Good and Evil

[Kuri]

I don't want to start a serious debate or anything special like that, but rather a list. How do you personally interpret something as good or evil.

I know there's all that fancy philosphy that without evil there would be no good etc etc, but I just want to hear what are the requirements of something to be good or to be evil

Are all things one or the other? And so forth... I'm too tired to make a nice post so sorry

[Napsterbater]

I don't think in terms of good and evil.

[Shishio]

Things that benefit me are good, things that do not are irrelevant or bad.

[Mittens]

Well.. Evil is a pretty strong word there.. (Not if you're joking with someone and calling them evil for a minor fault of course ^^)

What I define as evil would probably be something along the lines of, murder, rape, child pr0n etc etc.
Then you have scenarios like... Lets say that someone is hanging off a cliff, and you were the only person that could save them. But you choose to walk away without guilt nor feel any remorse later. Thats pretty fuckin' evil if you ask me.

Good, of course is all that makes ya smile; sleep, love, praise etc etc. Then again, the last 2 can lead to evil though:

Love > Lust > Jealousy > Possibly an extreme
Praise > Jealousy from another person try to get praise > Sabotage

Im a little high so the last two lines.. Yeah they make no sense to me either.
(( Just for the record, I get high on air ))

[Overkongen]

Religion is evil.

[otro34]

I don't know. those concepts depend on the society, What we usually call good or evil are those things that we learned were that way,,,

[Trump]

To me, evil is intentionally hurting a person and good is looking out for someone besides yourself.

[Idlethought]

It's hard to label something, or anything, as absolutely good or absolutely evil. What's good for you might be bad for someone else, everything is relative. I tend to go with what's good for the majority is good, though sometimes I feel that even that isnt true.

[ReverendC]

Religion is evil.


Not really. Whether you believe that religion is a result of divine inspiration or the expression of cultural and spiritual values, it still boils down to a man made set of rules. Communism is often thought of as evil, especially by those who have suffered under a communist regime. Yet there are certain tribal cultures that were completely and perfectly communistic and considered quite benign, almost utopian.

Religion, like communist government, is a collection of explicit rules and not of intrinsic values. Any explicit rule structure can be manipulated to further the ends of a person or group, which may or may not be beneficent. But an explicit rule structure can define and preserve those aspects that maintain cultural identity.

[Overkongen]

Okay, I suppose that in theory, religion doesn't have to be evil. So if I instead say that a lot of the evil in this world comes from religion, would that work better. I can elaborate if you really want me to, but I'm guessing you don't.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Religion is evil.

Nice you could blurt something out without backing up your statement. Because your opinion of course matters to me when you say something that is part of my life is evil.

So in retrospect you are calling me evil as well.

Way to go.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Okay, I suppose that in theory, religion doesn't have to be evil. So if I instead say that a lot of the evil in this world comes from religion, would that work better. I can elaborate if you really want me to, but I'm guessing you don't.

Can you honestly sit down and say that.

Religion is evil? Is that because they are completely opposite of everyone of your views and opinions. I don't know your stance on things of the world, but I can assume your an athiest.

Religious people would think you are evil and are influanced by the devil, but you will of course find so many points to tell yourself, me and everyone else that no one controls you or gives you any influance and everything is under your control.

Some people will look back in the past and say "Look at all the wars that was caused due to religion, look at all the current ones now."

Does that mean it's the religion's fault? No. It's the people who are part of that religion. All through history people influanced by religion or are religious figures think greatly of it and ignore some aspects of it just to prove their God is better than the other. You don't NEED to prove that to everyone. Man is a flawed creature and we make mistakes.

Don't blame religion on the mistakes of man.

[Darth_E_]

Religion is evil.
I never knew communism and fascism were religious. Did the mongols who wrecked half of the world centuries ago have their own religion? Perhaps the two nuclear weapons dropped on Japan had their own religion too, hmm ?

*nods and agrees with number17*

[DesertLily]

Religion doesn't kill people, fanatics kill people. Don't blame religion, blame it on the people who decide to kill people who don't share their beliefs. Read the New Testament...nowhere does it tell people to kill anyone who doesn't believe in Christ. And yet the Crusades happened.

Even if there were no religions in the world, people would STILL find some reason to kill thousands of people who didn't agree with them on SOMETHING. It's not religion causing people to do what they do, it's pure human nature. Religion is just what they use as an excuse.

But anyway.

Good: Cupcakes
Evil: Sticking it in her pooper

[King Kong]

Religion is evil.

Speaking from a realist Atheist perspective, I believe that statement is incorrect. Some religions aim to bring people together reguardless of faith, race or social standing. Some of the first humanist organisations were religions.

Evil can come as a result of people following their religion incorrectly.
Although I cannot doubt the fact that some religions are rather segregated in their views and do provoke violence amongst non-believers.

Surely, Buddhism is not an evil religion?

[otro34]

Evil can come from any kind of excess... even love.

I think religions (well, most of them) help people to stay in a "correct" and "proper" life. Everyone has its own things, but most of them are about living in a healthy, safe and happy way.

Anyway. Nothing (not a single thing is this world) is evil by itself. we are the ones that decide how they are eventually used...

[MrQ]

Okay, I suppose that in theory, religion doesn't have to be evil. So if I instead say that a lot of the evil in this world comes from religion, would that work better. I can elaborate if you really want me to, but I'm guessing you don't.


Ignorance at its finest.

[otro34]

Ignorance at its finest.

I don't think he's totally wrong.

Most wars in the history of the world have come from religion...

Now, that doesn't mean that religion doesn't bring any good.

[Overkongen]

Aight, sorry to have pissed some of you off like that. I actually wrote my first post as a short reply, and figured it'd stand alone, and not get commented, and likely ignored. The reason for my not elaborating much on it is that I have posted a few longer posts in some old threads, where I argue my point of view when it comes to religion.

Anywho. Religion scares me. I don't get it. I can't really figure out who this invisible guy you're talking to is, and I'm afraid what he'll ask you to do, and if you're going to think about that request, or just do it.

It's like, I know that fanatics are giving religious people a bad name. On the other hand, as I understand it, they have the quotes to back up what they're doing, so I still consider them true believers.

Evil can come as a result of people following religion correctly.

Darth E, please do notice that I don't say that religion is the only evil thing in the world. Thusly, I can't use your post for much.

number17, I AM sorry that I offended you, try to understand, I have troubles with god. If you read my earlier posts, you'll see that if god exists, he is going to send me to hell, where I shall suffer for all eternity, because of something I did when I was 10... http://www.outpostnine.com/forum/showthread.php?p=51460#post51460

And yeah... read the rest of that thread, y'all, if you want to see me talk more seriously about religion. It's just that it depresses the shit out of me.

[otro34]

Well, in the bible says that God Won't interfere in the life of men. So, i don't think he's doing anything. Anything at all. I do believe that what happens in life happens for a reason and most of the time we won't know what that reason is... Life is Cruel, mean... it's real.

