Why is man supposed to be evil?

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
enegue
Posts: 1950
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
Favorite Philosopher: God
Location: Australia

Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?

Post by enegue »

Neznac wrote:Well why would you bring up sharks and pedophiles when describing how we don't prefer monogamous heterosexuality but rather esteem other sexual lifestyles as okay, as in:
enegue said in Post #5, "You are a liar,…"
If Man had a heart for his fellow man, we would be doing much better at balancing the books. For example, we would be advertising monogamous heterosexuality as the safe haven from disease and the means by which we can build strong and healthy nations. We don't do this, though. We actually esteem other sexual lifestyles as okay, which means, innocent young people are going to fall into disease invested waters and be drawn away into the deep where sharks and other predators (you know, like those who think paedophilia is okay) live.
Because sharks and paedophiles and disease EXIST in the waters where you PREFER to swim. Now, that doesn't make YOU a shark or a paedophile or diseased, it just means you don't mind swimming in dangerous, polluted water.
Neznac wrote:Why would you stoop to that level of denigration unless you are oblivious as to how non-monogamous and non-heterosexual persons might interpret such a statement?
So, you are offended because I dare to suggest you choose to swim in dangerous and polluted water? Monogamous heterosexuality is the ONLY STAND-ALONE lifestyle that doesn't pollute the water, Neznac. That's a matter of SCIENCE, not religion.
Neznac wrote:Don't you see any sense of human understanding and compassion in allowing individuals to decide on their own relationship and sexuality preferences, as long as they are not hurting anyone?
Well, there's the rub. You don't see what you do as harmful. However, every innocent who believes what you say and chooses to swim where you cannot guarantee their safety, increases their risk of harm.
Neznac wrote:You seem to be expressing the view that only a strict monogamous heterosexual lifestyle practices no harm and that all the rest are guilty of harming others, even children, by practicing their inclinations. Don't you see any harm in culturally "forcing" a lesbian to pretend to be a heterosexual and live the life of one which would be a case of causing harm to herself?
What are you talking about? Who is forcing lesbians to have heterosexual sex? Neznac, you are stuck in a rut at the moment and every thought that enters your brain seems to be about sex. Believe it or not, you aren't going to die or fail to find fulfillment in life if you don't have sex. Anyone who tells you differently is a shark who is grooming you for sex.
Neznac wrote:enegue said:
It is exactly how some Christians are drawn to conclude that atheists who make reference to the Inquisition or the Crusades think that such events are the model of Christian behaviour.


... you do not believe that the Inquisition and the Crusades are in any way models of Christian behaviour, while I, on the other hand, understand that these are indeed particular and legitimate ways of expressing Christian faith and belief where Old Testament theology still has some sway. This is much in line with my statement that it is sometimes the Christian thing to kill those who they don't consider to be normal, as you requoted in this post! How this shocks you is difficult to comprehend as your "rose-coloured version of Christendom" seems like a blatant denial of the history of Christianity.
LOL. So, what you are saying is: the Inquisition and the Crusades are the model of Christian behaviour.

Did you follow the link I provided to the other discussion?

Cheers,
enegue
User avatar
Neznac
Posts: 1652
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 2:31 pm

Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?

Post by Neznac »

enegue wrote:Because sharks and paedophiles and disease EXIST in the waters where you PREFER to swim. Now, that doesn't make YOU a shark or a paedophile or diseased, it just means you don't mind swimming in dangerous, polluted water.
It's not ME who matters here but the other people whom you are denigrating as sharks and paedophiles and the diseased in order to maintain your own perfection. It's like you've created a good world versus an evil one and then saying that I PREFER the evil one. ANd that last bit really makes my blood boil,
it just means you don't mind swimming in dangerous, polluted water

As if I could choose to be hetersexual and enjoy the benefits of God-ordained momogamous perfection but I choose something else. You don't see the self-righteous moralizing in that do you? Of course not, typical Christian!
enegue wrote:So, you are offended because I dare to suggest you choose to swim in dangerous and polluted water? Monogamous heterosexuality is the ONLY STAND-ALONE lifestyle that doesn't pollute the water, Neznac. That's a matter of SCIENCE, not religion.

And now you come armed with science to make your moral case! You think I should choose to be a heterosexual? Are you serious or just suffering from some kind of Christian disease?
enegue wrote:Well, there's the rub. You don't see what you do as harmful. However, every innocent who believes what you say and chooses to swim where you cannot guarantee their safety, increases their risk of harm.

