evil/sin

What do you percieve to be evil, wrong or sinful? Do you believe evil to be objective or subjective and have your views on what is right or wrong changed since becoming part of a specific religion.
Regarding those things that you believe to be wrong - what makes them wrong or defines them as such ? What is the justification behind them ?

The only true sin is not recognizing the father and the Holy Spirit within each of us.

What is right or wrong? That is a matter of perception. It can hardly be defined. Man has through the years passed on "right vs. wrong" with an ever broadening scope. Laws are passed along these mythological things.

Who is to say what is right and what is wrong. When things happen nobody knows what the person who did them was actually thinking.

I know where I'm at on the Kohlberg model of moral development.

I work on principles. But I am not a cosmically aware entity at oneness with the universe like the author claimed to be.

That said, if I read the 11 Satanic commandments, I prefer them to the 10 commandments of the Old Testament, because they are more encompassing in what is good, and because they SPECIFICALLY prescribe against the molestation of children.

[Edited on 15-8-2003 by MaskedAvatar]

I think sin can be both subjective and objective but as a loose guide anything that is deliberately inflicted on another to cause harm, distress and a negative impact for no good reason is my idea of sin.

Well i'm in agreement so far (apart from the not accepting the holy father ...part).
I do think that its difficult to judge as we are not always aware of the motives. Another factor is that when we take in to account a persons past, mental health, insecurities, social circle etc etc then how can we ever be sure ecactly how responsible a person is for their actions.

I do not believe in absolutes - but i do think that there are certain things the human race need to try and avoid, for example violence and ignorance, for its own benefit.

Morals, evil and good, right and wrong are all subjective judgements based on a personal value system incorporating experiences, what we have been taught, what we hear, see, etc.

What one sees as wrong or right, good or evil, or moral and immoral can and is often times then naught, different from what another may define them or see them as.

regards
seekerof

I think sin is when you open a beer..and dont finish it
when you steal a car park from another, and perhaps worst of all, a silent fart as those that are deaf amongst us only get to participate in smelling it!
Sin is a multi-facetted beast

Quote from Seekerof
Morals, evil and good, right and wrong are all subjective judgements based on a personal value system incorporating experiences, what we have been taught, what we hear, see, etc. What one sees as wrong or right, good or evil, or moral and immoral can and is often times then naught, different from what another may define them or see them as.

Sooner or later you must come to the conclusion that there is such a thing as absolute morality - that there is an objective right or wrong. If what you say is really what you believe (�evil and good, right and wrong are all subjective judgements based on a personal value system incorporating experiences�) then you must agree that Hitler was perfectly justified in his persecutions of the Jews and attempted destruction of the Slavic people. �What? Hitler was one of the most evil ever men to live� is normally the response and this is normally followed by a tirade accusing the person making the original statement as being a Nazi and how terrible the persecutions by the Nazis were. Well what that person was attempting to do was point out the problem with a MAN BASED MORALITY (�right and wrong are all subjective judgements�). In a MAN BASED MORAL system, men decide what is right and what is wrong. Therefore any society (group of people) can decide that �Actions Type A� and right but �Actions Type B� are wrong. For right now we will cause this society Group Alpha. Now since what is right or wrong is decided by the dictates of society (or man), what prevents a second society (Group Beta) from saying that Group Alpha is totally wrong in its definition of �Actions Type A� and �Actions Type B� and this is the definition of right and wrong. Now comes along Group Gamma and it says that both Group Alpha and Group Beta are wrong, here is the definition of right and wrong. Now since �right and wrong are all subjective judgements�, you then must make the statement that all three groups are correct in their moral judgements because you adhere to the idea that humans define their own moral systems. The logical conclusion of this thesis is that all moral systems are equally valid. Now let us look at the Nazi concept of morals. The Nazis believed in the �Aryan Master Race�; Jews and Slavic People, etc. were parasites and any actions taken to destroy these parasites in order to preserve the purity of the �Aryan Master Race� was justified. Now I do not believe that the Nazis were justified (they were criminals), but if you believe that a society can define its own moral system, then you must concur that the Nazis persecution of the Jews was morally justified. Indeed what the Nazis did was exactly what those who advocate MAN BASED MORAL systems said they could do. The Nazis just defined their own morality (Aryan = good, Slav = bad) and acted accordingly. Now after sputtering for a few minutes, those who advocate the subjective moral systems then start mumbling something about �well there gotta be limits�.

On the other hand, I believe in a GOD BASED MORAL system; a system where God defines what is right and what is wrong. All actions must be judged in light of what God considers right or wrong. This forms a basis for defining what is moral and what is immoral. This basis is unchanging; men cannot change it; men cannot define what is right or what is wrong that is contrary to a GOD BASED MORAL system. If these men do things that are in conflict with the God based morality, then they are wrong. However I would agree that there exist several areas where society can define certain rules and where God is silent and neutral about the subject and leaves it up to the society to decide. A good example would be dress codes.

