Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Parenting
ParentingMothersSingle ParentsStep ParentsAdoptionTwinsSpankingChildren's Health
Pregnancy
PregnancyBreastfeeding
Marriage
MarriageDivorce
FamilyKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / July 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

"Why doesn't God remove all evil"

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Doug Laidlaw - 25 Jul 2008 01:21 GMT
Reading Erin's troubles with the presence of evil in the world, I thought
that the answer given by GROW (the Australian 12-step group network,
started by a Catholic priest) was worth repeating:

Most of us stopped asking that question long ago.  It stops us from getting
better.  It shifts the blame to God, and absolves us of the responsibility
of developing our characters to deal with it.

No answer.  Just don't ask the question.  Taoism as expressed in "The Tao of
Poh" is full of the same theme:  Don't ask unnecessary questions.  Don't
waste government money on research which increases knowledge with no
practical application.  Don't worry about "the world" being evil, because
the world is something you can't change.  Yourself, you can change (within
limits, but pessimism isn't one of them.)

Doug L.
Erin - 25 Jul 2008 04:41 GMT
> Reading Erin's troubles with the presence of evil in the world, I thought
> that the answer given by GROW (the Australian 12-step group network,
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Doug L.

Hi Doug,

I am inclined to follow Camus on this.  It does bother me when
people do not follow and create happiness when they can.  But
I know that outside the personal level, as you say, "evil" in the
world does exist so much as a quality as indifference to individuals.
Concepts like good and evil belong to the human realm, and not
to the world itself.

Erin
AllYou! - 25 Jul 2008 15:49 GMT
In
news:6775e4c0-b9dc-4c9e-9d4c-0e0555a6112a@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
Erin <squiggle@sympatico.ca> mused:
>> Reading Erin's troubles with the presence of evil in the world,
>> I thought that the answer given by GROW (the Australian 12-step
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> realm, and not
> to the world itself.

The word, itself, includes the human realm.
Erin - 25 Jul 2008 16:00 GMT
> In
> news:6775e4c0-b9dc-4c9e-9d4c-0e0555a6112a@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> The word, itself, includes the human realm.

You mean people are evil?  The thing is sometimes
they are evil and sometimes they are good, and much
depends on their circumstances.  But when it comes
to choice, that's where the real dual nature man comes
out: to bomb or not to bomb, that is the question, for example.

Erin
AllYou! - 25 Jul 2008 19:14 GMT
In
news:58a463ca-8e2d-4218-a360-8222d014f33c@1g2000pre.googlegroups.com,
Erin <squiggle@sympatico.ca> mused:
>> In
>> news:6775e4c0-b9dc-4c9e-9d4c-0e0555a6112a@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> to choice, that's where the real dual nature man comes
> out: to bomb or not to bomb, that is the question, for example.

No, I don't mean that peole are evil.  People are people.  The very
intellect which allows people to conceptualize good and evil, and to
be able to judge people as such, is also what allows them to be
either good, or evil, and so it's all kind of neutral, as far as
nature goes.

And I don not see any duel nature to people.  Individual people do
whatever they do at any given time.  That is the simple nature of
people.
Bill in Co - 25 Jul 2008 21:33 GMT
> In
> news:58a463ca-8e2d-4218-a360-8222d014f33c@1g2000pre.googlegroups.com,
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>
> And I don not see any duel nature to people.

That's because there isn't any.   But there may indeed be a dual nature.
Geesh, third grade sp already.
AllYou! - 28 Jul 2008 12:17 GMT
>> In
>> news:58a463ca-8e2d-4218-a360-8222d014f33c@1g2000pre.googlegroups.com,
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
> That's because there isn't any.   But there may indeed be a dual
> nature. Geesh, third grade sp already.
Bill in Co - 25 Jul 2008 21:35 GMT
>> In
>> news:6775e4c0-b9dc-4c9e-9d4c-0e0555a6112a@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> You mean people are evil?

SOME people are.     So yes, of course.   (They weren't born that way, but
that's beside the point).
mon - 26 Jul 2008 11:45 GMT
>>> In
>>> news:6775e4c0-b9dc-4c9e-9d4c-0e0555a6112a@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> SOME people are.     So yes, of course.   (They weren't born that way, but
> that's beside the point).

