Evil May Never Be Vanquished

[LuisDantas]

I bet it felt great to trivialize centuries upon centuries of work from multiple remarkably intelligent sources.

To be fair, there is a lot of need to question statements about good and evil.

 

[SoulDaemon]

Animals don't kill other animals out of anger or jealousy. We have a mind set to think what we do.

Which would you prefer, a killer without feelings and remorse or a killer with a set of feelings and justice?

At least one of them could be "put out" without laws and hesitation?.

Animals who attack humans do so under threat or in search of food. And What ever the reason is, the animal is to blame and put down.

Usually the victim is a provoker, going to the nest or knowingly walks in predatory territories.

For this the animal gets killed it and the "victim" gets a pat in the back or a fee to pay.

How's that for evil.

 

[Breathe]

Actually, that is just how we are hardwired.
That could be changed in the future.

I like it this way.
Struggle is helpful for growth.

 

[Koldo]

To be fair, there is a lot of need to question statements about good and evil.

For sure. And, question it, we shall.

 

[Koldo]

I like it this way.
Struggle is helpful for growth.

'Growth' is merely how you portray 'change'.
It is curious that you have brought up a concept into this topic that is even more elusive than 'evil' itself.

 

[Breathe]

'Growth' is merely how you portray 'change'.

Pretty much. But without something to cause us to change, there would be no real change.

It is curious that you have brought up a concept into this topic that is even more elusive than 'evil' itself.

That's just how I roll.

 

[Koldo]

Pretty much. But without something to cause us to change, there would be no real change.

Which is a neutral statement in itself.
Is it a bad thing to don't change?

 

[SoulDaemon]

Which is a neutral statement in itself.
Is it a bad thing to don't change?

It depends on the reason.

 

[Koldo]

It depends on the reason.

Could you elaborate on that?

 

[Thief]

So.....we are able and nothing greater could do so?

I see Man as a creation...in between Greater Powers.

If evil is defined as doing harm....All can be evil.
If evil is simply denial....All can be evil.

Shall we draw a line?

Which side of the line shall we stand?

 

[SoulDaemon]

Could you elaborate on that?

Does it need elaboration? or can't you think anything up .

 

[Koldo]

Does it need elaboration? or can't you think anything up .

I do not seek to misinterpret nor to misrepresent what you have said.
So yes, it does need elaboration if your intent is to be properly understood.

 

[Breathe]

Is it a bad thing to don't change?

In my opinion? Yes.

 

[Koldo]

In my opinion? Yes.

Why do you think so?

 

[Breathe]

Why do you think so?

Stagnation is little more than living death.

 

[Koldo]

Stagnation is little more than living death.

Why do you think so?

 

[Breathe]

Why do you think so?

The reason I think this is because I believe that existence here on Earth is supposed to be temporary and transient, and the pain we experience in this world is to teach us something about not only the world but about ourselves.

If we cling on to things that have gone, we will only make ourselves sadder, and if there was a world where nothing changed, there would be little need to change. It is only with effort, which nags us to do something new in our situations because of impermanence, pain, suffering, 'evil', and so many other things, that gives us reason to actually do something to change our circumstances. If we lived only in happiness and without any need for change, why would people change? The simple answer is that people wouldn't, because they have a happy medium.

It is because I see injustice and problems in the world that I do my part to help people. If there was no suffering, I would not do that. There would be no need for it. I would not have changed as a person. I would not have met new people. I would not have helped people put their lives back on track.

We'd all be sitting around doing nothing. And that's not for this life.

 

[Koldo]

The reason I think this is because I believe that existence here on Earth is supposed to be temporary and transient, and the pain we experience in this world is to teach us something about not only the world but about ourselves.

If we cling on to things that have gone, we will only make ourselves sadder, and if there was a world where nothing changed, there would be little need to change. It is only with effort, which nags us to do something new in our situations because of impermanence, pain, suffering, 'evil', and so many other things, that gives us reason to actually do something to change our circumstances. If we lived only in happiness and without any need for change, why would people change? The simple answer is that people wouldn't, because they have a happy medium.

It is because I see injustice and problems in the world that I do my part to help people. If there was no suffering, I would not do that. There would be no need for it. I would not have changed as a person. I would not have met new people. I would not have helped people put their lives back on track.

We'd all be sitting around doing nothing. And that's not for this life.

But what is good about change in itself?

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to refer of 'change' as being an end, and not merely a mean to an end. That a wonderful world, and by that I mean a world without suffering and evil, wouldn't really be wonderful because it would lack 'change'.

On the end of your post though, you reference to the possibility of another plane of existence where it would be fine if 'change' was lacking.
Which is where you treat 'change' as a mean, rather than an end.

So, what is it that this world lacks to be a place where 'change' is no longer required?

 

[Thief]

But what is good about change in itself?

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to refer of 'change' as being an end, and not merely a mean to an end. That a wonderful world, and by that I mean a world without suffering and evil, wouldn't really be wonderful because it would lack 'change'.

On the end of your post though, you reference to the possibility of another plane of existence where it would be fine if 'change' was lacking.
Which is where you treat 'change' as a mean, rather than an end.

So, what is it that this world lacks to be a place where 'change' is no longer required?

Contentment.

 

[Breathe]

But what is good about change in itself?

It brings new things.

So, what is it that this world lacks to be a place where 'change' is no longer required?

Permanency.