More of the same!
enegue wrote:What are you talking about? Who is forcing lesbians to have heterosexual sex?

Oh, I see, and here's where you claim the high moral ground again, just like your average Christian hypocrite.
enegue wrote:LOL. So, what you are saying is: the Inquisition and the Crusades are the model of Christian behaviour.

I never suggested that they were THE models of Christian behaviour, that's what you are suggesting I am saying! Interesting that immediately after you have strung up all the non-monogamous people from the ropes of degeneracy and disease and you have burned the non-heterosexuals with the flames of indecency, now you have the gaul to claim that the Inquisition and the Crusades don't qualify as models of Christian behaviour. What a f..... hypocrite!
enegue wrote:Did you follow the link I provided to the other discussion?

Cheers,
enegue
Yes, more of the same! Cheers indeed.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13784
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?

Post by Belinda »

Enegue, homosexuality is good for reducing the birthrate and should be encouraged for that reason.
Socialist
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?

Post by Steve3007 »

enegue:

Regarding your comments to Neznac about swimming in dangerous waters: I understand what you mean by that. It's essentially a "thin end of the wedge/slippery slope" argument. You are proposing that certain lifestyles, even if they were not themselves directly harmful would lead to entering a world containing people who do clearly mean harm. I may take issue with that view for various reasons, but I do at least understand where you're coming from. It may even be possible to have a productive debate about it.

Relating this back to the points I was trying to make in my previous two posts: If two people did have a debate about that issue, would you accept the possibility that they might both have an argument that is worth taking seriously and that they might both be motivated by a desire to secure the well-being of other people and of future generations?

---

One more incidental point. When you said this in a slightly earlier post:
...but NONE of it gives you the POWER to move people to WANT TO do the things YOU consider profitable, not even your OWN CHILDREN.
What do you mean? You appear, on the face of it, to be telling me that I have so far been unsuccessful in teaching my children about what I consider to be right and wrong. But obviously you can't be saying that because you have absolutely no idea what I say to my children, how I go about teaching them the moral lessons of life, how they react to that, and how it causes them to behave.

So, given that you can't possibly be saying that from a position of any knowledge, and I know from things you've said in the past that you are strongly opposed to people criticizing others from a position of ignorance, what are you saying?

Perhaps you're simply saying that if my past comments about various issues are any indication, you strongly suspect that you would disagree with the moral lessons that I probably teach to my children. If so, that's fair enough. As I've said, we can disagree about such things and debate them. But I don't see how that allows you to draw any conclusions about my power to persuade people that my moral position is correct. Surely that's a different issue?
Thumos11
Posts: 1004
Joined: March 17th, 2013, 3:38 am

Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?

Post by Thumos11 »

Vijaydevani wrote:A few theists in the forum are convinced that man is intrinsically evil. They are also convinced that man is made in the image of God. So the question is, why did God make a man in His own image, and make him intrinsically evil, considering that God is intrinsically good? Also, if God is all that is good, how did evil get created? If Satan created evil, who created Satan?
God created beings who could choose between good and evil and did not make anyone intrinsically evil, just as you can choose to protect the innocent by warning them of hidden dangers regarding subconscious matters, most of you would choose not to do so. What makes you make that choice? Did God make you make that choice? No. Seeing as I am a person who would clearly choose differently I can only speculate about the causes of this inhumanity. One thing is certain if God didn't care about the same things you don't care about, you would judge God as evil, and say of Him how could a just God not care about warning people about hidden subconscious matters, and therefore give them a greater strength against powerful and hidden dangers operating outside of their control? To be just means not blaming people for things operating beyond their control. To be compassionate means you don't turn your back on an innocent person who may be headed towards a hidden danger. I can't answer why this is not something Vijay would do. Only Vijay can answer that question for himself. All I can do is speculate, and pull together various insights gleaned from looking and exploring what people say and do. So you hold the answer and if you choose to explore it you can reach enlightenment.
eyesofastranger
Posts: 310
Joined: September 27th, 2011, 6:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Albert Einstein
Location: Canada/China/Oz

Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?