What do you percieve to be evil, wrong or sinful? Do you believe evil to be objective or subjective and have your views on what is right or wrong changed since becoming part of a specific religion.
Regarding those things that you believe to be wrong - what makes them wrong or defines them as such ? What is the justification behind them ?

Interesting Question....

For me, a sin or evil, is self-evident. You just "feel" that something is wrong. If I "feel" bad for doing it, then on some level, it's wrong. I do believe there are degrees of evil and sin. For example, telling a lie might make me feel bad, but not like I would if I killed someone, even if in self-defense. Therefore, I don't classify and generic happenstance as a sin or evil, as it's situational. Granted, some actions, such as lying, stealing, killing, etc. are inherently seeming as evil. But, even with them, there are situational exceptions, that lessen the degree of said sin....

Yes, that is exactly what I am implying Jagd.....morals, right and wrong, evil and good are subjective judgements based on a personal value system incorporating experiences, what one is taught, one sees, one hears, etc.


"If what you say is really what you believe then you must agree that Hitler was perfectly justified in his persecutions of the Jews and attempted destruction of the Slavic people?"

I must admit? Here's what I admit. In my understanding of God, God loves us all equally despite us being good or evil, wrong or right, moral or immoral....correct? What guides humanity today Jagd? God? God's laws? God's commitments? Man-made laws and guidelines? Our teachers? Our politicians? Our priests and rabbi's? Our parents, etc.? Morals, right and wrong, evil and good is subjective to a personal judgement system. How so? Each and everyone of us 'base' our morality, whats good and evil, whats right and wrong off of our experiences; what we are taught; what we hear; what we see; what we read, etc. This all, in turn, equates to each and every one of us developing our own personal moral system, our own views and definitions of what right and wrong is, or own views and definitions of what evil and good is. Am I wrong? Perhaps.

Lets go one step further....
What about all those who have not heard the "Word of God" or the teachings of Muhammed or Buddha, etc. Where do they concieve of the notions of what is right or wrong, good and evil, moral or immoral? They have their own versions of these things, again, based on subjective judgements based on a personal value system that incorporates ones experiences, what one is taught, sees, hears, reads, etc.

Morals, wrong and right, evil and good are like 100 people reading the same Bible verse.....
When each one is asked to explain what they have read and understand from that particular scripture, you would most likely get about 60+ different explanations, albeit, depending on the particular scriptural passage. If I am wrong on this, why do we have over 200 different Protestant denomination/churches today?
The Episcopal Church is voting on a homosexual bishop. I guess their definitions of right and wrong, moral and immoral, evil and good is perhaps a bit 'subjective?'

As for Hitler, Hitler simply did what he did. I'll mention and remind you that considering Hitler the "most evil ever man to live" is also saying that those millions, that for many years, thought he was "right" must also be considered and so named the "most evil society/nation/peoples ever to live." If one 'floats' out a crazy idea, and ten million people agree with it, one might not think the idea or the person was that crazy....would they? The world decided, finally, that Hitler was "wrong." That is to say, the world's people made a new assessment of their personal value systems and choose to act against Hitler and the nations that supported what Hitler, and others, thought was "right." One could look at it from a positive way and say that Hitler held up a yardstick. He set the parameters, a border against which "we" could measure and limit our ideas about ourselves, further reflecting an adjustment to our personal value systems. Jesus Christ did the same thing, at the other end of the spectrum.

A "thing" is only moral or immoral, right or wrong, good or evil, because we say "it" is. A "thing" is not moral or immoral or right and wrong or evil and good intrinsically.
They are all not intrinsic conditions. They are subjective.
God is indeed great and all will fully be revealed and ubderstood in the 'end.' Till then, we as human's, ultimately subjectively determine these 'conditions.'
Peace

regards
seekerof








[Edited on 16-8-2003 by Seekerof]

Can we really base all our moral codes on what is termed the word of God. In some strict muslim countries women are denied certain basic rights that we in the west take for granted, they can be put to death for adultery while their husbands can cavort with mistresses and prostitutes. They claim their laws come from God so who's got it wrong them or us. Other cultures have carried out horrific abuses in their own particular gods name. How can we possibly make objective moral evaluations based on the word of a subjective God. Common sense and a realisation that many issues are not black and white, plus the ability to evaluate sensibly and compassionately when needed is a better if less concrete guide.

Quote from Gazrok
For me, a sin or evil, is self-evident. You just "feel" that something is wrong.

Now you have mentioned a phenomena of most mankind. We all seem to have a built-in concept of morality - an intrinsic inner concept of what is right or wrong. Also you touched on the subject of situational ethics - the idea that there are higher and lower values to be maintained. (I. e., it would normally be considered all right to lie if it would save the life of an innocent person.) You sacrifice the lower value (telling the truth) to preserve the higher value (preventing the death of an innocent person). Many people seem to have difficulties dealing with the intricacies of situational ethics.

