it comes to true Christianity and the Bible, they have no part in it. They misuse it as one can misuse anything, like using a shovel for a weapon (I'm sure I've said that before).
ReplyDeleteI personally don't care about the morality of unsaved people, I don't care about telling them to live by any rules or laws...all I care about is where they're going to be after they leave this world, I care about if they believe in Christ as their savior. They can clean up their act later, but whether they are pedophiles or Johnny Do-Good is completely and totally unimportant. They need Jesus first before any good or bad work matters. They're already going to Hell, either way.
As for Moses controlling the Jews by inventing God, I hope you know your Bible better than that. For one thing, Moses' "god" went way back. You know about Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, and the rest. The Jews were set free from Egypt by Moses' god (I'm interested in how you think they escaped the most powerful country in the world at that time, since the Biblical account of the plagues is probably false, in your view).
The Jews were aware of God before they left Egypt, before Moses was born. Moses did not simply get frustrated with the unruly behavior of the Jews (who by the way, after exiting Egypt, spent some time traveling through the desert, complaining about food, where the God they were already aware of and believed in without Moses inventing Him, provided quail and manna, and then they visited Moses' father-in-law, who then appointed him judge over them, before the Ten Commandments were given to him by God) and create laws so that they'd stop their sinfulness.
If you're going to blame the invention of God on someone, blame it on Abraham. Moses was unwilling to lead, and at times very passive.
P.S. Please pardon some of the grammar in that run-on parenthetical sentence. I know it's flawed. I think it's understandable enough as it is, though.
The reason I say that Moses invented God is that he wrote the first literature that indicates a god. Truly, I don't know how the Jews escaped Egypt. Lately, I'm beginning to consider the idea that some things in the Bible are true in a metaphorical sense. I don't know.
ReplyDeleteHistory (especially Biblical) is sticky and not my forte. Neither is existentialism (in reference to your statement about salvation coming before morality).
What I'm saying, since this post is about morality, is that Christian morality (whether invented by man or given by God) is, for the most part, sensible and helpful to society. The trouble is that it has been harnessed by some people to do bad things. Protestants, by and large, make good use of Christian morality.
Run-on forgiven. Lol.
Except the KKK.
ReplyDeleteCheck this out. This is what happens when you try to use steadfast rules to assess complicated moral situations.
ReplyDeletehttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/a_moral_conundrum_resolved_wit.php
Or you could avoid both lying and giving away the Jews' location by not saying anything at all.
ReplyDelete