Post by eyesofastranger »

Early man could see he had a spirit different from animals. He could commit acts for personal gain and was easily able to dismiss instinct. So he conjured a god mainframe that guided it all. But chit gods must be good so he then conjured a devil. God was all mainframe so god made the devil. Amusing to me the modern philosophical human. Those with exceeding divinity have more divine right but are somehow not prejudiced to the lowly hell fodder. The great morality that comes from this position has in any breakdown of justice produced blood libels, crusades and inquisitions. Of course. This is the ultimate outcome of any bigotry. Governments love this. A built in imaginary master. We where once ruled by the church. A situation obviously unacceptable in modern justice. The whole story was meant to be based on nature to add a believability factor. The son was the light let in from outside the crystal sphere. The shape shifting Lucifer ruled the underworld then rose in the dangerous night. And yadda yadda I hate long posts.
User avatar
Neznac
Posts: 1652
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 2:31 pm

Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?

Post by Neznac »

Steve3007 wrote:One more incidental point. When you said this in a slightly earlier post:
...but NONE of it gives you the POWER to move people to WANT TO do the things YOU consider profitable, not even your OWN CHILDREN.
What do you mean? You appear, on the face of it, to be telling me that I have so far been unsuccessful in teaching my children about what I consider to be right and wrong. But obviously you can't be saying that because you have absolutely no idea what I say to my children, how I go about teaching them the moral lessons of life, how they react to that, and how it causes them to behave.
Interestingly Steve3007, when I was researching enegue's previous concerning his STI and monogamous hetersexuality posts I read one which made the admission that enegue's son and him have very different moral perspectives and that he cannot even bring up the issue of monogamy with his son, who frankly doesn't wish to discuss these issues with his father. Now enegue may force me to find that statement and requote it, which I guess can be done if one has the time.
enegue
Posts: 1950
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
Favorite Philosopher: God
Location: Australia

Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?

Post by enegue »

Sorry, Steve.

I'm lacking the necessary time to address all this stuff at the moment. I will answer Neznac's last post because it also deals with a point you raised.
Neznac wrote:Interestingly Steve3007, when I was researching enegue's previous concerning his STI and monogamous hetersexuality posts I read one which made the admission that enegue's son and him have very different moral perspectives and that he cannot even bring up the issue of monogamy with his son, who frankly doesn't wish to discuss these issues with his father. Now enegue may force me to find that statement and requote it, which I guess can be done if one has the time.
Why would I bother to do that, it's obvious that you've found it already. Your memory just isn't that good. However, it it timely that you did, because it provides support for something I have just said to Steve, "You have been blessed by a favourable nature and favourable nurture according to a Judeao-Christian ethic, but NONE of it gives you the POWER to move people to WANT TO do the things YOU consider profitable, not even your OWN CHILDREN.".

If you guys think poor leadership and faulty goals are the reason for opposition and rebellion, then you have learned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about life. Opposition is spawned by a heart that TREASURES DIFFERENT THINGS than the heart of the leader. A leader is always going somewhere, and a good leader will ALWAYS ARRIVE where he/she wants to go. Not always, though, with everyone who started out still in tow.

Cheers,
enegue
Vijaydevani
Posts: 2116
Joined: March 28th, 2014, 3:13 am

Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?

Post by Vijaydevani »

Thumos11 wrote:
Vijaydevani wrote:A few theists in the forum are convinced that man is intrinsically evil. They are also convinced that man is made in the image of God. So the question is, why did God make a man in His own image, and make him intrinsically evil, considering that God is intrinsically good? Also, if God is all that is good, how did evil get created? If Satan created evil, who created Satan?
God created beings who could choose between good and evil and did not make anyone intrinsically evil, just as you can choose to protect the innocent by warning them of hidden dangers regarding subconscious matters, most of you would choose not to do so. What makes you make that choice? Did God make you make that choice? No. Seeing as I am a person who would clearly choose differently I can only speculate about the causes of this inhumanity. One thing is certain if God didn't care about the same things you don't care about, you would judge God as evil, and say of Him how could a just God not care about warning people about hidden subconscious matters, and therefore give them a greater strength against powerful and hidden dangers operating outside of their control? To be just means not blaming people for things operating beyond their control. To be compassionate means you don't turn your back on an innocent person who may be headed towards a hidden danger. I can't answer why this is not something Vijay would do. Only Vijay can answer that question for himself. All I can do is speculate, and pull together various insights gleaned from looking and exploring what people say and do. So you hold the answer and if you choose to explore it you can reach enlightenment.
We think too differently for me to comment on anything you say.

