Is there such a thing as good and evil?

Your question is flawed.

You propose that the opposite of evil is good, it is not. Righteous is the opposite of evil, bad is the opposite of good.

There are good and bad things in this world.

Righteous and evil things are a matter of opinion.

Hope that helps

Thats kinda my whole point. You cant make a differentiation because of all the opinions. Its all gray area.

Originally posted by Seiju
Maybe Satan isn't evil?

Satan is more of a Greek Christian embodiment of evil, which can be traced back to the Zoroastrians, who decided to kind of anthropomorphize good and evil in the form of entities doing battle with each other.

A lot of belief systems, particularly those recognizing nature forces, don't have that setup. The snow may come from the north to kill your cattle, but the Wind God isn't doing it because they're evil, it's because it's what they do. What they are. And it's pretty hard for a mountain or a river to be evil, in a Western-Christian sense.

Along with the Zoroastrian idea, there's the notion that these entities came into being at some point, are currently fighting, and that one day the fighting will come to an end, with the good guy winning. A beginning and end. The Christians really took this idea and ran with it, with their "End Times" stuff.

Nature religions don't usually have this notion, though, and tend to think more of things running in cycles that never really had a beginning and will have no end. So there's no good guy to win or bad guy to lose in "the end," because there isn't any.

In this way of thinking if a person does something unusual, like goes nuts and kills a bunch of people in their own tribe, they aren't evil or possessed by evil spirits or anything, but sick in the mind. It's a lot kinder than just condemning them as evil, I suppose, even through for the safety and good of the tribe you still might have to kill them.

Originally posted by mrwupy
You propose that the opposite of evil is good, it is not. Righteous is the opposite of evil, bad is the opposite of good.

Actually, I would suggest that indifference is the opposite of good. Lack of action. Nullification of intent.

Maybe.

Still, Nohup, you have to admit that looking at it, it would be funny. Or do you have no sense of humor? lol. joking. Thanks for that bit of information though. I didn't know that. You seem to be an intelligent person and im glad to have you post on my thread.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by Seiju]

Do the trees bend in the wind, or does the wind bend the trees?

The original poster has a point. Good and evil are really labels we apply to events, based on our perception of those events. Posters here have clearly proven the point.

Another example: 9/11. There was a lot of anger and sadness that day, following the crashes. Yet in some places, certain fanatical Muslims got together and openly celebrated.
Does that make them bad or evil? Perhaps to someone who was adversely affected by 9/11. But to themselves, 'God's' will had been carried out: naturally, this is the highest good that can occur anywhere on the planet.

If anything, History should be a pretty obvious example that goods and ills are colors seen only in the observer's eye. It would be wise to draw one's independent conclusions based on available evidence, and past experience. But it should also be remembered that an incident isn't simply 'good' or 'bad' because many people say it's so. Perceptions are shaped by growth, and each of us grew differently. Naturally, we'll each come to see the world differently.

[edit on 12/18/2007 by Mr Jackdaw]

reply to post by Seiju


I will have to agree with you on that.
IMO nothing was ever good or evil until religion had come along.
Also, before evil refered to intentional behavior, which does harm, is dishonest, or fails to honor agreements. If what you were refering to was evil in ethics.

Originally posted by Seiju

Originally posted by Alxandro
Yes, good and evil are aka love and hate.

Think of it as the scale between the these two extremes with many levels in between.

We all fall within one of these levels when it comes to how we treat our fellow man.

That cant be true because not everyone loves and hates the same thing. love and hate are just opinions to.

OK, that is true but what I actually meant about love and hate is from a general and not necessarily from a personal standpoint, but even then the analogy can still apply because if one person hates another person to the point that they wish them dead, then this my friend is true and pure evil.

Yes Good and Evil are REAL.

Thesis statement: Good will always ultimately triumph over evil.

Why? Consider this:

If Good = Light &
Evil = Darkness

The presence of light chases away darkness. Would you agree?
However, the darkest darkness will not, and cannot diminish light.

In other words, darkness and light are polar opposites, but one has the capability to cancel out the other.

Think about that analogy, in relation to Good and Evil.

Originally posted by iunderstand
Yes Good and Evil are REAL.

Thesis statement: Good will always ultimately triumph over evil.

Why? Consider this:

If Good = Light &
Evil = Darkness

The presence of light chases away darkness. Would you agree?
However, the darkest darkness will not, and cannot diminish light.

In other words, darkness and light are polar opposites, but one has the capability to cancel out the other.

Think about that analogy, in relation to Good and Evil.

Ah, but why does good = light and evil = darkness

Originally posted by gkgoten100
Ah, but why does good = light and evil = darkness

It's a perceptual thing.

Day/Night.

Light and darkness.

Light represents energy that is a positive force.
Darkness represents without energy that is a void.

It's needed to realize mankind's perception of darkness isn't darkness absolute. If you walk into a darkened room or go outside at night, mankind's eye percieves it as being "dark" because mankind's eye is only privy to a very small ranger of light frequency. When radiation outside of mankinds' eye's sight is always present on earth at least if not in all known space.

