What is the nature of God/Good

[b0urgeoisie]

I was reading an old text book and reread some of the work of Plato. It was his discussion, with Thrasymachus, about justice. I believe his overall assumptions. So I believe that, most of the time, justice is made up.
I also believe in God. My "style" of belief forces me to believe in the powers of both Mercy and Justice. But, I believe that goodness can be objective. I can only think of one thing that is inherently evil. - Intention -
The purpose of this thread is to gather ideas about what is Good and what is Bad. Please try to be as objective as possible. That means, to remove as much of yourself as possible from your description. For example, I cannot say the action of punching someone is all bad. It would be wrong for me to punch someone. But, only because it's me and my life doesn't need violence. But, if someone is innocent and defending themselves, it could be argued that, they are "justified.
Please list ideas or actions and define them as good or evil. Give evidence for your claim.

 

[Godless]

What is bad:

That which harms anyone other than self, is bad.
that intent to decieve, coherse, or use force agaist anyone is bad.
To manipulate the ignorance of others, and force your opinions to them with the intent to decieve is bad!.

What is good:

That which benefits you and others, is good.
That you don't force opinions on others, but bring choices for others to choose. is good.

Well that's an atempt, however the question of good or bad is really a study of morality. And what is to be moral.

Godless

 

[b0urgeoisie]

What is bad:

That which harms anyone other than self, is bad.
that intent to decieve, coherse, or use force agaist anyone is bad.
To manipulate the ignorance of others, and force your opinions to them with the intent to decieve is bad!.

What is good:

That which benefits you and others, is good.
That you don't force opinions on others, but bring choices for others to choose. is good.

Well that's an atempt, however the question of good or bad is really a study of morality. And what is to be moral.

Godless

Is it bad to harm at anytime? What if it is for a greater good?

 

[§outh§tar]

The manifest conscience indicates good and bad.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

The manifest conscience indicates good and bad.

would you mind explaining what you mean?

 

[§outh§tar]

You have a conscience that tells you not to stab your little brother in the eye.

You have a conscience that tells you not to take the candy in the room, even though there is absolutely no one looking or in the vicinity.

The conscience however does not say WHY you shouldn't take it, especially when at the very moment you are not even thinking of the consequences. Only that you should or shouldn't.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

§our§tar: You have a conscience that tells you not to stab your little brother in the eye.

You have a conscience that tells you not to take the candy in the room, even though there is absolutely no one looking or in the vicinity.

The conscience however does not say WHY you shouldn't take it, especially when at the very moment you are not even thinking of the consequences. Only that you should or shouldn't.
*************
M*W: That's why humanity is inherently good and absent of original sin.

 

[Leo Volont]

Dear Bourgeois,

Last week somebody oversimplified the distinction between Good and Evil by saying that Good was that which was healthy and pleasant, while evil was that which was menacing and painful. This was to make the Individual the focus of the Moral Distinction. But expediencies of Survival, which is what these things are, are not Moral considerations, but practical and pragmatic. It is how animals evaluate their choices.

Moral considerations focus on Society and Community. Individual self-sacrifice and efforts for the Collective are Good. Predatory and selfish behavior is Bad. Such is the distinction between Civilized and Barbarian.

 

[§outh§tar]

§our§tar: You have a conscience that tells you not to stab your little brother in the eye.

You have a conscience that tells you not to take the candy in the room, even though there is absolutely no one looking or in the vicinity.

The conscience however does not say WHY you shouldn't take it, especially when at the very moment you are not even thinking of the consequences. Only that you should or shouldn't.
*************
M*W: That's why humanity is inherently good and absent of original sin.

No one said humanity has original sin. Humanity cannot be inherently good because you have to do good deeds to be good. If you have done neither good or bad deeds at conception, how does that make you good?

 

[wesmorris]

the nature of good and bad is directly analagous to harmony and dissidence. harmony and dissidence are constructive and destructive interference.

so good is when your interaction with your environment is perceived as constructive (with some basis in reality, such that the perception is re-enforced by stimulous) (I mean that constructive stimulous adds to the smooth functioning of the mind and is as such; good). bad is when you percieve your interaction with your environment as destructive (which will be re-enforced by stimulous, but mental preservation might call for denial since each brain has a particular minimal requirement for constructive/destructive stimulous - too much either or one way or the other for a particular mind and it will break)

 

[Leo Volont]

No one said humanity has original sin. Humanity cannot be inherently good because you have to do good deeds to be good. If you have done neither good or bad deeds at conception, how does that make you good?