I agree that some people are evil but I do believe good and evil
people were born that way.

When it comes to intelligence, good, evil, sexual orientation, and
similar attributes, I think nature sets the rules before nurturing
takes place.

mon
Bill in Co - 26 Jul 2008 18:06 GMT
>>>> In
>>>> news:6775e4c0-b9dc-4c9e-9d4c-0e0555a6112a@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>
> mon

Yes, but such "nature rules" being preset, for being good vs evil?   I'm a
bit doubtful.
I think THAT is learned from the environment, but (admitedly) with some
people being much more likely to succumb to such dysfunctions, due to some
biochemical or physiological defects.
mon - 28 Jul 2008 13:22 GMT
>>>>> In
>>>>> news:6775e4c0-b9dc-4c9e-9d4c-0e0555a6112a@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
> people being much more likely to succumb to such dysfunctions, due to some
> biochemical or physiological defects.

The only thing that I do not understand is that being born with
different physical features is acceptable but when it comes
to different mental features, we have defects?

(Just asking a question, not starting an argument).

Maybe we tilt towards one side or another and depending upon
our influences, we gravitate to that side.

mon
Bill in Co - 28 Jul 2008 23:48 GMT
>>>>>> In
>>>>>> news:6775e4c0-b9dc-4c9e-9d4c-0e0555a6112a@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
>
> (Just asking a question, not starting an argument).

Guess that depends on one's definition of "defect".   Or abnormality.   Or
aberration.  (Of course, in today's PC world, no such thing exists.   We're
all perfect).

> Maybe we tilt towards one side or another and depending upon
> our influences, we gravitate to that side.
>
> mon
Michaela - 27 Jul 2008 20:29 GMT
> I agree that some people are evil but I do believe good and evil
> people were born that way.

And I think some people just aren't aware that they have choice.
Or they find a way to justify why they want to steal/kill/whatever.
Or they just want something more than you did (which is a typically
Buddhist perspective afaik). Or. Or. Or.

And so, sometimes we are influenced by --at first-- our parents or
--later on-- our peers. Or we're just plain desperate.

> When it comes to intelligence, good, evil, sexual orientation, and
> similar attributes, I think nature sets the rules before nurturing
> takes place.
>
> mon

Wasn't it you who gave me another way to look at Danny De Vito's
behaviour in the movie "Other People's Money"? i.e. re capitalism

(I'll find the thread if necessary.)

If it was, I am rather surpried at your response here. It seemed then
that you were reminding me that within yin there is yang and within
yang there is yin... but here you seem to be the one who has forgotten
that.

- Michaela
mon - 28 Jul 2008 13:22 GMT
>> I agree that some people are evil but I do believe good and evil
>> people were born that way.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Wasn't it you who gave me another way to look at Danny De Vito's
> behaviour in the movie "Other People's Money"? i.e. re capitalism

Yes it was.

> (I'll find the thread if necessary.)

No need.  I remember.

> If it was, I am rather surpried at your response here. It seemed then
> that you were reminding me that within yin there is yang and within
> yang there is yin... but here you seem to be the one who has forgotten
> that.

Why would you be surprised?  The yin and yang works here.  I have
not forgotten that.  There are good people born to balance out the evil
people born.  I believe nature the stage to create that balance.

The only thing I mentioned was that I believe (others may not and that
is OK) that people are born with predisposed mental attributes
just like physical attributes (e.g. good or evil, brown or blond
hair, big ears or small ears).

In addition, I am not ruling out that parents and peers do not
influence an individuals past, present and future attitudes to
make good, bad or evil choices.

I look at it this way, nature made sure Jimmy (fictional
character here) had brown hair when he was born, but his
high stress family and work environment made him have bald
spots at the age of 25.   This happened to my friend Bill,
and now that he is out of his high stress is gone, he
has a full head of hair at the age of 38.

> - Michaela

mon
Dr Nancy's Sweetie - 29 Jul 2008 02:27 GMT
> I agree that some people are evil but I do believe good and evil
> people were born that way.

and

> Why would you be surprised?  The yin and yang works here.  I have
> not forgotten that.  There are good people born to balance out the evil
> people born.  I believe nature the stage to create that balance.