[MrQ]

Aight, sorry to have pissed some of you off like that. I actually wrote my first post as a short reply, and figured it'd stand alone, and not get commented, and likely ignored. The reason for my not elaborating much on it is that I have posted a few longer posts in some old threads, where I argue my point of view when it comes to religion.

Anywho. Religion scares me. I don't get it. I can't really figure out who this invisible guy you're talking to is, and I'm afraid what he'll ask you to do, and if you're going to think about that request, or just do it.

It's like, I know that fanatics are giving religious people a bad name. On the other hand, as I understand it, they have the quotes to back up what they're doing, so I still consider them true believers.

Evil can come as a result of people following religion correctly.

Darth E, please do notice that I don't say that religion is the only evil thing in the world. Thusly, I can't use your post for much.

number17, I AM sorry that I offended you, try to understand, I have troubles with god. If you read my earlier posts, you'll see that if god exists, he is going to send me to hell, where I shall suffer for all eternity, because of something I did when I was 10... http://www.outpostnine.com/forum/showthread.php?p=51460#post51460

And yeah... read the rest of that thread, y'all, if you want to see me talk more seriously about religion. It's just that it depresses the shit out of me.

Guy, you need some help.

Open your horizons a bit. The idea that religion is responsible for the majority of evils in our world is not founded with the facts.

The 20th century has killed more people than all other centuries combined (roughly). The systems responsible for this evil was not religious.

Stalin, Hitler, Polpot, etc. At least 15 million people were killed under these systems.

After Christianity hit the map in the first century, our whole world turned upside down. Women went from being chattle, to being people. The poor went from being rubbish, to having a voice. Basically, the amount of good brought into our world by "religion" far outweighs any evil some did over the centuries in the name of god.

[Overkongen]

I disagree with you. I never said that religion was responsible for the majority of evils in our world, just like I didn't tell Darth that religion is the only evil thing in this world. Still, I could talk at length about women still not being treated like equals even though there was religion, slavery that was allowed by the catholic church, and so on, but seeing how you think I need help, I'll just stop talking with you instead. (BTW, I'm pretty sure Hitler was a christian.)

King Kong, I forgot to answer you earlier. I agree. I haven't elaborated a whole lot on this, but I consider the three monotheistic religions to be the troublemakers. I don't know a lot about Buddhism, but I think it's okay.

[DesertLily]

Uh, Hitler was NOT Christian. I'm pretty sure that he was atheist.

Unless I read it wrong. But whatever, he never did what he did in the name of any religion, so I'd have to say that that has fuck all to do with it.

Although I can understand where you're coming from, with your earlier post and whatnot. I'm not railing on you or anything, if that's what you think. Can't say the same for others, but whatever.

[otro34]

After Christianity hit the map in the first century, our whole world turned upside down. Women went from being chattle, to being people. The poor went from being rubbish, to having a voice. Basically, the amount of good brought into our world by "religion" far outweighs any evil some did over the centuries in the name of god.


Ok. You can be a religious person, but you CANNOT believe that's true. I mean, to support something you HAVE to know evey aspect of it, not JUST the good things.

Let's say Hitler. He heated Jewish people not only because he believe the germans had the best race ever, but because they "killed" Jesus. BTW, 65 million people died on WWII.

And the bible is just about THE most sexist book EVER. It gives men a special place (and u don't come and tell me that's not true).

Because of Christianity, cience had a dark time that lasted almost 1000 years. People could not develop cience without risking being called a pagan and, well, die.

And. If You actually read the bible you'll find that most people don't understand the gaspels at all. Jesus didn't come to bring peace, that's once thing i know for sure...

[DesertLily]

And. If You actually read the bible you'll find that most people don't understand the gaspels at all. Jesus didn't come to bring peace, that's once thing i know for sure...
Okay, so what did he say if it wasn't a message of peace? Because I KNOW he didn't say go off and kill people, or be judgmental, or anything like that.

[Overkongen]

http://kevin.davnet.org/essays/hitler.html

I looked around on a few web-pages, this is the one that gives the most objective view, I think. Seems he was a christian, but pretty far from your average mainstream believer.

[gyoza]

Yep, Hitler wasn't Christian. He did realize the enormous influence the Church had in Germany at the time, so he made agreements with Church leaders along the lines of "you don't attack me in speech or writing, and I let you keep your autonomy". So his collaboration with the Church at the time didn't indicate he was a Christian, but rather just using religion for personal gain (which is the source of most if not all of the religious-based conflicts throughout history). :)

EDIT: I should type faster.

[MrQ]

I disagree with you. I never said that religion was responsible for the majority of evils in our world, just like I didn't tell Darth that religion is the only evil thing in this world. Still, I could talk at length about women still not being treated like equals even though there was religion, slavery that was allowed by the catholic church, and so on, but seeing how you think I need help, I'll just stop talking with you instead. (BTW, I'm pretty sure Hitler was a christian.)

King Kong, I forgot to answer you earlier. I agree. I haven't elaborated a whole lot on this, but I consider the three monotheistic religions to be the troublemakers. I don't know a lot about Buddhism, but I think it's okay.

You disagree with what? Your statement "Religion is evil" shows a good deal of ignorance.

Sure there are some evil cults out but I dont think you were referring to that.

Guy, get informed please.

1. Slavery had nothing to do with religion. The oldest forms of slavery had to do with economic reasons. In ancient times people willingly sold themselves into slavery to pay off debts. It was an acceptable action in ancient times. In dealing with American slavery, of course it was totally twisted to serve a truly evil idealogy. One that said the color of ones skin made one better than another. All sorts of evil came from this line of thinking.

2. Hitler was not a Christian. This is why I encourage you to get informed.

3. Im dealing with facts in referring to the deaths caused by non religious systems in the 20th century. You can easily get the estimates of the death tolls of those evil systems if you do a bit of a homework. Its mind blowing.

4. When Christianity came on the map, it didnt immediately eradicate all the evils in this world. That is not what I said. What it did do is plant seeds in the hearts and minds of people who eventually brought about these changes in the world. Examine Rome pre-1st century and after to get a glimpse at this.

Your last statements show your true colors. Whatever, or whoever hurt you in the past is not enough reason for you to make outlandish statements that dont have a basis in reality.

[Bondolon]

After Christianity hit the map in the first century, our whole world turned upside down. Women went from being chattle, to being people. The poor went from being rubbish, to having a voice. Basically, the amount of good brought into our world by "religion" far outweighs any evil some did over the centuries in the name of god.