So you are saying that their is Original Sin because of no good deeds or bad deeds at birth. Why Sin, then. With no BAD Deeds at birth, why are YOU assigning Blame. It is like you are simply not thinking through what you are saying.

No, Original Sin was a Doctrine Paul made up to justify a Universal Forgiveness and an Easy Salvation. Paul was arguing that people are inherently sinful and thus cannot be expected to ever be righteous and so their only hope was in a blanket all inclusive Salvation and Forgiveness. Such a doctrine is obviously at odds with Christ's injunction to be perfect, which is why most Christion Sects affirm Paul as the Word of God, while ignore everything about Christ except His Name, which Paul, and they use in order to lend credence to their Satanic and Antichristical Doctrines.

 

[Leo Volont]

the nature of good and bad is directly analagous to harmony and dissidence. harmony and dissidence are constructive and destructive interference.

so good is when your interaction with your environment is perceived as constructive (with some basis in reality, such that the perception is re-enforced by stimulous) (I mean that constructive stimulous adds to the smooth functioning of the mind and is as such; good). bad is when you percieve your interaction with your environment as destructive (which will be re-enforced by stimulous, but mental preservation might call for denial since each brain has a particular minimal requirement for constructive/destructive stimulous - too much either or one way or the other for a particular mind and it will break)

Good and Bad are moral terms. So you choose to define moral terms using what amounts to a set of amoral metaphors. Harmony and dissidence are musical terms.

Why not define Good and Evil in moral terms. Morality deals with social interactions. Why not use moral social terms to define moral social things. Too easy? Or did the obvious not occur to you?

Good is whatever is representative of self sacrifice by an individual or group for the benefit of the Community at large. Bad is what is parasitical or predatory -- that which victimizes the Greater society.

So, do you see that it is better to answer questions without using indirect metaphorization, particularly when it is so much easier and clearer to be direct?

 

[Godless]

s it bad to harm at anytime? What if it is for a greater good?

There's no such thing as a greater good!.
The only time it would be proper to hurt someone is to defend oneself.

Moral considerations focus on Society and Community. Individual self-sacrifice and efforts for the Collective are Good. Predatory and selfish behavior is Bad. Such is the distinction between Civilized and Barbarian.

Spoken like a true MYSTIC Leo.

Only the opposite is true of what this nut claims.

To sacrifice is to give up the good, for something not-so good, or worthless. to sacrifice Leo means to have something of value, and give it up willingnly for something of less value.
What you are claiming that the good is, follows exactly what contradicts human nature, hence to surrender one's value at the exchange of something worthless.

When you eat, you are being selfish. You can't eat and share that same food with others.
When you breath, you are being selfish, your lungs will not share the oxygen with others.
When you live. you have to live selfishly. Unless you are willing to be a slave, and live for the values of others othern than your own.

So in essense my friend.

That which you claimed is the good. IS ACTUALLY THE BAD!!!

THAT which you claimed is bad!! IS ACTUALLY THE GOOD!!!

Commie bastards, Nazis & Fascists, speak and think just like you do LEO.

Godless.

 

[duendy]

you know. trust yourself. you know instinctively what's good and evil. when a child sees evil it'll cry, we may be sick when we see real evil...like say a dog being tortured, some awful atrocity. a soldier may become dehumanized to it! a concentration camp worker in nazi Germany would have seen things that' make out haor go white, yet he/she would go home have tea and a laugh

when you have a plant on the windowsill, you water it. is that good or evil. it is just being senstive

 

[kula]

Anything that damages the harmony of the universe is evil, eg, if chaos was introduced and caused the universe to collapse.

kula

 

[Leo Volont]

To sacrifice is to give up the good, for something not-so good, or worthless. Godless.

You are fooling yourself with words.

You are defining Sacrifice in terms of Bad Bargaining.

