Define Evil

Originally posted by WisdomMaster

Have you ever read something like this?

1. Do not kill
2. Do not steal
3. Do not indulge in sexual misconduct
4. Do not make false speech
5. Do not take intoxicants

These are the basic rules that all people should practice and abide by. As a result, you will live in Three Good Paths (Gods, Demigods & Human), not in Three Evil Paths (Hell, Hungry Ghosts & Animals), enjoy all the blessings, happiness and freedom in the Human Realm.

Most of us are evil, some are good.

Yes, this would be the principals practiced in Buddhism and also reflected by Lao Tsu in the Tao Te Ching. it is also at the core of Shinto becasue to do these tings dishonors your ancesters, it is the core of all "goodly" religions, the list goes on...

My point is that to attempt to identify and lable "Evil" as a thing is folly. As much as it would be to try to grasp smoke or try to forct Water to a single form, or to try and define Tao. One can say that certain acts are Evil, but one cannot state that Evil is any one thing.

Wraith

Originally posted by wraith30

Originally posted by WisdomMaster

Have you ever read something like this?

1. Do not kill
2. Do not steal
3. Do not indulge in sexual misconduct
4. Do not make false speech
5. Do not take intoxicants

These are the basic rules that all people should practice and abide by. As a result, you will live in Three Good Paths (Gods, Demigods & Human), not in Three Evil Paths (Hell, Hungry Ghosts & Animals), enjoy all the blessings, happiness and freedom in the Human Realm.

Most of us are evil, some are good.

Yes, this would be the principals practiced in Buddhism and also reflected by Lao Tsu in the Tao Te Ching. it is also at the core of Shinto becasue to do these tings dishonors your ancesters, it is the core of all "goodly" religions, the list goes on...

My point is that to attempt to identify and lable "Evil" as a thing is folly. As much as it would be to try to grasp smoke or try to forct Water to a single form, or to try and define Tao. One can say that certain acts are Evil, but one cannot state that Evil is any one thing.

Wraith

it's easier to fight on your side of the line in this debate- you are saying it can't be contained. some of us are saying it can............ AND THIS IS HOW.........

WHY do you believe it cannot be contained, defined, categorized or easily referenced?

Evil: Acts which are not Good.
Good: Acts which are a result of unconditional love.

Originally posted by fledgling666

it's easier to fight on your side of the line in this debate- you are saying it can't be contained. some of us are saying it can............ AND THIS IS HOW.........

WHY do you believe it cannot be contained, defined, categorized or easily referenced?

It cannot be defined becasue it is an idea, ideas are subject to change due to perception. Facts change in referance to evidence. We as a entity are still growing and evolving therefor our perceptions of reality are constantly changing, because of that change you cannot define an idea or a perception as an absolute.

Evil: Acts which are not Good.
Good: Acts which are a result of unconditional love.

sorry does not work that way, since good and evil are by their nature diometricly opposed your argument would have to be

Evil: Acts which are not Good.
Good: Acts which are not Evil.

or

Evil: Acts which are a result of unconditional Hate.
Good: Acts which are a result of unconditional love.

Wraith

Originally posted by wraith30
sorry does not work that way, since good and evil are by their nature diometricly opposed your argument would have to be

Evil: Acts which are not Good.
Good: Acts which are not Evil.

or

Evil: Acts which are a result of unconditional Hate.
Good: Acts which are a result of unconditional love.

Wraith

Unconditional love opposes nothing.

Edit:
Or to clarify, "Absolute Good" is a result of unconditional love. All else is is something less than absolute good. Thus the shades of grey and the problems with perception.

This is the reason the bible teaches to love thy enemy.
This is the reason Tao teaches to be passive.
This is the reason...



[edit on 15-10-2004 by Raphael_UO]

And as John the apostle said "there is no fear in love." How true it is.

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

Unconditional love opposes nothing.

Edit:
Or to clarify, "Absolute Good" is a result of unconditional love. All else is is something less than absolute good. Thus the shades of grey and the problems with perception.

This is the reason the bible teaches to love thy enemy.
This is the reason Tao teaches to be passive.
This is the reason...
[edit on 15-10-2004 by Raphael_UO]

Sooo, your using an undefinable thing to define an undefinable thing.....

Riiiight....

Ohh and the Bible teaches many things, Love thy enemy is but one of the cute fuzzies in it. Sadly the application of bible into Christianity teaches somethign very very differant.

Passive thought is not entirly accurate with what the Tao teaches.. The tao simply illistrates emptness and the indefiability of life. It teaches if nothign else the ability to look at everything equaly.


