Is doing evil a necessity of life?

[Jeeves]

Prove it. (You're probably right, but prove it.)

Meet me at 5 am at the right-of-way. Wear hiking boots. Bring binoculars

 

[Greatest I am]

It is a statement of perspective. Individuals are not usually called-upon to make such judgments in their daily actions, but political leaders are always forced to base policies on that tenet, and then citizens have the choice of supporting or opposing that policy. And, of course, jurists are required to weigh each contested interaction of citizens against the general principles as stated in law.
But we're still on a sliding scale of "the good" as well "the many" and "few". What degree and priority of "good" is under consideration in any given case and what part of the population?
For example, are we comparing the survival of the tribe to the pride of the warrior caste, or the convenience of the majority of adults against injury to a dozen children; the economic ruination of a town against the wealth a landowner or the political ascendancy of a dominant tribe against extirpation of a subordinate one?
There is always a cost/benefit ratio to consider, including direct and indirect consequences and fallout, over a long and short term.

Most of your questions are answered by the majority whom the one making the judgements would have to consider.

True that we seldom have to make an important decision but all the little individual negative consequences to our competitions adds up to someone dying at the bottom of the pile.

Regards
DL

 

[Jeeves]

Most of your questions are answered by the majority whom the one making the judgements would have to consider.

That's how it's usually done in the wielding of power, yes.
However, I thought, based on the word "moral", that the statement was one of ethics, rather than economic or political expediency.
In any case, I posed those examples as a counter to:

The good of the many outweighs the good of the few seems to be an objective moral tenet

to show that that moral tenet is neither objective nor fixed to any set of facts or figures.

True that we seldom have to make an important decision

I didn't say that. I said individuals - other than judges and administrators - rarely have to make the many vs few determination.
I don't agree that there are no other important decisions.

but all the little individual negative consequences to our competitions adds up to someone dying at the bottom of the pile.

Certainly - if we regard our social organization as a scrum and success as clawing our way to the top of a pile.
But then, if that's how we behave, we'll deserve whatever that's a pile of that we're standing on.

 

[Greatest I am]

That's how it's usually done in the wielding of power, yes.
However, I thought, based on the word "moral", that the statement was one of ethics, rather than economic or political expediency.
In any case, I posed those examples as a counter to:

to show that that moral tenet is neither objective nor fixed to any set of facts or figures.


I didn't say that. I said individuals - other than judges and administrators - rarely have to make the many vs few determination.
I don't agree that there are no other important decisions.


Certainly - if we regard our social organization as a scrum and success as clawing our way to the top of a pile.
But then, if that's how we behave, we'll deserve whatever that's a pile of that we're standing on.

If we did not seek to be the fittest, none would be. Clawing to the top is our natural tendency.

If course I agree that if you ignore the numbers moral decisions flip to subjective from objective.

That does not refute that the good of the majority outweighs the good of the minority.

Regards
DL

 

[Michael 345]

If we did not seek to be the fittest, none would be. Clawing to the top is our natural tendency.

If course I agree that if you ignore the numbers moral decisions flip to subjective from objective.

That does not refute that the good of the majority outweighs the good of the minority.

Regards
DL

Disagree

The dictum ' we are all born equal ' is patiently false

There will always be those born better in some aspects many degrees better than others

With no personal effort being put in by themselves

Some ARE content with their lot

Others always want more

Morals cannot flip

They always are subjective

That does not refute that the good of the majority outweighs the good of the minority

There is nothing to refute

The statement has so many sliding scale value judgements each of which need to be clarified and pinned down to a single value before a final overall judgement is made

Even a final overall judgement is subject to a sliding scale rendering the whole statement worthless

 

[Jeeves]

If we did not seek to be the fittest, none would be.

How do you figure that? Do you really believe that, without cut-throat competition, everyone would be equally well suited to every kind of environment and challenge -
none best or worst, first or last at anything?

Clawing to the top is our natural tendency.

So is pissing on trees, but we're capable of restraint, of learning new pathways of thought and behaviour.
From long before the advent of civilization (which really put an end to natural competition, natural selection among humans),
some of the most successful human organizations, and individuals, succeeded through co-operation.

If course I agree that if you ignore the numbers moral decisions flip to subjective from objective.