But where is the Bad Bargain in setting out food and clothing for the poor?

where is the Bad Bargain in visiting and caring for the Sick?

What we have here is individuals acting for others as though it was in their own self interest. It is the Identification of Self with Others.

Evil is the opposition -- The Evil Person feels that he must be served, and that he has claim to the property, time, and labor of everybody else.

 

[Leo Volont]

when a child sees evil it'll cry...

How many babies cry when mommy and daddy have to go to work to support the Leisured Rich? But that Exploitation is Evil.

We have Christ's Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. The Rich Man did nothing to make any baby cry. He simply eat sumptuously from the table while the poor man was suffered to go hungry. And the Rich man was duly damned for it. Now, seeing the Rich Man suffer his punishment -- THAT might make a baby cry. But Justice is not Evil. It is Justice.

 

[wesmorris]

Good and Bad are moral terms.

They also reflect taste.

Harmony and dissidence are musical terms.

They are terms used in physics to describe the interaction of waveforms. Is using one's perspective as analogous to an endless song of sorts beyond you?

Why not define Good and Evil in moral terms.

Good and bad are broad terms for the gross analysis of behavior. They are both long and short term judgements of facets of your interaction with the world. In the short term, your actions are mandated by what your brain decides is "good". You can reach a judgement later that your actions were "bad". That's partially how behavior is modified, but in the short term you're always doing "good" for you. It can only be stopped one way it seems: death.

So I don't define it as you suggest because it is insufficient to explain the nature of good and bad.

Morality deals with social interactions.

There is more to social interactions that morality.

Why not use moral social terms to define moral social things.

Because I disagree with your short-sighted assessment that "good and bad are moral terms".

Too easy? Or did the obvious not occur to you?

I posted what I see as obvious.

Good is whatever is representative of self sacrifice by an individual or group for the benefit of the Community at large.

Well see I wouldn't say that because it's wrong.

First it relies on objective standards, which don't exist with a species comprised of individuals and a variety of cultures. You'll find that if you analyze what you just said, you can only do it from your perspective. Some will agree, some won't. What I said is applicable to you if you like it or not. It's the mechanics of it.

Your analysis is steeped in your own sense of judgement. What about self-sacrifice that is for the benefit of the community in intention but ends up killing everyone? Good gone wrong?

What is the "benefit of society"? Some would argue that Hitler was the most beneficial member of society ever, because he exterminated SO many jews. What a guy. My initial analysis covers this. Yours simply promotes your opinon of good over all others, or only to those who agree with you.

IMO, that is a shallow, pointless effort that only touches the nature of the matter at hand as an example of correctness of my initial post in this thread. You are assert what you do because to you it is good.

Bad is what is parasitical or predatory -- that which victimizes the Greater society.

You fail to account for the complexity of interacting perceptions. For instance, this exchange of words can be easily constrewed as parasitical. It must be bad then right?

So, do you see that it is better to answer questions without using indirect metaphorization, particularly when it is so much easier and clearer to be direct?

I think your analysis was clearly insufficient. If you consider that "better" then yes. I gather it was certainly "easier and clearer" to you though.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

§our§tar: No one said humanity has original sin.
*************
M*W: Many members of this forum have claimed original sin to be valid dogma. Most christian religions claim it to be true. I don't believe in it anymore, but it HAS BEEN SAID by many people.
*************
§our§tar: Humanity cannot be inherently good because you have to do good deeds to be good.
************
M*W: No, this is wrong. Doing good deeds does not make one inherently good. Goodness comes from the soul (conscience). One does not need to act on goodness, one only needs to have a positive spirit of goodness that will emanate from one's soul. That is an involuntary act in itself, and it's contagious.
*************
§our§tar: If you have done neither good or bad deeds at conception, how does that make you good?
*************
M*W: There are no good or bad deeds done at conception (by the conceptus). If you're talking about the couple performing coitus, that's up to individual interpretation.

 

[Leo Volont]

Dear Wesmorris,

You are just one of those guys who love to talk yourself away from any semblance of common sense. You just use words to create conceptual patterns -- no Truth or Reality -- just Cobwebs of the Mind.

Grow up and we'll talk.