I'm not completely sure where you're coming from on this last part. The introduction of christianity led to a dark age of humanity, in which women were wholly oppressed and the majority of people weren't even able to legally voice dissatisfaction with the eccumenical governments. For most of history (for the sake of argument, just take it back to Greece), things have been pretty egalitarian. There's a reason that the dark ages are called dark... they were probably the lowest that humanity has ever gotten. The renaissance saw a shift towards more egalitarian society, but the renaissance was a humanist movement (not religious).

[otro34]

Okay, so what did he say if it wasn't a message of peace? Because I KNOW he didn't say go off and kill people, or be judgmental, or anything like that.

Well, he didn't say anything up front.

But he did wanted people to sell their clothes and buy a sword. :P

Judgmental? He was the first.

And Violent too.

Although i do think most things He said were an example of life, a lot of other stuff was just interpreted at church, an then said to peole so they would stop interpreting the gaspels by them self. Another example... let's see... there's no one time Jesus said anything bad about homosexualism. :P

[otro34]

I'm not completely sure where you're coming from on this last part. The introduction of christianity led to a dark age of humanity, in which women were wholly oppressed and the majority of people weren't even able to legally voice dissatisfaction with the eccumenical governments. For most of history (for the sake of argument, just take it back to Greece), things have been pretty egalitarian. There's a reason that the dark ages are called dark... they were probably the lowest that humanity has ever gotten. The renaissance saw a shift towards more egalitarian society, but the renaissance was a humanist movement (not religious).

Agreed!

People wasn't even aloud to think... ¬¬

[DesertLily]

Well, he didn't say anything up front.

But he did wanted people to sell their clothes and buy a sword. :P

Judgmental? He was the first.

And Violent too.

Although i do think most things He said were an example of life, a lot of other stuff was just interpreted at church, an then said to peole so they would stop interpreting the gaspels by them self. Another example... let's see... there's no one time Jesus said anything bad about homosexualism. :P
*blinks* I'm trying to figure out where you're getting this from. I HAVE read the Gospels, all four of them, and I have no clue what you're talking about.

Although you're right, he never once mentioned homosexuality. So how does that prove he's violent and doesn't want peace? As I recall, he said something along the lines of, oh, what was it, "Love you neighbor as yourself" and so on? Not only that, but he accepted the worst kinds of people, treated them with respect. The ones he DIDN'T have respect for were those who considered themselves better than everyone else, saying that they had no sin and had the right to damn those around them.

Anyway, isn't this thread supposed to be about good and evil? Why has it suddenly turned into a Christianity debate?

[Kreig]

According to Kant (THE Enlightment philosoph) there is nothing good except for the good will. Only the intention to do sth. good can really be called good, for executions of good will can still take over evil forms.

Besides this, God is good!
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone." (Mk. 10,18)

[Bondolon]

Judgmental? He was the first.

And Violent too.

Although i do think most things He said were an example of life, a lot of other stuff was just interpreted at church, an then said to peole so they would stop interpreting the gaspels by them self. Another example... let's see... there's no one time Jesus said anything bad about homosexualism. :P

man... you seem to have a pretty skewed perspective on the gospels.

"Judge not, lest ye be judge?" seems to directly contradict your judgemental thing.

As for the violence thing, check this out:
Matthew, 5:21 "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' 22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.

This pretty clearly says, "don't only not kill, don't even get mad". Again, this seems to contradict wholly your thing about him being violent.

I'd agree that the Catholic church made it a point for quite some time to keep people from disagreeing with them, but I can't imagine how this reflects badly on Jesus.

[otro34]

*blinks* I'm trying to figure out where you're getting this from. I HAVE read the Gospels, all four of them, and I have no clue what you're talking about.

Although you're right, he never once mentioned homosexuality. So how does that prove he's violent and doesn't want peace? As I recall, he said something along the lines of, oh, what was it, "Love you neighbor as yourself" and so on?

That's why His message is still unclear.

Well, i would quote, BUT, i'm used to reading the bible in spanish. I want to look for an english version so i don't change things translating stuff.

He was violent. Didn't he went all crazy with the people on the temple? What would you do in a situation like that?

[Kreig]

Another example... let's see... there's no one time Jesus said anything bad about homosexualism. :P

Well, not Jesus himself, but the Bible still says:

" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (3.Mose 18,22)

[otro34]

man... you seem to have a pretty skewed perspective on the gospels.

"Judge not, lest ye be judge?" seems to directly contradict your judgemental thing.

As for the violence thing, check this out:
Matthew, 5:21 "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' 22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.

This pretty clearly says, "don't only not kill, don't even get mad". Again, this seems to contradict wholly your thing about him being violent.

I'd agree that the Catholic church made it a point for quite some time to keep people from disagreeing with them, but I can't imagine how this reflects badly on Jesus.

No, i don't thing Jesus was bad. I just think His Message has been manipulated. :)

[Kreig]

He was violent. Didn't he went all crazy with the people on the temple? What would you do in a situation like that?

The verse you're referring to:
"Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves." (Mt. 20,10)

Where's the violence please?

[DesertLily]

That's why His message is still unclear.

Well, i would quote, BUT, i'm used to reading the bible in spanish. I want to look for an english version so i don't change things translating stuff.

He was violent. Didn't he went all crazy with the people on the temple? What would you do in a situation like that?
He let loose all the animals that were being sold, he turned over the tables where they were dealing money and all that. They were defiling the temple, using it for personal gain rather than using it to serve God.

Also, did he touch a single one of those people? Did he hurt them? No, he did not.

Once again, this is a thread about good and evil, NOT a religious discussion.

[Overkongen]

The caste system of Hinduism is pretty darn good at promoting slavely. But I digress. Could you just throw me a bunch of bible-quotes that clearly state that slavery is not allowed? 'Cuz I've seen loads of quotes from OT, where it sounds kind of okay to have slaves (I'll still argue that OT is part of the bible, if we disagree, we disagree, let's leave it at that)

According to the link I posted earlier, I don't think it's really clear if Hitler was christian or not. I am aware that you can find web-pages that clearly state that he was atheist. I can also find pages that clearly state that he was christian. As I said, the page I found was the one that seemed most objective to me. That's me getting informed. Now you do the same.

I'm not going to argue that non religious systems have caused loads of deaths in this century. It still doesn't take away the fact that religious systems have killed loads of people as well.

I liked Rome pre-1st century. You're going to have to elaborate a bit on this one.

Your last statement, about my last statement, I don't get.

[otro34]

Well, not Jesus himself, but the Bible still says:

And if you believe what Jesus says, you'll know that the Ancient Testament (is that ok? or is it Old Testament? :boggled: ) no longer applies.


He let loose all the animals that were being sold, he turned over the tables where they were dealing money and all that. They were defiling the temple, using it for personal gain rather than using it to serve God.

Also, did he touch a single one of those people? Did he hurt them? No, he did not.


So, you'll do that a in such a situation :P

[h2orowe]

" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (3.Mose 18,22)
That sounds pretty anti-Drag queen to me >_>; not anti-homo sexual.