What? I flipped nothing. I asked what your criteria were.
Your statement was not objective in the first place, and you never offered either numbers or a definition of "good".
In many particular instances, it might be true; the way you presented the tenet, it was a nebulous generalization.

That does not refute that the good of the majority outweighs the good of the minority.

That depends on the particulars you choose to keep ignoring.

 

[Greatest I am]

Disagree

The dictum ' we are all born equal ' is patiently false

There will always be those born better in some aspects many degrees better than others

With no personal effort being put in by themselves

Some ARE content with their lot

Others always want more

Morals cannot flip

They always are subjective

That does not refute that the good of the majority outweighs the good of the minority

There is nothing to refute

The statement has so many sliding scale value judgements each of which need to be clarified and pinned down to a single value before a final overall judgement is made

Even a final overall judgement is subject to a sliding scale rendering the whole statement worthless

You make a declaration of refutation without an argument refuting it.

You take points you have yet to earn.

Regards
DL

 

[Jeeves]

Kettle; Pot.

 

[Genaro Torres]

Is doing evil a necessity of life?

Did the ancients know this and Is that why we are all named as sinners?

I think nature created the potential for evil in each of us because without that potential we would not have the ability to make a free choice between good and evil or evolve to find the fittest human.

Consider. Evolution has two major components that we must do to survive; compete or cooperate, as required. Cooperation we would see as good because it does not create a victim or loser. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim and loser.

From this view, we must do evil and to survive as that process produces the fittest. To not compete would produce the least fit and we would likely go extinct.

Do you see this conundrum of us having to do evil? If you do, should God punish us for doing what we must do so as not to go extinct?

I do not see God as justified in punishing us and that is why Gnostic Christians like me are Universalists.
I see us all as not requiring salvation. God would not do evil by punishing us for doing what we must do to survive and thrive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exsultet
“O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam”.
“in the light of paradise, even the sin of Adam may be regarded as truly necessary and a happy fault.”

If sin and doing evil is good and necessary for Adam, who represents all of mankind, then the church and I are suggesting that it is good that we all do evil.

It seems that nature, or God, if you are into the supernatural, ultimately, created a perfect imperfect world. To appreciate perfection, we must know imperfection. This knowledge frees the mind.

Regards
DL

Is doing evil a necessity of life?

Did the ancients know this and Is that why we are all named as sinners?

I think nature created the potential for evil in each of us because without that potential we would not have the ability to make a free choice between good and evil or evolve to find the fittest human.

Consider. Evolution has two major components that we must do to survive; compete or cooperate, as required. Cooperation we would see as good because it does not create a victim or loser. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim and loser.

From this view, we must do evil and to survive as that process produces the fittest. To not compete would produce the least fit and we would likely go extinct.

Do you see this conundrum of us having to do evil? If you do, should God punish us for doing what we must do so as not to go extinct?

I do not see God as justified in punishing us and that is why Gnostic Christians like me are Universalists.
I see us all as not requiring salvation. God would not do evil by punishing us for doing what we must do to survive and thrive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exsultet
“O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam”.
“in the light of paradise, even the sin of Adam may be regarded as truly necessary and a happy fault.”

If sin and doing evil is good and necessary for Adam, who represents all of mankind, then the church and I are suggesting that it is good that we all do evil.

It seems that nature, or God, if you are into the supernatural, ultimately, created a perfect imperfect world. To appreciate perfection, we must know imperfection. This knowledge frees the mind.

Regards
DL

 

[Genaro Torres]

Nephelims have evolved to a state of appearing just like God's Creation. Yes, Evolution is a reality only to Nephilim. God lets both grow on Earth until HE Decides. "30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”(Matthew 13:24-30)

Since Humans don't know who is a Nephilim or who is truly 100% Human, there will always be, until the End of Time, those on Earth that called themselves None Believers and those who believe, by faith alone, that there's a TRUE GOD.

God has revealed HIS Mysteries to the predestined Humanity, the Nephilim would not understand His Mysteries; they are hidden to them. Only a Nephilim would say: "we must do evil and to survive as that process produces the fittest." "To not compete would produce the least fit and we would likely go extinct." "sin and doing evil is good and necessary" for Nephelims, not God's Creation.

