putting religion in it's proper place

[Greatest I am]

...they all really have no sensible answer for why evil exists at all.

As opposed to some silly woman being tricked by a talking snake.

In a sense, I disagree that Christians have no sensible answer for why evil exists at all.

They sing of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to Yahweh's plan in their Exsultet hymn.

They seem to recognize a place for sin in Yahweh's perfect plan.

In fact, I do not see a conflict between the Christian view and natures.

If either of you would like to critique what follows ----------

==========

Eve was correct in eating of the tree of knowledge and rejecting God.

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

This indicates that Jesus had no choice.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

This then begs the question.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane and immoral God. That’s who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

One of Christianity's highest form of immorality is what they have done to women. They have denied them equality and subjugated them to men.

------------------------

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author 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 sin by nature, then the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin. That being the case, for God to punish us for following the instincts and natures he put in us would be quite wrong.

Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

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 is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what 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.

Evil then is only human to human.
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, we should all 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.

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.

Regards
DL

-----------------------
Evolutionary theology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXOvYn1O ... _A&index=9

[Greatest I am]

You spoke about knowing a lot about Gnostic Christianity,

Actually, I didn't.

As I say, I don't even believe the term has meaning. There are no "Gnostic Christians." There are Gnostics, sure; and there are Christians. But they are not at all the same thing, ever.

First, we hold no supernatural belief.

Maybe YOU don't. But Gnostics do. So you're not an authentic Gnostic, then. So what?

You show your ignorance of what Gnostics are.

Nothing quite like denigrating what you do not know.

I suggest author and scholar Elain Pagels.

Regards
DL

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

...they all really have no sensible answer for why evil exists at all.

As opposed to some silly woman being tricked by a talking snake.

Who does the talking serpent represent? Good or evil?

To Jews she is savior, to Christians, our nemesis.

Jews see Original Virtue while Christians see Original Sin.

Which group do you think is right?

Regards
DL

[Immanuel Can]

You show your ignorance of what Gnostics are.

Heh. If you knew anything about me, you'd probably be less confident about that...

I suggest author and scholar Elain Pagels.

Oh, I know Pagels, don't worry. And it's "Elaine."

[attofishpi]

...they all really have no sensible answer for why evil exists at all.

But it doesn't. God can be evil, man can be evil - but as a concept of an entity as in 'evil' exists - no it doesn't.

[Immanuel Can]

...they all really have no sensible answer for why evil exists at all.

But it doesn't.

Do you mean to say that nothing merits the adjective "evil"? So paedophelia isn't evil. Genocide isn't evil. Racism isn't evil. Rape isn't evil. Happy with that conclusion?

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=481199 time=1606082981 user_id=9431]
[quote=attofishpi post_id=481194 time=1606081780 user_id=6293]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=481102 time=1606051643 user_id=9431]...they all really have no sensible answer for why evil exists at all.[/quote]
But it doesn't.
[/quote]
Do you mean to say that nothing merits the adjective "evil"? So paedophelia isn't evil. Genocide isn't evil. Racism isn't evil. Rape isn't evil. Happy with that conclusion?
[/quote]

The absolute minimum any word can be is a concept. If the word exists, the concept exists. If it has an external correlate, it exists empirically.

[attofishpi]

...they all really have no sensible answer for why evil exists at all.

But it doesn't. But it doesn't. God can be evil, man can be evil - but as a concept of an entity as in 'evil' exists - no it doesn't.

Do you mean to say that nothing merits the adjective "evil"? So paedophelia isn't evil. Genocide isn't evil. Racism isn't evil. Rape isn't evil. Happy with that conclusion?

U really grind my gears when U cut out the actual pertinent point I made (in red).

As an adjective I have no issue, but you want to noun it up as if it is some supernatural force. EVERYTHING you stated is man doing evil stuff - as per the bit you snipped out when quoting me.

[Immanuel Can]

As an adjective I have no issue,

Then evil exists.

"Red" exists, but is an adjective not a noun. "Taller" is a real distinction, but is not a noun. "Ancient" is an adjective, but is not limited to one subject. Just so, "evil" is an adjective that aptly and objectively applies to some things. You can't fault it for not being a noun, because lots of real things aren't nouns.

[attofishpi]

As an adjective I have no issue,

Then evil exists.

"Red" exists, but is an adjective not a noun. "Taller" is a real distinction, but is not a noun. "Ancient" is an adjective, but is not limited to one subject. Just so, "evil" is an adjective that aptly and objectively applies to some things. You can't fault it for not being a noun, because lots of real things aren't nouns.

"red" is an adjective AND a noun.

An adjective is simply a word that describes things. Evil does not exist as a noun, an ACTUAL thing - therefore it does not exist, beyond being a WORD.

