another problem of evil

[Age]

IN the time it has taken me to look at and respond to this thread 10 children has died from lack of clean water.

Which was CAUSED and CREATED, SOLELY, BECAUSE of adult human beings.

[Age]

Well, according to IC the newly born infant either deserved it or benefitted from it. God only does things according to a benevolent "plan".

Gary, no one gives a hoot in hell what you think about IC.

What is another problem of evil according to Gary, Gary.

The biggest problem of evil is that it exists.

What does the word 'evil' even MEAN or REFER TO, EXACTLY, to 'you', 'posters', here?

And, while 'you' are at it, that is; IF ANY of 'you' here are, what does the word 'problem' even MEAN or REFER TO, EXACTLY, to 'you'?

See, WHEN the ACTUAL 'definition/s' of these words are LOOKED AT and FULLY UNDERSTOOD, there is NO ACTUAL 'problem' of 'evil' ANYWHERE here.

I guess the next question is whether everything has a "right" to or "ought" to exist.

What WAS the FIRST 'question' here?

Or should only the good exist, abolishing evil?

Living on earth would be MUCH BETTER, for EVERY one, ALREADY, in the days when this is being written, if ONLY the so-called 'good' EXISTED.

But this is just because of what the word 'good' ACTUALLY is in REFERENCE TO, EXACTLY.

Something to ponder, I suppose--unless "good" and "evil" are capable of 'peacefully' co-existing?

This could ONLY BE DISCERNED IF and WHEN what the words 'good' and 'evil' are IN REFERENCE TO, EXACTLY, are brought-to-LIGHT, FIRST.

Perhaps "good" and "evil" are nothing more than labels for two otherwise morally undifferentiable sides?

Sounds like 'you' are NOT YET EVEN AWARE of what the words 'good' and 'evil' here are even IN REFERENCE TO, EXACTLY, right?

But if one wins, the other loses.

Does 'good' or 'evil', themselves, ACTUALLY 'win' or 'lose' absolutely ANY 'thing'? Or, could it be, for example, if the world was RID of the 'evil' and 'bad' 'things' that 'you', adult human beings, DO, then it is children, "themselves", who could be and would be the ACTUAL so-called 'winners' here? And, let us NOT FORGET, that IF and WHEN 'children' are so-called 'winning', in Life, then who this would ACTUALLY affect the MOST is 'you', adult human beings. BECAUSE WHEN 'children' are Truly happy, and ENJOYING Life, then so too are 'the parents'.

So I ask you, swami Walker: what is more worthy of standing for; the existence of all (including evil) or the triumph of "good"? And why?

I would suggest STANDING UP for THE Truth of 'things'.

Also, there is a reason WHY so-called 'evil' was STILL existing in the days when this was being written, and that reason was so that 'good' would and could ACTUALLY PREVAIL ALWAYS, forthwith.

[Age]

really tho there's no such thing as 'evil', gary. the closest approximation to it would be something understood and modeled in a biological/evolutionary sense. a certain type of animal and how it survives, is the question. take the model evolutionary biologists use to describe species types and their survival strategies: https://biology.stackexchange.com/quest ... ategy#2023

So, adult human beings, BEATING, RAPING, and/or KILLING children is NOT 'evil' to 'you', "promethean75", correct?

in this model u have a community of three types of animals. grudgers, suckers and cheats. now if anything at all can be called 'evil' it would be the cheats, which function like parasites in the community. the human equivalent of this parasite would be the capitalist. the grudgers would be the working class and the suckers would be the working classes that identify as conservatives (conservatism is the foundation of the survival strategy of the parasite class).

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME of one ONLY SEEING 'the WHOLE world' through and from their OWN TINY, LITTLE PRESUMED BELIEFS.

Take care to note that a community of cheats could not produce an ESS. It's logically impossible. This means that in order to survive they need suckers, and without suckers they would die off. Or go to jail in trump's case. Notice how this creature is still grifting even now.

[Age]

We all use the word, "evil", but I have no idea what we mean by it.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, and THANK YOU here "harbal".

REAL Honesty is SO REFRESHING, that is; WHEN 'it' EVER OCCURS.

[Age]

We all use the word, "evil", but I have no idea what we mean by it.

Ultimately, there are a lot of ways humans can behave.

Will you list 'those ways', or at least some of those ways', here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, then GREAT.

