Man is Evil

[coffeeelover]

If a housewife watches someone elses kids free of charge, then no that does not make her evil. I'm failing to see your point.

My point is that there are good people in the world.

If Charles manson fed all of his "family" and kept them in favorable quality of life, is he more good or evil?

I don't know if concepts of good or evil really apply to the criminally insane.

Adam is known for eating the forbidden fruit. By this ONE act all of humanity is condemned to die except the propitiation by the second Adam.

If Adam's only offense was eating a fruit, how much more abundantly wicked is the housewife? The scriptures have concluded all under sin that none is good.

There was no literal Adam or any literal fruit or talking snake. It is a story.

If I killed your mother, and 10 20 30 years go by and since then I have not broken one law, or offended a single person EVER and I give to charity and volunteer and transformed into an all around "good guy" perfectly blameless in every way and do all manner of good works every single day of my life and forensic science catches up to me, you gonna let me go? Is the judge?

I would not let you go, and neither would a judge.

one stain ruins the finest of linen. One blot on our record tarnishes all of our "good" doings.

One stain does not tarnish all our good doings.

It's possible that one may not be "evil" but they certainly are not GOOD. Just something in the middle.

I don't know that anyone is either all good or all evil. We all fall in the great middle.

 

[theLords]

I can use my own judgement on most topics.

That doesn't answer the question.

You stated that man is good. Who's standard of "good" are you using?

 

[Alabaster]

What about the story of the flood 4,000 years ago? Or the Tower of Babel after that?

Science finds those things couldn't have happened. What is your opinion on those?

The word of God is correct. Science will catch up one day. It always does.

 

[Ashua]

The word of God is correct. Science will catch up one day. It always does.

That's mighty optimistic considering the way academia is... I have a feeling judgment day is closer at hand than science can afford the time to reform. ;)

 

[Ashua]

I don't drink anything from 2 litre bottles.

typical. I used that as a way to demonstrate the proportions of spit to "good" liquid. A "little" bad in a body of good.

The point still stands. I'm waiting for someone to address the point rather than the semantics.

 

[Alabaster]

That's mighty optimistic considering the way academia is... I have a feeling judgment day is closer at hand than science can afford the time to reform. ;)

Academia doesn't measure up to God's word. Science is merely what we have learned about God's handiwork so far. Eh?

You are right. Science is way behind what God does....comin' up the rear. God does something, and science discovers it, thinking it did it.

 

[coffeeelover]

Academia doesn't measure up to God's word. Science is merely what we have learned about God's handiwork so far. Eh?

You are right. Science is way behind what God does....comin' up the rear. God does something, and science discovers it, thinking it did it.

Its unlikely the world and knowledge is an illusion like the matrix.

 

[coffeeelover]

If I spit in a 2 litre bottle of your favorite drink is it still worth drinking? Does the good outweigh the bad?

So a little bit of evil contaminates a world of good.

To determine if the bottle is still worth drinking one needs more information. Do I have any more of my favorite drink? How much more? Do you have a disease I could catch from your spit? Maybe I'm in the desert and will die if I don't drink it. In which case I sure would be great to have a 2 liter of water even with a little spit.

 

[Deavonreye]

To determine if the bottle is still worth drinking one needs more information. Do I have any more of my favorite drink? How much more? Do you have a disease I could catch from your spit? Maybe I'm in the desert and will die if I don't drink it. In which case I sure would be great to have a 2 liter of water even with a little spit.

Dude, that is a great post.

It comes down to persective. In christianity, "no one is good", therefore "everyone is evil". It is a mindset that keeps people down and unworthy. . . .and they say this to kids [if that isn't child abuse, I don't know what is]! I'm sorry that christianity has such a low opinion of everyone who has ever existed, but I don't share that ideology. Sure, there ARE those who were just born rotten, but that's what prisons are for.

But yes, if a person was in the desert, dying of thirst, and WOULD die without some liquid, spit in a 2 liter bottle of water would be awesome.

 

[Deavonreye]

That doesn't answer the question.

You stated that man is good. Who's standard of "good" are you using?

You are stacking that question. "Who" is suggesting that one person holds the standard. We all are able to define what is good, and our judicial system is a result of it. People are social creatures and must fall under a level of appropriateness, or be locked away for the good of socieity.

 

[Alabaster]

You are stacking that question. "Who" is suggesting that one person holds the standard. We all are able to define what is good, and our judicial system is a result of it. People are social creatures and must fall under a level of appropriateness, or be locked away for the good of socieity.