Nobody ever believes that they are the bad guy.  Everybody has their
reasons for what they do, no matter how much harm it causes or how horrid
it appears to others.  They see some larger good they are serving, and
believe that shining future to which they work justifies the troubles
of the present.

There is no line between good people and bad people.  The line between
good and evil runs right down the middle of every one of us.

The delusion that you are somehow different than those who do evil
deeds is the principle necessity for committing evil deeds yourself.
You are no different; you are not somehow perfect and sinless; in the
same circumstances, you might do the same things.

Os Guinness wrote a book about evil, titled _Unspeakable_.  One of the
things he says is:

       The monster view of evil is dangerous, because it simultaneously
   seduces and distances us.  Often we have a strange fascination with
   wicked people, but through them we can also push evil away because
   "we are not like them".
       To restrict evil to such men is to slip into the error of
   seeing it as an aberration, a rarity, an exception, as something
   well distanced from ourselves and also perhaps also as a think of
   the past.  To think like that is to miss the real menace of evil
   here and now.

Sometimes, when a Jeffrey Dahmer is caught by police and his crimes
become known, the neighbors say things like "He seemed so normal".
That is exactly the point: he was basically normal.  The capacity for
horrible crimes lurks inside everyone.  Stanley Milgram's famous
experiment made clear that "normal" people will do horrible things
under the right circumstances.

In his book, Guinness tells the story of Gary Haugen, who went to Rwanda
to investigate the genocide that occurred there.  In an interview with
_Christianity Today_, Haugen said:

   Ordinary people have the capacity, with surprising ease, to become
   mass murderers.  The people who did the hacking in Rwanda were
   average people.  They had delivered themselves over to the power of
   evil that can make killing exhilarating and empowering.

People who do terrible things are not monsters.  For the most part, they
are no different than you are.  Until the moment when they do their
first horrible thing, they may well be indistinguishable from you.

There is no "balance" between good people born and evil people born;
that's just a comforting lie that lets you imagine that you're somehow
above "those people" who have done bad things.  But that comforting lie
is one of the very things that makes evil possible: if you're not a bad
person, you don't have to question your own motives and face honestly
the results of your actions.

And that failure to question one's self is exactly how people commit evil
acts and rationalize away the truth of what they are doing.  I'd wager
that every truly evil person believed in "good people" and "bad people",
resting comfortable in the knowledge that they were "good", even as they
did horrible things.

Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
And, behold, one came and said unto him, "Good Master, what good thing
  shall I do, that I may have eternal life?"
And he said unto him, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good
  but one, that is, God[.]" -- Matthew 19:16-17
Doug Anderson - 29 Jul 2008 01:34 GMT
(snip)

> There is no "balance" between good people born and evil people born;
> that's just a comforting lie that lets you imagine that you're somehow
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> resting comfortable in the knowledge that they were "good", even as they
> did horrible things.

(To the people they considered "bad," since of course such people
_deserve_ horrible fates.)
Erin - 30 Jul 2008 13:05 GMT
> (snip)
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> (To the people they considered "bad," since of course such people
> _deserve_ horrible fates.)

I think that people who commit extraordinarily horrible crimes
have extraordinary brains -- usually diseased ones, either from
birth or through drugs and circumstances of lack of impulse
control.

Erin
Bill in Co - 30 Jul 2008 20:50 GMT
>> (snip)
>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Erin

And usually exposure to a horrible environment, growing up.
The major component is the environment, I think, but no doubt there is some
genetic one, too.
Erin - 31 Jul 2008 01:59 GMT
> >> (snip)
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> The major component is the environment, I think, but no doubt there is some
> genetic one, too.

Yeah, i suppose, but the psychopaths do tend to have frontal
lobe damage, lesions, brain tumours, missing areas of
the brain-- there's a lot literature on this.  The psychopaths
lack awareness of what they are doing as something wrong.  They
regard people and animals too, as objects for their curious
fantasies.  They are not morally sane because they do not
understand morality.

Erin
Bill in Co - 31 Jul 2008 05:30 GMT
>>>> (snip)
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> lobe damage, lesions, brain tumours, missing areas of
> the brain-- there's a lot literature on this.

I know there is some, (at least for many of the cases).