What is your definition of EVIL as a noun?

[Immanuel Can]

"red" is an adjective AND a noun.

So?

If "evIl" turns out to be a noun too, how does that help your case?

What is your definition of EVIL as a noun?

From Oxford:

noun
noun: evil
profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.

Here's a sentence with "evil" as a noun: "Try as they might, the few remaining good Democrats could not get the profound evil out of their party."

[Belinda]

"red" is an adjective AND a noun.

So?

If "evIl" turns out to be a noun too, how does that help your case?

What is your definition of EVIL as a noun?

From Oxford:

noun
noun: evil
profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.

Here's a sentence with "evil" as a noun: "Try as they might, the few remaining good Democrats could not get the profound evil out of their party."

Immanuel, The theme of many serious works of art is evil and its description and explanation. Any person's entire search for the good is underpinned by the person's need to define evil. Good and evil the great Yin and Yang you cannot have one without the other, and man has in general struggled, while on his quest for the good, to identify and explain evil. In The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan the protagonist whose name is Everyman struggles against all sorts of evils. Any serious play or novel has as its implied theme the natures of good and of evil .The parables of Jesus have as their general theme the natures of good and of evil.

The meaning of evil cannot be caught in a tiny entry in a dictionary.

[attofishpi]

"red" is an adjective AND a noun.

So?

If "evIl" turns out to be a noun too, how does that help your case?

What is your definition of EVIL as a noun?

From Oxford:

noun
noun: evil
profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.

Here's a sentence with "evil" as a noun: "Try as they might, the few remaining good Democrats could not get the profound evil out of their party."

I disagree. The word 'evil' should be seen as nothing more than a WORD that DESCRIBES things (NOUNS).

In any case you stated:- Of course, they all have important disagreements with each other; and on a deep level, they all really have no sensible answer for why evil exists at all.

Anyone can explain why 'evil' exists in the context of wo\men doing evil things. No? Or are you of the opinion that there is indeed a 'supernatural force' of evil?

[Immanuel Can]

"red" is an adjective AND a noun.

So?

If "evIl" turns out to be a noun too, how does that help your case?

What is your definition of EVIL as a noun?

From Oxford:

noun
noun: evil
profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.

Here's a sentence with "evil" as a noun: "Try as they might, the few remaining good Democrats could not get the profound evil out of their party."

Immanuel, The theme of many serious works of art is evil and its description and explanation.

Not really. There's in art and literature raising the question of how it exists, but answers are in very short supply. To ask the question is nowhere near so great an accomplishment as providing some sort of answer.

I'd still be interested in what yours is.

Good and evil the great Yin and Yang you cannot have one without the other,

There's a very simple problem with this view: namely, that it makes the "Yin," necessary and eternal. In other words, it establishes evil as a permanent feature, rather than proposing any answer to it. That is why the Taoist concept of "the negative" does not really included anything like the Western conception of "evil." "Yin" is not bad. It's just "different."

So Taoism is really a denial of the existence of real evil. It's an evasion of the problem, not an answer to it. And the solution it offers is simply to pretend evil isn't really evil.

But I can tell f(rom what you write about "paedophilia" and so forth) that you believe evil does exist. So Taoism is not going to be a help to anybody like you.

In The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan the protagonist whose name is Everyman struggles against all sorts of evils.

I've read it. It's definitely not on the Taoist page. Bunyan regarded evil as really evil. And in fact, it's so evil that Everyman has no hope until he becomes "Pilgrim" -- essentially, until he becomes a Christian.

The parables of Jesus have as their general theme the natures of good and of evil.

What do you remember Him saying from those?

[Immanuel Can]

"red" is an adjective AND a noun.

So?

If "evIl" turns out to be a noun too, how does that help your case?

What is your definition of EVIL as a noun?

From Oxford:

noun
noun: evil
profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.

Here's a sentence with "evil" as a noun: "Try as they might, the few remaining good Democrats could not get the profound evil out of their party."

I disagree.

With me? Or with Oxford?

The word 'evil' should be seen as nothing more than a WORD that DESCRIBES things (NOUNS)

.

"Should be?" "Should be?"

But it isn't, and historically, never has been. Common usage is entirely against that "should."

Now, there must be some reason why you think it "should" go that way, despite it never having done so. So why do you think "evil" cannot possibly be a noun (contrary to what usage says) and "should" only be an adjective?

Anyone can explain why 'evil' exists in the context of wo\men doing evil things.

Well, it's reasonable to suppose that perhaps no human being working strictly on his intuitions is going to be able to do it, because it's too complicated. But if there is a God, He surely knows. And He can explain.