This is copied from your post #87 of "christian confusion cont". "Getting back to you Nez, as no Christians have responded to my query which is no surprise to me whatsoever. Why do they pass on the teaching of my theory? Is it because of free will issues? No. It has nothing to do with belief or no belief in free will. It is because it is a good thing to teach, and people are inherently evil. The difference between the Christian and the atheist, is that the Christian knows he or she is inherently evil and it is only through the grace exhibited by Christ that they have any chance of making it into heaven, but the atheist is under the illusion that because social progress has been made that mankind is good."

I think the only difference is that you use the word "inherently" and I used "intrinsically".
A little knowledge is a religious thing.
enegue
Posts: 1950
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
Favorite Philosopher: God
Location: Australia

Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?

Post by enegue »

Steve3007 wrote:enegue said:
I addressed this point in my last post, but you appear to have missed it. Some people by nature DO give consideration to the impact of what they are doing, and DO get involved in education programs of one sort of another, but they DON'T HAVE POWER to move people to WANT TO behave as the ought. How do you change a person's heart? How do you rewrite the list of profitable things etched in stone at the core of their being?


Sorry, but this doesn't address what I said at all. What you appear to be saying here is this:

Some people act for the common good and try to teach others to act for the common good. But they don't have the power to persuade those others to act for the common good.
No, I'm not saying that. I am saying YOU don't have the POWER to move anyone to WANT TO, all by themselves, with no further input from you, because they are not you, act in the manner that you do.

In Jesus' Parable of the Sower, if you were to replace "the kingdom of God" with any other goal and "the wicked one" with the chief source of dissuasion, then the parable will reveal its general application and illustrate well what I'm talking about. Your efforts to pursuade will become COERCION unless/until the goal makes its way to the "good soil" in the HEART of the person you are trying to move. Only then will they move BY THE POWER OF THEIR OWN WILL, come hell or high water, and the direction you have recommended becomes the direction THEY HAVE CHOSEN.
Steve3007 wrote:What I said was simply this: Different people disagree as to what constitutes "acting for the common good". Different people disagree as to what constitutes "considering the impact of what one is doing". You seem to have a curious mental block in not being able to understand this simple idea. It's almost as if you simply cannot comprehend the idea that there might be genuinely different arguments as to how people ought to behave in order to promote well-being for future generations and that both arguments have merits. I don't know why. It's very strange.
What I find puzzling is that you have such a tight grip on YOUR UNBELIEF in regard to GOD'S IDEA of "the common good", but can't get a handle at all on MY UNBELIEF in regard to YOUR IDEA of "the common good". It's not a mental block, Steve. I just don't believe what you are saying. What you are saying is COUNTER TO the evidence of my own eyes.
Steve3007 wrote:You then go on to claim that you have in fact found a way to persuade people to act for the common good and that I have not. You appear to claim that my "path" (what you consider my path to be, I'm not sure) stops me from trying to persuade others to act as I think that they ought, for the common good:

You have chosen your own path and I have chosen mine. Mine includes a solution to how you go about changing hearts, and as far as I can see, yours precludes you from even considering it.

Again, maybe true, maybe not. (Judging by your success rate at persuading people on this site, I'm inclined to doubt it.) But, again, irrelevant to what I said.
Steve, you KNOW what solution I possess that you don't. It's called PRAYER. I can pray for your enlightenment, and I do. YOUR PATH, by virtue of your unbelief, precludes such a tool.

Because of my trust in God, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth", I can petition Him on your behalf, and KNOW WITH SURETY He will do all that is possible to shine a light in your soul in regard to the issues we are discussing. As far as success is concerned, the fact that you're still talking to me is a measure of it, but even if you stopped I would not give up hope that some seed that was sown here found its way to the "good ground" and might be watered by others you encounter in your life.
Steve3007 wrote:Person A behaves as he ought, gives consideration to the impact of his actions on others and acts so as to promote the well-being of future generations.

Person B behaves as he ought, gives consideration to the impact of his actions on others and acts so as to promote the well-being of future generations.

Do you believe that it is still possible for person A and person B to disagree as to the correct courses of action?
If your notion of what constitutes promoting and preserving the well-being of future generations (behaving as one ought) is contrary to God's, then I simply DON'T BELIEVE YOU. You haven't got the runs on the board, and God has. You are a newbie at the game of life, and God isn't. If my boldness in saying that is offensive to your pride, then so be it.
Steve3007 wrote:You are proposing that certain lifestyles, even if they were not themselves directly harmful would lead to entering a world containing people who do clearly mean harm.
No. What I am saying is that lifestyles contrary to those that God esteems, will pollute the water in which we swim and as such will impact negatively on our health and the health of all generations to come. The cost of cleaning up the pollution increases with each successive generation. It's all about the QUALITY OF THE WATER, Steve.

