Explain this logically christians....

[Commoner]

I disagree. It is not our intent at all that determines whether an action is good or evil. It is the consequences of that action that describe it as good or evil. Our intent shapes how we act, but intent is learned from previous consequences faced.

Than how could you possibly say that not helping an old person across the street was evil?

 

[blackout]

Than how could you possibly say that not helping an old person across the street was evil?

Maybe they were trying to get away from their evil nurse.
and you... didn't help them. :tsk:

 

[Commoner]

Maybe they were trying to get away from their evil nurse.
and you... didn't help them. :tsk:

Haha...

Sure, but since you don't know the consequences of that action and since consequnces (according to strikeviperMKII) determine whether something is good or evil...

 

[Frank Merton]

I think that the concept of evil always implies malicious intent. A tsunami can cause great human suffering, but such catastrophic natural events are never described as evil. There must always be some actor who willfully intends unnecessary harm to others. People may disagree over whether the harm was necessary, so acts of violence in war are not always considered evil. But I think that malicious intent is always a necessary component of evil.

The evil is not the tsunami but the suffering that ensures.

I think we can safely use the word if we use it this way. Otherwise we get involved in the perhaps impossible task of teasing out responsibility for evil acts.

The thief causes financial loss -- an evil -- but feeds his children. The murderer acts out of compulsive jealousy -- is that evil? Is he, who is out of his own control, nevertheless evil? Even the sociopath, who feels no guilt or shame, and acts out of greed, can be excused, since he is biologically lacking the emotional restraints needed to avoid acts that result in evil.

 

[tripleog2010]

A close friend informed me today that his cousin lost his wife and 2 kids to a drunk driver a few days ago.
Now the cousin is being asked to "lean on god" and "faith" to make it through it.
So explain that if it was god's "plan" to take his family away, then why lean on god for support? How does that logically make sense?

Leaning on God is a whole lot better than leaning on the bottle, getting drunk, and then instigating another wreck. The jerk who got drunk and killed the other man's family chose to drink and drive. Any idiot knows that when liquor and driving are mixed, there may be a very bad result. No, this wasn't in God's plan.
This was an accident and it is very unfortunate. So to answer your question,
it doesn't make sense the way you stated it.

 

[waitasec]

Than how could you possibly say that not helping an old person across the street was evil?

check mate....

 

[waitasec]

Leaning on God is a whole lot better than leaning on the bottle, getting drunk, and then instigating another wreck. The jerk who got drunk and killed the other man's family chose to drink and drive. Any idiot knows that when liquor and driving are mixed, there may be a very bad result. No, this wasn't in God's plan.
This was an accident and it is very unfortunate. So to answer your question,
it doesn't make sense the way you stated it.

so are accidents not a part of gods plan?

 

[waitasec]

The evil is not the tsunami but the suffering that ensures.

i find this interesting..i agree with the rest. but this ruffled my feathers a bit.
when disaster strikes, like a tsunami, there is suffering because we're face to face with natures indifference and it is the the knowing that there is nothing anyone could do about it. there is no reason for it, no intent was involved...

you took this a bit further and said the suffering was evil. i think suffering in the face of nature is a reminder of the reality of our frail existence. we are all of a sudden thrown out of our comfort zone and forced to deal with the inevitable...
i experienced the 94 earthquake. the feeling of complete humility, after everything had calmed down, was shared by all who lived through it.
no one likes to be humiliated. i don't think humiliation is evil, it is a reminder of our very fragile existence...

 

[Koldo]

The evil is not the tsunami but the suffering that ensures.

I think we can safely use the word if we use it this way. Otherwise we get involved in the perhaps impossible task of teasing out responsibility for evil acts.

The thief causes financial loss -- an evil -- but feeds his children. The murderer acts out of compulsive jealousy -- is that evil? Is he, who is out of his own control, nevertheless evil? Even the sociopath, who feels no guilt or shame, and acts out of greed, can be excused, since he is biologically lacking the emotional restraints needed to avoid acts that result in evil.

You need to separate the evil from suffering. They are related, but different. There is no evil in a tsunami, unless it was caused by someone with intent to harm other people. As far as i know, evil depends on suffering to exist, but suffering does not depend on evil to exist.