OK
The whole religion is bad thing, right? Well, if you're going to say Hitler was bad because he was Christian, that's like blaming a person's skin color for comitting a crime:
OH HE'S WHITE?! ALL WHITE PEOPLE KILL
OH HE'S BLACK?! ALL BLACK PEOPLE KILL
The only way I'd see religion as a legitimate reason for using in an arguement of motives for why someone kills someone, or does something bad, is the extermists, and extremists are just douches that like watching other people suffer.
Muslim extremists are bad, but I'd rather be blown up than be preached to by a Christian extremist.

What about that whole "God hates fags" deal? That's a pretty hypocritical website. It's trying to spread hate and intolerence, while using the name of God. Yeah, I doubt God would like that.

[Kreig]

I think I would - but am I God's son?


Back to topic - What else is good or evil???

[Bondolon]

And if you believe what Jesus says, you'll know that the Ancient Testament (is that ok? or is it Old Testament? :boggled: ) no longer applies.

Well, you're just throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Any church position still uses the Old Testament, except when it contradicts the New Testament, in which case the New takes precedence over the Old.

[MrQ]

Ok. You can be a religious person, but you CANNOT believe that's true. I mean, to support something you HAVE to know evey aspect of it, not JUST the good things.

Let's say Hitler. He heated Jewish people not only because he believe the germans had the best race ever, but because they "killed" Jesus. BTW, 65 million people died on WWII.

In response to many evils in this world was caused by religion, I respond with a majority of good things in this world was caused by religion. My position is supported by the facts.

Hitler killed jews because they killed Jesus? Uh??? Where did you come to believe such a thing? This demonstrates a lack of knowledge on your behalf.

And the bible is just about THE most sexist book EVER. It gives men a special place (and u don't come and tell me that's not true).

It is? Ive read the bible from cover to cover and didnt find it to be sexist. What I found is that it recorded the way people were in ancient times. This is not some anomaly. Women have always been 2nd class citizens or worse in most societies. This is not something God ordained as right. According to the scriptures. If you actually read the bible you would know that women are given positions and status unprecedented in history in that jewish culture because of beliefs in God. Of course, I wouldnt expect you to know if you didnt read it.



Because of Christianity, cience had a dark time that lasted almost 1000 years. People could not develop cience without risking being called a pagan and, well, die.

And. If You actually read the bible you'll find that most people don't understand the gaspels at all. Jesus didn't come to bring peace, that's once thing i know for sure...


Must not correct the spelling....

Anyways, what evidence are you using for your statements here? Its so wrong its almost painful to read.

I dont think anyone who has actually read the new testament would make such rediculous statements.

Some of the greatest scientistic advancements came from those who had a Christian worldview.

Louis Pasteur = Chemistry
Gregor Mendel = Genetics
John Ambrose Fleming = Electronics
George Washington Carver = Inventor
Isaac Newton = Calculas and Gravity
William Herschel = Astronomy

The list goes on and on. Seriously quit now while you are behind.

[DesertLily]

And if you believe what Jesus says, you'll know that the Ancient Testament (is that ok? or is it Old Testament? :boggled: ) no longer applies.
Where in the New Testament does it say that nothing in the Old Testament still applies? I can offer you a Bible verse where it says clearly the opposite. I believe it's Matthew 5:18-21 or something, although I'd have to check. I don't have Bible access atm.

So, you'll do that a in such a situation :P
Considering that my church doesn't sell animal sacrifices for personal gain, or try to make profit for themselves rather than for the good of the church body, I'm going to have to say that it's unnecessary for me to do so. If my church WERE doing something like that, you BET I would take a stand against it.

[Overkongen]

Iagree, hwaorang. While Hitler may have gotten some of his sentiment towards the Jews from a belief that they were the ones who killed Jesus, his war wasn't really a religious war.

[Bondolon]

Where in the New Testament does it say that nothing in the Old Testament still applies? I can offer you a Bible verse where it says clearly the opposite. I believe it's Matthew 5:18-21 or something, although I'd have to check. I don't have Bible access atm.


Considering that my church doesn't sell animal sacrifices for personal gain, or try to make profit for themselves rather than for the good of the church body, I'm going to have to say that it's unnecessary for me to do so. If my church WERE doing something like that, you BET I would take a stand against it.

Well, Christians aren't supposed to make sacrifices. Jesus was the "perfect lamb" in the Christian Faith, so any further sacrifices that are made aren't for God, they're just you killing some animal for no reason.

[MrQ]

I'm not completely sure where you're coming from on this last part. The introduction of christianity led to a dark age of humanity, in which women were wholly oppressed and the majority of people weren't even able to legally voice dissatisfaction with the eccumenical governments. For most of history (for the sake of argument, just take it back to Greece), things have been pretty egalitarian. There's a reason that the dark ages are called dark... they were probably the lowest that humanity has ever gotten. The renaissance saw a shift towards more egalitarian society, but the renaissance was a humanist movement (not religious).

Talking about the sweeping changes that occured form the first to the 4th centuries because of the spread of Christianity.

I am not talking about the abuses of the Catholic Church that put a dark taint on history.

[Bondolon]

Iagree, hwaorang. While Hitler may have gotten some of his sentiment towards the Jews from a belief that they were the ones who killed Jesus, his war wasn't really a religious war.

If you've read Hitler's book, Mein Kampf, he pretty clearly spells out that he is, in fact, not a Christian at all and is instead a humanist. He knew how to use religion to motivate his constituency (who were religious). His elimination of "Unter-menschen" wasn't motivated by the belief that they killed Jesus. It was motivated by Eugenics and the assumption that Jews and Gypsies and the like were genetically inferior. He believed that by killing them off we could cure disease, hate and whatever else you want throw in there. I repeat, he WASN'T a Christian.

[Bondolon]

Talking about the sweeping changes that occured form the first to the 4th centuries because of the spread of Christianity.

I am not talking about the abuses of the Catholic Church that put a dark taint on history.

You mean the fall of the Roman Empire? A blatant collapse of the entire economic stability of Europe? Because, betweem the first and fourth centuries, this is what was happening. In societies where resources are plentiful, egalitarianism is less prevalent. In societies where people are quite nearly dying of starvation, people don't focus so much on sex oppression. So yeah, I suppose in *some* way that the spread of christianity marked the spread of egalitarianism.

However, the dark ages, again, came about not because of the Catholic church, but because of the collapse of the Roman Empire. A stabilized system became destabilized, and, in the midst of near-anarchy, certain monarchal and eccumenical systems came in to place to "establish stability". These systems were the monarchies of Europe and the Catholic church. They effectively kept Europe in the Dark ages, instead of actually causing them.