Cheers,
enegue
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?

Post by Steve3007 »

enegue:
No, I'm not saying that. I am saying YOU don't have the POWER to move anyone to WANT TO, all by themselves, with no further input from you, because they are not you, act in the manner you would like them to.
The grammar appears slightly off here, but I think I get what you're saying. You explain more below.
In Jesus' Parable of the Sower, if you were to replace "the kingdom of God" with any other goal and "the wicked one" with the chief source of dissuasion, then the parable will reveal its general application and illustrate well what I'm talking about. Your efforts to pursuade will become COERCION unless/until the goal makes its way to the "good soil" in the HEART of the person you are trying to move. Only then will they move BY THE POWER OF THEIR OWN WILL, come hell or high water, and the direction you have recommended becomes the direction THEY HAVE CHOSEN.
This is true, whether or not one has any religious convictions. I would call it basic common sense. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. When I teach my children what I regard to be the moral lessons of life, in order for them to take hold two things have to be true:

1. I have to believe in what I say.

2. What I say has to resonate with something in them.

The second condition is not always immediately obviously true, but it has to be true eventually. Hence the reason why parents often have to resort to "because I say so" and hence the reason why one of the lessons to teach to children is to trust the wisdom of their elders. And of course this is why it is a very commonly observed truth about life that we only fully appreciate our parents when we have children of our own.

I'm reminded of the Mark Twain quote: "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years." as well as the wit and wisdom of such people as the playwright Alan Bennett.

It appears to me that you are so deeply immersed in the Bible that you cannot conceive of any wisdom coming from anywhere else. I could be wrong, of course. I'm basing my comments only on the evidence of this forum (which is all I have to go on). But, on here, it is striking that every single piece of inspiration that you cite for your worldview is Biblical. Clearly the Bible contains a lot of great wisdom. But I regard that wisdom, like the wisdom from many other literary sources, as being distilled from human experience.
What I find puzzling is that you have such a tight grip on YOUR UNBELIEF in regard to GOD'S IDEA of "the common good", but can't get a handle at all on MY UNBELIEF in regard to YOUR IDEA of "the common good". It's not a mental block, Steve. I just don't believe what you are saying. What you are saying is COUNTER TO the evidence of my own eyes.
I don't understand this comment at all. I don't have a tight grip on an unbelief in anything. Perhaps you're confusing me with some of the militant atheist types that you sometimes talk to? I don't know what you're referring to when you say: "I just don't believe what you are saying." Everything I'm saying? Or just some of it?
Steve, you KNOW what solution I possess that you don't. It's called PRAYER. I can pray for your enlightenment, and I do. YOUR PATH, by virtue of your unbelief, precludes such a tool.
And, as I've said, your path appears, on the face of it, to preclude many sources of wisdom in the world by apparently refusing to believe that it is possible for many different morally upright people to have disagreements and discussions about moral issues.
Because of my trust in God, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth", I can petition Him on your behalf, and KNOW WITH SURETY He will do all that is possible to shine a light in your soul in regard to the issues we are discussing. As far as success is concerned, the fact that you're still talking to me is a measure of it, but even if you stopped I would not give up hope that some seed that was sown here found its way to the "good ground" and might be watered by others you encounter in your life.
Since this appears to be a sincere expression of good will, I do of course appreciate your thoughts.

I am still talking to you mostly because I find you interesting. I'm fairly sure I'm not going to persuade you of anything, and I don't think I'd want to. You seem contented in your particular worldview. Can you understand that other people are also contented with different worldviews?
If your notion of what constitutes promoting and preserving the well-being of future generations is contrary to God's, then I simply DON'T BELIEVE YOU.
This one was said directly underneath a question that I asked. I don't know why, as it doesn't appear to address the question. It's not possible to disbelieve a question. It is only possible to disbelieve a statement.