 

[Frank Merton]

i find this interesting..i agree with the rest. but this ruffled my feathers a bit.
when disaster strikes, like a tsunami, there is suffering because we're face to face with natures indifference and it is the the knowing that there is nothing anyone could do about it. there is no reason for it, no intent was involved...

you took this a bit further and said the suffering was evil. i think suffering in the face of nature is a reminder of the reality of our frail existence. we are all of a sudden thrown out of our comfort zone and forced to deal with the inevitable...
i experienced the 94 earthquake. the feeling of complete humility, after everything had calmed down, was shared by all who lived through it.
no one likes to be humiliated. i don't think humiliation is evil, it is a reminder of our very fragile existence...

I think we are on the same page. You will recall that I prefaced my comments with the an introduction about safely using the word [evil]. I generally prefer to avoid the word, and would enter it as a rough synonym for something we very much prefer to avoid, which includes suffering and so on.

I suppose a feeling of humility -- of helplessness, even -- fits that definition and therefore is an "evil," but the serious evils here are loss of life, injury, loss of livelihood, and so on.

 

[Frank Merton]

You need to separate the evil from suffering. They are related, but different. There is no evil in a tsunami, unless it was caused by someone with intent to harm other people. As far as i know, evil depends on suffering to exist, but suffering does not depend on evil to exist.

I don't separate suffering from evil; if we are to use the word at all, it can only mean suffering. As I said, otherwise you get into an interminable tangle of trying to assign guilt, and "judgment belongs to God." (Not being a Christian, I should put it that only gods know and are wise enough to judge).

By the way, I never said nor implied that any tsunami is evil in itself.

 

[Koldo]

I don't separate suffering from evil; if we are to use the word at all, it can only mean suffering. As I said, otherwise you get into an interminable tangle of trying to assign guilt, and "judgment belongs to God." (Not being a Christian, I should put it that only gods know and are wise enough to judge).

By the way, I never said nor implied that any tsunami is evil in itself.

That is the problem. It doesn't mean just suffering. It means intended suffering.

 

[Koldo]

The problem is that we ,as humans, are used to consider inanimate things as having will.
It is often common to hear someone saying that an object is evil, but that is because it is being really considered as having will, the intent to bring misfortune upon us. As funny as it sounds. But that is not really evil, as there is no intention after all [as far as we know ].

This explains why the word evil can see more uses than expected.

 

[Frank Merton]

That is the problem. It doesn't mean just suffering. It means intended suffering.

In that case you cannot call anything "evil" unless you are sure of the intent of the causative agent (which, to have intent, would have to be a sentient being). You have to make yourself judge and jury.

I think most people would say that a thousand dying a horrible death in a landslide is an evil, although no one would say that the landslide itself was evil.

I am tempted to look at this from a traditional Karmic viewpoint. For an act to cause negative karma, it has to cause harm and the harm has to be intended (it is actually vastly more complicated -- books exist on the subject). Now this seems to be your definition of evil, since mountains that have landslides to not accumulate karma.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think most people would say that a thousand dying a horrible death in a landslide is an evil, although no one would say that the landslide itself was evil.

IMO, this landslide was evil.

I think it was evil because the owners of the South Fork earth dam, by virtue of their authority over the dam, had a moral responsibility to ensure that the dam was properly maintained... which they apparently neglected to do.

Now... what does God have authority over?

IMO, sovereignty implies ultimate responsibility.

 

[Frank Merton]

IMO, this landslide was evil.

I think it was evil because the owners of the South Fork earth dam, by virtue of their authority over the dam, had a moral responsibility to ensure that the dam was properly maintained... which they apparently neglected to do.

Now... what does God have authority over?

IMO, sovereignty implies ultimate responsibility.

Well, still, there is no evil in the landslide itself (this is me at my hair-splitting best) but in the parties running the show at this authority.

Still, to say they did something evil (or their omissions were evil) is difficult; they may have had the best of intentions that went astray (say to save money for the taxpayer). Even if the omissions were pure greed, why are they greedy? Is it some fault in their genes or upbringing? I think you can see where this sort of regression leads -- nowhere.

 

[Koldo]

In that case you cannot call anything "evil" unless you are sure of the intent of the causative agent (which, to have intent, would have to be a sentient being). You have to make yourself judge and jury.

More like that.

I think most people would say that a thousand dying a horrible death in a landslide is an evil, although no one would say that the landslide itself was evil.

The words we use are terrible, awfull and so on. The word "evil" is not used to define the death by natural disasters, unless we attribute it to the devil, or something along those lines.