In some cases, different ways may conflict. So for example, someone who strictly adheres in "for better or worse, until death do you part" who loses their mate who maybe doesn't believe that and runs off with someone who makes them happier in the moment, would think that the mate who ran off is evil for breaking that vow at marriage.

I, for one, would NEVER think this.

Would 'you', "gary childress", think this?

To me, 'marriage', in the human being made up 'legal sense', and 'marriage vows' are just ANOTHER PRIME example of adult human beings STUPIDITY, and of MISSING THE MARK.

'Marriage vows' are about as worthy and of as much use as 'new year's resolutions', and 'marriage', in the signing a bit of society or culturally designed piece of paper, itself, is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS and DETRACTS, W/HOL(L)Y, from the WHOLE SENSE of 'ACTUAL MARRIAGE' and of HAVING children.

The mate who ran off, might think the more 'devoted' mate 'unhealthy' (kind of our contemporary term for 'evil') for trying to cling to a relationship that was going sour.

But the WHOLE reason the 'relationship was going sour' might be BECAUSE one was being 'TO CLINGY', as some call 'that kind of misbehaving'.

Instead of TELLING 'us' of what WAS a 'kind of' 'your' 'contemporary term' for the 'evil' word, 'you' INFORM 'us' of what, EXACTLY, does the 'evil' word MEAN and/or REFER TO, EXACTLY?

That way 'we' can LOOK AT and DISCUSS what the ACTUAL Truth IS here, EXACTLY.

Things that were once considered 'evil' because they were counterproductive or perhaps harmful are now considered less so. Take the famous "protestant work ethic," the notion that there is no such thing as working too hard or being too productive. Sometimes work is wasteful and unneeded and just wears a person out, wasting precious resources on things that don't need to be done and often ends up simply benefitting those who own the business or something.

'Going to work' was and ALWAYS IS Truly 'wasteful' AND 'unneeded'.

But, 'you', adult human beings, ALWAYS WERE a VERY EASY and SIMPLE 'thing' to CONVINCE of 'things' that were COMPLETELY False and Wrong.

So the protestant work ethic loses traction under those circumstances.

Also, look at the "7 deadly sins" of the Catholic church. These were routes to evil, the highest evil of all, the kind that would lead you to hell no less. Yet, none of those sins seem to directly involve what we now consider the highest forms of evil, murder, genocide, rape, etc.

If 'those things' do NOT directly lead to 'you', human beings, doing the so-called 'highest forms of evil', then WHAT does, EXACTLY?

By the way, ONCE 'you' LEARN, and/or DISCOVER, what THE ANSWER IS, EXACTLY, then 'you' WILL START SEEING just HOW EASY and SIMPLE Life, REALLY IS.

Perhaps those 'evils' were rightfully restricted in other times when they were indeed stepping stones to everything bad that can happen, poverty, hunger, illness, and death. But they are not direct acts of deprivation, killing, or dying. They are acts that under the right conditions (sometimes simply moderation) can be perfectly healthy and normal under different material conditions for people and society.

If you SAY and/or BELIEVE SO, then so be 'it', but, WITHOUT examples, I REALLY have NO IDEA NOR CLUE as to what you are REFERRING TO, here EXACTLY.

It seems to me that culture can be a very weird thing.

To me, 'culture', itself, is NOT 'weird' AT ALL.

But A GREAT DEAL of what is done 'culturally', especially in those days when this was being written, was VERY, VERY 'WEIRD'. For example, in some cultures it was BELIEVED that 'going to work' to 'obtain money' was NEEDED in 'order to live and survive'. Which, OBVIOUSLY, WAS VERY, VERY WEIRD.

In a sense, it's an amalgamation of rules and beliefs that justify or consolidate other rules or beliefs that transform, even leading to the proliferation of more rules and beliefs. In the end, I think what is called 'evil' is ultimately unwanted death.

So, considering that it could be argued that absolutely EVERY 'living thing' did NOT once 'want to die', it would then 'logically follow' that ALL of Life, and Existence, Itself, IS so-called 'evil'. Which, OBVIOUSLY, would be some 'thing' that would be BEST NOT gotten RID OF. Which then only makes 'this' even MORE CONFUSING, MORE ABSURD, MORE LUDICROUS, and just plain old MORE WEIRD, itself.

That was the greatest imaginable evil once upon a time.

How do 'you' KNOW, EXACTLY? Where 'you' around in 'those days' "gary childress"?

In days before modern medicine,

In what year, EXACTLY, did this so-called 'modern medicine' BEGIN?

eating certain types of food or engaging in certain types of behavior put a person at a much greater risk of death than other things.

