|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 4:23:04 GMT
Didn't they say they were? And don't people still use the Holocaust to this day as proof that Christianity is the wart on humanity's ass? The point here is that Hitler believed he was acting for the greater good, which doesn't fit the definition of evil as doing harm for the sake of doing harm. To refute this, you have to either redefine evil as some here are already trying to do, or presume that the whole thing was based on a lie and he was really just killing Jews for the lulz. I’m using Nietzsche’s definition.* And he should know, because even before he went bonkers, he sensed his “anti-” philosophy would be misused by the magical thinking mind. There are no experts in areas such as these, but I will admit to borrowing from this article I bookmarked from someone's post awhile back: blogs.stlawu.edu/philosophy/2010/09/30/there-are-no-evil-people/So if Nietzsche can be an expert, then surely Laura Rediehs can be, too. Well, that's just it, isn't it? What's really in your heart is known only to you and God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Dec 2, 2020 7:49:45 GMT
Now you are setting up a false dichotomy. Doing harm for harm's own sake would indeed be universally defined as evil, but it is not the entire definition. What Hitler did was evil, even if in his eyes he was only acting for the good of "pure-blooded" Germans. What Fritzl did was evil, even though his motivation was sexual pleasure, not "for the lulz". The God of the Bible can certainly be described as evil, because any human ruler who acted in the same way - and there have been a few - would be classed as evil. There is certainly nothing benevolent about the Biblical God, he is intolerant and admits it. Flopping "evil" around as a noun, an adjective, and an adverb is what's causing the problem here, and I'm not quite ready to agree that love means unconditional tolerance. I don't think many parents would agree, either. Love does indeed not mean "unconditional tolerance" - because no one is filled only with love. If you love someone, you want what is best for that someone. This never includes punishing them for their beliefs, much less damnation of any sort, however brief. When one says "God is love", however, then that does mean unconditional love - or God isn't love. God may love, but he isn't synonymous with love. Just like I am not love, nor are you love. But then, "God is love" is not supported anywhere in the Bible. It isn't even implied in the Bible. But just the opposite: "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." The New Testament is where you find the most references to love, but it is also where you get all the references to hellfire. And even when Jesus tells us not to seek revenge but rather turn the other cheek, the reason for this is that revenge is a privilege for God alone. So God doesn't want us to be vengeful - but he himself is still, very much so. And revenge comes from hate, not love.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 2, 2020 8:12:42 GMT
AdminThe Nazis practiced a staggering amount of sadism in their persecutions and vengeance against enemies. They bathed in the pleasure of this among themselves as addicts enjoy their drugs and porn watchers enjoy their most outlandish porn. They couldn’t call it a greater good to film the grisly executions of the people who attempted to assassinate Hitler and then watch them repeatedly as entertainment. Many of the plotters were hung by what they called piano wire in a way that took hours for them to die. They wiggled while their hands were tied so their pants fell off. The brother of the worst plotter (who was shot by a firing squad) was revived before dying on the wire several times so that he could repeat the hours long hanging process. All on film to watch again and again. When Czech commandos killed a Nazi leader in the early part of the war, the Nazis executed 5000 people for it. Seeing a “greater good” overall in there somewhere was certainly a thread in their thinking, but they created their own self-indulgent evil to pleasure themselves more than anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 8:26:05 GMT
Flopping "evil" around as a noun, an adjective, and an adverb is what's causing the problem here, and I'm not quite ready to agree that love means unconditional tolerance. I don't think many parents would agree, either. Love does indeed not mean "unconditional tolerance" - because no one is filled only with love. If you love someone, you want what is best for that someone. This never includes punishing them for their beliefs, much less damnation of any sort, however brief. When one says "God is love", however, then that does mean unconditional love - or God isn't love. God may love, but he isn't synonymous with love. Just like I am not love, nor are you love. But then, "God is love" is not supported anywhere in the Bible. It isn't even implied in the Bible. But just the opposite: "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." The New Testament is where you find the most references to love, but it is also where you get all the references to hellfire. And even when Jesus tells us not to seek revenge but rather turn the other cheek, the reason for this is that revenge is a privilege for God alone. So God doesn't want us to be vengeful - but he himself is still, very much so. And revenge comes from hate, not love. As FilmFlaneur alluded to above, love isn't always flowers and puppies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 8:37:16 GMT
AdminThe Nazis practiced a staggering amount of sadism in their persecutions and vengeance against enemies. They bathed in the pleasure of this among themselves as addicts enjoy their drugs and porn watchers enjoy their most outlandish porn. They couldn’t call it a greater good to film the grisly executions of the people who attempted to assassinate Hitler and then watch them repeatedly as entertainment. Many of the plotters were hung by what they called piano wire in a way that took hours for them to die. They wiggled while their hands were tied so their pants fell off. The brother of the worst plotter (who was shot by a firing squad) was revived before dying on the wire several times so that he could repeat the hours long hanging process. All on film to watch again and again. When Czech commandos killed a Nazi leader in the early part of the war, the Nazis executed 5000 people for it. Seeing a “greater good” overall in there somewhere was certainly a thread in their thinking, but they created their own self-indulgent evil to pleasure themselves more than anything. Well, I'm not saying they were good people, Sci. We deal with shit like that as best we can, but if there's anything after death, it's out of our hands at that point. If you were die and find out that Hitler accepted God's forgiveness, what would you do?