[MrQ]

The caste system of Hinduism is pretty darn good at promoting slavely. But I digress. Could you just throw me a bunch of bible-quotes that clearly state that slavery is not allowed? 'Cuz I've seen loads of quotes from OT, where it sounds kind of okay to have slaves (I'll still argue that OT is part of the bible, if we disagree, we disagree, let's leave it at that)

According to the link I posted earlier, I don't think it's really clear if Hitler was christian or not. I am aware that you can find web-pages that clearly state that he was atheist. I can also find pages that clearly state that he was christian. As I said, the page I found was the one that seemed most objective to me. That's me getting informed. Now you do the same.

I'm not going to argue that non religious systems have caused loads of deaths in this century. It still doesn't take away the fact that religious systems have killed loads of people as well.

I liked Rome pre-1st century. You're going to have to elaborate a bit on this one.

Your last statement, about my last statement, I don't get.

What didnt you understand about what my slavery statements? Its not unique in the bible. Its still practiced today all over the world. This does not make it right but the slavery in the bible is clearly a different kind of slavery that reflected the ancient middle east's view of slavery. Usually to pay off debts one would willingly enter into slavery..

Internet sites do not always reflect reality. History proves that Hitler was not a Christian. To hear you argue that he was is a bit silly.

Rome pre 1st century = Poor people lived in the worst conditions known to man. Women were treated very bad and in the jewish cultures a womans testimony wasnt even considered reliable in court! Much worse things can be said here but you get the point.

After 1st century with the spread of Christianity the first monastaries were built. Gave aid to the poor. Women were no longer being considered chattle but were given high positions and even teaching other men which was unheard of for the most part back then. Of course I didnt say this made the world perfect for we always have morons with power to set us back a few years.

[DesertLily]

Well, Christians aren't supposed to make sacrifices. Jesus was the "perfect lamb" in the Christian Faith, so any further sacrifices that are made aren't for God, they're just you killing some animal for no reason.
Hahaha, exactly. Although when I said it, I wasn't really saying that it WOULD sell sacrifices or anything, I meant more or less that they were selling stuff for personal gain and trying to make money off of people, rather than serving God.

[MrQ]

You mean the fall of the Roman Empire? A blatant collapse of the entire economic stability of Europe? Because, betweem the first and fourth centuries, this is what was happening. In societies where resources are plentiful, egalitarianism is less prevalent. In societies where people are quite nearly dying of starvation, people don't focus so much on sex oppression. So yeah, I suppose in *some* way that the spread of christianity marked the spread of egalitarianism.

However, the dark ages, again, came about not because of the Catholic church, but because of the collapse of the Roman Empire. A stabilized system became destabilized, and, in the midst of near-anarchy, certain monarchal and eccumenical systems came in to place to "establish stability". These systems were the monarchies of Europe and the Catholic church. They effectively kept Europe in the Dark ages, instead of actually causing them.


Context sir. I am clearly talking about the social reforms that took place with the spread of Christianity. Thats all.

[Bondolon]

Rome pre 1st century = Poor people lived in the worst conditions known to man. Women were treated very bad and in the jewish cultures a womans testimony wasnt even considered reliable in court! Much worse things can be said here but you get the point.

After 1st century with the spread of Christianity the first monastaries were built. Gave aid to the poor. Women were no longer being considered chattle but were given high positions and even teaching other men which was unheard of for the most part back then. Of course I didnt say this made the world perfect for we always have morons with power to set us back a few years.

Where are you getting this stuff? Rome provided standardized education, reliable economic infrastructure, public utilities and a centralized justice system. The fact that Jewish women couldn't testify was Jewish law, not Roman. The Romans allowed the Jews to govern themselves, for the most part. For example, the Romans weren't willing to try Jesus initially, because it was a Jewish matter. The Jews then insisted that he be tried under Roman law. The rise of monarchies in Europe marks the rise of the most oppressive political systems ever to exist on this planet. People were kept in poverty directly by these Monarchies.

[Bondolon]

Context sir. I am clearly talking about the social reforms that took place with the spread of Christianity. Thats all.

What context? I'm saying flat-out that the only social reforms that came with Christianity were the reforms that insisted that, in situations of extreme poverty, it is neither feasible nor possible to be as sexist. Extreme governmental centralization breeds non-egalitarianism. When the infrastructure of Europe collapsed, the Christians became prevalent. Their "reforms" amounted to losing everything.

[DesertLily]

Actually, uh...Romans wouldn't let women do anything either. Heck, only land owners were allowed to have any say for a really long time.

Not saying that it wasn't Jewish law as well....but Roman women didn't really get to have much say either. Learned it in Latin class.

[otro34]

In response to many evils in this world was caused by religion, I respond with a majority of good things in this world was caused by religion. My position is supported by the facts.

Hitler killed jews because they killed Jesus? Uh??? Where did you come to believe such a thing? This demonstrates a lack of knowledge on your behalf.



It is? Ive read the bible from cover to cover and didnt find it to be sexist. What I found is that it recorded the way people were in ancient times. This is not some anomaly. Women have always been 2nd class citizens or worse in most societies. This is not something God ordained as right. According to the scriptures. If you actually read the bible you would know that women are given positions and status unprecedented in history in that jewish culture because of beliefs in God. Of course, I wouldnt expect you to know if you didnt read it.




Must not correct the spelling....

Anyways, what evidence are you using for your statements here? Its so wrong its almost painful to read.

I dont think anyone who has actually read the new testament would make such rediculous statements.

Some of the greatest scientistic advancements came from those who had a Christian worldview.

Louis Pasteur = Chemistry
Gregor Mendel = Genetics
John Ambrose Fleming = Electronics
George Washington Carver = Inventor
Isaac Newton = Calculas and Gravity
William Herschel = Astronomy

The list goes on and on. Seriously quit now while you are behind.

You can't say that i didn't read the bible because i desagree with you.

I read it from an objective pov. Not thinking I would find answers to my proplems, although i have done that and it's actually pretty good :)

And Most of those scientis where after the dark time. Now who doesn't know what he's talking about ¬¬...

anyway. I'll be back. And With proof XD... not that it will change what you think, (nor i want to) if you believe in something, you should support it.

I will say this: Read the bible. But really READ IT. Don't say "Oh, I remember they mentioned this. I know what it means". The Bible has thousands of ways to be interpreted.

And i'm sorry if i don't write correctly, i haven't had english class in years XD:..

[Bondolon]

Actually, uh...Romans wouldn't let women do anything either. Heck, only land owners were allowed to have any say for a really long time.

Again, centralized governments tend toward non-egalitarianism. I agree that women were "oppressed" in the Roman government, but not any more so than before or after.

[DesertLily]

You can't say that i didn't read the bible because i desagree with you. We're not saying you didn't read the Bible because you disagree, we're saying that your arguments have no backing to them.

I read it from an objective pov. Not thinking I would find answers to my proplems, although i have done that and it's actually pretty good :) How are you reading it objectively? From what you've written, it seems that you're TRYING to find ways to make it look bad. That's not objective at all.

