A common misconception... (moral, contradiction, choice, genesis, experience)

[tomspug]

There's a lot of talk on this forum about 'good' and 'evil', so I would like to clarify a common misconception of the Christian perspective.

Good, first of all, is a totally useless word in the English language. It is so ambiguous and so ambivalent that it really just shouldn't be used at all. Rather let's call 'good' GOD (because Christians believe God to be omnibenevolent, therefore the embodiment of benevolence).

Evil, on the other hand, is not actually real. I'll explain. Some Christians confuse dualist theologies with biblical theology by saying that Satan is the opposite of God (the embodiment of evil). This definition is true, but misleading because it implies that evil is actually a THING.

The correct definition of evil (in Christian theology) is the ABSENCE OF GOD. In other words, wherever God is not, is evil. Simple enough, right? It's like darkness. There is no such thing as darkness. Darkness is a word we use to describe the absence of light. In the same way 'evil' is a word used to describe the absence of God.

People often make the argument: how can there be God if evil exists? Ah, but evil does not exist. The correct question would be: how can there be God if an 'absence of God' exists? This is the right question.

The answer to that question is: love. "Love?" you ask. Yes, but in order to explain 'love', you have to come to an acceptance that love promotes freedom. Many people do not accept this belief. A parent may say "I love you, so I will not let you do the things you want to do, because it is for your benefit." But to a child, that is not love. They do not grow. They do not learn. If a parent really loved their child, they would give them the freedom to make mistakes, to 'run away'.

Sin is the word Christians use to define 'running away from God'. Thus, the very act of sin is to be without Him.

Technically, it's God's fault for letting his children run away, for letting 'evil' exist. Sin would not exist if he did not give us the ability to run away. If he was a parent who locked his child up in his house, there would be no sin.

But what would be the point of living, if you didn't have a choice? That is why I say that 'love' is the reason there is an 'absence of God' so abundant in the world. Obviously, evil is much shorter than 'absence of God' and easier to say, but that is what a Christian means when he says 'evil'. Loneliness is not a feeling, it is an absence of feeling. That's why it feels so empty. Sadness is an absence of joy. Despair is an absence of hope. All of these horrible feelings are an absence of God.

I hope this clears up some misconceptions about the Christian perspective of 'good and evil'. Let me know your thoughts!

[Rolling_Stone]

Sounds consistent with my definition: evil is that what has no basis in reality--the unity of the Whole

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by tomspug

Good, first of all, is a totally useless word in the English language. It is so ambiguous and so ambivalent that it really just shouldn't be used at all. Rather let's call 'good' GOD (because Christians believe God to be omnibenevolent, therefore the embodiment of benevolence).

This assumes that "good" means "benevolent. It's odd to say that good has no particular meaning if you assume it does have a particular meaning.

Originally Posted by tomspug

The correct definition of evil (in Christian theology) is the ABSENCE OF GOD. In other words, wherever God is not, is evil. Simple enough, right? It's like darkness. There is no such thing as darkness. Darkness is a word we use to describe the absence of light. In the same way 'evil' is a word used to describe the absence of God.

People often make the argument: how can there be God if evil exists? Ah, but evil does not exist. The correct question would be: how can there be God if an 'absence of God' exists? This is the right question.

It's a good question, too. How do you explain the absence of god? It seems to impose limits on god that most believers would have problems with. I admit, If god can be absent, that would explain Corbin, Kentucky.

Originally Posted by tomspug

The answer to that question is: love. "Love?" you ask. Yes, but in order to explain 'love', you have to come to an acceptance that love promotes freedom. Many people do not accept this belief. A parent may say "I love you, so I will not let you do the things you want to do, because it is for your benefit." But to a child, that is not love. They do not grow. They do not learn. If a parent really loved their child, they would give them the freedom to make mistakes, to 'run away'.

The child may not think it's love, but the child has a lot to learn. No loving parent would let his child do whatever he wants, no matter how dangerous. In fact, a child of any intelligence at all knows that.

Originally Posted by tomspug

Loneliness is not a feeling, it is an absence of feeling. That's why it feels so empty.

If it were not a feeling, it would not feel empty. It wouldn't feel like anything; it wouldn't even feel lonely.

Originally Posted by tomspug

Sadness is an absence of joy. Despair is an absence of hope.

Why?

Originally Posted by tomspug

All of these horrible feelings are an absence of God.

God's a fair-weather friend, then?

Originally Posted by tomspug

I hope this clears up some misconceptions about the Christian perspective of 'good and evil'. Let me know your thoughts!

