This may be a bit esoteric for this forum, but I've been wondering what people's opinions are on this topic.

Do you believe that there is a real, Personal Evil?

I wonder because many SF books and games have "world specific" theories about the reality of evil. These often lead me to think about my view of evil in "this" reality. My views are complex but (hopefully) coherent. However, other opinions would be helpful food for thought. "Iron sharpens iron" and all that.

So, if some of you could fill me in on your opinions, I'd appreciate it!

Thanks - MAT

I'm not quite sure what you mean about a Personal Evil, an evil in all people or that some people are just evil, or perhaps even there exist a thing as the Personification of evil?

But I can add my view on evil. I dont think there is such a thing as good or evil, what is good and what is evil?
And then we use the terms so much there must be something called good and evil. I think that these ideas are the perceptions of a social developing creature, as the human is.
It is almost the same question of right and wrong, it's a perception as well(in my mind).

Lokken, thanks for the opinion.

To clarify my question, I do mean a real, personal, personification of evil. Similar to the Devil / Satan.

If he exists (the question at hand) is he/she/it intelligent? Does he/she/it work under any contraints or limits? How free can he/she/it work to further it's goals?

aaah, ok, well, I'm not being a believer in any of the religions or mytholigies I know of, though I would not outrule a entity of creation, or the opposite.

If we say it(I wont go sex discriminating here :D) exists as a person, I would think it highly intelligent, if we follow the stories of lucifer. Let's say God was the powerfull one, and Lucifer the Clever and evil. Mat, plz correct me in this story if I'm wrong, I do believe you know it since you have been a pastor. Lucifer tried to trick God, to give him power (can't remember how much, half or whole I think), but God refused and banished Lucifer from the heavens. In his downfall, Lucifer tricked 1/3 of the heavens angels to follow him.

From this story and the Adam, Eve and the snake story, I would believe evil to very clever.

How to further its goals, I assume would be to convert people to worship it, instead of God. Though following the bible, we allready became banished from Eden and evil got us form the start. Now we have brought evil all the way from our roots, like some sort of hereditary disease

Again, if existing in some sort of pshysical form, I think evil would be bound to the different laws of nature as well, but if it exists only for the believing (you almost can't ignore lucifer, while believing in God) I think it's not some sort physical of form, more like an illusion created by the believer. The believer's willpower will then decide whether to take a good or evil path, when facing different situations.

sorry if I keep babling here, I just find religion extremely fascinating :D

Yes I think there is. I've heard stories about occult things happened from persons of who I know they don't lie. And there are aslo stories about angels and I don't think you just made up a sensational story. I believe in God and the Devil and also about powers you can't see, good and evil. Servants of God and of the Devil.

For people who like this subject, I advic: Read the books of Peretti, it goes about that invisible angels and demons and their influence on life.

I think there is good and evil in everyone. What you lean toward depends on the actions you take in life. I definitely think there is Karma out there...You build it up based on the "good" or "bad" things you do.

I also think that one can switch between the two...Going from good to evil...Sort of like how Luke brings back Vader from the Dark Side.

As for Angels and Devils and such...Who knows? But definitely feel like I have someone that looks out for me - I have pretty awesome luck...That I tend to rely on waaay toooo often!

Not win the lottery kind of luck...More like life's on the line balls against the wall come out on top in the end kind of luck. If you know what I mean?

You want my opinion? I don't believe in one all-powerfull force controlling everything. This means I don't believe in gods. And as such I don't believe in personification of Evil nore good. That's just my opinion.

I do believe in medical miracles because
I do believe that the functions and capabilities of the human body is far from discovered. (hence look at my profile) But I am a scientist not a sage.

Why do You ask? You were once a preacher. Must have heard a lot of this already.

In my opinion there is no Evil only views of what is right and wrong. People give personification to evil because we refuse to belive that one being is responsible for good and bad or else we hate ourselves. We revile those among us who commit unpleasant acts against society or others. But anyone of us is capable of it. So we refuse that which we know is possible.