But also, don't forget that a toxic, abusive, environment, in the growing
years, can *itself* cause brain damage.   So, which is it?   And was that
defect really there *at birth*, for most?   Or even if it wasn't present at
birth, it *still* could have been environmentally induced (I mean to cause
the physiological defect).    So, that is the big question.   Maybe it's a
mixed bag, like so many things.

> The psychopaths
> lack awareness of what they are doing as something wrong.  They
> regard people and animals too, as objects for their curious
> fantasies.  They are not morally sane because they do not
> understand morality.

But see, that could also be due to the abusive environment they grew up in.
And I think most often is the true cause, not a prenatal physiological
defect in the brain.
Erin - 31 Jul 2008 11:42 GMT
> >>>> (snip)
> >>>>
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
> And I think most often is the true cause, not a prenatal physiological
> defect in the brain.

It could be.  An abusive childhood is like a prolonged post-traumatic
stress syndrome throughout life.  It's a complex question.  Many
causes
can interact together to bring about aberrant behaviour, sometimes one
is
stronger than the others.  Also, it is not just childhood abuse and
trauma
that can warp a person's view of reality but the present as well, if
it
is very stressful.  Stress changes the brain.  Incidents of spouse
abuse
shell shock as they used to call it, natural catastrophes,
brainwashing,
are good examples of that.  One thing is sure, personality is not a
static entity, but always a fluctuating mental and emotional
environment
adapting or maladapting to life changes.  There is a "default" state
though
that everyone falls back on once the stress is over.  That's the
core identity of the person, maybe developed very early as a basic
temperament, manifesting itself through later development and
education
in indirect ways.

Erin
Michaela - 30 Jul 2008 22:19 GMT
>> (snip)
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>>> doing.  I'd wager that every truly evil person believed in "good
>>> people" and "bad people", resting comfortable in the knowledge
that
>>> they were "good", even as they did horrible things.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Erin

Or they may have started out small... and because they got away
with it and for some reason it brought them a sense of power or
control they did it again and before they knew it it became a
pattern and before they knew it they had many people doing
their killing for them...

I am not sure how honest people are with themselves, but imo
a sense of power in a situation can be such a head rush and can
lead to irrational decisions.. and... well I'm not surprised that
humility is such an elusive characteristic.

- Michaela
Bill in Co - 29 Jul 2008 02:56 GMT
>> I agree that some people are evil but I do believe good and evil
>> people were born that way.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> There is no line between good people and bad people.  The line between
> good and evil runs right down the middle of every one of us.

I don't completely agree.   While there is some truth to that, there is also
some truth to the another viewpoint, too.   So, it's a bit too simplistic
and idealistic.

> The delusion that you are somehow different than those who do evil
> deeds is the principle necessity for committing evil deeds yourself.

Actually, I think it's *principal* necessity - and not "principle"
necessity.   Eng 101.
"Principle" is not an adjective.

> You are no different; you are not somehow perfect and sinless; in the
> same circumstances, you might do the same things.

Or might not.    Try to explain that one away..

> Os Guinness wrote a book about evil, titled _Unspeakable_.  One of the
> things he says is:
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> become known, the neighbors say things like "He seemed so normal".
> That is exactly the point: he was basically normal.

Yes, watching the interview was almost surreal.

> The capacity for
> horrible crimes lurks inside everyone.  Stanley Milgram's famous
> experiment made clear that "normal" people will do horrible things
> under the right circumstances.

Not all of them did.    Nope.

> In his book, Guinness tells the story of Gary Haugen, who went to Rwanda
> to investigate the genocide that occurred there.  In an interview with
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> People who do terrible things are not monsters.

I beg to differ.   Serial killers (for just one example) most certainly are.
And yes, that includes Dahmer (despite his other personality).

> For the most part, they are no different than you are.

Notice the caveat:  "for the most part".

> Until the moment when they do their
> first horrible thing, they may well be indistinguishable from you.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> And he said unto him, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good
>   but one, that is, God[.]" -- Matthew 19:16-17
Michaela - 29 Jul 2008 18:31 GMT
>>> I agree that some people are evil but I do believe good and evil
>>> people were born that way.
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> not forgotten that.  There are good people born to balance out the
> evil people born.

How can we even begin to divide the world into "good" and "bad"
people?

 I believe nature the stage to create that balance.