I guess, possibly, it's supposed to be answering the question with a "no"?
You haven't got the runs on the board, and God has. You are a newbie at the game of life, and God isn't. If my boldness in saying that is offensive to your pride, then so be it.
I may not be an expert on Christianity, but even I know that God is supposed to be considerably, possibly infinitely, older and wiser than me. So I don't know why you would think that saying so would offend anybody's pride.
No. What I am saying is that lifestyles contrary to those that God esteems, will pollute the water in which we swim and as such will impact negatively on our health and the health of all generations to come. The cost of cleaning up the pollution increases with each successive generation. It's all about the QUALITY OF THE WATER, Steve.
OK. I'll ask it again in yet another way: Do you accept that it is possible to have a valid debate as to whether particular lifestyles do in fact pollute the waters in this way? Do you accept that somebody might come along and argue that some of the things that you propose actually pollute the waters? Could they be making such arguments with just as much integrity and concern for the well-being of future generations as yourself?

You appear, here, to be replying in the negative and sticking to your position that anybody who attempts to make such arguments does so for selfish reasons.

Note: When I say "you" here, I realize that you are going to say that it is not actually you, but God, who is making these statements about particular lifestyles. But clearly I'm talking to you, not God. You have these views about particular lifestyles because you have read about them in a book and decided that you agree with them. By all means, for your own purposes, attribute them to a God. But obviously, when we have this discussion it is you and your views that I am addressing.
User avatar
Neznac
Posts: 1652
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 2:31 pm

Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?

Post by Neznac »

Steve3007 wrote:Note: When I say "you" here, I realize that you are going to say that it is not actually you, but God, who is making these statements about particular lifestyles. But clearly I'm talking to you, not God. You have these views about particular lifestyles because you have read about them in a book and decided that you agree with them. By all means, for your own purposes, attribute them to a God. But obviously, when we have this discussion it is you and your views that I am addressing.
My question to enegue would be, if you have picked through the bible and accepted only those words of God with which you agree and ignored or rejected those that rub you the wrong way, how is the moral authority by whom you abide so completely not really you rather than the more authentic version of God. You appear to shy away from directly or explicitly denigrating other lifestyles, which God did many times over, yet with your "polluted waters" analogy you impune those other lifestyles in a general or implicit sense. Can you explain how this happens? Does the moral perspective authored (second handedly) by Jesus trump some of the moral dictates authored by God (also second handedly)? Is your version of these dictates (second, second handedly) still authentic or can we just say that these are your own beliefs?

Statements such as these appear to show how little you value the opinions of others. This was a remark you made to Steve:
You haven't got the runs on the board, and God has. You are a newbie at the game of life, and God isn't. If my boldness in saying that is offensive to your pride, then so be it.
You are casting Steve's character in a negative light as if he is weakly overpowered by pride. Yet it is you and not he who is equating his own moral values with God's moral values, in fact Steve is trying to make the conversation between two humans, but you keep insisting that you are working through the authorization of God. So the pride you feel you might be hurting in Steve is of your own making and has nothing to do with his own personal feelings.

You didn't really answer that superb question that Steve asked about two people with exactly the same motivations coming from very different foundations. You said:
If your notion of what constitutes promoting and preserving the well-being of future generations (behaving as one ought) is contrary to God's, then I simply DON'T BELIEVE YOU.
(I think that an outright "no" would have proven the existence of that mental block that you didn't think existed, so you refrained. But it seems quite obvious that your answer is indeed "no.") Well what if Steve has said that he follows the Confucian principles on promoting and preserving the well being of future generations based on the ethic "Do no harm" or "Do not do unto others what you would not want done to you." Would you reject that ethic because it is contrary to your version of God's?

-- Updated June 14th, 2014, 9:16 pm to add the following --
enegue wrote:Steve, you KNOW what solution I possess that you don't. It's called PRAYER. I can pray for your enlightenment, and I do. YOUR PATH, by virtue of your unbelief, precludes such a tool.
I was waiting anxiously to see the solution you held for convincing others of the efficacy of your approach. Let me say that this was a huge disappointment engue. How's that working with your son?

Did you pick this as the solution because it is working by all your evidence, or was it chosen because you know full well that non-believers have no one to pray to, thus it seemed like a solution they could not claim to possess? Is this your version of a kind of "sleight-of-hand" move; a fake out?
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13784
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?

Post by Belinda »

Enegue wrote:
Steve, you KNOW what solution I possess that you don't. It's called PRAYER. I can pray for your enlightenment, and I do. YOUR PATH, by virtue of your unbelief, precludes such a tool.
Not so. Any prayer that includes an object of prayer risks being an idolatrous prayer. There is small difference between a mental object of prayer and a holy statue or relic.


