Good Doesn't Require Evil

cablescavenger · Feb 22, 2012

Skwim said:
Came across another claim declaring that things need their opposite so as to define them. Here's the latest example.
"Creation requires opposites. You can't determine sweet if there is no sour. For every reaction there is an opposite and equal reaction. A proton has a positive charge whereas an electron has a negative charge. If the world was made only of nuetrons, then what would hold the physical world together?"
source

This "argument," like many others of its kind, is typically in response to the fact that evil exists despite the fact that everything was created by an all-loving god. The follow up question is usually something like, "If god didn't create evil how could anything be good?" Of course most people don't go to the lengths given in the example here, pitting physical objects against one another in order to give each meaning, but rather confine it to our subjective notions wherein there may be a continuum existing between two concepts: dark to light, smart to dumb, good to bad, etc.

The basic thrust to the "Good needs Evil" argument is that acts would lose their intrinsic goodness if it wasn't for evil to contrast them to. So what would such an act be if goodness wasn't around as a definer? How about acceptable. Wouldn't that be enough? And couldn't there even be undesirable acts---those not good, or "bad"--- without evil around? And couldn't there also be desirable acts---some even great without evil around? I can certainly regard a piece of art as great without the need for some malicious intent lurking around the corner. And this is how I regard evil, as "malicious intent."

Others may a have a different definition, if so, ask yourself why your evil would be needed to distinguish a "good" steak from a "bad" one? Wouldn't good still be a functional concept without evil? And how about what we do, which is where evil is most commonly applied, to our actions. Do we really need evil in the world to appreciate acts of kindness---good acts? Could we not still value a great deed over an average deed without malicious intent residing in our souls? How about a good acting performance over a poor one. Do we need evil for that? Of course not.

So I can easily see a world without evil in which we could still evaluate our actions on some scale that goes up to "Good," and even beyond. Necessary evil just ain't necessary. . . . . . . except for those who need to explain what an all-loving god has done to the world.

I used to have tooth decay, but luckily my tooth repair kicked in and saved the day, woohoo!

Skwim · Feb 22, 2012

InChrist said:
. . . it seems that the possibly of evil occurring was a necessity and has become the reality of giving creatures volition or the ability to make choices.

Why? In the very beginning, before evil came on the scene, A&E made choices.

I do not agree that an all-loving God caused evil to occur.

All I can say is, read your Bible.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

Of course, if you don't think the lord is all-loving then that's another thing.

cablescavenger said:
I used to have tooth decay, but luckily my tooth repair kicked in and saved the day, woohoo!

Okaaay.

InChrist · Feb 22, 2012

Skwim said:
Why? In the very beginning, before evil came on the scene, A&E made choices.

According to the scriptures iniquity and evil had already arisen within Satan before A&E. Then they choose to listen to him instead of God, so evil was passed to humanity.

All I can say is, read your Bible.
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

Of course, if you don't think the lord is all-loving then that's another thing.

The NKJV translates the word calamity instead of evil and I believe this is a more accurate translation and fits the context. God did not create moral evil. He does create or allow situations of calamity for the purpose of teaching some important lesson or when bringing righteous judgment.

Definition of [FONT=&quot]CALAMITY[/FONT]

a state of deep distress or misery caused by major misfortune or loss

a disastrous event marked by great loss and lasting distress and suffering <[FONT=&quot]calamities[/FONT] of nature> <an economic [FONT=&quot]calamity[/FONT]>
--------------------
Definition of [FONT=&quot]EVIL[/FONT]

morally reprehensible [FONT=&quot]:[/FONT] sinful wicked <an [FONT=&quot]evil[/FONT] impulse

arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of [FONT=&quot]evil[/FONT] reputation

Skwim · Feb 22, 2012

InChrist said:
According to the scriptures iniquity and evil had already arisen within Satan before A&E. Then they choose to listen to him instead of God, so evil was passed to humanity.

So you're saying that evil dwelt in the souls of A&E immediately after god made them? If so, this is quite odd considering they were made in god's image, and god even said that what he had just made was good.

The NKJV translates the word calamity instead of evil and I believe this is a more accurate translation and fits the context.