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Dec 2, 2020 8:40:10 GMT
Love does indeed not mean "unconditional tolerance" - because no one is filled only with love. If you love someone, you want what is best for that someone. This never includes punishing them for their beliefs, much less damnation of any sort, however brief. When one says "God is love", however, then that does mean unconditional love - or God isn't love. God may love, but he isn't synonymous with love. Just like I am not love, nor are you love. But then, "God is love" is not supported anywhere in the Bible. It isn't even implied in the Bible. But just the opposite: "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." The New Testament is where you find the most references to love, but it is also where you get all the references to hellfire. And even when Jesus tells us not to seek revenge but rather turn the other cheek, the reason for this is that revenge is a privilege for God alone. So God doesn't want us to be vengeful - but he himself is still, very much so. And revenge comes from hate, not love. As FilmFlaneur alluded to above, love isn't always flowers and puppies. John is evangelising in the epistles, so naturally he is laying it on a bit thick. Funny how there is no desire to take Jesus at face value when he says no one can come to him if he hate not his parents. But John says that "God is love", well, that has to be literal. And the reason why love isn't always flowers and puppies is because we're not perfect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Dec 2, 2020 8:45:13 GMT
I’m using Nietzsche’s definition.* And he should know, because even before he went bonkers, he sensed his “anti-” philosophy would be misused by the magical thinking mind. There are no experts in areas such as these, but I will admit to borrowing from this article I bookmarked from someone's post awhile back: blogs.stlawu.edu/philosophy/2010/09/30/there-are-no-evil-people/So if Nietzsche can be an expert, then surely Laura Rediehs can be, too. Well, that's just it, isn't it? What's really in your heart is known only to you and God. Only if God exists and it gives a crap about us. I think that there is no supernatural “intelligent being.” “God,” as we understand it via our multiple religions, is a human creation and we project our positive and negative, good and bad, righteous and evil instincts upon it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 8:47:47 GMT
1 John 4:7?As FilmFlaneur alluded to above, love isn't always flowers and puppies. John is evangelising in the epistles, so naturally he is laying it on a bit thick. Funny how there is no desire to take Jesus at face value when he says no one can come to him if he hate not his parents. But John says that "God is love", well, that has to be literal. I don't know about all that. I was just pointing out that it is indeed in the Bible, and more than just implied. I see. So if God's love isn't always flowers and puppies, he isn't benevolent? How does that square with your statement that if you love someone, you want what is best for that someone? Furthermore, what would that love be to someone who doesn't want it, if not "flowers and puppies"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 8:48:57 GMT
Only if God exists and it gives a crap about us. I think that there is no supernatural “intelligent being.” “God,” as we understand it via our multiple religions, is a human creation and we project our positive and negative, good and bad, righteous and evil instincts upon it. It is assumed for the sake of discussion. A debate about the actual existence of God is a completely different animal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 8:58:20 GMT
I can't speak for Hitler's intentions, but is it not more or less universally agreed upon that he believed his actions were for the greater good? The excuses that people make for their nefarious actions range from simply mistaken to psychotic. Simply mistaken is not evil. What about psychotic?