Does this NOT apply for ALL times? For example, would NOT eating poisonous food or engaging in jumping off cliffs onto rocks put one at a much greater risk of death than let us say sitting in front of a computer writing in forums?

So those things that led to death were deemed 'evil'.

Were they, REALLY?

WHEN, EXACTLY, was eating certain types of food or engaging in certain types of behavior deemed 'evil'?

For example, was flying in rockets into what was called 'space' and/or eating 'space food' deemed 'evil'?

If yes, then WHY?

But if no, then WHY NOT?

Unfortunately, when I attended a couple of Christian programs and churches for a while in my search for the truth of God and religion, I encountered many things that just weren't very rational to me.

Maybe if you went to "islam" programs and/or "other" churches, for example, you may have FOUND the ANSWERS and TRUTH that were LOOKING FOR.

Did you end up FINDING 'the truth' that you were LOOKING FOR?

If yes, then what did you FIND, EXACTLY?

But if no, then are you STILL 'searching', or did you just GIVE UP?

If you did NOT FIND 'the truth', then have you CONSIDERED LOOKING ELSEWHERE, or better still, LOOKING in and from ANOTHER WAY, or PERSPECTIVE?

There are leftover artifacts from the past that seem to me to do little more than impede happiness. For example, masturbation is still considered 'evil' by the Christian church.

WHICH "christian church"? The one closest to your home, or the WHOLE 'banner', for lack of a better word, of "christianity"?

Also, and by the way, WHO, EXACTLY, does the DECIDING of and in relation to 'what is evil' and 'what is NOT evil' in regards to "christianity", itself?

By the way, if one NEEDS 'masturbation' to FEEL 'happiness', then here is ANOTHER GREAT example of the ACTUAL ABUSE children USED TO SUFFER WITH, and FROM, back in the OLD DAYS when this was being written.

While it's true that masturbation can reach excessive or unhealthy levels in a person who becomes addicted to it, it otherwise causes little if any harm, perhaps it's even useful when done in moderation.

'Useful' in what way/s, EXACTLY.

Back in the days when the Christian church was formed, overpopulation wasn't a problem on anyone's mind yet. In fact, increasing population was seen as largely unproblematic, there was land to give to newborn citizens when they matured, it meant more warriors for the armies, more field hands, etc. Nobody had any inkling of global climate change. Today we have automation to produce where there is a lack of workers and war is being seen more and more as a dirty, unnecessary business.

Indeed, war itself is the new 'evil', abortion, OTOH, is seen more as a way of curbing overpopulation and it is believed largely by science and personal experience that aborting a fetus causes no true harm to something that doesn't appear to be conscious and aware--something that is probably little more than a bundle of instinctive nerve reactions at that point.

But the Christian church still clings to old ways and old values. Continuing to do something that is no longer productive, perhaps even counter-productive, for no other reason than it's "tradition," is probably as much a mark of insanity as trying something over and over that doesn't seem to be working. Sometimes there are grounds for faith and sometimes faith will be the death of you if you keep pounding away counter to evidence to the contrary.

Granted, "conservatism" is supposed to be the "conservation" of the past, a sense of taking things slow and rational as things change. There's not too much wrong with that. Sudden change can send things into chaos and cause more damage than good. But in the end, no one wants to just keep things the way they were forever. There's a reason why people invent things, to make life better and to overcome past challenges.

In the days when this was being written, the main reason WHY most 'things' were invent was to just obtain 'MORE MONEY'.

Yes, some of the stuff we invent can be used toward 'evil' (read unhealthy or destructive) purposes (for example: is building things that can better accomplish the task of destroying life, really "progress") but overall, the sciences ought to be here to help us flourish and thrive, not help us destroy ourselves.

But people WERE, literally, REALLY flourishing and thriving BEFORE 'science' ever came along.

The world needs to make changes.

When you say, 'The world NEEDS to make changes', what do you ACTUALLY MEAN here, EXACTLY?

See, 'the world', earth, ACTUALLY 'changes' no matter what, and so does NOT 'need to MAKE changes'. And, 'you', human beings, ACTUALLY 'change' ALSO, no matter what. So, 'change' occurs, no matter what, but who or what, EXACTLY, 'NEEDS' 'to MAKE changes'? Of course, one 'NEEDS' 'to change' BECAUSE there is NO 'other way', and it would be a much BETTER 'world' if people who DO Wrong MADE CHANGES to the way they are misbehaving, but for what OTHER reason/s do they NEED to MAKE changes?