The word "evil" as it appears in Gen. 2:9 in the KJ Bible is a translation of the Hebrew word "ra," which Strong's defines as:

n m
2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
a) evil, distress, adversity
b) evil, injury, wrong
c) evil (ethical)
n f
3) evil, misery, distress, injury
a) evil, misery, distress
b) evil, injury, wrong
c) evil (ethical)

Note that the prime definition of "ra" in all the definitions is "evil."

God did not create moral evil.

But in Isaiah 45: 7, where he says he created evil, this use of "evil" is a translation of the very same word, "ra," that appears in Gen. 2:9, and carries the same definitions:

n m
2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
a) evil, distress, adversity
b) evil, injury, wrong
c) evil (ethical)
n f
3) evil, misery, distress, injury
a) evil, misery, distress
b) evil, injury, wrong
c) evil (ethical)

Note that while "evil" is again in prime position, "calamity" only makes it to fifth place. (The order is indicative of a word's most likely meaning.)

And now you seem to be saying that while god may have created evil, it wasn't of the moral kind. First, what is the difference between this "moral" evil and the supposed other forms of evil? Secondly, how do you know this?

idea · Feb 22, 2012

Skwim said:
Came across another claim declaring that things need their opposite so as to define them. Here's the latest example.
"Creation requires opposites. You can't determine sweet if there is no sour. For every reaction there is an opposite and equal reaction. A proton has a positive charge whereas an electron has a negative charge. If the world was made only of nuetrons, then what would hold the physical world together?"
source

This "argument," like many others of its kind, is typically in response to the fact that evil exists despite the fact that everything was created by an all-loving god.

1. Everything was not ex-Nihlo created by God. The word create is better translated as "transform / organize/ mold/refine" - not create out of nothingness. God is cleaning up a mess He did not create.

2. The theory of relativity is pretty widely accepted...

The basic thrust to the "Good needs Evil" argument is that acts would lose their intrinsic goodness if it wasn't for evil to contrast them to.

not quite - we would lose our free will if we were not allowed the full spectrum to choose between...

So what would such an act be if goodness wasn't around as a definer? How about acceptable. Wouldn't that be enough? And couldn't there even be undesirable acts---those not good, or "bad"--- without evil around? And couldn't there also be desirable acts---some even great without evil around? I can certainly regard a piece of art as great without the need for some malicious intent lurking around the corner. And this is how I regard evil, as "malicious intent."

Do you agree that we gain appreciation through opposition? (value of water when you're sitting in front of the TV, vs value of water after you ran a marathon through the desert etc. etc.)

Are you willing to live a mediocre life in which things like art and glasses of water go unappreciated, and everything is luke-warm... for eternity... kind of a bland sort of thing but without pain - or - for a short 100 years or so (which is a drop in the bucket considering your eternal existence) you experience the marathon in the desert, you feel pain, you gain appreciation - you experience the extremes of it all - but only for the short 100 years, then the experience is done, and you can exist for the rest of eternity with greater knowledge/wisdom/experience/appreciation for it all?

We believe that there was a war in heaven between all the spirits before the Earth was created over just the above issue. - the fallen angels/Satan/etc. etc. are the ones who thought it was better to NOT have all those horrible choices available - they were willing to sacrifice a chunk of their free will, and they were also willing to sacrifice their 100 years of pain on earth - in exchange for an eternal bland existence... we believe that you are here because your spirit to come here - decided the pain was worth it.

I define evil as anything that takes away our free agency, diminishes our happiness... free will - freedom isn't free, you have to work for it... want to be free to play the piano? you have to learn how to play... want to be free to experience friendship? you have to be selfless... want to be free to really appreciate and enjoy what is around you? have to see the opposition to gain the full appreciation - just how it works.... want someone to love you enough that they die for you? - yea, it's extreme, but it's also the highest form of love.

the whole spectrum exists - selfish to selfless, indifference to love, sad - happy... it's true, if there is a forwards, there is a backwards, opposites do define one another - but I think evil only has to be around for long enough that we understand/experience it, then it can be dispensed with - and it will be.

idea · Feb 22, 2012

Skwim said:
...

But in Isaiah 45: 7,

the word "create" is better translated "transform/organize/mold/refine"

that script, when translated correctly, reads "God transforms evil - He changes darkness into light" etc. etc. not God creates evil...

the word "create" and how it is now defined is the issue within that scriptures.