Ok back to art, Anton LeVay and free will as it exists with Freedom. The application of Free will results in freedom. granted Freedom has become a term for the legal ability for people to do things much like Anarchy is annother form of freedom without law. I woudl say however that Absolutly free will or rather the application of absolut free will results in absolute freedom or anarchy.

Anton Levay.. well .. sorry but he was a nutcase... please dont think I feel this way because he was the head of the church of satan and somehow I find that insulting. I could care less about the christian incarnations of good or evil. I just think that he himself was a nutter.. probibly has somethign to do with his claim that he was immortal and that Satan woud never let him die and later the drops from an bloodclot. I'm sorrry but I find that humerous.

As for the tower's destruction and it beign considered art.

That is exaclty my point, I agree that the execution of the plan was artistic in it's own sick way, but because there are people who would NEVER consider that art in any sence it is at that point subjectivie to opinion which is my whole point.

Wraith

A thought. I think that there always is a balance to things. As wraith30 said, Freedom is can be classified as absolute or in anarchy. Anarchy is free will expressed in an unbalanced state, while absolute free will is expressed in a rather balanced state. Anarchy is the first thing that occurs when law dissolves, simply because the people are not used to such a way of living. It's only natural this way, people know no better, because it's all they know, or at least for most. Thus anarchy is inevitable in the early stages, acts as a filter for those who seek balance. Does this thought make sense to anyone?

deaf fences hit

Originally posted by deaf fences hit
Does this thought make sense to anyone?

I understand this as far as my overly analytical mind will allow me. I read this and started correlating it with driving the streets without fear of police.

I'm thinking that the title I chose for this thread was really wrong. I should have went into a little more detail as to the context I was trying to convey. Oh well, I'm glad that I left the title vague and that people have been able to engage in discussion so courteously. Of course, had I titled this something more pertinent to my points, probably no one would have responded.

This thread has made me think a little differently about the term 'evil'. More accurately, it has given me a better understanding about how other people feel about it.

But just so everybody knows, I really only see it as a term. I don't believe in evil in the religious sense of the word, and since evil really only belongs in the context of religion, I don't believe in it at all. I think it is too vague and subjective to be of any real descriptive value.

Thanks for the thoughts everyone.

If anyone would like to read my posts on pages 1 and 2 to try to see what I was getting at with this, I would like to discuss this in that light. It was more intended to be a problem solving thread.

Originally posted by wraith30
Sooo, your using an undefinable thing to define an undefinable thing.....

Riiiight....

Unconditional Love can be defined.

Love: Unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for another.
Unconditional: not conditional or limited

Ohh and the Bible teaches many things, Love thy enemy is but one of the cute fuzzies in it. Sadly the application of bible into Christianity teaches somethign very very differant.

I did not say that it was all that the bible taught.

Passive thought is not entirly accurate with what the Tao teaches.. The tao simply illistrates emptness and the indefiability of life. It teaches if nothign else the ability to look at everything equaly.

I did not say that it taught passive thought.

An empty cup is still full.

Um... indefiability? Was this a typo or a made up word? Did you mean indefinability or that which could not be defied? Tao teaches to exist in harmony with the world.

Looking at things equally means naught. It is the action that is done when one sees things all things as equal that has meaning.

Uncondtional love sees all things as equal for it knows no conditions.

You cannot say that evil acts are acts which are not good acts. That makes every act either good, or evil.

There are some pretty neutral acts out there.

Good and evil oppose one another, to an extent. But like the rest of the world, there is a giant gray scale. Why are people so worried about limbo? Because they know they have done no good, and they have also done no evil.

Originally posted by ArtStarr
You cannot say that evil acts are acts which are not good acts. That makes every act either good, or evil.

There are some pretty neutral acts out there.

I can too say it. That should be obvious because you responded to it.

The acts that you call neutral, I would likely call indifferent.

Good and evil oppose one another, to an extent. But like the rest of the world, there is a giant gray scale.

Unconditional love opposes nothing.
Where does an act made with uncondtional love fall into this grey scale?

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
If anyone would like to read my posts on pages 1 and 2 to try to see what I was getting at with this, I would like to discuss this in that light. It was more intended to be a problem solving thread.

Lol, sorry about that DeltaChaos. Sometimes people can't help but go on about their own tangent it seems. So ok, to be more accommodating to your questions, why not regather them and post those which you still feel are unclear? As a lot has already been discussed since pages 1 and 2, your thoughts on the matter may have changed slightly. It also might help getting the thread back on track. What say you?

Still willing to assist,

deaf fences hit