And Most of those scientis where after the dark time. Now who doesn't know what he's talking about ¬¬...You don't, apparently. Remember, the Dark Ages were caused NOT by Christianity, but by the fall of the Roman Empire. While the Renaissance was mostly a humanistic movement, it is WRONG to say that it's because Christianity hindered science. He was merely pointing out the fact that there have been Christian scientists who have played a huge part in technilogical advancement, rather than hindering it. Yes, the church DID have a ton of political and governmental control over the people, and that wasn't right. But that doesn't mean it's Christianity's fault for scientific advances to be halted.

Just because the church was corrupt, does not mean that the faith is corrupt as well. Remember, this is in a time when people were illiterate, and therefore controlled by those who could read. Also, the church refused to let the Bible be written in anything OTHER than Latin, giving them the power to interpret it however they wanted to suit THEM.


I will say this: Read the bible. But really READ IT. Don't say "Oh, I remember they mentioned this. I know what it means". The Bible has thousands of ways to be interpreted. I DO read it. Actually read it. I don't just assume that what people tell me is right. As for you, I think you're going out of your way to interpret it in the worst way possible. Just the way you're coming off, doesn't seem intelligible imo. Sorry.

And i'm sorry if i don't write correctly, i haven't had english class in years XD:..Not your fault if English is a second language. I know my Spanish consists of counting to 10, saying hello, goodbye, and....well, I think that's it, actually.

[Overkongen]

First... I find it depressing that you start most of your arguments, not only against me, but also some of the other posters, usually by talking about how silly they are, how rediculous their ideas are, and how they need help. I mean, some people might consider you pretty darn condescending, I for one find it damn annoying.

Anywho, Hitler remained a member of the church till the day he died. The church didn't kick him out, which maybe they should've done, and while, as the report I linked to states, he wasn't a mainstream christian, it does seem to suggest that he still believed in Jesus... Now, is a member of the church who believes in Jesus a christian? We're not going to agree with each other on this one, we can let it rest for all I care now. As I said in another post, the war he started wasn't religious.

I thought Rome was known as a pinnacle of human civilization back them, them having sanitation and everything. When the romans had slaves, they were usually treated quite well, a lot of them were learned, scribes, etc. Seeing as how I'm mainly annoyed with the three monotheistic religions, I'm not going to deny that the jews were bastards towards their women.

Anywho, women... When christianity came to my country (ca. 900 AD), our female pagan priests were all burned as witches. If christianity was so big on being equal and fair towards women, how come you didn't see a lot of female christian priests around?

[MrQ]

Where are you getting this stuff? Rome provided standardized education, reliable economic infrastructure, public utilities and a centralized justice system. The fact that Jewish women couldn't testify was Jewish law, not Roman. The Romans allowed the Jews to govern themselves, for the most part. For example, the Romans weren't willing to try Jesus initially, because it was a Jewish matter. The Jews then insisted that he be tried under Roman law. The rise of monarchies in Europe marks the rise of the most oppressive political systems ever to exist on this planet. People were kept in poverty directly by these Monarchies.

Getting this from history?

1.Females for the most part were not allowed to get an education. Worse yea in the jewish culture until christianity came on the map.

2.The lower class of Romans (plebeians) would usually live in an apartment house behind the shops they worked in. Apartment buildings back then were usually called insulaes. These insulaes were very crowed without any light
and comfort. The very poor people of Rome would live in a shabby, dirty house. In the houses for the poor, it was very hard for them. They did not have much water and hardly anyone had a bathroom (filth and the stench was unbearable according to some reports). The homes were also made out of wood, therefore a fire could light up .Life for the lower class of Romans was very hard to live at that level. Christianity taught that the poor people were valuable in God's eyes unlike the other thought patterns of that day.

Besides some other social issues, Rome did have some good things going for it. I am not arguing about that.

[MrQ]

You can't say that i didn't read the bible because i desagree with you.

I read it from an objective pov. Not thinking I would find answers to my proplems, although i have done that and it's actually pretty good :)

And Most of those scientis where after the dark time. Now who doesn't know what he's talking about ¬¬...

anyway. I'll be back. And With proof XD... not that it will change what you think, (nor i want to) if you believe in something, you should support it.

I will say this: Read the bible. But really READ IT. Don't say "Oh, I remember they mentioned this. I know what it means". The Bible has thousands of ways to be interpreted.

And i'm sorry if i don't write correctly, i haven't had english class in years XD:..

Uhhh ......

[gyoza]

Anywho, Hitler remained a member of the church till the day he died. The church didn't kick him out, which maybe they should've done, and while, as the report I linked to states, he wasn't a mainstream christian, it does seem to suggest that he still believed in Jesus...

If I remember correctly the Church didn't kick him out because if they did he'd have taken away their autonomy. And I seem to remember it did happen, when years later some Church leaders started speaking out against Hitler's actions and he established the National Reich Church which celebrated Aryanism. Or something like that.

[MrQ]

First... I find it depressing that you start most of your arguments, not only against me, but also some of the other posters, usually by talking about how silly they are, how rediculous their ideas are, and how they need help. I mean, some people might consider you pretty darn condescending, I for one find it damn annoying.

Anywho, Hitler remained a member of the church till the day he died. The church didn't kick him out, which maybe they should've done, and while, as the report I linked to states, he wasn't a mainstream christian, it does seem to suggest that he still believed in Jesus... Now, is a member of the church who believes in Jesus a christian? We're not going to agree with each other on this one, we can let it rest for all I care now. As I said in another post, the war he started wasn't religious.

I thought Rome was known as a pinnacle of human civilization back them, them having sanitation and everything. When the romans had slaves, they were usually treated quite well, a lot of them were learned, scribes, etc. Seeing as how I'm mainly annoyed with the three monotheistic religions, I'm not going to deny that the jews were bastards towards their women.

Anywho, women... When christianity came to my country (ca. 900 AD), our female pagan priests were all burned as witches. If christianity was so big on being equal and fair towards women, how come you didn't see a lot of female christian priests around?

Can you quote please? I need to know what and who you are aguing against so I can respond adequately.

The only way you know true christians is if there actions reflect the teachings of Christ. Read his teachings, then reask yourself if the people who did evil in the name of Christianity are truly christians.

Like today. Some muslims renounce the teachings and actions of the fundamentalists. They dont want the world to think that the actions of these pyschos are the true teachings of islam. Do we lump them all together or do we judge their actions as the reflect the teachings?

[Darth_E_]

Darth E, please do notice that I don't say that religion is the only evil thing in the world. Thusly, I can't use your post for much.


True, but the way I took it was "religion is evil and everything else is not". Sorry if that wasn't your intention, but I guess I took it with some prejudice ( you can thank some of those atheists who keep proclaiming that all religions are the root of evil...).

