Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

[Greatest I am]

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind.
That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability as the author and creator of human nature.

Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all do evil/sin by nature then, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree with Christians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that can only be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has been forcibly withheld.

Much has been written to explain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.
In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act.

Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

These links speak to theistic evolution.

www.americamagazine.org...

www.youtube.com.../c/6F8036F680C1DBEB

If theistic evolution is true, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not really any original sin.

If the above is not convincing enough for you then show me where in this baby evil lives or is a part of it’s nature and instincts.

www.youtube.com...

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Regards
DL

[Jonathan.s]

To overcome evil requires that there be an ultimate or absolute good. Knowing or attaining this ultimate good is the aim of religious practice, liturgy and the like. Generally speaking, the religions say that what prevents us from knowing that good is either 'original sin' (in Christian systems) or 'ignorance' (avidya) in Eastern religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism. These ideas are similar in some respects, however the idea of 'original sin' is linked to volition, and avidya to cognition.

Taking the Eastern Orthodox faiths as an example, their aim is 'theosis' which is literal 'deification' or becoming one in spirit with God. This is attained through devotion to the practice of the faith, keeping the commandments, and both praxis and liturgy. It is by this means that the will is purified and evil overcome. When that has been accomplished, then one refrains from evil, because the various factors that give rise to evil actions have been overcome.

Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm. As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate. Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim.

That is a rather glib statement, don't you think? It makes light of the whole predicament of existence, which is the plight of a self-aware being in a dangerous and transient world. I think you are essentially trying to provide a functionalist account of evil, that is, describe it in terms of things which are simply adverse to survival. However the predicament of self-awareness goes a lot deeper than that, because a self-aware being realizes its own ultimate demise. Self-aware beings also can, and often do, act in ways which are painful, harmful to others and themselves, and often suffer dreadfully as a consequence. Why? Is there any way of acting or being which is will not have those consequences? An account of evil needs to come to grips with the reality of the human situation, rather than simply explain it in terms of evolution, which at the end of the day is simply a biological theory, and not philosophy per se.

[chaz wyman]

Easy. Love the things you do, and do not feel shame for wanting to do them.

QED - I have avoided doing all evil.

Only a person who is not at peace with himself would make the statement; "Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?"

[Greatest I am]

To overcome evil requires that there be an ultimate or absolute good. Knowing or attaining this ultimate good is the aim of religious practice, liturgy and the like. Generally speaking, the religions say that what prevents us from knowing that good is either 'original sin' (in Christian systems) or 'ignorance' (avidya) in Eastern religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism. These ideas are similar in some respects, however the idea of 'original sin' is linked to volition, and avidya to cognition.

Taking the Eastern Orthodox faiths as an example, their aim is 'theosis' which is literal 'deification' or becoming one in spirit with God. This is attained through devotion to the practice of the faith, keeping the commandments, and both praxis and liturgy. It is by this means that the will is purified and evil overcome. When that has been accomplished, then one refrains from evil, because the various factors that give rise to evil actions have been overcome.

Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm. As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate. Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim.

That is a rather glib statement, don't you think? It makes light of the whole predicament of existence, which is the plight of a self-aware being in a dangerous and transient world. I think you are essentially trying to provide a functionalist account of evil, that is, describe it in terms of things which are simply adverse to survival. However the predicament of self-awareness goes a lot deeper than that, because a self-aware being realizes its own ultimate demise. Self-aware beings also can, and often do, act in ways which are painful, harmful to others and themselves, and often suffer dreadfully as a consequence. Why? Is there any way of acting or being which is will not have those consequences? An account of evil needs to come to grips with the reality of the human situation, rather than simply explain it in terms of evolution, which at the end of the day is simply a biological theory, and not philosophy per se.

Thanks for this but I do not see an answer to the questions.

Can you help but do evil. In evolutionary terms, can you stop competing and creating a victim of the loser and doing evil from his POV.

Take the last time you competed for a job. You won and created a loser of the others and they would say that evil was done to them because if that lose is part of a chain of loses, they will eventually starve to death because they were not good enough to gain any resources. You did not screw up but furthered man's survival by being the fittest. If the fittest rise then the less fit must fall.

I see no way out for us if we are to survive and not go extinct. We must do evil.

Regards
DL

[chaz wyman]

To overcome evil requires that there be an ultimate or absolute good. Knowing or attaining this ultimate good is the aim of religious practice, liturgy and the like. Generally speaking, the religions say that what prevents us from knowing that good is either 'original sin' (in Christian systems) or 'ignorance' (avidya) in Eastern religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism. These ideas are similar in some respects, however the idea of 'original sin' is linked to volition, and avidya to cognition.

Taking the Eastern Orthodox faiths as an example, their aim is 'theosis' which is literal 'deification' or becoming one in spirit with God. This is attained through devotion to the practice of the faith, keeping the commandments, and both praxis and liturgy. It is by this means that the will is purified and evil overcome. When that has been accomplished, then one refrains from evil, because the various factors that give rise to evil actions have been overcome.

Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm. As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate. Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim.

That is a rather glib statement, don't you think? It makes light of the whole predicament of existence, which is the plight of a self-aware being in a dangerous and transient world. I think you are essentially trying to provide a functionalist account of evil, that is, describe it in terms of things which are simply adverse to survival. However the predicament of self-awareness goes a lot deeper than that, because a self-aware being realizes its own ultimate demise. Self-aware beings also can, and often do, act in ways which are painful, harmful to others and themselves, and often suffer dreadfully as a consequence. Why? Is there any way of acting or being which is will not have those consequences? An account of evil needs to come to grips with the reality of the human situation, rather than simply explain it in terms of evolution, which at the end of the day is simply a biological theory, and not philosophy per se.

Thanks for this but I do not see an answer to the questions.

Can you help but do evil. In evolutionary terms, can you stop competing and creating a victim of the loser and doing evil from his POV.

Take the last time you competed for a job. You won and created a loser of the others and they would say that evil was done to them because if that lose is part of a chain of loses, they will eventually starve to death because they were not good enough to gain any resources. You did not screw up but furthered man's survival by being the fittest. If the fittest rise then the less fit must fall.

I see no way out for us if we are to survive and not go extinct. We must do evil.

Regards
DL

What is evil anyway?

[Greatest I am]

[

What is evil anyway?

I will only know when I am at peace with myself.

Regards
DL

[chaz wyman]

[

What is evil anyway?

I will only know when I am at peace with myself.

Regards
DL

In other words you have no basis upon which to start and continue this thread.

[Greatest I am]

[

What is evil anyway?

I will only know when I am at peace with myself.

Regards
DL

In other words you have no basis upon which to start and continue this thread.

No. It just says I do not have time for one of your ilk who jumps to wrong conclusions instead of thinking.

Regards
DL

[chaz wyman]

What is evil anyway?

I will only know when I am at peace with myself.

Regards
DL

In other words you have no basis upon which to start and continue this thread.[/quote]

No. It just says I do not have time for one of your ilk who jumps to wrong conclusions instead of thinking.

Regards
DL[/quote]

Its very simple to understand even for a rude person like yourself.
If you don't know what evil is , then you cannot speak of it.
QED: you have no basis up[on which to continue this thread.