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Dec 2, 2020 9:08:04 GMT
John is evangelising in the epistles, so naturally he is laying it on a bit thick. Funny how there is no desire to take Jesus at face value when he says no one can come to him if he hate not his parents. But John says that "God is love", well, that has to be literal. I don't know about all that. I was just pointing out that it is indeed in the Bible, and more than just implied. I see. So if God's love isn't always flowers and puppies, he isn't benevolent? How does that square with your statement that if you love someone, you want what is best for that someone? Furthermore, what would that love be to someone who doesn't want it, if not "flowers and puppies"? If I were omnipotent, and also omnibenevolent, then I would create a paradise for all beings. I would remove all their needs, cares and wants, and just let them exist in a perpetual state of bliss. I would not be the one to create those beings, however, because they'd have no need or desire to exist prior to creation. Although if I had to create living things, I would create them immortal and impervious to injury - and thus also without the need to eat or drink - and also without the ability to reproduce. I would create them without violent inclinations, without protective instincts, without competitive instincts, without possesiveness or jealousy, with only desire for happiness in themselves and others - and all would be right in the world. No, they would not become bored, because I would create them with personalities such that they would be perfectly happy with what they had.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Dec 2, 2020 9:10:21 GMT
Admin The Nazis practiced a staggering amount of sadism in their persecutions and vengeance against enemies. They bathed in the pleasure of this among themselves as addicts enjoy their drugs and porn watchers enjoy their most outlandish porn. They couldn’t call it a greater good to film the grisly executions of the people who attempted to assassinate Hitler and then watch them repeatedly as entertainment. Many of the plotters were hung by what they called piano wire in a way that took hours for them to die. They wiggled while their hands were tied so their pants fell off. The brother of the worst plotter (who was shot by a firing squad) was revived before dying on the wire several times so that he could repeat the hours long hanging process. All on film to watch again and again. When Czech commandos killed a Nazi leader in the early part of the war, the Nazis executed 5000 people for it. Seeing a “greater good” overall in there somewhere was certainly a thread in their thinking, but they created their own self-indulgent evil to pleasure themselves more than anything. Well, I'm not saying they were good people, Sci. We deal with shit like that as best we can, but if there's anything after death, it's out of our hands at that point. If you were die and find out that Hitler accepted God's forgiveness, what would you do? Nazis existed for quite a while before they degenerated into full scale evil sci-fi accurately describes. But generally, the people who carried out these acts were thugs the Nazi leadership used. These schmucks didn’t invent the ideology. They were just angry assholes standing by for the order to have some revenge fun...make the Libs cry. I very much simplified my Nazi “genealogy of evil.” Many factors other than a Romantic desire to create an Aryan Master Race happened. Most of the men who surrounded Hitler were amoral opportunists. And the average Hitler supporters just wanted a steady job and had no problem with the Jews per se, but economic fear made them turn a blind eye to first Jewish disenfranchisement, then the ghettos and slave labor camps, then progress on to the death camps. Add in the other people murdered or enslaved for greater good of the Third Reich.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 9:12:56 GMT
I don't know about all that. I was just pointing out that it is indeed in the Bible, and more than just implied. I see. So if God's love isn't always flowers and puppies, he isn't benevolent? How does that square with your statement that if you love someone, you want what is best for that someone? Furthermore, what would that love be to someone who doesn't want it, if not "flowers and puppies"? If I were omnipotent, and also omnibenevolent, then I would create a paradise for all beings. I would remove all their needs, cares and wants, and just let them exist in a perpetual state of bliss. I would not be the one to create those beings, however, because they'd have no need or desire to exist prior to creation. Although if I had to create living things, I would create them immortal and impervious to injury - and thus also without the need to eat or drink - and also without the ability to reproduce. I would create them without violent inclinations, without protective instincts, without competitive instincts, without possesiveness or jealousy, with only desire for happiness in themselves and others - and all would be right in the world. No, they would not become bored, because I would create them with personalities such that they would be perfectly happy with what they had. Seems to me they wouldn't be happy with what they have because they wouldn't know what they have.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 2, 2020 9:17:22 GMT