Seekerof
You stated �The Episcopal Church is voting on a homosexual bishop. I guess their definitions of right and wrong, moral and immoral, evil and good is perhaps a bit subjective?� Well I did not say what they are doing is right, it is another example of the decay the relativist moral system view point is bringing to this world. People no longer see absolute evil or the idea of absolute good. They only see man made laws and it doing so the best they can come up with is statements such as �As for Hitler, Hitler simply did what he did� and then do a semantic dance rather than saying �Hitler was pure evil, what he did was pure evil, what he did was wrong�. Indeed you mention the Buddhists who have not heard the Word of God but in their moral system, there exists a basic core of ethics which correspond quite well with Christian beliefs.

ubermunche
You ask �Can we really base all our moral codes on what is termed the word of God�. The problem with basing you moral arguments strictly on man made (or man centered) systems is that you have no rational basis to challenge their system. Who is to say who is right? You bring up the subject of certain countries when women can be put to death for adultery but their husbands �can cavort with mistresses and prostitutes�. Well with man made morality, each society gets to make its own rules and as being a man (or woman) who are you to say that these societies are wrong. Indeed there are men within those societies who will say that they are right and you are wrong. Now with a God Centered Morality, you have a philosophical basis to challenge such societies. You have the concept that there is an Absolute Moral Code (as presented by God, Allah, Krishna, Rama, or Buddha) by which all people should live. And using this absolute moral code, you can challenge these societies as being morally incorrect.

jagd

I am with you on this, totally.

There is an absolute, free of subjectivity, that many will not be able to access until they are part of a different consciousness.

If you have achieved it in spite of your religious upbringing (no offense to you at all), and you can impart it to others so they can reach it, then this is commendable.

Most people will spend their lives at or near the 'law and order' stage.

Well MaskedAvatar the situation in the world today as far as ethics goes was forseen many years ago by the Christian thinker, Francis A. Schaeffer. Schaeffer saw what was going to happen when the concept of relative morality entered the churches. You end of with a society that seems to have trouble making moral statements and moral judgements about anything.

"semantic dance" Jagd? Ok....because my view didn't fit yours, because I didn't "judge" and label as you did, its called a "semantic dance"....

You think Hitler was "pure evil"....Hitler was a product of society. I would be wary of "judging " others; there is only one Judge. You may do so, that is your right, its all subjective anyhow. I really wonder if you know what "pure evil" truly is....
I'm still failing to see where you are only condemning one man for being "pure evil" and yet ignore 'labeling' those millions who supported his view of what was "right."

But all-in-all Jagd....we are all entitled to our opinions and views and beliefs, are we not? And ultimately, who determines whose views, opinions and beliefs are correct?

Peace.

regards
seekerof

Well Seekerof, I suppose that you view Hitler's and his followers actions as being nothing more than a slightly different view of morality. You ask "who are we to judge?" Am I being subjective when I condem Hitler and his followers actions? Indeed I called Hitler "pure evil" and I would of course include most of his followers as being immoral and evil men (Goring, Himmler, Goebbels, etc.) Now Himmler, there was a man of pure evil. Are you so afraid of stating a moral stance? Are you so afraid of making a statement of moral belief?Again I state, "Hitler was evil, most of his followers were evil, what the Nazis did in the concentration camps was evil, immoral, and totally repugnant to a most Holy God and totally regugnant to humanity".

I agree mostly w/ Seeker here: I don't believe in an absolute - morals, right and wrong - these are personal choices. Mine are based on (when confronted by a situation which demands a choice of action) what path leads me closer to my Ideal Self. Which one feels Right (to me).

There is an absolute, free of subjectivity, that many will not be able to access until they are part of a different consciousness

The Absoulute is made of all acts - 'good' and 'evil'. In the end, there are no good acts or evil acts - there are only acts. Really, there is but one act - existence, which is all acts interconnected.

Good is meaningless w/out evil.
Evil paves the way for Good to come, and therefore it is Good.

The girl cannot be rescued if the villain doesn't tie her to the train tracks.
The pastor who forms a support group for child abuse victims would have been a stockbroker if he hadn't been beaten by his father.
*The Christian wouldn't be saved if they hadn't nailed up Jesus.

No fear here Jagd, no being afraid, merely looking at a broader view. Jesus Christ preached concerning those who would "judge." The Ultimate judge of morality resides with only one Being, God. I tend to stay as far away from "labeling" as I possibly can. But I can understand thusly though, it is quite easy to do; in a sense, we all do it. All one has to do is read many of the comments on this board to see thus that....

Yes Jagd...subjectively, and according to scripture, Hitler was indeed "evil"...as was Pope Urban II, Pope Gregory IX, Innocent IV, Alexander IV, Stalin, Lenin, and the list goes on, and on. This would also incorporate the untold millions that have supported these very type individuals....indeed, they are all evil, immoral, and stand as a mockery to and before God.

Fear? No. Following the teachings of Jesus Christ? Yes.

regards
seekerof

The problem with basing you moral arguments strictly on man made (or man centered) systems is that you have no rational basis to challenge their system. Who is to say who is right?

We are all right.

one more thought - here's a poem I wrote that applies to exactly this discussion.

Find your truth within
State your beliefs and Know
that you are Right.
Realize every man does thus -
Understand, you know no better than the other.