> The only thing I mentioned was that I believe (others may not and that
> is OK) that people are born with predisposed mental attributes
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> and now that he is out of his high stress is gone, he
> has a full head of hair at the age of 38.

Had he the "right" influences Jimmy might have learnt early on to
become detached and not allowed his family to get him down.

- Michaela

> mon

--
Bill in Co - 29 Jul 2008 18:57 GMT
>>>> I agree that some people are evil but I do believe good and evil
>>>> people were born that way.
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> How can we even begin to divide the world into "good" and "bad"
> people?

That's not too difficult.   At least for some cases.   And we've already
covered some.
Michaela - 25 Jul 2008 06:43 GMT
I like your post.

- Michaela

> Reading Erin's troubles with the presence of evil in the world, I
> thought that the answer given by GROW (the Australian 12-step group
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Doug L.
Doug Laidlaw - 25 Jul 2008 14:29 GMT
> I like your post.
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>>
>> Doug L.

With no cliffs or bridges around here, I have no choice but to keep sane.

Doug L.
--
Men were given wives because if they can achieve anything when married, they
can conquer the world unmarried.
Erin - 25 Jul 2008 15:20 GMT
> > I like your post.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> Men were given wives because if they can achieve anything when married, they
> can conquer the world unmarried.

Hey Doug, marry me! (kidding -- i am alredy married to a man):-)

Erin
Bill in Co - 25 Jul 2008 21:35 GMT
>> I like your post.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>>
> With no cliffs or bridges around here, I have no choice but to keep sane.

There's always cyanide.
Michaela - 25 Jul 2008 23:50 GMT
>> I like your post.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Doug L.

Depends how you define 'sane'.

--
Men were given wives because if they can achieve anything when
married, they
can conquer the world unmarried.

I've kept your sig intact cos I want to take another look at it... I'm
not sure if
I agree or if I just don't understand it well enough.

- Michaela
Michaela - 28 Jul 2008 17:25 GMT
You said: Men were given wives because if they can achieve anything
when married, they can conquer the world unmarried.

I said: I've kept your sig intact cos I want to take another look at
it... I'm not sure if I agree or if I just don't understand it well
enough.

~ ~ ~

What are you saying then? That men see themselves through their
wives' eyes?

I've taken another look. Was it tongue-in-cheek or merely a very
pessimistic view on life? If I've missed that point, please let me
know.

- Michaela
Bill in Co - 25 Jul 2008 06:58 GMT
> Reading Erin's troubles with the presence of evil in the world, I thought
> that the answer given by GROW (the Australian 12-step group network,
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Doug L.

Indeed.     Pessimism is hard to change.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie - 26 Jul 2008 17:17 GMT
> Don't ask unnecessary questions.  Don't waste government money on
> research which increases knowledge with no practical application.

The entire semiconductor industry, and therefore the entire Internet
economy and all Internet applications, amounting to hundreds of
billions -- if not trillions -- of dollars of the world economy,
depends entirely on research done into the semiconductor properties
of silicon which was funded in part by the US federal government.

At the time, semiconductors had no known practical uses whatsoever.  It
was considered "basic research" -- looking into something just because
knowledge is good, and because you never know when something useful
might turn up.  It was some years later before the transistor popped
out, and years more after that before transistors replaced tubes in our
TVs, radios, and computers.

Had the US government of the early 20th century followed your
prescription here, we might still be waiting for computers of the sort
we now take for granted.

You may feel in retrospect that the money was "wasted", but I suspect
a great many people might disagree with you on that point.

Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"Suppose that we are wise enough to learn and know and yet not wise
enough to control our learning and knowledge, so that we use it to
destroy ourselves?  Even if that is so, knowledge remains better than
ignorance.  It is better to know even if the knowledge endures only
for the moment that comes before destruction than to gain eternal
life at the price of a dull and swinish lack of comprehension of a
universe that swirls unseen before us in all its wonder.  That was
the choice of Achilles, and it is mine, too." -- Isaac Asimov
Erin - 26 Jul 2008 21:18 GMT
> > Don't ask unnecessary questions.  Don't waste government money on
> > research which increases knowledge with no practical application.
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>  universe that swirls unseen before us in all its wonder.  That was
>  the choice of Achilles, and it is mine, too." -- Isaac Asimov

I used to be an avid SF fan and liked Asimov's books; i don't
agree with his idolatry for knowledge though; i think knowledge
is relative among animals and for some they have just the right
amount for their life, while others (like us) have too much.
Too much knowledge can bring great sorrow, especially in the
hands of man who is advanced mentally but still on the same
evolutionary scale as most predators in the affective areas of
the brain.