The excuses that people make for their nefarious actions range from simply mistaken to psychotic. Simply mistaken is not evil. What about psychotic? It's best not to ask that question. The law typically does not hold the mentally ill responsible for their actions, but it can enforce consequences anyway, if different than the consequences for people not considered mentally ill. With "schizophrenia" things get really murky as even the top experts disagree what it it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 9:25:52 GMT
It's best not to ask that question. The law typically does not hold the mentally ill responsible for their actions, but it can enforce consequences anyway, if different than the consequences for people not considered mentally ill. With "schizophrenia" things get really murky as even the top experts disagree what it it. You said simply mistaken is not evil. I was just wondering if you thought psychotic is also not evil in the same sense. Now that I realize you're talking about our judicial system (I'm slow sometimes, don't hate) I'll just ask why it's a question best left unasked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 2, 2020 9:41:35 GMT
It's best not to ask that question. The law typically does not hold the mentally ill responsible for their actions, but it can enforce consequences anyway, if different than the consequences for people not considered mentally ill. With "schizophrenia" things get really murky as even the top experts disagree what it it. You said simply mistaken is not evil. I was just wondering if you thought psychotic is also not evil in the same sense. Now that I realize you're talking about our judicial system (I'm slow sometimes, don't hate) I'll just ask why it's a question best left unasked. Don't blame yourself. This one is not on you. The term psychotic is supposed to be reserved for "extreme" breaks from reality as opposed to mere excursions into fantasy. It is not a term to be used lightly nor by people without years of special training. I should not have used it. Sometimes when people here claim to "lack" beliefs when they obviously do not I accuse them of a "psychotic reaction." I probably shouldn't be so informal. I do however consider this a "casual" setting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Dec 2, 2020 9:46:48 GMT
If I were omnipotent, and also omnibenevolent, then I would create a paradise for all beings. I would remove all their needs, cares and wants, and just let them exist in a perpetual state of bliss. I would not be the one to create those beings, however, because they'd have no need or desire to exist prior to creation. Although if I had to create living things, I would create them immortal and impervious to injury - and thus also without the need to eat or drink - and also without the ability to reproduce. I would create them without violent inclinations, without protective instincts, without competitive instincts, without possesiveness or jealousy, with only desire for happiness in themselves and others - and all would be right in the world. No, they would not become bored, because I would create them with personalities such that they would be perfectly happy with what they had. Seems to me they wouldn't be happy with what they have because they wouldn't know what they have. Happiness is a feeling. Being omnipotent, I'd make sure they'd have that feeling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2020 9:51:43 GMT
Seems to me they wouldn't be happy with what they have because they wouldn't know what they have. Happiness is a feeling. Being omnipotent, I'd make sure they'd have that feeling. Are you implying that omniscience and benevolence are not compatible?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 2, 2020 9:53:05 GMT
I don't know about all that. I was just pointing out that it is indeed in the Bible, and more than just implied. I see. So if God's love isn't always flowers and puppies, he isn't benevolent? How does that square with your statement that if you love someone, you want what is best for that someone? Furthermore, what would that love be to someone who doesn't want it, if not "flowers and puppies"? If I were omnipotent, and also omnibenevolent, then I would create a paradise for all beings. I would remove all their needs, cares and wants, and just let them exist in a perpetual state of bliss. I would not be the one to create those beings, however, because they'd have no need or desire to exist prior to creation. Although if I had to create living things, I would create them immortal and impervious to injury - and thus also without the need to eat or drink - and also without the ability to reproduce. I would create them without violent inclinations, without protective instincts, without competitive instincts, without possesiveness or jealousy, with only desire for happiness in themselves and others - and all would be right in the world. No, they would not become bored, because I would create them with personalities such that they would be perfectly happy with what they had. Are you saying God didn't? What difference would you have? Everyone would be locked in?
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Dec 2, 2020 10:00:44 GMT
Happiness is a feeling. Being omnipotent, I'd make sure they'd have that feeling. Are you implying that omniscience and benevolence are not compatible? That's a different topic altogether, not sure why you thought I was implying that. If anything, I feel it's the opposite: perfect understanding is perfect forgiveness.
|
|