God is cleaning up a mess He did not make - He is loving/merciful/perfect...

idea · Feb 22, 2012

InChrist said:
According to the scriptures iniquity and evil had already arisen within Satan before A&E.

this is true - this is the war in heaven that is talked about within the scriptures.

(Bible Dictionary | W War in Heaven:Entry)

War in Heaven. This term arises out of Rev. 12:7 and refers to the conflict that took place in the premortal existence among the spirit children of God. The war was primarily over how and in what manner the plan of salvation would be administered to the forthcoming human family upon the earth. The issues involved such things as agency, how to gain salvation, and who should be the Redeemer. The war broke out because one-third of the spirits refused to accept the appointment of Jesus Christ as the Savior. Such a refusal was a rebellion against the Father's plan of redemption. It was evident that if given agency, some persons would fall short of complete salvation; Lucifer and his followers wanted salvation to come automatically to all who passed through mortality, without regard to individual preference, agency, or voluntary dedication (see Isa. 14:1220; Luke 10:18; Rev. 12:413; D&C 29:3638; Moses 4:14). The spirits who thus rebelled and persisted were thrust out of heaven and cast down to the earth without mortal bodies, "and thus came the devil and his angels" (D&C 29:37; see also Rev. 12:9; Abr. 3:2428).

The warfare is continued in mortality in the conflict between right and wrong, between the gospel and false principles, etc. The same contestants and the same issues are doing battle, and the same salvation is at stake.

Although one-third of the spirits became devils, the remaining two-thirds were not all equally valiant, there being every degree of devotion to Christ and the Father among them. The most diligent were chosen to be rulers in the kingdom (Abr. 3:2223). The nature of the conflict, however, is such that there could be no neutrals, then or now (Matt. 12:30; 1 Ne. 14:10; Alma 5:3840).

Skwim · Feb 22, 2012

idea said:
1. Everything was not ex-Nihlo created by God. The word create is better translated as "transform / organize/ mold/refine" - not create out of nothingness. God is cleaning up a mess He did not create.

Not according to Strong's. Strong's says "created" as it appears in Gen. 1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." is a translation of the Hebrew word bara', which is defined as

1) to create, shape, form
2) to be fat

Obviously we can dismiss the latter meaning.

2. The theory of relativity is pretty widely accepted...

Nice non-sequitur.

not quite - we would lose our free will if we were not allowed the full spectrum to choose between...

Aside from the fact that freewill is an illusion, you're begging the question here.

Do you agree that we gain appreciation through opposition? (value of water when you're sitting in front of the TV, vs value of water after you ran a marathon through the desert etc. etc.)

Through contrast.

Are you willing to live a mediocre life in which things like art and glasses of water go unappreciated, and everything is luke-warm... for eternity... kind of a bland sort of thing but without pain - or - for a short 100 years or so (which is a drop in the bucket considering your eternal existence) you experience the marathon in the desert, you feel pain, you gain appreciation - you experience the extremes of it all - but only for the short 100 years, then the experience is done, and you can exist for the rest of eternity with greater knowledge/wisdom/experience/appreciation for it all?

You're not actually arguing that these things derive their value because of the existence of evil are you? If not, it's moot. I've already said that I value differences.

We believe that there was a war in heaven between all the spirits before the Earth was created over just the above issue. - the fallen angels/Satan/etc. etc. are the ones who thought it was better to NOT have all those horrible choices available - they were willing to sacrifice a chunk of their free will, and they were also willing to sacrifice their 100 years of pain on earth - in exchange for an eternal bland existence... we believe that you are here because your spirit to come here - decided the pain was worth it.

Interesting.

I define evil as anything that takes away our free agency, diminishes our happiness... free will - freedom isn't free, you have to work for it... want to be free to play the piano? you have to learn how to play... want to be free to experience friendship? you have to be selfless... want to be free to really appreciate and enjoy what is around you? have to see the opposition to gain the full appreciation - just how it works.... want someone to love you enough that they die for you? - yea, it's extreme, but it's also the highest form of love.

Equivocation doesn't impress.

the whole spectrum exists - selfish to selfless, indifference to love, sad - happy... it's true, if there is a forwards, there is a backwards, opposites do define one another - but I think evil only has to be around for long enough that we understand/experience it, then it can be dispensed with - and it will be.