Anybody can pray, silently if they prefer, without stipulating what or who is to be a recipient of the prayer.

The difference between prayer and day dreaming and so on is that when a man prays he is attending soberly and sincerely to a special concern without his mind wandering off into irrelevancies.

Enegue's claim that only believers can pray is like the similar claim that only believers can appreciate sacred music.
Socialist
eyesofastranger
Posts: 310
Joined: September 27th, 2011, 6:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Albert Einstein
Location: Canada/China/Oz

Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?

Post by eyesofastranger »

Because of my trust in God, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth", I can petition Him on your behalf, and KNOW WITH SURETY He will do all that is possible to shine a light in your soul in regard to the issues we are discussing.
I saw Shrek and it was very entertaining but I still don't believe in fairy tale creatures. I do however believe in prayer. If enough people... will... something then it strangely, despite huge odds, will happen. The will of these tiny blue dot watermites can effect their blue dot to a small degree. And I can't explain the mechanism. I'm not prepared to accept gods or fairy tale creatures. Prayer has value if if enough blue dot watermites want the same thing. They only have to think it, not pray, but the legend makes sense.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?

Post by Steve3007 »

Some points from previous posts that I hadn't noticed until now:

Neznac:
Interestingly Steve3007, when I was researching enegue's previous concerning his STI and monogamous hetersexuality posts I read...
I'm sure this is probably an interesting insight, but I would be reluctant to try to draw many strong conclusions from it. If someone shares some personal information on here, particularly about family, I think it places them in a position of much more vulnerability than when we're all simply talking in impersonal, abstract terms. I'm inclined to respect the bravery of doing that by trying to tread very lightly and sensitively in analyzing it, and by trying to bring to bear as much as possible of my own experiences of family dis-chord.

In my experience, intra-family relationships are unique and personal and it's rarely possible for an outsider to be able to fully understand their complexities. I know you'll probably say that enegue chose to publish this personal information on a public forum so should expect it to be examined. But I like to reply to posts in the spirit in which they appear to be written. I have particular respect for any statements that are self-critical or self-examining or which expose personal things to public scrutiny. If someone posts personal information, knowing of the danger that the subtlety and unique-ness might be lost on strangers, but hoping to communicate something anyway, I'm inclined to try extra hard to understand and not to judge.

enegue:
Sorry, Steve. I'm lacking the necessary time to address all this stuff at the moment. I will answer Neznac's last post because it also deals with a point you raised.
No worries. I know this whole philosophy forum thing can be terribly time-consuming so don't worry if you don't have time to explicitly address everything. The trouble with this kind of remote, written conversation is that it lacks the normal cues and clues of a face-to-face verbal conservation. In such a conversation, often when one person says something, the other can simply nod, or smile to show that they've heard and understood, but don't necessarily feel the need to reply. In this written environment that's not possible, except perhaps with the clumsy, artificial mechanism of "emoticons". So it can look as though large sections of what one says are being ignored. But hopefully we all understand that that's not true. enegue:
If you guys think poor leadership and faulty goals are the reason for opposition and rebellion, then you have learned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about life. Opposition is spawned by a heart that TREASURES DIFFERENT THINGS than the heart of the leader. A leader is always going somewhere, and a good leader will ALWAYS ARRIVE where he/she wants to go. Not always, though, with everyone who started out still in tow.
I guess I'm one of the "you guys" group! So I'll comment on this.

As I hope I've communicated, in the realm of morality I believe that opposition and rebellion can be caused by various things, but a major cause is what could be characterized as "going against the grain". Good leadership resonates with something that is already in the heart of the follower. I think, on that point, we agree.

Of course, this principle can work for good or ill. The classic example of it working for ill might be something like the expert skill of a leader like Hitler in knowing how to prompt and prod people down a path that he knows they will find it easy to take if he presents it in the right way - playing on various pre-existing fears and gently, gradually magnifying them.

This, I think, we both agree on. We simply disagree on specific points about specific moral issues regarding the future benefit, or otherwise, of various ways of living. The fact that you take your cues for these issues from the Bible and, therefore (you would claim) from God means that you would, I think, regard the disagreement as being about more than that. But, as I said, all that I see is your opinions. The thing that you claim them to be inspired by does not stop them from being your opinions.

