Is everything relative? The "Prime Directive" is evil

[ChristineES]

God is spiritual. Jesus, the way I see it, was speaking figuratively about spiritual things. They can seem rather revolting physically, but spiritually, they have a totally different meaning. That is what I meant I had to think of the context of which I talked about that hymn to an atheist- I had to get her meaning of it so I could understand her reasoning. But that is all I can say without completely railroading this thread.

 

[look3467]

Evil is evil anywhere, anytime!

If we don't take steps to control it, then we must all suffer the consequences of it.

It doesn't take a belief in God to do so.

As you will probably state, that in the name of religion or God, many atrocities have occurred, of which I will agree with you .

But still, evil creeps in to any society any where any time because it is part of the human element.

The more education of what is good and the monitoring of evil, will go towards insuring that the world can be a better place to live in.

It is a fight continuously.

When we think that things are going good, evil creeps in to dislodge that fact, and the battle begins again.

That's why the Apostle Paul stated: Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

He of all people knew the character of both God and mankind to have understood to make that statement.

Blessings, AJ

 

[McBell]

Evil is evil anywhere, anytime!

If we don't take steps to control it, then we must all suffer the consequences of it.

It doesn't take a belief in God to do so.

As you will probably state, that in the name of religion or God, many atrocities have occurred, of which I will agree with you .

But still, evil creeps in to any society any where any time because it is part of the human element.

The more education of what is good and the monitoring of evil, will go towards insuring that the world can be a better place to live in.

It is a fight continuously.

When we think that things are going good, evil creeps in to dislodge that fact, and the battle begins again.

That's why the Apostle Paul stated: Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

He of all people knew the character of both God and mankind to have understood to make that statement.

Blessings, AJ

Your exercise in personification is as entertaining as it is accurate.

 

[no-body]

Evil is evil anywhere, anytime!

If we don't take steps to control it, then we must all suffer the consequences of it.

How comforting it is to view everything in black and white absolutes

It doesn't take a belief in God to do so.

Indeed and that is why the laws should always be governed by a secular humanist authority. Those that do "good" for humanities sake, not because of God or religion are more admirable.

 

[look3467]

How comforting it is to view everything in black and white absolutes

The comfort zone dear friend is in knowing that good has prevailed based on your fight or the contribution of others in the same battle.

There is but two extremes, good and evil.

The gray area is in your management abilities based on your education, both natural and spiritual in the arena of life's experiences.

You are your own god, you decide what you want to believe, when, where, how much.

Either we are doing good, or evil is about creeping around the edges enticing us to self gratification.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

Indeed and that is why the laws should always be governed by a secular humanist authority. Those that do "good" for humanities sake, not because of God or religion are more admirable.

I knew my statement would fall right into your lap for your above reply.

Unfortunately, evil is not limited to religious figures, groups, but to all the rest of the world.

So, "secular humanist" are not exempt either dispite what you may think.

Blessings, AJ

 

[no-body]

The comfort zone dear friend is in knowing that good has prevailed based on your fight or the contribution of others in the same battle.

There is but two extremes, good and evil.

The gray area is in your management abilities based on your education, both natural and spiritual in the arena of life's experiences.

You are your own god, you decide what you want to believe, when, where, how much.

Either we are doing good, or evil is about creeping around the edges enticing us to self gratification.
...

knew my statement would fall right into your lap for your above reply.

Unfortunately, evil is not limited to religious figures, groups, but to all the rest of the world.

So, "secular humanist" are not exempt either dispite what you may think.

Blessings, AJ

When I say "secular humanist" I mean the systems in place need to be as neutral, fair, objective and run by common sense as possible. Checks and balances for everyone, including secular humanist.

The thought of a government or groups of people running the government that believe there is an objective black and white law ordained by God no less terrifies me. People in the real world live in shades of gray.

 

[look3467]

When I say "secular humanist" I mean the systems in place need to be as neutral, fair, objective and run by common sense as possible. Checks and balances for everyone, including secular humanist.

That would be the ideal.
And if it were to be achieved at some point, there will also come a time when the guard will be off, and the whole thing revert back to the evil ways again.

Therefore, the struggle is unending, and must be maintained in order to keep it in the good.

The thought of a government or groups of people running the government that believe there is an objective black and white law ordained by God no less terrifies me. People in the real world live in shades of gray.

There are those who deal in government and those who deal in religious things.
It does not matter what they are, the potential for evil to surface is not uncommon.

The best thing we can do as citizens of the world is to care one for another.

blessings, AJ

 

[kiwimac]

If the tribe in the Amazon decides that they, on balance, want their way of life changed then that is OK. What is NOT Ok is someone in a Western nation (or any other actually) deciding FOR the people that their way of life must change.

 

[kiwimac]

You cannot blame all missionaries for the acts of the few or even the many. By doing so you are simply proving that you are just as intolerant as they, that there is nothing that they can do which will convince you that their intent is always to do evil.

Yet there are folks like Schweitzer who healed the sick, catholics who stayed on the islands of those who had be ostracised by their native cultures for leprosy. Those who saw the suffering of the Untouchables and decided that such was not acceptable regardless of what the cultural authorities had to say.