Okey Dokey.

idea · Feb 22, 2012

Skwim said:
Not according to Strong's. Strong's says "created" as it appears in Gen. 1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." is a translation of the Hebrew word bara', which is defined as
1) to create, shape, form
2) to be fat

- shape (does not mean to make something from nothing) - form or transform - same thing - again, not something from nothing.

Here is the link:
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

1) to create, shape, form
a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1) of heaven and earth
2) of individual man
3) of new conditions and circumstances
4) of transformations
b) (Niphal) to be created
1) of heaven and earth
2) of birth
3) of something new
4) of miracles
c) (Piel)
1) to cut down
2) to cut out
2) to be fat
a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

there is nothing in here about making something from nothing.

here is another resource:
Hebrew Root Word Studies
[SIZE=+1]Child Root (Branches of the Tree)[/SIZE]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia] Pronunciation: "Qa-NeH"
Meaning: To build a nest.
Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for. [/FONT]

Here's another article about it:
God is not the Creator, claims academic - Telegraph

create = transform... not something from nothing....

You're not actually arguing that these things derive their value because of the existence of evil are you? If not, it's moot. I've already said that I value differences.

value is a matter of appreciation I think... and in order to gain appreciation... well...

OK - it's way late, I should not have peeked in

...

Skwim · Feb 23, 2012

idea said:
- shape (does not mean to make something from nothing) - form or transform - same thing - again, not something from nothing.

Here is the link:
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Cherry picking is nice for making cherry pies, but not for making good arguments. And, your inclusion of new and emphasized words in your post still doesn't explain why " The word create is better translated as 'transform / organize/ mold/refine' "
This side issue aside, when god said, "I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" he's telling his audience that evil didn't exist until he created (made) it. So, whether one chooses to believe god created evil or made it in some other fashion, it's an inescapable conclusion that he's responsible for all the evil in the world.

InChrist · Feb 23, 2012

Skwim said:
So you're saying that evil dwelt in the souls of A&E immediately after god made them? If so, this is quite odd considering they were made in god's image, and god even said that what he had just made was good.

No, I am not saying that evil dwelt in the souls of A&E right after God made them. It did not exist in them until the moment they disobeyed God.

Note that while "evil" is again in prime position, "calamity" only makes it to fifth place. (The order is indicative of a word's most likely meaning.)

And now you seem to be saying that while god may have created evil, it wasn't of the moral kind. First, what is the difference between this "moral" evil and the supposed other forms of evil? Secondly, how do you know this?

[/quote]

I think context is also important in determining the correct translation of a word. If you read the verse you will see that it is peace which is contrasted with the word translated evil in the KJV. Calamity is a more accurate contrast with peace. Words such as goodness, virtuous, sinlessness would be a more appropriate contrast with the word evil.

I did not say God may have created evil. I said God may bring about or allow calamities to occur for the sake of teaching an important lesson or for righteous judgment.

Moral evil is sinful behavior which is done solely to benefit the one doing it with complete disregard for others.The difference is that God may allow what humans consider bad things from our limited perspective to happen, but He always and only does so for good and valid reasons with the ultimate benefit and love of His creation as His motive.

I know this because the scriptures attest that God is righteous, good, loving, just, perfect, and sinless.

idea · Feb 23, 2012

Skwim said:
Cherry picking is nice for making cherry pies, but not for making good arguments. And, your inclusion of new and emphasized words in your post still doesn't explain why " The word create is better translated as 'transform / organize/ mold/refine' "

you are the one who cherry picked - I included the entire lexicon def of it - it defines create as shape/transform - not something from nothing, and I included some other sources (non-Mormon btw) who say the same thing.... Seems like you want God to be the author of evil so you can continue justifying your rebellion from Him, so you continue to hold onto your old false dichotomy which is sad... God is not evil - He is not the author of evil - there is nothing evil about Him.

This side issue aside, when god said, "I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" he's telling his audience that evil didn't exist until he created (made) it. So, whether one chooses to believe god created evil or made it in some other fashion, it's an inescapable conclusion that he's responsible for all the evil in the world.

should read:
"I make peace, and transform evil: I the LORD do all these things"

read the rest of the Bible - this is the same as all the other scriptures that talk about how God refines/changes us into a new creature etc. etc.