If you're lost, try reading other religions are philosophies. You might find your answers there, or it might clarify christianity for you by providing you with an alternative perspective. Buddhism springs into mind...

[Bondolon]

Getting this from history?

1.Females for the most part were not allowed to get an education. Worse yea in the jewish culture until christianity came on the map.

2.The lower class of Romans (plebeians) would usually live in an apartment house behind the shops they worked in. Apartment buildings back then were usually called insulaes. These insulaes were very crowed without any light
and comfort. The very poor people of Rome would live in a shabby, dirty house. In the houses for the poor, it was very hard for them. They did not have much water and hardly anyone had a bathroom (filth and the stench was unbearable according to some reports). The homes were also made out of wood, therefore a fire could light up .Life for the lower class of Romans was very hard to live at that level. Christianity taught that the poor people were valuable in God's eyes unlike the other thought patterns of that day.

Besides some other social issues, Rome did have some good things going for it. I am not arguing about that.


1. Right, at which point nearly nobody could get an education.

2. Well, it's common sense that Rome had an impoverished class. Their conditions were arguably quite bad, but the patrician/plebian thing was before the advent of the structured classes. The Common (plebs and/or vulgus) class of Rome after 287BC was one in which the common classes had the same rights as the upper classes. The economic inequality was there, sure, but that's present in literally every society. After passage of the Concilium Plebis in that year, force of law was present for every Roman citizen, regardless of class. While I would agree that Christianity made people feel better about being poor, it also taught them not to question their lot in life, and to never try to change classes. This was illegal not only by secular law, but also religious law. And the economic inequality was still very much so there.

[Overkongen]

I think that's just the part where we disagree. The peaceful muslims live according to the tenets of the Qu'ran. The extremists live according to the tenets of the Qu'ran too. And at the same time, they will declare that the other side is not living according to Allahs will. They're just focusing on different parts of the Qu'ran, and if you ask me, both sides are true believers.

Unfortunately, this also means that to me, it is completely possible to be a true muslim, intent on serving Allah, who knows what is best, by killing loads of innocents.

[Overkongen]

Darthie, fair fair. No, loads of other things are evil. I'm not gonna say that religion is 100% evil either. According to me, it's just... fairly evil.

I think I already addressed the Buddhism-thing before, I have no quarrels with it. It's the three monotheistic religions that I get uncomfortable around.

[DesertLily]

Good: Sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows.

Evil: Teletubbies and Ganguro Girls.

[Darth_E_]

I think that's just the part where we disagree. The peaceful muslims live according to the tenets of the Qu'ran. The extremists live according to the tenets of the Qu'ran too. And at the same time, they will declare that the other side is not living according to Allahs will. They're just focusing on different parts of the Qu'ran, and if you ask me, both sides are true believers.

Unfortunately, this also means that to me, it is completely possible to be a true muslim, intent on serving Allah, who knows what is best, by killing loads of innocents.

Extremists exist with or without a religion. Wherever you go, you'll always see a few nutcases around. Whether they're stupid enough to blow themselves up is dependant on their living conditions. That said, I think you've contradicted yourself when you said extremists live under the tenets of Qura'n and yet declare war on the other side. In the case of islam, it's forbidden for a muslim to kill another innocent muslim, let alone another human being. Yet they still do it... ( ie : they're not following their own religion).

I don't think God is cruel though, death is something we'll all see eventually. If we don't die, we'll overpopulate and run out of resources. This is how life goes, ya know? Then again, I don't think I understood the last part of your sentence...


I think I already addressed the Buddhism-thing before, I have no quarrels with it. It's the three monotheistic religions that I get uncomfortable around.


I don't think you've researched any of them well , but if that's how you feel then don't believe in them! :) However, you should find an answer to whatever is in your mind.

[Overkongen]

Argh, same problem... I said that extremists declare that the other side (the moderates) are not living according to Allahs will. I didn't say that they had declared war on them.

I know that the Qu'ran states that killing innocents is wrong... Yet, there are other verses of it, that suggest otherwise. Also, I'm not sure me and the extremists agree on what constitutes an innocent.

[Darth_E_]

Argh, same problem... I said that extremists declare that the other side (the moderates) are not living according to Allahs will. I didn't say that they had declared war on them.

I know that the Qu'ran states that killing innocents is wrong... Yet, there are other verses of it, that suggest otherwise. Also, I'm not sure me and the extremists agree on what constitutes an innocent.

:P

As far as I know, the verses which suggest killing are in the case of self defence. Personally, I don't see a problem with that. If some bastards attack my country and kill my people, I would surely fight back to protect myself and my people.

PS : I meant innocent as in someone who didn't do anything wrong. Case in point : The people who died in 9/11 attacks and the people are ( until today ) being kidnapped and slaughtered by a bunch of smelly ignorant morons.

[Psychochink]

On topic...

Utilitarian all the way. Greatest good for the greatest number. Deontologists are kidding themselves.

[otro34]

We're not saying you didn't read the Bible because you disagree, we're saying that your arguments have no backing to them.


No, it's ok. I didn't mean you :P


How are you reading it objectively? From what you've written, it seems that you're TRYING to find ways to make it look bad. That's not objective at all.


I have a tendency of not knowing how to explain myself very much :P ...


You don't, apparently. Remember, the Dark Ages were caused NOT by Christianity, but by the fall of the Roman Empire. While the Renaissance was mostly a humanistic movement, it is WRONG to say that it's because Christianity hindered science. He was merely pointing out the fact that there have been Christian scientists who have played a huge part in technilogical advancement, rather than hindering it. Yes, the church DID have a ton of political and governmental control over the people, and that wasn't right. But that doesn't mean it's Christianity's fault for scientific advances to be halted.

Just because the church was corrupt, does not mean that the faith is corrupt as well. Remember, this is in a time when people were illiterate, and therefore controlled by those who could read. Also, the church refused to let the Bible be written in anything OTHER than Latin, giving them the power to interpret it however they wanted to suit THEM.



Nono, it's not Christianity's fault. I'm not saying that. I'm saying it afected a lot of things. (I'm not that radical)


I DO read it. Actually read it. I don't just assume that what people tell me is right. As for you, I think you're going out of your way to interpret it in the worst way possible. Just the way you're coming off, doesn't seem intelligible imo. Sorry.



I will say i'm not the only one thinking this way.

-------

Anyway! I know what a lot of people will say about this... but! it's interesting and it (in at least a way) refers to what i was talking about.

http://www.geocities.com/loyal2truth/ethics/wwjd.html

[Kuri]

Start a different thread to talk about hitler and quote the bible, it's fun ... but not the point of the thread

I want to hear personal interpretation of what is good and evil and what makes it that way, give examples and stuff if you want to

PS Gyoza should be complimented for so often calmly adding a fact or trying to stop an arugment, I've noticed it as a pattern

Anyhow..