No, it is not right to change a culture without the input of those who live IN the culture but it is also not acceptable to leave a person or a group to suffer or die because you fear creating some kind of cultural contamination. Cultures are very important but without human-beings there are no, can be no cultures, human-lives are therefore, IMO, far more important than their culture.

 

[joea]

You cannot blame all missionaries for the acts of the few or even the many. By doing so you are simply proving that you are just as intolerant as they, that there is nothing that they can do which will convince you that their intent is always to do evil.

Yet there are folks like Schweitzer who healed the sick, catholics who stayed on the islands of those who had be ostracised by their native cultures for leprosy. Those who saw the suffering of the Untouchables and decided that such was not acceptable regardless of what the cultural authorities had to say.

No, it is not right to change a culture without the input of those who live IN the culture but it is also not acceptable to leave a person or a group to suffer or die because you fear creating some kind of cultural contamination. Cultures are very important but without human-beings there are no, can be no cultures, human-lives are therefore, IMO, far more important than their culture.

Nothing wrong with helping people...but it is often is the reflected-ego that is the problem.

 

[Jeremiah]

That reminds me once when I was telling an atheist person about a hymn I knew called "Are You Washed in the Blood of the Lamb". She said "That sounds gruesome". Sometimes you have to think of things in context.

And sometimes you have to think about things out of context.

 

[Jeremiah]

This all depends on your definition of evil. It is no more evil than what we have today.

Rome was an Empire, and they conquered and took slaves and riches. Sparta was a military state, devoted to military training. Athens boasted of Democracy, not Sparta, btw.

" Sparta was a military state, devoted to military training. Athens boasted of Democracy, not Sparta, btw."

That's true. :yes: Sparta was an oligarchy. But Sparta certainly was not moral, I don't care how you try to spin it.

The Spartans had more slaves then citizens, and to keep the numbers down they use to run through the slaves and just mass kill them. I don't care what time period you come from, that is not moral. And the Athenians didn't think so either; the barbaric way the Spartans treated their slaves was one of the things that generated friction between the two poleis.

I would say Sparta is a bad example of a moral ancient society. I would suggest the focus be on Attica. So much of what we have today comes from the Athenians; these people were defiantly doing something right.

 

[Jeremiah]

Evil is evil anywhere, anytime!

If we don't take steps to control it, then we must all suffer the consequences of it.

It doesn't take a belief in God to do so.

As you will probably state, that in the name of religion or God, many atrocities have occurred, of which I will agree with you .

But still, evil creeps in to any society any where any time because it is part of the human element.

The more education of what is good and the monitoring of evil, will go towards insuring that the world can be a better place to live in.

It is a fight continuously.

When we think that things are going good, evil creeps in to dislodge that fact, and the battle begins again.

That's why the Apostle Paul stated: Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

He of all people knew the character of both God and mankind to have understood to make that statement.

Blessings, AJ

You sound like you suffer from paranoia.

 

[Jeremiah]

You cannot blame all missionaries for the acts of the few or even the many. By doing so you are simply proving that you are just as intolerant as they, that there is nothing that they can do which will convince you that their intent is always to do evil.

Yet there are folks like Schweitzer who healed the sick, catholics who stayed on the islands of those who had be ostracised by their native cultures for leprosy. Those who saw the suffering of the Untouchables and decided that such was not acceptable regardless of what the cultural authorities had to say.

No, it is not right to change a culture without the input of those who live IN the culture but it is also not acceptable to leave a person or a group to suffer or die because you fear creating some kind of cultural contamination. Cultures are very important but without human-beings there are no, can be no cultures, human-lives are therefore, IMO, far more important than their culture.

"You cannot blame all missionaries for the acts of the few or even the many. By doing so you are simply proving that you are just as intolerant as they, that there is nothing that they can do which will convince you that their intent is always to do evil.

Yet there are folks like Schweitzer who healed the sick, catholics who stayed on the islands of those who had be ostracised by their native cultures for leprosy. Those who saw the suffering of the Untouchables and decided that such was not acceptable regardless of what the cultural authorities had to say.
"

Let me see if I understand this. You say that we "cannot blame all missionaries for the acts of the few or even the many." Then immediately after that, you try to justify missionary work with the acts of the few. Does that not make you a hypocrite?

Kiwimac, it is a two-way door, you can't just up-hold the positive and disregard the negative. In order to form an objective conclusion, you have to consider both.

 

[look3467]

If the tribe in the Amazon decides that they, on balance, want their way of life changed then that is OK. What is NOT Ok is someone in a Western nation (or any other actually) deciding FOR the people that their way of life must change.

" . Must change" is not OK.

Introducing a different culture is OK.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

You sound like you suffer from paranoia.

Not really, it's that you can not see my point of view to understand it.

blessings, AJ

 

[Alceste]

" . Must change" is not OK.

Introducing a different culture is OK.

Blessings, AJ

Surely that depends on the quality of the culture being introduced. For example, you wouldn't want to introduce NAMBLA culture to an orphanage.

 

[look3467]

Surely that depends on the quality of the culture being introduced. For example, you wouldn't want to introduce NAMBLA culture to an orphanage.

Come on.....common sense? Hello?

Blessings, AJ

 

[Jeremiah]

Not really, it's that you can not see my point of view to understand it.

blessings, AJ

Don't flatter yourself; your "point of view" is so simplistic an idiot could have devised it.