God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. - 1 John 1:5

God is love. - 1 John 4:8

But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand. - Isaiah 64:8

the potter did not make the clay - he transforms it... either you understand the actual definition of the original word create (which is not something from nothing - when I create a cake, I don't make it out of thin air) or you try to make God the hypocritical monster that is responsible for causing evil - God is not the cause behind anything evil - He transforms evil, He refines us, He is cleaning up a mess He did not make. To blame God for anything, is to live in a false reality.

ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. - Romans 8:15
adoption - is where you take care of someone you did not bring into existence... there are many scriptures that talk about how we are adopted by God...

idea · Feb 23, 2012

InChrist said:
No, I am not saying that evil dwelt in the souls of A&E right after God made them. It did not exist in them until the moment they disobeyed God.

I said God may bring about or allow calamities to occur for the sake of teaching an important lesson or for righteous judgment. [/quote]

or allow it to give us free will. (forcing us to be good is taking away our will)

He always and only does so for good and valid reasons with the ultimate benefit and love of His creation as His motive.

I know this because the scriptures attest that God is righteous, good, loving, just, perfect, and sinless.

frubals!

Skwim · Feb 23, 2012

idea said:
You are the one who cherry picked - I included the entire lexicon def of it - it defines create as shape/transform - not something from nothing, and I included some other sources (non-Mormon btw) who say the same thing.... Seems like you want God to be the author of evil so you can continue justifying your rebellion from Him, so you continue to hold onto your old false dichotomy which is sad... God is not evil - He is not the author of evil - there is nothing evil about Him.

Not at all. I listed the two prime definitions of the word, which were

1) to create, shape, form
2) to be fatl

"To create" being the foremost usage.

You then went beyond to cherry pick those particular uses that fitted your claim: "to shape," "to form," "to fashion," "of new conditions and circumstances," "of transformations," and "to cut." What was wrong with all the other minor uses: "to create,"of heaven and earth, "of individual man," "to be created," "of heaven and earth," "of birth," "of something new," "of miracles," and "to cut out"?

And you will note in your source the following translated use count for bara':
"create" 42, "creator" 3, "choose" 2, "make" 2, "cut down" 2, "dispatch" 1, "done" 1, "make fat" 1. Excluding "make fat," which uses the word in a wholly different sense, "create" accounts for 80% of all translations.

should read:
"I make peace, and transform evil: I the LORD do all these things"

"Should"? Why not "birth"? or "cut"? Your tactic here is not unlike the common creationist tactic.

And don't forget what I also said:

"This side issue aside, when god said, "I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" he's telling his audience that evil didn't exist until he created (made) it. So, whether one chooses to believe god created evil or made it in some other fashion, it's an inescapable conclusion that he's responsible for all the evil in the world."

idea · Feb 27, 2012

Skwim said:
Not at all. I listed the two prime definitions of the word, which were
1) to create, shape, form
2) to be fatl

"To create" being the foremost usage.

You then went beyond to cherry pick those particular uses that fitted your claim: "to shape," "to form," "to fashion," "of new conditions and circumstances," "of transformations," and "to cut." What was wrong with all the other minor uses: "to create,"of heaven and earth, "of individual man," "to be created," "of heaven and earth," "of birth," "of something new," "of miracles," and "to cut out"?

And you will note in your source the following translated use count for bara':
"create" 42, "creator" 3, "choose" 2, "make" 2, "cut down" 2, "dispatch" 1, "done" 1, "make fat" 1. Excluding "make fat," which uses the word in a wholly different sense, "create" accounts for 80% of all translations.

If I say "I created a sculpture" this does not mean that I made it out of nothing. To say you create something, is not saying you made it out of nothing.... You have not provided any evidence that "create" is intended to mean "out of nothing"

And don't forget what I also said:"This side issue aside, when god said, "I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" he's telling his audience that evil didn't exist until he created (made) it. So, whether one chooses to believe god created evil or made it in some other fashion, it's an inescapable conclusion that he's responsible for all the evil in the world."

the better translation (that agrees with all the other scriptures about how God transforms/refines us) is:
"I make peace, and transform evil: I the LORD do all these things"

He's telling the audience that He is cleaning up a mess that He did not make.

The Sum of Awe · Feb 27, 2012

Skwim said:
Others may a have a different definition, if so, ask yourself why your evil would be needed to distinguish a "good" steak from a "bad" one? Wouldn't good still be a functional concept without evil?