God's Creation has been predestined, (Ephesians 1:11) it's Wheat, the fittest (Deut. 7:6–8); some also extend predestination to include God’s having decided in advance the events of each day in a Human’s life (e.g., Ps. 139:13– "I see us all as not requiring salvation", would be admitted only from a Nephilim, not from God's Creation. "God would not do evil by punishing us for doing what we must do to survive and thrive." applies to both Nephilim and Humanity.

 

[DrKrettin]

God has revealed HIS Mysteries to the predestined Humanity,

So this god decides to reveal his mysteries to one race/religion on Earth (presumably you mean either Jews or Christians, I can't make it out). That is a bummer for the rest of humanity, don't you think? Why be so selective? I think it's a mean god that does that - not a very nice one.

 

[Michael 345]

Nephelims have evolved to a state of appearing just like God's Creation. Yes, Evolution is a reality only to Nephilim. God lets both grow on Earth until HE Decides. "30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”(Matthew 13:24-30)

Since Humans don't know who is a Nephilim or who is truly 100% Human, there will always be, until the End of Time, those on Earth that called themselves None Believers and those who believe, by faith alone, that there's a TRUE GOD.

God has revealed HIS Mysteries to the predestined Humanity, the Nephilim would not understand His Mysteries; they are hidden to them. Only a Nephilim would say: "we must do evil and to survive as that process produces the fittest." "To not compete would produce the least fit and we would likely go extinct." "sin and doing evil is good and necessary" for Nephelims, not God's Creation.

God's Creation has been predestined, (Ephesians 1:11) it's Wheat, the fittest (Deut. 7:6–8); some also extend predestination to include God’s having decided in advance the events of each day in a Human’s life (e.g., Ps. 139:13– "I see us all as not requiring salvation", would be admitted only from a Nephilim, not from God's Creation. "God would not do evil by punishing us for doing what we must do to survive and thrive." applies to both Nephilim and Humanity.

Another pile of Cowpat to ignore

 

[Genaro Torres]

So this god decides to reveal his mysteries to one race/religion on Earth (presumably you mean either Jews or Christians, I can't make it out). That is a bummer for the rest of humanity, don't you think? Why be so selective? I think it's a mean god that does that - not a very nice one.

19One of you will say to me, “Then why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use?…
(Romans 9:19-21)

This is just one place in His WORD that He reveals the facts of life.

 

[Michael 345]

Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use?…

So some clay people are made for special occasions

What special occasions?

Other clay people are made for common use

Like bed pots under the bed for common use

Are you a special use? or bed pot?

I think I am somewhere inbetween

 

[DrKrettin]

19One of you will say to me, “Then why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?

Can't you see the total lack of sense in this? A person asks a question, which is answered by the question of whether that person is entitled to ask it. This is NOT an answer. I think this falls under the category of petitio principii or begging the question. I despair that blind faith prevents people from seeing this.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

“First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”(Matthew 13:24-30)

Burn them?

What a waste.

Put them in a compost heap or a worm farm and help improve your soil.

Further do not get your gardening advice (for starters) from the bible.

Whilst you cherry pick the bible for what you see as profound wisdom how do you skip the stuff that is just totally wrong, immoral or just plain nonsence.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use?…
(Romans 9:19-21)

I wonder how that nonsence would go over in a factory that makes clay sewer pipes and dinner ware.

Or do you seriously think that you dont use different clays for different applications.

Poor anology it would seem.

Alex

 

[Greatest I am]

So this god decides to reveal his mysteries to one race/religion on Earth (presumably you mean either Jews or Christians, I can't make it out). That is a bummer for the rest of humanity, don't you think? Why be so selective? I think it's a mean god that does that - not a very nice one.

You point to one of the main reasons I became a Gnostic Christian. The fact that Yahweh is quite the loser as scriptures say that the vast majority of us will end in hell with just a few making it to heaven.

Nature creates for the best possible end yet incompetent Yahweh can't even do that.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?

If a pot is created with a hole that leaks, who is to blame? The pot of the potter?

Have you noticed that your potter, instead of repairing his faulty works, takes the moral low ground and kills when he could just as well cure.

That is partly why we call him a vile demiurge. Your God is more Satan-like than God-like.

Regards
DL

 

[Jeeves]

19One of you will say to me, “Then why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use?…
(Romans 9:19-21)

This is my favourite thing about this Judeo-Christian-Islamic god: whenever someone points out his unreason or injustice, he retorts: "Because I can."
You have to love this guy.... or else!