Erin
Judi - 26 Jul 2008 18:47 GMT
Doug Laidlaw wrote on 7/24/2008 :
> Reading Erin's troubles with the presence of evil in the world, I thought
> that the answer given by GROW (the Australian 12-step group network,
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Doug L.
"Why doesn't God remove all evil"

Because God gave us Free Will.  We are free to follow Him, love Him and
one another, to do right - or we can follow the devil and be evil.

It is the evil that people see and blame on God.

How many of us have made the wrong choices?  Can we then blame God for
the poor outcome?  We pray and think he says no.  He may have said
wait.  He may have something better for us.

How many of us become impatient and turn our backs on God?  Once we've
done that, we're open to the evil that comes our way.

We made the evil.  Not God.

Judi
tbd - 29 Jul 2008 14:14 GMT
x-no-archive:

> "Why doesn't God remove all evil"
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree with most of what you say, but I have trouble sometimes with
the last part, "We made the evil.  Not God."  I'm not so sure about
that.  If you read in the Old Testament, Lucifer, was once an
angel...who was created by God.  He fell from grace and was cast out.
So, this being created by God, turned evil and is now responsible for
the evil in mankind.  Thus, I can't agree that WE made the evil.  It
is traceable back to the creator.  He made everything.  As to why, I
cannot exactly answer that.  I think we all have a "purpose" in life
and are being prepared for the next.  Without evil in the world,
basically we would have just started out in heaven.  There would be no
death, for it was evil that brought that on in Genesis.  I think we
are being prepared for whatever lies in the afterlife and I think the
evil may have been necessary to some extent to cause us to learn and
realize the good and to set our paths toward it.  Deep thoughts...
Judi - 30 Jul 2008 01:34 GMT
tbd submitted this idea :
> x-no-archive:
>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> evil may have been necessary to some extent to cause us to learn and
> realize the good and to set our paths toward it.  Deep thoughts...

Yes, I am aware of where Lucifer came from.  WE choose evil, or we
spurn it.  We therefore make it for ourselves if we choose that way.

Yes, the afterlife...and there are just too many that think we oozed up
from mud through germs through whatever.  So there are far too many
that do not think evil exists.  Only their desires and what it takes to
reach that end.  No matter the evils they must bestow on others.

But, in each life sorrow must visit for one to ever know what real
happiness is.

Judi
Michaela - 30 Jul 2008 22:21 GMT
> x-no-archive:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>
>> How many of us have made the wrong choices? Can we then blame God
for
>> the poor outcome? We pray and think he says no. He may have said
>> wait. He may have something better for us.
>>
>> How many of us become impatient and turn our backs on God? Once
we've
>> done that, we're open to the evil that comes our way.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> that.  If you read in the Old Testament, Lucifer, was once an
> angel...who was created by God.  He fell from grace and was cast out.

Was Lucifer cast out or did he use free will thereby leaving of his
own accord? Does Lucifer never ever go back to grace? I would
argue that Lucifer is in and out of grace almost as many times a
day as I breathe in-out.

Didn't Eve make the choice to eat of the apple that would make her
ashamed of being naked or whatever? Before that neither her nor
Adam were aware of relativity; of 'right' or 'wrong'. And then who
did Adam blame but Eve and who did Eve blame but the serpent?
Meantime, they could just as readily have said 'We don't want no
apple'. Instead they chose /experience/.

In my limited reading of other religions/philosophies I seem to find a
common thread... many/some/several speak of this world as being
an illusion. i.e. that we only /believe/ we are separate from god.
Perhaps we (god) can only experience anything other than our
'godness' by believing we are our bodies?

Hindus (they seem to see this world as a stage and us as being actors,
a bit as Shakespeare explained it) and Buddhists apparently believe
this is an illusion, as does A Course in Miracles. And according to
this Muslim quote, so do they:

Indeed the whole world is imagination.
Only He is the real in Reality.
Whoever understands this
knows the secrets of the spiritual path.

