The "Reality" of a Personal Evil

Remove all ads!

the point i was trying to make in all my shitty 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....??

 

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

 

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).]

 

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.

 

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.

 

*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.

 

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

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.

 

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.