---

And back up to date:

Neznac:
My question to enegue would be, if you have picked through the bible and accepted only those words of God with which you agree and ignored or rejected those that rub you the wrong way, how is the moral authority by whom you abide so completely not really you rather than the more authentic version of God. You appear to shy away from directly or explicitly denigrating other lifestyles, which God did many times over, yet with your "polluted waters" analogy you impune those other lifestyles in a general or implicit sense. Can you explain how this happens? Does the moral perspective authored (second handedly) by Jesus trump some of the moral dictates authored by God (also second handedly)? Is your version of these dictates (second, second handedly) still authentic or can we just say that these are your own beliefs?
I think you're right to point out that enegue always tends to criticize these lifestyles in indirect, metaphorical ways. And, as you say, this does seem to suggest, on the face of it, an unwillingness to directly state clear opinions about them.

I suspect, though, that enegue would claim that he does not selectively accept the moral authority of the Bible as you've suggested. I suspect that, unlike many other theists, he will say that he accepts all of it.

Neznac:
You are casting Steve's character in a negative light as if he is weakly overpowered by pride. Yet it is you and not he who is equating his own moral values with God's moral values, in fact Steve is trying to make the conversation between two humans, but you keep insisting that you are working through the authorization of God. So the pride you feel you might be hurting in Steve is of your own making and has nothing to do with his own personal feelings.
I think this is a good comment, and I agree with it. As you say, I am trying to draw from enegue a clear answer to the question of whether two different human beings, both of whom are motivated by a genuine desire to act for the future good of humanity, can have an honest disagreement about the actions and words that are most likely to achieve that goal. And both of whom have some genuinely good arguments to make.

Neznac:
You didn't really answer that superb question that Steve asked about two people with exactly the same motivations coming from very different foundations. You said:

"If your notion of what constitutes promoting and preserving the well-being of future generations (behaving as one ought) is contrary to God's, then I simply DON'T BELIEVE YOU."

(I think that an outright "no" would have proven the existence of that mental block that you didn't think existed, so you refrained. But it seems quite obvious that your answer is indeed "no.") Well what if Steve has said that he follows the Confucian principles on promoting and preserving the well being of future generations based on the ethic "Do no harm" or "Do not do unto others what you would not want done to you." Would you reject that ethic because it is contrary to your version of God's?
I agree that the curious wording of the reply to my question suggests a desire, on enegue's part, to obfuscate the answer. I can't think of any other reason why one would answer a question with the statement: "I simply don't believe you."

Neznac:
I was waiting anxiously to see the solution you held for convincing others of the efficacy of your approach. Let me say that this was a huge disappointment engue. How's that working with your son?
As I said at the top, what you choose to say is up to you, but I personally want to tread sensitively on this, as I would hope others would do for me if I shared some information about the intricacies of my family relationships. But, on the general point I do agree that no convincing case has yet been made for the efficacy of the God-backed approach to moral leadership.
Did you pick this as the solution because it is working by all your evidence, or was it chosen because you know full well that non-believers have no one to pray to, thus it seemed like a solution they could not claim to possess? Is this your version of a kind of "sleight-of-hand" move; a fake out?
I think what we're talking about here is the classic case that is usually made for the strength of "moral absolutism" versus "moral relativism". In a nutshell, I think that the case falls down for this reason: When an absolutist tells a wrong-doer that his actions are absolutely wrong because they violate God's laws, he assumes that this gives them some absolute authority in the eyes of the wrong-doer as well as in his own eyes. But of course, there's no reason to believe this to be true. And, in fact, if the wrong-doer then simply makes a counter-claim about God's law, no further negotiation can be possible.

But this is a big subject that, I think, needs a more detailed treatment than I can post here.

Belinda:
Not so. Any prayer that includes an object of prayer risks being an idolatrous prayer. There is small difference between a mental object of prayer and a holy statue or relic.

Anybody can pray, silently if they prefer, without stipulating what or who is to be a recipient of the prayer.

The difference between prayer and day dreaming and so on is that when a man prays he is attending soberly and sincerely to a special concern without his mind wandering off into irrelevancies.

Enegue's claim that only believers can pray is like the similar claim that only believers can appreciate sacred music.
I think that's a good point, Belinda. I think that a prayer can simply be an act of hope, even in the absence of a God, just as respect for an old church can be an act of reverence for age and collected wisdom, in the absence of a God.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021