We seem to be facing serious problems like environmental collapse and destruction at the hands of our own technological advances.

Environmental collapse and destruction, if it is happening, is BECAUSE of adult human GREED, and NOT because of 'technological advances'.

There is also a sense that we need to get off this planet if we don't want our own species' life span to be deterministically tied to the life, stability, and hospitableness of our planet or eventually our solar system's sun.

LOL Talk about ANXIOUSNESS and DESPAIR setting in, at the most ABSURDEST of levels.

The sun WILL DIE, one day, so we MUST RUSH and GET OFF this planet.

It seems to me that a question becomes, how fast do we need to progress in order to beat the clock on those things?

I have heard about 4 billion years in relation to the sun dying off, but, of course, that figure may well have changed since I last heard it.

How long will our planet be habitable, how long will our sun last?

The way 'you', adult human beings, LOOK AT, SEE, and 'TREAT' Life, in the days when this is being written, then I would say that the planet earth will stop being habitable roughly about 4 billion years BEFORE the sun dies out, if the last figure I heard in relation to the sun was some what close to being true.

Maybe we have a long time ahead of us to accomplish those things or maybe we don't.

Accomplish 'what things', EXACTLY?

Making the earth inhospitable?

Many Christians seem to lack answers to those things because, at the time the bible was written, there was little if any possibility of imagining that we could travel away from Earth into outer space (aside from going to "heaven" when we die).

Do you even KNOW WHERE the word 'heaven' REFERS TO, EXACTLY?

In short, Christianity is just not serving our society well any longer, in my opinion.

Okay, this is 'YOUR' OPINION.

"others" SAY otherwise.

It's become too restrictive where technology has opened up new possibilities.

WHY, EXACTLY?

Will you provide ANY examples?

Until I see reason to believe differently, that's my impression. We need a new 'religion' as it were.

WHY 'BELIEVE' (in) ANY 'thing' AT ALL, anyway?

[Age]

We all use the word, "evil", but I have no idea what we mean by it.

In this context anything that shouldn't have been allowed to happen if kindness reigned.

This 'definition' could work. However, who and/or what are the words 'should not' in relation to, EXACTLY?

For example, 'should' volcanoes be allowed to happen if 'kindness' reigned?

If yes, and what you are saying and meaning here is that ONLY 'that human behavior', which goes against 'kindness', 'should not' be allowed to happen, then this would be a GREAT START to DECIDE what the 'evil' word MEANS, or is in RELATION TO, EXACTLY, well from my perspective anyway.

Also, and by the way, 'have been' is, obviously, in relation to 'the past', which is better left NEVER CHANGING. So, I suggest only LOOKING AT 'that', which CAN BE CHANGED, and which would be MUCH BETTER IF CHANGED. And the only real two 'things' here, in regards to 'this' is the 'thought' and 'behavior' of human beings.

In general, however, yeah, the definition seems to vary. From like very bad people or actions or attitudes - with bad being another vague cultural term - to an actually distinct ontological force or even creature or alliance that goes against The Good or God, perversely and knowingly not merely out of ignorance.

[Age]

an actually distinct ontological force or even creature or alliance that goes against The Good or God

That's the definition that makes me avoid using the word.

WHY?

The ACTUAL 'thing', which goes AGAINST 'the good', or 'God', is a VERY REAL 'thing'.

[Age]

We all use the word, "evil", but I have no idea what we mean by it.

Yes you do.

Evil is whatever you do not like.

Is that how 'you', "greatest I am", USE the 'evil' word?

If yes, then that does NOT mean that "others" USE that word, that way.

Good is what you like. Right?

Though 'what is good', to me, might be what I 'like', it does NOT mean that 'what I like', is 'good'.

Is EVERY 'thing' you 'like', so-called 'good'?

Gen3;22 Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;

Yes, WHEN 'you', human beings, 'grow up', 'mature', or just 'evolve' ENOUGH, then 'you' too WILL BECOME just like One, with 'Us'.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good

LEARN HOW TO DECIPHER between 'What IS GOOD, and Right, in Life', then 'you' will NOT have to 'test' ANYMORE. 'you' WILL KNOW WHY ONLY DOING 'what IS GOOD, in Life', IS what IS Right in Life, and so WILL ONLY hold onto DOING 'what IS GOOD', in Life.

Evil does have a good side as far as humans are concerned. It is the result of our competing, but without competing we would go extinct.