-Ibn 'Arabi, "Masters of the Path"
From "The Bounty of Allah," translated by Aneela Khalid Arshed.
Copyright 1999. All rights reserved. Used without permission of The
Crossroad Publishing Company, New York.

Daoists would probably understand this way of seeing it too methinks.
But they might just shrug and say 'So what'.

My favourite personal example is, when I do something well or if I
have a talent, who gets to take the credit for it? And when I fail
at something who takes responsibility?

I think we are so much more than our bodies.

> So, this being created by God, turned evil and is now responsible for
> the evil in mankind.  Thus, I can't agree that WE made the evil.  It
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> evil may have been necessary to some extent to cause us to learn and
> realize the good and to set our paths toward it.  Deep thoughts...

Indeed.

- Michaela
phelbooth - 30 Jul 2008 00:11 GMT
> Reading Erin's troubles with the presence of evil in the world, I thought
> that the answer given by GROW (the Australian 12-step group network,
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Doug L.

I like this post. The responses are thick, but hey, I like the post
Doug.

Asking the question surely leads to thinking about things most people
dasn't.

(yes Bill, dasn't is a word, or was...)

What are the logical answers to this question?
God doesn't remove all evil because ________________________________
1. S/He/It (say that really fast, lol) wants humans to kill other
humans and destroy those made in Her/His/Its Image
2. God didn't think about things in terms of good/evil
3. What is evil to some is good to others
4. All of the above
5. And so much more
Bill in Co - 30 Jul 2008 00:26 GMT
>> Reading Erin's troubles with the presence of evil in the world, I thought
>> that the answer given by GROW (the Australian 12-step group network,
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> 4. All of the above
> 5. And so much more

Or maybe there isn't a God?   We just don't know.
phelbooth - 30 Jul 2008 05:57 GMT
On Jul 29, 6:26 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> >> Reading Erin's troubles with the presence of evil in the world, I thought
> >> that the answer given by GROW (the Australian 12-step group network,
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Holy Schmoly! Batman! Maybe there isn't evil either?
Nah, just kiddin' Bill. I think evil schtuff happens. What I don't
know is if it's like part of the biological sensibility. Not social
Darwin but Darwin. In which case we can't call it "evil"--ah, there's
the rub--

Oh man. I'm going to grade a paper or something, and talk with you ,
beams, tomorrow.
(by the way, did I tell you my Moonbeam was replanted, deeper, and
took really well? Continues to beam today? I'd send you a pix if I
could...oh Elusive One)
Bill in Co - 30 Jul 2008 06:06 GMT
> On Jul 29, 6:26 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>
> Holy Schmoly! Batman! Maybe there isn't evil either?

There most certainly is evil.    Haven't I discussed that enough,
already????   You want even MORE examples for today???     :-)

> Nah, just kiddin' Bill. I think evil schtuff happens. What I don't
> know is if it's like part of the biological sensibility. Not social
> Darwin but Darwin. In which case we can't call it "evil"--ah, there's
> the rub--

I'm still calling it evil, regardless of "religion".

> Oh man. I'm going to grade a paper or something, and talk with you ,
> beams, tomorrow.
> (by the way, did I tell you my Moonbeam was replanted, deeper, and
> took really well? Continues to beam today? I'd send you a pix if I
> could...oh Elusive One)

LOL.
Yes I am.   "The Shadow knows...."
But you can ask Margo, my faithful assistant, for an appointment.   :-)
phelbooth - 30 Jul 2008 06:14 GMT
On Jul 30, 12:06 am, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 6:26 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, Darwin did take consciousness into account. You prob. read more
of him than me, but I do know his last scientific insights called for
humankind to recognize the power and responsibility fo consciousness,
and for us not to FK ourselves up with it. I do know he understood
human horrid evilness in contrast with what is evolutaitonarily (okay,
I made up that word and misspelled it too I'm sure, my bad) "evil,"
but he held us accountable for our own future because of
consciousness. We are perhaps the only freaking species, certainly the
only WE know of, who can hold ourselves accountable.

But why would we do that? Much easier to have guns and shoot at those
who have-not!

Oh my. Indeed, I have a fine paper on the symbolism of the ? in
literature ot read tonight. I really should go,...
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.