The point you miss is that only God is good, and it is His standard that matters. No one is good apart from God.

 

[theLords]

You are stacking that question. "Who" is suggesting that one person holds the standard. We all are able to define what is good, and our judicial system is a result of it. People are social creatures and must fall under a level of appropriateness, or be locked away for the good of socieity.

So the majority determines what is good? What about those outside of the West?

 

[Ashua]

To determine if the bottle is still worth drinking one needs more information. Do I have any more of my favorite drink? How much more? Do you have a disease I could catch from your spit? Maybe I'm in the desert and will die if I don't drink it. In which case I sure would be great to have a 2 liter of water even with a little spit.

No it doesn't. You're trying to divert again. Whether or not you are willing to overlook the contamination based off of any circumstances is void. Your argument is actually admitting that the contaminated drink is profane --but whether or not you will tolerate it is based off of circumstances. If you were not in a desert or you had other sources of drink you would pass on the spit mixture. That is an admission that that which is contaminated by even the smallest impurity is profaned in spite of the "good" content which is also present.

I'm not going to say that all people are "evil" but NO ONE is "good". in relative terms there are good people and there are bad people -- in absolute terms no one is good. As a whole mankind IS evil.

Circumstances may persuade you to "suffer evil for a season" such as the spit drink, but you certainly wouldn't consider it "good" if you had to drink it, whether or not you concede that it is "good" FOR you to consume in order to survive --it is still corrupt substance. This is why you try to block it out of your mind while it passes down your throat. You know in your hearts of hearts it is not good. It is what they refer to as a "necessary evil".

 

[Deavonreye]

The point you miss is that only God is good, and it is His standard that matters. No one is good apart from God.

Even if that standard is no longer moral to modern times? I understand that "good" is actually ONLY "being obedient" and has nothing to do with our actual understanding of what is good.

 

[Deavonreye]

So the majority determines what is good? What about those outside of the West?

Our judicial system does not transfer to other countries. What some countries do could be considered immoral if it serves to damage the progress of mankind. No, our judicial system isn't all in all, and has flaws, . . . but even the 10 commandments weren't thought up by the Hebrew people. [or the claim that their god did].

 

[theLords]

Our judicial system does not transfer to other countries. What some countries do could be considered immoral if it serves to damage the progress of mankind. No, our judicial system isn't all in all, and has flaws, . . . but even the 10 commandments weren't thought up by the Hebrew people. [or the claim that their god did].

So truth is subjective and flawed, and is determined by culture and the current times?

 

[Ashua]

Our judicial system does not transfer to other countries. What some countries do could be considered immoral if it serves to damage the progress of mankind. No, our judicial system isn't all in all, and has flaws, . . . but even the 10 commandments weren't thought up by the Hebrew people. [or the claim that their god did].

Say I quarantine everyone in the entire world who has HIV or AIDs and then I systematically euthanize them no different than hitler except in a less 'terrible' way and under less 'terrible' conditions.

Now every carrier of the virus in the entire world is dead, and so the virus is dead with them. Wouldn't you say this "progresses mankind"? Wouldn't you say in the long run after a few generations have passed, the number of casualties pales to the number of people who live who would have otherwise contracted HIV/AIDs and perished? In one great sacrifice the virus is forever purged from the planet.

Is this a moral action? It progresses the well being of humanity.

If we do NOT commit this action, are we then immoral? We could have averted the spread to billions over the next few centuries. Not doing so fails to progress humanity.

secular humanism lulz.

 

[Deavonreye]

Of course it isn't moral because it harms those who would have been killed. It makes people of no value. . . . . . . . which is understandable that you would suggest that since the bible hold no worth on human beings.

 

[coffeeelover]

So truth is subjective and flawed, and is determined by culture and the current times?

Truth is subjective.

 

[Ashua]

Of course it isn't moral because it harms those who would have been killed. It makes people of no value. . . . . . . . which is understandable that you would suggest that since the bible hold no worth on human beings.

I'm sure you understand how exponents work in mathematics

2
4
16
256
65,536
4,294,967,296

And so no..

So you are saying the lives of a few million people today are worth more than the exponential number of lives that will be scourged by it in the future? How do you value human life? By the myopic viewpoint of the present tense? How many people are alive today right now breathing this very moment who do not have aids that WILL acquire it in their lifetimes. Doing this HIV/Aids holocaust spares them the disease. Have you ever had to tell someone they are HIV positive? It could all be avoided with one "tough decision" forevermore.

Of course, it is murder. But is it any less murder if you watch someone die when you could have saved them?