Actually, no. You wouldn't understand what a good steak tastes like, every steak would be either all the same thus neutral, or if steaks were still not the same then some would be not as good as another, and that's practically what evil is: not as good.

strikeviperMKII · Feb 27, 2012

Skwim said:
Others may a have a different definition, if so, ask yourself why your evil would be needed to distinguish a "good" steak from a "bad" one? Wouldn't good still be a functional concept without evil? And how about what we do, which is where evil is most commonly applied, to our actions. Do we really need evil in the world to appreciate acts of kindness---good acts? Could we not still value a great deed over an average deed without malicious intent residing in our souls? How about a good acting performance over a poor one. Do we need evil for that? Of course not.

You simply rename 'evil' to mean 'average deeds without malicious intent'. Essentially, you have substituted another word for evil, and used that as your baseline, say, 'good' versus 'great'. Your argument is based on the same one you're trying to destroy, just with different words. You cannot have an average deed without a 'great' deed behind it. But, the deed is only average to begin with because we know what a 'poor' deed is. And we only know what a poor deed is because we know what a bad deed is. It doesn't matter where you start, you will end up on one of the ends, and once you're on one end, you will find the other.

Put in math terms, you argue that 5 is greater than one, so why don't we all just be fives, and forget about ones and anything lower than that, hmm? Well, you can try, but you'll only be ignoring those negative numbers until you need them to solve a problem. Believe it or not, evil serves a purpose. Its ugly, dirty and disgusting, sad and horrible most of the time, but it does teach us where we don't want to be.

Skwim · Feb 27, 2012

strikeviperMKII said:
You simply rename 'evil' to mean 'average deeds without malicious intent'. Essentially, you have substituted another word for evil, and used that as your baseline, say, 'good' versus 'great'.

Your argument is based on the same one you're trying to destroy, just with different words. You cannot have an average deed without a 'great' deed behind it. But, the deed is only average to begin with because we know what a 'poor' deed is. And we only know what a poor deed is because we know what a bad deed is. It doesn't matter where you start, you will end up on one of the ends, and once you're on one end, you will find the other.

GOD'S SCALE OF DEEDS

Evil↓ deeds    bad↓ deeds   poor↓ deeds   good↓ deeds   great↓ deeds   outstanding↓ deeds

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SKWIM'S SCALE OF DEEDS

       bad↓ deeds   poor↓ deeds   good↓ deeds   great↓ deeds   outstanding↓ deeds

       ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Child of Stardust · Feb 28, 2012

It's true that sometimes, experiencing pain does make you better able to appreciate the good things that come your way. But I think that, in the cases of most people, the pain in our lives is too great to justify the added appreciation for good we feel. If the purpose of evil really is to accentuate the good, little reminders now and then would suffice. The way it is now, it's almost self defeating, because there is so much evil in the world it overwhelms and drowns out the good a lot of the time. It leads to despair and cynicism, which can negatively colour the experience of undeniably positive events. In other words, it can make it harder to appreciate good.

It's happened, to a degree, in my own life. The pain I've encountered has often numbed my emotions to protect me from the negative feelings - which sucks because it also numbs you to the good feelings...but still isn't enough to wash away the powerful feelings of pain.

I don't mean to be pessimistic here (even if it sounds like it, lol) just to say that the amount of evil in the world, even if we go by the "we need it to appreciate the good" argument, is really too much to be effective. And personal experience leads me to believe there is some truth to that argument. But only enough to find a silver lining in the evil, not to justify it.

strikeviperMKII · Feb 29, 2012

Skwim said:
GOD'S SCALE OF DEEDS

Evil↓ deeds    bad↓ deeds   poor↓ deeds   good↓ deeds   great↓ deeds   outstanding↓ deeds

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SKWIM'S SCALE OF DEEDS

       bad↓ deeds   poor↓ deeds   good↓ deeds   great↓ deeds   outstanding↓ deeds

       ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

So oustanding is what, according to you?

Good Doesn't Require Evil

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Free4ever

Veteran Member

Question Everything

Question Everything

Question Everything

Veteran Member

Question Everything

Veteran Member

Free4ever

Question Everything

Question Everything

Veteran Member

Question Everything

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Member

Well-Known Member