Why do I ask? Because I'm curious! :p

Seriously - people who read SF and play cRPG's normally have considered alternative worldviews, if only for the games and books that they engage. Star Wars has a very different concept of "evil" (cf Bel's post) than the Lord of the Rings (more like Headbanger's and mine).

Alongside this fact, I've realized that this is a very international and intellectually diverse forum.

Both of these facts made me curious what sort of worldview people come from, and a question such as this will usually outline someone's worldview better than asking "what is your worldview".

*******
My take on all this . . .

Disclaimer: as previous posts have mentioned, I used to be a preacher so I come to this topic with my own bias. However, I do try to be intellectually sound and fair to other ideas.

I believe that "evil" is defined as rebellion against God. With this definition, everyone engages in evil activity, even me!

I also believe that there are supernatural beings that are fundamentally evil. The leader of these is an individual who used to be an arc-angel. He fell because he rebelled against God.

This means that "the Devil" (although there are better names for him) is not elemental evil. He is of the same essential substance that angels are created from. It is his will and thinking that has become twisted and evil. I do believe that he is intelligent and able to make plans. One huge limiting factor (and this is where my understanding starts to fall apart) is that he can act only within the context of God's permission. The Devil is not God's equal and evil counterpart. He is weaker, slower and less effective than God.

Consider the Eye of Mordor (in the Lord of the Rings). He is powerful and to be feared, but is ultimately overcome. He downfall is not due to luck or hobbit ingenuity. Indeed his downfall was foretold in prophecy and was realized by a group of individuals who were supported by an unseen power. (I can't quote it from heart, but read the last chapter of the Hobbit and you'll see what I mean).

perhaps he is weaker, but still...
Mind over matter, ain't that what people say?
I mean, the "devil" has many times been connected with intelligence (though evil).
I dont say that God is stupid, just perhaps, more ignorant to his true intentions.


In old-norse mytholigy, there are many gods, where one Loki (Loke) represents the trickster or evil god. He has extreme intelligence though as you say, he(evil) is overcome and, in this case, his treachery punished by eternal torment (bound by unbrakeable chains/ropes while acid is dripping in his face). It is said that when he brakes free from his prison, Ragnarok will arrive. Ragnarok can be compared to Judgement day (armageddon whatever)


[This message has been edited by Lokken (edited June 12, 2001).]

TO MATHETAIS: People reading SF and watching movies tend to have alternative worldviews because they read and watch those kind of things. Its business. We are meant to dream and admire those environments put before us. In short It is called harmless manipulation.

True I love the StarWars concept of the Universe. True I wish there was a world of magic. And admitting to this belief gives me a better life. So why not? its Harmless. Still had I lived in India 400 years ago my beliefs would have been different. Wouldn't Yours?
Anyway I do follow Your view of things and they are cool. Gives some meaning in both in life and beyond death.

[This message has been edited by Nobleman (edited June 12, 2001).]

As far as good or evil taking shape into a human form, I do not know..it happens. I believe moreso, both God and Satan use people indirectly to serve some sort of purpose in his/her life. To take it a bit further, human manifestation is a frightening subject. I don't even know where to start talking about it.

Many people I've known wish that sometime in their life they would either meet an angel or a demon, so they can know for sure if there is heaven or hell. If there is a heaven, there is a hell. If there is a hell, there is a heaven. I think ultimately it's faith, not what you see. Sight can be very deceiving. Still to this day I question myself of what I saw that day. About when I was thirteen years old, I was confronted by some sort of a demon. I don't like to talk about it much. It still gives me chills thinking about it. The reason why I even posted, I was curious if anybody else has ever had any other brushes with a demonic or angelic force/creature?

Vandalore - you're not the only one. While I don't believe that there are demons in every shadow and temptation, I do believe that there are manifestations of both demons and angels.

A friend of mine was possessed in college. It was one of the most terrifying experiences of my life.