I am tempted to look at this from a traditional Karmic viewpoint. For an act to cause negative karma, it has to cause harm and the harm has to be intended (it is actually vastly more complicated -- books exist on the subject). Now this seems to be your definition of evil, since mountains that have landslides to not accumulate karma.

This seems to fit how i see evil.

 

[oldasdirt]

I will try to explain, in part, my belief and its only my belief. I would not say it was God's "plan", more like fallen man's free will. Did God know the man would choose to drink and drive and that they would be killed? Yes. Could he have intervened, sure. But he does not intervene every time someone disobeys, etc. or there would be no accidents. Truth is, we live in a fallen sinful world where we see the results and consequences of sin which can be terrible and even end in the tragic death of innocent loved ones. We see how bad sin is in cases like this. It shows sin is real and needs to be dealt with in each of our own lives. Have we trusted Christ to pay for our sins and do we strive not to sin? Do we not know the consequences of sin is not only physical death but a spiritual death and a final second death??? Its spiritual darkness resulting in tragic physical reality.

Do we turn from God who is our source of comfort and peace, who is love and who demonstrated that love in the person of Jesus Christ, who never reviled anyone when reviled against and who taught us to love our enemies and to render not evil for evil but rather good for evil? No, we trust in God more at these times. We also believe all things will be restored, that God is just and although we do not understand clearly in this earthly life, we know we will understand soon enough and we will be reunited with our loved ones who have passed away and be with them FOREVER. And there will be no more death or pain or sorrow for those who have trusted God, and no more drunk drivers.

well said. let me add:

we are here left to our own devices - free will. did God cause the crash or plan for it to happen? i don't think anyone logically thinks that. our lives are not "planned out" but eternity is. what will happen in this world is known to God, and will unfold according to his plan. people blame God when we should be blaming ourselves. it is our human free will and poor choices that lead to those events. God weeps with us, and in my oppinion is sad to see how some people's poor and sinful choices hurt others. That is what this life here on earth is about after all - choices. if God intervened in our lives everytime and so visibly was always saving us and bailing us out, would there be any doubt there is a God? wouldn't that be common knowledge? and if we did not have doubt, who would chose to be against God? we would obey out of reverent fear, not personal choice from within our soul. we are here to make that choice, of our own free will, not with Him presenting himself before us in all of his magnificence, that wouldn't be a choice at all. unfortunatley life on earth is filled with hurtful human mistakes. only in God when this life is over is there a place of peace and a promise of no more tears. He will be there for us then. He has promised that. i think we can take comfort in knowing that it was not His plan for us to hurt each other, that is our own doing, and he is there to comfort us when it happens.

i hope that made some sort of sense.........

 

[Koldo]

well said. let me add:

we are here left to our own devices - free will. did God cause the crash or plan for it to happen? i don't think anyone logically thinks that. our lives are not "planned out" but eternity is. what will happen in this world is known to God, and will unfold according to his plan. people blame God when we should be blaming ourselves. it is our human free will and poor choices that lead to those events. God weeps with us, and in my oppinion is sad to see how some people's poor and sinful choices hurt others. That is what this life here on earth is about after all - choices. if God intervened in our lives everytime and so visibly was always saving us and bailing us out, would there be any doubt there is a God? wouldn't that be common knowledge? and if we did not have doubt, who would chose to be against God? we would obey out of reverent fear, not personal choice from within our soul. we are here to make that choice, of our own free will, not with Him presenting himself before us in all of his magnificence, that wouldn't be a choice at all. unfortunatley life on earth is filled with hurtful human mistakes. only in God when this life is over is there a place of peace and a promise of no more tears. He will be there for us then. He has promised that. i think we can take comfort in knowing that it was not His plan for us to hurt each other, that is our own doing, and he is there to comfort us when it happens.

i hope that made some sort of sense.........

Who was it that gave humans the free will? God.
Therefore God is responsible for everything.

Also, check this thread so we can talk about God's presence interfering in free will: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/112366-happy-robots-heaven.html

 

[waitasec]

I think we are on the same page. You will recall that I prefaced my comments with the an introduction about safely using the word [evil]. I generally prefer to avoid the word, and would enter it as a rough synonym for something we very much prefer to avoid, which includes suffering and so on.

I suppose a feeling of humility -- of helplessness, even -- fits that definition and therefore is an "evil," but the serious evils here are loss of life, injury, loss of livelihood, and so on.

i just wanted to thank you really. because i never looked at suffering in that light before...and your comment inspired some thoughts (even before i had my 1st cup of joe...)