Human's radiate light in lower then visual light frequencies.

point is true "darkness" is without light in unexstance.

What about black holes? they suck in light and take it...where? light does not always conquer over the dark.

You are basically asking who believes in moral relativism, and who does not. I personally don't, as moral relativism requires that their be no particular act that is held as being innately "bad" or "good" by everyone regardless of their society or culture. But there are acts that are like this. It concurrently requires the holder of the philosophy to have a normative view that there are no acts which at least should be viewed as innately "good" or "bad" by society, regardless of reality.

Take for instance cold blooded murder (not killing for self defense, etc.). I do not know of a society where the act of killing without reason is looked upon as being anything but "bad." But this cannot be, if moral relativism is correct. Concurrently, the moral relativist (if they are being consistent) must hold that cold blooded murder should not be considered good or bad.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]

Not true. There are some cultures who do not look on serial killing as "bad" but merely sick in the mind. They pity the person, but they do not forsake them because they do not perceive them as evil.

reply to post by LightinDarkness


Right. Thats along the same lines i was trying to get at. It's not a question of good and evil so much as morally acceptable actions. If you have to kill some one before they kill you i.e. self defense, your actions are ok. killing another human for no reason at all is not.

I think that my original statement might be getting off track. Im saying that the actual entity of good and evil do not exist but, the idea as we know it in our society is real but the actual plain of being able to define good and evil without prejudice will probably never exist, but there is always a chance

p1428:2 130:1.2 One day after the evening meal Jesus and the young Philistine strolled down by the sea, and Gadiah, not knowing that this "scribe of Damascus" was so well versed in the Hebrew traditions, pointed out to Jesus the ship landing from which it was reputed that Jonah had embarked on his ill-fated voyage to Tarshish. And when he had concluded his remarks, he asked Jesus this question: "But do you suppose the big fish really did swallow Jonah?" Jesus perceived that this young man's life had been tremendously influenced by this tradition, and that its contemplation had impressed upon him the folly of trying to run away from duty; Jesus therefore said nothing that would suddenly destroy the foundations of Gadiah's present motivation for practical living. In answering this question, Jesus said: "My friend, we are all Jonahs with lives to live in accordance with the will of God, and at all times when we seek to escape the present duty of living by running away to far-off enticements, we thereby put ourselves in the immediate control of those influences which are not directed by the powers of truth and the forces of righteousness. The flight from duty is the sacrifice of truth. The escape from the service of light and life can only result in those distressing conflicts with the difficult whales of selfishness which lead eventually to darkness and death unless such God-forsaking Jonahs shall turn their hearts, even when in the very depths of despair, to seek after God and his goodness. And when such disheartened souls sincerely seek for God—hunger for truth and thirst for righteousness—there is nothing that can hold them in further captivity. No matter into what great depths they may have fallen, when they seek the light with a whole heart, the spirit of the Lord God of heaven will deliver them from their captivity; the evil circumstances of life will spew them out upon the dry land of fresh opportunities for renewed service and wiser living."

p1429:1 130:1.5 Jesus' last visit with Gadiah had to do with a discussion of good and evil. This young Philistine was much troubled by a feeling of injustice because of the presence of evil in the world alongside the good. He said: "How can God, if he is infinitely good, permit us to suffer the sorrows of evil; after all, who creates evil?" It was still believed by many in those days that God creates both good and evil, but Jesus never taught such error. In answering this question, Jesus said: "My brother, God is love; therefore he must be good, and his goodness is so great and real that it cannot contain the small and unreal things of evil. God is so positively good that there is absolutely no place in him for negative evil. Evil is the immature choosing and the unthinking misstep of those who are resistant to goodness, rejectful of beauty, and disloyal to truth. Evil is only the misadaptation of immaturity or the disruptive and distorting influence of ignorance. Evil is the inevitable darkness which follows upon the heels of the unwise rejection of light. Evil is that which is dark and untrue, and which, when consciously embraced and willfully endorsed, becomes sin.
p1429:2 130:1.6 "Your Father in heaven, by endowing you with the power to choose between truth and error, created the potential negative of the positive way of light and life; but such errors of evil are really nonexistent until such a time as an intelligent creature wills their existence by mischoosing the way of life. And then are such evils later exalted into sin by the knowing and deliberate choice of such a willful and rebellious creature. This is why our Father in heaven permits the good and the evil to go along together until the end of life, just as nature allows the wheat and the tares to grow side by side until the harvest." Gadiah was fully satisfied with Jesus' answer to his question after their subsequent discussion had made clear to his mind the real meaning of these momentous statements

reply to post by Seiju


The only "thing" [good] and [evil] is the word(s) and you can label anything, and everything with them.

What do you really know?

That whole story's meaning is that we should all commit to God's will and do God's bidding and he will bless us with his grace, but he who does not commit to God will be forsaken? Why cant God just let me walk my own path to enlightenment without his interference. I dont like him judging me.