Indeed. That everybody has some idea about Good and Evil says something about us. We wanna know everything these days and we are searching for the truth. Of course what you believe depends on where and when you live but there's a God. That one God is ment in almost every Religion however not every religion goes on with it the way it should be. Many people believe that there's a God but a second thing is to know who he is, what he wants us to do etc.

You can not prove that God excists. It's a matter of Faith and Believe. And when you believe you have a prove, for Paul says: The believe in God is the prove of what you hope, and the prove of what you can't see.

I may not be religious and i may not believe in the god the bible refers too. But i know there is evil in the world.

Every child molester, mass murderer, terrorist, etc. That is evil.

This answer works for this thread & for Headbanger's re: Life after Death.

Pascal came up with this Wager:

If God does not exist, and you believe in him. . .

you GAIN a moral foundation for life and a community of support;

you only LOOSE some time spent in religious activity that could have been spent other ways.

If God does exist and you do not believe in him . . .

you GAIN some small freedom to engage in certain activities

you LOOSE eternal life in heaven in exchange for eternal life of torment.

Question is: Which is the smarter bet?

Pascal's wording:
"God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up... Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, you knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose... But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

If we are only belivers from pure calculations, can't God see through it then?
If we don't believe we can't just convert, even if we know it is " a smarter bet"

True, you can't fool God. Pascal's wager is just a starting point.
I believe that my faith is rooted in fact, and that sometimes evidence comes before emotion. Therefore a mathematical beginnning will usually end up with a passionate faith.

At least that's how CS Lewis got his start! From agnostic to faithful disciple all because he was intellectually honest.

Hmmm...

You do not need a god to gain a moral foundation and a community of support.

If there is a god and an eternal afterlife, and you do not believe in him/her/it, most would agree that you do not lose that eternal life if you lead a moral life.

Is it not more immature morally to need an external reason (a god) to behave in a moral fashion?

BTA - Good points.

However, where would a foundation for action / ethics come from without a source of Objective Truth? If God does not exist, then Truth is relative, and that is a slippery slope towards relativism.

But isn't that reality? How many religions are there in just this world? And do they not all claim to be the source of Objective Truth?

BTA - that's a whole new topic, "What is TRUTH" and can one worldview claim to have objective truth.

I would hold that there is one objective truth which is revealed in manifold ways. Natural revelation = Natural Law. These are things that all groups hold to be true (more or less). Special Revelation would be (IMO) the Bible, which details more of the metaphysical Truths of the universe.

If there is no Objective Truth, then we cannot know or do anything, we cannot say anything, nor can we live in society.

I don't now knowledge of Religions but there is a difference between the Cristian religion and ANY other religion in the world.

Oh, I did not question that there exists an Objective Truth. What I questioned was does an absence of a god necessitate the absence of an Objective Truth? Does a god have to be the source of Truth?

Think about it for one moment... Why do people act with good morals? Answer: Because almost everyone benefits from it. If people act hostilly toward each other, almost nobody is happy besides the one. I think people have kind of come together and realized that it's better to treat one another decently because we function better that way. Of course, that still leaves the question of why there is evil still in the world.

Vile, I agree completely.
Though would we know what is good, if we did not know what is evil?

[This message has been edited by Darien Noella (edited July 07, 2001).]

well for me it ain't a question. Read Genesis........

And had you been born in a remote place where the Bible never reached? What then?

Natural Revelation. Everything in general that we need to know is expressed through creation. (To me that answer isn't 100% satisfying, but its the best that I have)

that is quite a hard question and i wish i would've chimed in earlier i'm sure my opinion was swayed by all the previous posts but i'll try to give the untainted version.

what is evil exactly. it is hard to say one person's evil may be another person's good. it really is an abstract subject the whole idea of good and evil. for instance one might say that lying to someone is a horrible thing to do, but what if that lie was to spare the person's feelings or to quell a riot anything can be looked at as evil or good. truth on the other is completely the same for all people when one lies it is a lie to everyone they may not realize it but it still is, it is a completely literal term and one not to be taken in a realative sense, one person's truth is another person's lie simply makes no sense. and finally as for whether there is some ultimate manifestation of evil such as say satan, i cant say i believe in that in even the slightest, how can such a being of ultimate evil exist, for that to be true there would have to be an ultimate being of good, and if that were true in the end there would be ultimately just neutrality and i for one cannot see how someone can be neutral, to do so one would have to give up all of their feelings, thoughts and opinions which is humanly impossible.

Egg: The inbetween would be neutral, true. But on one side is evil and on the other is good. Staying neutral would be like walking a tightrope... you can't do it without training. It all comes down to which side you fall down on...

although u have a good point azardu i feel i must refute it in some futile attempt so here it comes: neutrality cannot exist for the very reason that the rope would be so thin that it would be none existant a concept covered in topology, so it would have no dimensions thus not existing, anything can be proven/refuted with minimal knowledge of mathematics and twisted logic ;)

Ahh, mathematics, eh? Try this one then: Sway a little to evil, then back a little to good. Assign numbers to them, using evil as the negative part of the axis. Let's say then, that your evil actions are "-2" and your good actions are "2", then sum it up, and you get "0". You fall down on one side of the rope you cannot see, climb up again, and fall down on the other side. My definition of neutrality is to vary between good and evil all the time. Making the rope nonexistant would only make it easier to cross between them.

Egg - I think I get your point. It would be a much more logical debate to discuss the existance of absolute "Truth" instead of the existance of ultmate "Evil". (perhaps???)

From a biblical world-view, the questions intermingle. The Adversary (aka Satan or Lucifer) is called both evil and the Father of Lies.

As mentioned befrore, my main reason for asking this is to get a feel for some of the different Worldview's that we are interacting with on the Forum. Can't quite figure out yours yet . . .

BTA -- what exactly is an Objective Truth if there is no God behind it? "God" means an object of worship... if you are not worshipping a spiritual being greater than yourself, but you believe in an objective truth, sounds to me like you're worshipping yourself... feel free to sound off on me.

Why must you worship something in order for there to be truth?

Objective truths are those things that are true for everyone/everything; in other words not subjective or based on your own biases/perceptions.

Do you believe that there is nothing that is objectively true unless there is a god behind it?

Actually, if you look at it from a purely scientific standpoint, there is no truly objective truth. Everything you know about the world is perceived and depends upon your frame of reference. However I thought we were talking about objective truth as it pertains to morality and religion. If you don't have a god behind the truth of what is moral, then you have the people determining what is moral, which by definition makes it subjective.

On another note, as a Christian I do not believe you get into heaven by being good. There is no debit/credit system where good works cancel out bad ones. The only thing accepted in heaven is perfection. (yay, am I ever opening a can of worms)

Now you've hit on it! That is why we were talking about objective truth; how do we know what is objective truth when we can only see truth through our own perceptions.

However, just because we don't know what is objective truth does not mean that there exists no objective truth does it?

Also, are you saying that morality is not subjective? Then why are there so many debates and opinions on what is and is not moral?

[This message has been edited by Blackthorne TA (edited June 18, 2001).]

Since I believe in morality as defined by the Creator, naturally I believe that there is an objective or absolute morality. I also agree that in the final analysis, you can never know objective truth by logical reasoning. The reason for this is that all scientific analysis must be based on a set of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.

Scientists who mock religion have forgotten this fact. No matter whether you think God exists or not, you still have a fundamental set of beliefs. Without a framework to attach our perceptions and observations to, there can be no scientific progress. Science and religion are not at odds; rather, religion is the foundation that science is built on.

So then the cannibals out in the jungle are amoral even though they know nothing of your Creator and believe they are acting in a perfectly moral manner?

And the only assumptions made in scientific analysis are that what you observe and measure is the truth.

the point i was trying to make in all my *****y little posts was that there is no absolute neutral and absolute truth and absolute untruth hence lies or both sides respectively of good and evil. but telling the truth is not always the good way to go now is it? im sure you all know what i mean. and we are left with different tints of gray, which is essentiallly what the world is, nothing can be absolutely evil for teh same reason nothing can be absolutely good or absolutely neutral. and although truth is a big factor in deciding ones "side" it is not the basis of either. does everyone get what im saying....??

I get what you're saying, but think of "absolute (or objective) truth" more as "de facts as dey are" rather than "always being truthful".

Certainly the savages are acting immorally. What they believe does not change the truth. I don't accept relative morality or relative truth.

Interesting! So by an accident of birth, you can be doomed to suffer the consequences in the afterlife of an amoral life and have absolutely no idea! Ignorance is NOT bliss!

Or do I have that wrong? You never stated your beliefs about the consequences of ignorantly leading an amoral life...

I wonder what the "savages" believe in that regard and whether your beliefs are "true" or theirs are... You both obviously believe you know what is moral, yet you both can't be right can you?

[This message has been edited by Blackthorne TA (edited June 19, 2001).]

I agree with Mathetias. The creation itself speaks of God, and we can learn His standards from nature. Interestingly enough, cultures that we label "primitive" or "heathen" often have higher moral standards than we here in the US. Moral decadency is usually a product of civilization.

EDIT: In reference to your last statement there, hence my belief in an absolute truth rather than a relative truth. To believe that each defines his own truth and own morality and gets to heaven his own way is to me absurd, since I believe in a very present God. To say that I have the truth and he doesn't sounds arrogant I know. I would by no means suggest that I possess truth in its fulness, but I do believe I'm on the right path and he is not. Sorry if that is offensive.

-- this is almost turning into a chat session.

[This message has been edited by Capstone (edited June 19, 2001).]

Wait! Now I'm confused!

First you say the cannibals are certainly immoral, then you say they learned God's standards from nature.

If they believe they are acting morally in their cannibalism, and they have learned God's standards from nature, then are they not behaving within God's standards? And are they not therefore behaving in a moral fashion?

EDIT:
I'm not offended in the least! I'm simply asking questions and making statements of my own...

[This message has been edited by Blackthorne TA (edited June 19, 2001).]

Cannibals would certainly be immoral. Don't think there is anything moral about eating people.

I'm saying that it is possible to learn God's standards from nature, not that everyone actually has.

but morality is completely relative cannbals dont know theyre immoral, but other poeple are more "civilized" and i use that term loosely, thus thinking that those unlike them are some kind of savages. nature can teach you nothing it is a person's nature that that person develops that ultimately decides how they act.

Once again, interesting! Correct me if I'm wrong, but as a Christian do you not partake of the body and blood of Christ (as a matter of faith it is believed to be truly His body and blood) during your religious ceremonies?

If this is not true of all Christians, it is certainly true of Catholics and their offshoots.

So, is eating people moral or isn't it?

Blackthorne, the catholics say that.

For us it is only a symbol, the wine symbolizes the blood, the bread the body for we believe that Jesus Christ gave his body and his blood for us and bought us free with that. The catholics believe the wine changes into his blood and the bread into his body but that's not right.

They can look around, see the whole nature and that should let them think... that cannot be created my accident.

OK, so symbolically eating another person vs. really doing it as the Caltholics do... A minor difference IMO, since if it was an immoral act, you wouldn't symbolize it in your religious ceremonies either would you?

As to your second post in a row (which you shouldn't do ;) ) I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but I'll guess you were referring to my "accident of birth" statement above. I'm sure it doesn't translate well from English, but what "an accident of birth" essentially means is that they were not given any choice in the matter of where they were born or under what society they were raised.

[This message has been edited by Blackthorne TA (edited June 19, 2001).]

*sigh*

Alright, the reason for communion!

First off, might help if you think of the meaning of the word "communion" -- a close fellowship, a heart-to-heart relationship. This is what the taking of the wine and bread (His body and blood) symbolizes; our union with Him -- not natural, but spiritual, as a bride and groom. It is not enough to simply worship some distant far off God out there, impersonal and uncaring. We are joined to a living, loving Lord; the celebration of communion is a reminder of His sacrifice for us, as well as a foreshadowing of the end result of that redemption: a wedding supper to come, when He returns to claim us.

Heh heh heh... Of course I realize it's not quite the same thing. My point was to show that the statement "don't think there is anything moral about eating people" bears more thought, and that the idea should not be so easily dismissed.

Cannibals do not eat people like you and I would eat a cow or a pig; to them it is a spiritual endeavor. By eating this person they believe they are acquiring their attributes, becoming one with that person. If you think about it, it is really not all that different.

The glaring difference of course is that Christ is/was a willing participant. :)

BTA, sorry for the double post, the evil also sometimes works through me :D

What I tried to say is, everybody can know that the whole world with all it's beauty cannot be evoluted from nothing to this. It must be the job of a great Artist. Even without a bible you see that God exists.

BTA - the Romans used to kill us left and right on the charges of Idolatry, Cannibalism & Incest.

Idolatry = we had a god other than Caesar
Cannibalism = Eucharist
Incest = old practice of the kiss of fellowship among "brothers & sisters" in Christ.

Part of me is still waiting for the persecution to pick up in the Western world again. However, more people have been martyred for the Christian faith in the 20th Century than in all previous centuries combined!!!! (a little off the subject)

Back to the point: There is a difference between social evil & ontological evil.

Headbanger double posted. The act violated Sorcerer's rules, yet did not violate the "natural law" that I believe God wove into the foundation of the world. Evil?

In the 1st Century, people could take the money their parents had set aside for their retirement, and donate it to the Temple. By doing so, they would elevate their own social status, which would normally lead to financial gain. This was 100% legal and was even supported by a few verses of the Bible (taken out of context and stretched out of proportion). Evil?

You see the difference? When you read the second account something inside says, "Hey, that's not right." That voice is IMHO, part of the image of God that is in each of us. It helps us tap into a thought life / moral life that is beyond empirical evidence. Without this voice, I believe we would have to live in either anarchy or tyranny.

Mathetais - Yes! I agree with that. But then why must this internal voice have it's origin in God or any other god?

The question here seems to ask why certain individuals are 'chosen' to be saved all because of some chance birth location. If you are born in a developed nation, Christianity will be available to those who would seek Christ. A 'savage' on the other hand has no choice in the matter and is therefore doomed to eternal damnation.

My wife's aunt and uncle were missionaries in Brazil for several years during the 80's, helping the so called 'savages' to have a better life and to translate the word of God for them. I suppose Christian ideas were made available to the tribe and then the ultimate choice would be up to them (which is what Christianity is based on: personal choice.)
We discuss the various forms of truth and the methods that God may use to make himself known to us, but in reality we are passing on these ideas to our fellow humans and not God. Just look at young children; by default they are chaotic and must be taught how behave and act in a moralistic manner. So it seems that all truth is 'subjective' and is tainted by our own personal ideals. It may be argued that the bible is the 'objective' truth but it is written much like poetry and can be interpreted in so many ways. Look at all the religious denominations or even compare catholics and protestants. They argue and fight about who is right and yet they all still follow the same rule book, how objective is that?

BTA - Honestly, because I cannot develope a single other theory that holds water!

There are two competing maxim's that have battled their way through church history;

1 - Reasoning leads to believing
2 - Believing leads to reasoning

School "1" holds that Christianity is logical and that emperical study can reach the conclusion that will ultimately lead to faith.

School "2" holds that Christianity is logical, but that you just can't get the logic until you've made the decision of faith.

Both ideas have merit. Every idea that we hold to be "true" is really a step of faith. You can't empirically prove that Gravity is a constant phenomena. Someday I might drop a quarter and have it fall "up". No matter how many times it falls down, I can not prove that it will never fall up. Hence, there is a need for faith, even at the core of science.

Theology is similar. I have eliminated many other possible explanations for the moral triggers that I experience within myself and within others. The only explanation that holds true is that this is part of the image of God, from the Christian worldview.

Moeken - That's how I see things as well.

Mathetais - What of the simplest explanation? That the society you are raised in impresses their subjective morality on you, and that is how you come to learn what is moral and what is not.

A simplistic analog is language. You are raised speaking a particular language (or perhaps more than one). You cannot understand someone who speaks a language you don't. When someone speaks in a language you know, but uses incorrect grammar, it "sounds wrong". You may not be able to explain exactly what was wrong and why, but you know it is wrong because that is the way you were taught, and that's not the way everyone else in your society speaks...

Mathetais - As you well know, this decision is not an easy one to make. There is the 'cut loss' theory stating that we have nothing to lose and everything to gain, but there has to be a bit more to it than that. Many of us have been taught to question the unknown and to only accept answers with hard fast proof. To accept something solely on the grounds of faith is unheard of.
BTA's question is a valid one: Do we need God in order to be moral and good?

If moral values are simply impressed upon us by society, where do we get these turnaround lives from? There have been many people who left a hedonistic lifestyle to serve God. Are you throwing that into the lap of society as well?

Of course. Because someone is living a "hedonistic lifestyle" does not mean they believe they are living a moral life. Those that believe they are being moral continue living their life in the same manner. Those that believe they are being immoral and mature enough to want to behave morally change their lifestyle. Either way their beliefs are shaped by the societies they live and interact with.

[This message has been edited by Blackthorne TA (edited June 27, 2001).]

While we're on the subject of evil, what about the 1st(?) Commandment. Are non-Christians inherently evil? Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Humanists and so forth all live their lives by a moral framework, which I believe is as valid as the Christian one, but are not Christian- so in the eyes of Christians are they sinners?

P.S Apologies for forgetting that Jews and Christians worship the same god and are covered by the same first commandment

[This message has been edited by Ironbeard (edited June 29, 2001).]

Ironbeard - short answer (no offense on the "short" thing ;) )

YES.

Long answer - Jews, Muslims and CHRISTIANS are all essentially evil. Catch that - Christians included.

That's the whole root of Christianity. We are all sinful. We all lust, lie, steal, cheat and fall short of the standard at least once in our lives.

Judaism & Islam confront the "sin problem" with law. By performing righteous acts they believe that it is possible to find redemption (That is way over simplified, I know!)

Christianity confronts the "sin problem" with grace. We do not have the moral firepower to get ourselves out of the predicament our sins have gotten us into (we've "earned" damnation). That is why we need a savior who was perfect and divine to pay for them. That's where Jesus comes in to the picture.

Hmmmm. Looks like some really basic theology I've overlooked. Thanks for taking the time to explain this to an unenlightened atheist :D. What I was really trying to ask however (and I guess my poor syntax and ignorance of basic theology made me misunderstood) was whether or not you believed that subscribing to a particular religion made one person "better" than another.

Subscribing to a religion does absolutely nothing for you except perhaps to give you better morals. As a Christian, I believe it's a personal relationship with God that makes you "better" than another. I keep the quotes because it is not you that is becoming better, per se; it is the denial of self and yielding to His leadership that defines a Christian's life.

To piggy-back off Capstone's statment . . .

I am a Christian, but do not consider myself "better" than anyone else. It is Grace that has saved me, not my works (so I can't boast or think that I'm better).

I do believe that the life that I have in the Kingdom of God is far more "real" and "fulfilling" than life outside of the kingdom.

So, if you're an Atheist & I'm a Christian, I'm not BETTER than you. However, I do believe that I have the assurance of eternal life at the right hand of God, while you lack that assurance.

Which leads me to my "The Church needs to get it's ACT together Rant" . . .

If we "Christians" are saved, happy & blessed, then why does the church normally close its doors to the differnet thinking, different looking people in the World? We should be the most active, the most diverse, and the most welcoming group the world has ever seen.

My goal is to help people of all walks of life: Goths, Geeks & Geriatrics . . . all understand the message of the Gospel.

Rant & Sermon over (for now ;) )

Lemme start with spamming once again parts about evil in person (creature) from different opinions...


Lokken:
In his downfall, Lucifer tricked 1/3 of the heavens angels to follow him...I would believe evil to very clever.

Marnix:
I've heard stories about occult things happened from persons of who I know they don't lie.

Sir Bel:
As for Angels and Devils and such...feel like I have someone that looks out for me

Kris:
And as such I don't believe in personification of Evil nor good...I am a scientist not a sage.

Nerd:
People give personification to evil because we refuse to belive that one being is responsible for good and bad.

Mat:
I also believe that there are supernatural beings that are fundamentally evil.
"the Devil"...is not elemental evil...It is his will and thinking that has become twisted and evil.

Vandalore:
About when I was thirteen years old, I was confronted by some sort of a demon.

Marnix again:
You can not prove that God exists. It's a matter of Faith and Believe.

Mat again:
The Adversary (aka Satan or Lucifer) is called both evil and the Father of Lies...

1 - Reasoning leads to believing
2 - Believing leads to reasoning

Moeken:
BTA's question is a valid one: Do we need God in order to be moral and good?


...Other posts in this thread turned into objective (absolute) truth, morality, neutrality, etc... :mad:

------------------------------


Ok, now beliefs (rules) of mine *evil grin*

1. I can move any mountain. If I trully believe I can.
2. There are creatures in this world not discovered yet.
3. If you believe someone, only then he/she/it can trick you.
4. It is impossible to measure everything. But it is possible to make a word for it.
5. The powers of human brain are not completely discovered. We only know it's biological display.
6. There is a thing called collective consciousness - the power of belief grows with number of people with the same belief.

A conclusion on the topic question:
The evil impersonalized in a creature(s) exists. We made it - with power of our beliefs. It is created, it lives.
This makes another my belirf - we also created good creature (let's say god or gods) with our willpower.

And what does evil entity do today?
His prime rule is to make us NOT to believe that it exists. His existence was made just to oppose/destroy the good entity - if we stop to believe that evil one exists, we won't need the good one and we'll stop to believe that he exists too. And they'll both vanish forever.
I won't number what sorts of things this evil entity does - you all felt it on your own skin. But you don't believe it was work of an evil entity. The more you don't believe it exists - more you don't need good entity. Will he succeed in destroying itself - and the good entity too?

This is my opinion. It does not have any links to morality and truth. All different cultures have different moral scales and all have different truth basis. Those two things are not nor can be related to evil entity. They are just parts of human acting. Unless evil enitity uses them to kill the belief.

And last of my blasphemies - there is a third entity not related to evil and good entities. That third one is not good nor evil. It is a Creator.
I do not believe in Big Bang out of nothing. I believe in shaping things by pure will.
You can't say "Creator is good - he made beautiful nature and universe."
You can't say "Creator is evil - he made ugly creatures and space objects that endanger Earth."
Creator is the one who gave us will to use. And we used it. And created two beings in which evil and good are impersonalized. But, does he care? Does he even care that we mix him up with beings we created by our mass willpower?

Why do I make to believe in things this way? Because I was victim of human willpowers. Never physical powers. I'm not givin' you ****. Yes, you can call it witchcraft.
The mind rules over strength - body is only for hire.

------------------------------------

Important:

I'm sorry if I offended someone with my beliefs - it was not my intension. This is only my small opinion on the topic, I do not intend that someone takes me as I'm suggesting that my belief is the only right belief.
Believe whatever you wish. Whatever you experienced. Whatever you hope for. But don't believe in things just because others want to make you to believe in them. Don't believe in things just because others EXPECT you to believe.
And I'm not atheist.