What A JOKE, and a PRIME EXAMPLE of just how MUCH these ones, back then, would 'TRY TO' "justify" the Wrong, and 'evil', they WOULD DO, in Life.

LOL 'we' WOULD 'go extinct' if 'we' did NOT so-call 'compete', BUT while 'we' ARE 'competing' 'we' WILL do 'evil', but this is PERFECTLY FINE, OKAY, and ALL RIGHT BECAUSE 'we' WOULD 'go extinct' if we did NOT DO 'evil', in Life.

The ATTEMPT at "justifying" Wrong, and, the ABSURDITY here, can be CLEARLY SEEN and IS SELF-EVIDENT.

I have to venerate, tolerate and create evil, as well as good.

'These people ACTUALLY BELIEVED 'things' like this, and this EXPLAINS WHY it took them SO LONG to LEARN and SEE the ACTUAL Truth of 'things' here.

So do you, you evil person, just not the really evil stuff. No Inquisitions or Jihads.

Regards
DL

Even just the words 'evil person' here is just SO FAR OFF THE MARK.

[Age]

What deceit and ugliness has pervaded before me. Who is responsible for this? Is that you FlannelJesus? Who is putting other people's quote with my name attached to them. I will no longer be nice to liars and deceitful people. I have tried to be tolerant. But you push too far.

Could 'it' have just been A MISTAKE with NOT 'evil' NOR ANY intention, AT ALL?

[Age]

Somewhere, sometime, someone was born just in time be covered in lava. Mysterious ways indeed.

Do you believe in Gaia?

Doubtful, but nature would have to be a conscious entity for us to see evil intent.

Hint. Mens Rea.

Can nature be accused of doing evil?

Without an evil intent, there is no evil.

Gaia did not gain the pleasure evil acts pay and would not do as you think of her. No that she is real.

Regards
DL

The Gaia hypothesis is either that the Earth is a sentient being (bullshit) or that the Earth's ecosystem can be understood as a giant organism (metaphorical, true).

"Good" has the misfortune in English of opposing both bad (effect) and evil (intent).

WHY is 'this', supposedly, 'a misfortune'?

[Age]

For example, The Master of the Universe who breaks under torture will have a new self-concept.

The example you give is an example of senselessness; is that what you intended?

It's an example referencing the sentence that preceded it in the original context.

But was the 'preceding sentence' meant to be SELF-CONTRADICTORY?

And, how, EXACTLY, could ANY so-called 'Master of the Universe' break or even come under 'torture', unless, of course, 'It' created 'torture' to TORTURE "Its" OWN 'Self', to BREAK 'Itself'. Which would imply absolute NONSENSE, as WHY did 'It' NOT just BREAK 'Itself' FIRST, anyway?

[Age]

If baked beans are evil, it should say so on the label.

Do you think Lucifer wears a name tag 'Evil'? Nay. It is we who must suss these things out.

"lucifer" is a name tag, or label, for the 'thing', which IS Truly 'the devil', or 'evil', itself.

This BECOMES FULLY UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN WHEN 'you', human beings, have 'sussed' 'things' out for LONG ENOUGH.

[Iwannaplato]

What are we agreeing on? That baked beans are evil?

Beans in general are difficult to digest because they contain a sugar called raffinose that we’re not able to break down. Raffinose is broken down instead by the bacteria in your colon, producing copious gas as a byproduct and copious toots. Beans also contain lectins that may trigger autoimmune disorders like rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis or vitiligo. But baked beans, specifically those that come in cans, are particularly bad because they almost always have added sugar and salt. Choose the wrong can of baked beans and you might end up with as much sugar as you would get in a candy bar. Any benefit that beans could bestow upon your blood sugar levels is completely negated by all that sugar. Read the labels carefully, make your own baked beans or eat regular beans instead.

[Harbal]

an actually distinct ontological force or even creature or alliance that goes against The Good or God

That's the definition that makes me avoid using the word.

WHY?

The ACTUAL 'thing', which goes AGAINST 'the good', or 'God', is a VERY REAL 'thing'.

Some adult human beings seem to believe that "evil" is an actual force, like magnetism, or gravity. Malicious intent could quite well exist within an individual, but I don't see how it can have an independent existence as an entity in its own right, like a malevolent force field of some sort.

[Harbal]

But baked beans, specifically those that come in cans, are particularly bad because they almost always have added sugar and salt.

So much sugar and salt, in fact, that I find them completely inedible.