I think your ideas about good and evil are deficient even from a Christian point of view. You have, in effect, denied the existence of evil, and even of unpleasantness.

[Mestemia]

I dislike definitions whose whole foundation rests upon a shakey premise.
But then, perhaps thats just me...

[YmirGF]

Originally Posted by tomspug

There's a lot of talk on this forum about 'good' and 'evil', so I would like to clarify a common misconception of the Christian perspective.

Realistically speaking, you do not speak for all of Christianity. What your are actually saying is this is your particular interpretation.

Originally Posted by tomspug

Good, first of all, is a totally useless word in the English language. It is so ambiguous and so ambivalent that it really just shouldn't be used at all. Rather let's call 'good' GOD (because Christians believe God to be omnibenevolent, therefore the embodiment of benevolence).

Oh good god.

Originally Posted by tomspug

Evil, on the other hand, is not actually real. I'll explain. Some Christians confuse dualist theologies with biblical theology by saying that Satan is the opposite of God (the embodiment of evil). This definition is true, but misleading because it implies that evil is actually a THING.

So, what you are saying is that even Satan does not exist. One can only ponder how something could be so clearly defined that does not in fact exist. I'm afraid you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Would you care to elaborate on how this non-entity, this non-thing can be the opposite of "god"?

Originally Posted by tomspug

The correct definition of evil (in Christian theology) is the ABSENCE OF GOD. In other words, wherever God is not, is evil. Simple enough, right? It's like darkness. There is no such thing as darkness. Darkness is a word we use to describe the absence of light. In the same way 'evil' is a word used to describe the absence of God.

Given that "god" is also seen as omnipresent it would seem to fly in the face of what you are saying. If "god" is everywhere then how can anything exist "away" from "god"? Riddle me that.

Originally Posted by tomspug

People often make the argument: how can there be God if evil exists? Ah, but evil does not exist. The correct question would be: how can there be God if an 'absence of God' exists? This is the right question.

Fair enough but where does one draw the line? Isn't "absence of god" merely value judgments that change over time?

Originally Posted by tomspug

The answer to that question is: love. "Love?" you ask. Yes, but in order to explain 'love', you have to come to an acceptance that love promotes freedom. Many people do not accept this belief. A parent may say "I love you, so I will not let you do the things you want to do, because it is for your benefit." But to a child, that is not love. They do not grow. They do not learn. If a parent really loved their child, they would give them the freedom to make mistakes, to 'run away'.

I think you are generalizing here far too much. In some ways, "god" is "love" but it excludes other equally valid emotions. If "god" feels and perhaps radiates "love" then "it" is an emotional being. I rather expect this idea is based more on man's projections onto such a being rather than the true qualities of such a being as "god".

Originally Posted by tomspug

Sin is the word Christians use to define 'running away from God'. Thus, the very act of sin is to be without Him.

Again, fair enough, but it is a relatively backwards concept that is likely a projection of man rather than a quality of being. We define socially accepted value judgments and anyone who goes against the herd mentality, goes against those value judgments and is deemed as "running away from god". It is not actually a very helpful idea in the first place, imho, as it only demands that round pegs fit into square holes as best they can.

Originally Posted by tomspug

Technically, it's God's fault for letting his children run away, for letting 'evil' exist.

Um, so pray tell, how can an omnipresent "god" NOT be everywhere? Following your thinking, it isn't "god's" fault, it would be our fault due to the agency of free will.

Originally Posted by tomspug

Sin would not exist if he did not give us the ability to run away. If he was a parent who locked his child up in his house, there would be no sin.

Gotcha. So, by doing things that are outside Christian theology opens the doors to sinful behavior. And this is somehow "god's" fault?

Originally Posted by tomspug

But what would be the point of living, if you didn't have a choice? That is why I say that 'love' is the reason there is an 'absence of God' so abundant in the world. Obviously, evil is much shorter than 'absence of God' and easier to say, but that is what a Christian means when he says 'evil'. Loneliness is not a feeling, it is an absence of feeling. That's why it feels so empty. Sadness is an absence of joy. Despair is an absence of hope. All of these horrible feelings are an absence of God.

That makes sense, however without sadness the individual would not appreciate joy. Without despair one would not understand hope and these are not "horrible" things, they are tools for learning how behavior affects the reality experienced. God, imho, has little, if anything, to do with it. Follow me along here. If you experienced joy from the moment of your birth, you would not understand it as joy, as it would be your norm. You would not understand sorrow and you would not be able to trancend joy into ecstacy. It's all about balance NOT abscence from some imagined "god"... again, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by tomspug

I hope this clears up some misconceptions about the Christian perspective of 'good and evil'. