Blessed are the Cynical

Remove all ads!

While I believe in God, I don't necessarily belive that God is objectively good... God simply *is*, and it's mankind who applies labels in an effort to wrap our limited minds around the Infinte. That said, you can pretty well guess that I don't believe in the existence of Satan - that's a human-created myth, intended to frighten children into not being naughty (Satan... Santa... two sides of the same coin, hmmmm? )

Human life is a constant struggle between our good inclinations, the yetzer tov, and our tendency to do wrong, the yetzer hara. How we tip the scales is a complex mix of society and religion and personality, but I think it's an individual struggle, not one that's pre-ordained or influenced by any sort of external, objective entity.

 

If I was a zebra, I'd view lions as the most evil creature on the planet. If I was a lion, I'd view zebras as lunch. That wouldn't make me evil; that would make me hungry.

 

I don't like the word 'believe'...but for the sake of convenience in conversation I can say I believe in power. So, are there external forces affecting our decisions? Most assuredly, but also completely dependant on how and what you define external to be. I don't believe in anything supernatural for instance, but it's only a question of definitions. For me, if something can happen and it happens it is the most natural thing, albeit a thing that happens only once, extremely seldom, or only in certain rare and extremely specific circumstances is usually called supernatural. But when it's tagged and labeled that, it usually means that the person defining the occurence as that questions the occurence or the beliefs concerning the occurence only up to a point. This point is rather arbitrary, but within the frames of personal psychology, biology and culture.

How believing in power could be understood, and in most cases it is understood, is that good and evil are arbitrary and that in the end it is might which makes right. Now before you go and start moralizing this seemingly amoral point of view, I'll make it clear that I think that there's far more power and far more potential power in the action which the majority of people, religions and ethical thinkers would commonly denominate as 'good'.

 

The ultimate cynic, Kurt Vonnegut, in Sirens of Titan:

 

I actually agree with this. If you accept the existence of God but don't accept the usual explanations for why he doesn't make the world a better (most of which are full of contradictions, themselves explained by "he is God so we cannot understand him"), then take a look at said world, "he doesn't care" would be about the only possible explanation for the state of things.

 

Actually, keeping peace with one's significant other (or prospective significant other) is the right thing to do. Chick flicks may be the less pleasant aspect of the job. Much like changing a baby's diaper is a less pleasant part of caring for a child. Come to think of it, The back-loaded diapers have similar content to most chick flicks...

God made the world, and told us how to care for it and make it better. It's not His fault that the people on it won't do as they were told--or even challenge the instructions given...

 

You know, Gnarff, in all my 30 years, God has never talked to me. Not even once. How can I "do what I'm told" if God isn't talking?

 

It's in the manual, you know, the Bible...

 

You mean that book put together over hundreds of year from the various ravings and mumblings of any guy in the area who either spent too much time thinking or were just plainly loony. Which then was extensively edited, changed and generally tampered with by a whole bunch of political bodies doing so for political reasons.

You are telling us that the ULTIMATE TRUTH is composed of the ideas and thoughts of a bunch of tribal shamans who had too much time on their hands sitting around thinking about how stuff worked and then added and edited by anyone who felt like writing it down for hundreds of years until a group of middle aged men thought their people needed some structure and locked the book in place?

I guess that is what they call a leap of faith.

 

Are you sure it's the bible? What about the Koran? What about the 35+ non-canonical gospels that the human beings running the Catholic church elected not to include in the bible or the apocryphal books taken out of the old testament around 60AD? What about the Baghavad Gita, the Tao-te-ching, Spring and Autumn Annals, the I Ching (Book of Changes ), the Book of Rites, the Book of History, the Book of Songs, the Talmud, the Upanishads, the Vedas, the Tantras, the Puranas, the Epics, Dianetics, the Book of Mormon, the Analects, or the hundreds of others I left out? Are you sure the bible is the right one? Unless God decides to tell me which book is the "right" book, I'm inclined to believe that God, if there even is a God, doesn't really care what I think.

 

How about actual prophets? Assuming that God exists and did show himself to selected messengers.

That's their sins to answer for, but the basics have not changed.

It does require that.

It denies the atonement of Christ, thus condemning mankind from the start.

No doubt some valuable information, but if it was that important, wouldn't it be wider known?

Never heard of them, and can't speak for them.

A Highly reccommended read, along with the Doctrine and Covenants, but again, they do not replace the Bible.

Joaqin mentioned a leap of faith. This requires that you make one, to reach out to God. In Christianity, you'd have heard about the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. It is by the Holy Ghost that you will find peace when you get it right.

Honestly, most of it won't seem foreign to you...

 

Fine, the Bible it is... which translation?

 

Rally, if God isn't objectively good, what is he/she/it? Or are you saying that there's no such thing as 'objectively good'? What exactly do you believe about this 'God' in that case? Is he/she/it perfect, by any definition of the term? Did he/she/it make everything in existence? Does he/she/it rule over said everything? If so, can it be argued that he/she/it has the right to define 'objective, absolute good' as he/she/it sees fit?

Gnarff, Drew, settle down. Gnarff, you said you pretty much believe humans are born good, innocent, and stupid. I liked that quote, too, but it isn't in line with the theology of original sin. What does the Morman Church teach about that doctrine? What do you believe?

Drew, you've said there's no such thing as good or evil, yet causing harm to others is 'wrong'. What is the difference between this 'wrong' and 'evil'? Do you just dislike the way the term 'evil' has been used in the past (justify holy wars, witch hunts, persecution of women, etc.), or is there another connotation that you don't like to associate with your beliefs of 'wrong'.

As for the analysis of children, certain adjustments have to be made. Young children have yet to develop a concept of the perspectives of others, and are thus necessarily egocentric in all their actions. I don't classify this a greedy, its just the way they think. Have any of you really watched, however, how children interact with each other? How often do they resort to reason or sharing to solve disputes without outside influence? How often do they resort to violence? Lying? Trickery of some kind or another?

 

@NOG: There are things we can all agree are bad. Killing babies, nuking Japan (oh, wait...we don't all agree on that one), genocide...we agree that these things are bad. The question, though, is are they evil? To be truthful, I have little problem with the terms good and evil being applied to actions, but we don't use them that way. We apply these terms to people. From a Christian perspective Christs admonishment to "Judge not, lest ye be judged" is especially applicable. From that Christian perspective, only the LORD has the right to judge the hearts of men, so we mere humans should eschew such terminology when referring to other people.

From my secular perspective (I don't presume to speak for all secularists), Good and Evil are simply not constructive concepts. If a man is Evil, that means everything he does is guided by some sort of malevolent intent. This is a bad assumption to make, since the only person who knows why I do anything is me. A person may do great things for the most selfish of reasons or horrible things with the noblest intentions. It is OK to judge the actions, but not the person.

Muslims would differ, saying that the Christians went wrong in deifying Christ, thus condemning the from the start. Can you prove that the Muslims are wrong and the Christians are right?

You seem to have missed the reason I brought the non-canonical books up. I brought them up to make you aware that a group of humans -around 300 years after the death of Christ- decided what books would and would not be included. I bring this up not to sway you in your faith (which I am in no way trying to do), but to justify my skepticism.

 

@NOG: God is infinite. To try to describe God any further would be to limit that infinity. Texts and religions and canon laws and prophets, etc., etc., etc., are nothing but human attempts to control how other people relate to the infinity that is God. Yes, I believe that God is the prime mover behind creation of the universe, but beyond that I think that every individual must decide for him or herself just how big a role God plays in "ruling" that creation.

Value words like "ggod" and "evil" are more human creations. They've become rather standardized over the millenia of civilization, but they are by no means static.

 

With an obvious bias, I reccommend the Joseph Smith translation (you can find information, if not an online source at www.lds.org), but for the most part, the King James version is probably not that far off.

Actually that was Kitrax at first (ironically, born and raised Mormon, but not active), but I quoted it because it summed it up nicely.

First off, an explicit statement from the Chrurch (Article of Faith #2)

Secondly, the original sin was something that had to happen, so that we, the decendants of Adam could learn good from evil, and right from wrong. Basically, Adam and Eve were innocent and pure until they did commit that sin, and thus knew no concepts like good or evil. They had to learn those concepts before they could teach their offspring.

I think that everyone underestimated the atomic bomb until those dreadful days in August of 1945, and since then have looked to them as a wake up call...

Without some condition for forgiveness of our sins in their text, we would automatically be condemned, and thus, have no further reason for compliance. Thus it would be tuned out, regardless of the value of it's teachings. In Christianity, that condition is given, thus that message of damnation would be less likely to tune people out. A fire and brimstone sermon might still have that effect, mind you.

Again, I believe that if this was truly important, God would reveal this to prophets again to have this brought forth for the enlightenment of those that would follow Him. I am not ruling out future revelation regarding these works.

 

Sorry, but no. We tested the weapons, after all. We knew exactly what they would do.

That's all well and good, Gnarff, but this in no way proves that the Christians were right in deifying Christ or that the Muslims were wrong in denying his divinity.

Yes, but to accept this, I would have to actually believe that God speaks to man through prophets. I do not believe that God guided the hands that wrote the bible and, having never personally been spoken to by God, am inclined to believe that God speaks to no one. I think that, of all the disciples, Thomas was the wisest.

 

*sigh*

Did you deliberately miss my point? Now, you're not only trying to dictate which holy book all people have to adhere to, but also the specific version... that's arrogance of the highest order. Oh wait, doesn't that count as Pride, one of the seven deadlies? Into the pit of fire with you!

 

So Rally, do you believe in an active God, one that is involved in any current way with the world, or do you believe in a kind of Domino Effect God, one that just set everything up and lets it run its course? You said that good and evil are human constructs, but if God is active and has a will for the world, isn't the definition of evil the opposition of that goal? On the other hand, if God just set everything up, then I can understand your position.

Gnarff, what does the Mormon Church teach about the death of new-borns, then? Do they teach that these people are sinless and go to heaven? What about the statements in the Bible about everyone's sin (all have fallen short of the glory of God and all that)? While we may not be punished for Adam's sin directly, do you believe it has altered the natural state of mankind?

Drew, ok, so let's say that we aren't talking about the actual nature of the people, but rather of their acts. Can we say that evil influences men to do evil acts without saying the men themselves are inherrantly evil?

As for judgement, I would remind you of the rest of that verse: "Judge not, lest ye be judged, for if ye judge, so ye shall be judged, and in that same measure as ye judge." This is not a prohibition against judging, but rather an admonishion to be careful in the act, lest you be judged likewise. Also remember that there is a difference between judgment and punishment. When Christ tells us, 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.", he isn't telling us not to judge, but to offer forgiveness instead of punishment.

For all, my position, as I believe it is spelled out in the Bible, is that mankind, and all creation with it, was initially created perfect and in complete accord with God's Perfect Will. When man fell, he took creation with him, because he had been given authority over it, and so man's perfect nature was corrupted by evil, and the world was twisted away from God's Perfect Will. From this point on, the new nature of man was one of both evil and good, and man and creation began to live in God's Permissive Will, what He would allow in the process of repairing everything. To that effect, men and women are born into the world 'perfect', but with evil corruption as an inherrant part of our being. In the world, we are influenced by both good and evil, from both mankind and the supernatural. True perfection, however, is outside of our grasps without the intervention of God. Essentially, and for the simplicity of it, we are born evil and are 'corrupted' by the partial good of others, but only the perfect good of God can set us right.

 

No. Good and Evil are concepts. Evil doesn't influence people because Evil does not have a will of its own.