[Buckwheat]

Shades of grey man. It's all like the Yin-yang, In the light, darkness and in the darkness, light.

[Trump]

Exactly, absence of good does not mean evil. Absence of evil does not mean good. You can even have things that are both good and evil at the same time. Good is something that helps people and things, evil is something that hurts people and things. Good people help others, evil people hurt others (on purpose).

[otro34]

Actually, i think evil in many ways is what makes you apreciate good...

[Trump]

Perhaps... but if everyone kept to themselves and didn't do anything to help anyone. Then one day someone just came up and helped you lift something heavy wouldn't you notice? It's more of a contrast in action, evil tends to involve very little good and that is what makes you notice it.

[jingi893]

i think good and evil are all culturally relative...i mean eating your dead in one culture is okay...but not in another culture...

[Trump]

What does culturally acceptable have to do with good and evil? Disgusting doesn't mean evil.

[Kuri]

Well that's like the major question

There's not a very good out and out definition for either, I mean you get the good is helping and evil is purposely hindering

But then some cultures are gonna say killing a cripple or someone old and suffering in a hospital bed is mercifully helping them and others will say it's evil

All sorts of different customs to look into as being good or evil

People who say good and evil are two sides of the same coin.. but then even so heads and tails can still be defined seperately..

One person I saw wrote good is what helps him and evil is what gets in his way, so there are personal understandings

Others think good sacrifices the self for the many or vice versa

Evil brings about destruction, good brings about creation

But which belief do you like the most, and why? It might even be cool to put where you're from to see what sort of impact that has on your understandings of good and evil

Talking about the interplay of good and evil is cool too, ie classic western good vs evil films the evil has to be extinguished in the end. Japanese films often have good and evil come to an understanding or work together in the end

[Masa the Masta]

Exactly, absence of good does not mean evil. Absence of evil does not mean good. You can even have things that are both good and evil at the same time. Good is something that helps people and things, evil is something that hurts people and things. Good people help others, evil people hurt others (on purpose).

So like, is someone like a leader who sends troops to go to war a good person or a bad person? He's helping his own people, but he's definitely harming those he is invading.

[jingi893]

What does culturally acceptable have to do with good and evil? Disgusting doesn't mean evil.read the post again...what one culture considers evil another culture considers good...in the u.s. when someone wrongs us we take them to court...to kill someone who wronged us is considered "evil/bad/immoral" in our culture...but among the haiduks of yugoslavia/albania it is perfectly acceptable to kill someone in what's called a "blood-feud"...good and evil only exists as constructs in the mind...look to nature for proof...

[Trump]

So like, is someone like a leader who sends troops to go to war a good person or a bad person? He's helping his own people, but he's definitely harming those he is invading.

Well, that depends on the reason for the war. For example if it was the US sending troops to fight in World War 2 so that the mass slaughter of Jews was stopped, that would be good. On the other hand if it was Kublai Khan sending troops to invade and conquer China only for the purpose of gaining wealth and power, that is evil.

The purpose matters almost as much as the actions and so does the amount of thought that goes into how things are going to affect others. Like in World War 2 the president knew troops were going to get killed on both sides, and I'm sure if there was another way accomplish the goals the troops would not have been sent.

read the post again...what one culture considers evil another culture considers good...in the u.s. when someone wrongs us we take them to court...to kill someone who wronged us is considered "evil/bad/immoral" in our culture...but among the haiduks of yugoslavia/albania it is perfectly acceptable to kill someone in what's called a "blood-feud"...good and evil only exists as constructs in the mind...look to nature for proof...

evil/bad/immoral...

See, that's the thing, you can't use all of those words. Right and Wrong, acceptable behaviors, etc are not really the same thing as good and evil. Just because it is acceptable to society does not mean it is good, and conversely just because something unacceptable does not mean it is evil.

In the blood fued example I'd consider that evil regardless of whether that is acceptable. The only goal of killing someone in a blood fued is causing pain for the other family. Killing a convicted serial killer is a different matter, however. The killer has proven himself evil, and he'll affect everyone around him in a negative way by the way he thinks and acts. How do you protect everyone else? The only way is to remove him from society in one way or another. OK would be just killing him, better would be giving him food/clothing/etc but locked in prison, even better would be giving him a little island where no one could go near him to let him live on his own. At that point it comes down to how much you are willing to sacrifice to help someone you already know is evil.

[gyoza]

As a lot of people have already said previously, the 'good benefits people and evil harms people' definition seems to be the intuitive one. Yet, it's extremely difficult to decide what's good or evil using that system, since there are so many grey areas (and any action you take will both help and harm people, directly or indirectly). I won't pretend to know what the 'best' definition is, yet we all still have to discern good from evil in some way; for me, I turn to religion.

[General_Admission]

GOOD:

http://www.yukihime.com/games/tgs2003/samurai.jpg

http://www.dog-gone-good.com/cow_creek_0041.jpg

EVIL:

http://www.jmanx.com/images/funny/Evil%20Santa.jpg

http://www.lallybroch.com/LOL/surrey98/see-no-evil.jpg

So says my God, GOOGLE!

[jingi893]

In the blood fued example I'd consider that evil regardless of whether that is acceptable.that's my point exactly...you consider it evil based on your perception of good/evil...but other people wouldn't...so the definition of good/evil is a subjective one...good and evil are constructs of man and as such do not exist in "reality"...rather they are imposed on reality by people/cultures...

[Trump]

It is situation dependent, I won't argue that. But I think that given a situation people could define whether something is good or evil or one of the countless shades of gray in between. It has to do with the motive behind the action.

[lady suzie]

good and evil are two concepts that can't "live" without eachother. if everything were good, good would no longer exist(and evil would no longer exist either). it would simply be life. you can nologer point out to somebody that's good, because you can't show what evil is. the concept good no wouldn't have any meaning what so ever and would disappear.
to determine for yourself what is good and evil you need the contrast between them.

i hope this makes any sense

[Jay]

So you're saying that if everything were good then society would no longer view it as "good", but simply "the norm" (and vice versa with evil), and as such one could no longer term it "good"?

[Bob]

Perhaps the two nuclear weapons dropped on Japan had their own religion too, hmm ?

So, youre saying the bombing of japan was evil?

[General_Admission]

nuf' said.

http://carlos.sjcc0.tripod.com/pics/ying_yang.jpg

[Buckwheat]

Tripod image hosting is indeed the epitome of all that is evil.

[Kou123]

I would say Evil, is gaining enjoyment from others suffering

[Jay]

nuf' said.

http://carlos.sjcc0.tripod.com/pics/ying_yang.jpg

^ That and Angelfire.

[Jay]

Oh, and Geocities.

Angelfire, Tripod and Geocities, the Big Three with the Three Worst Servers In History.

[gyoza]

Geoshitties!

[Jay]

Angelfire is Spanish for thunder...

...ARSE thunder!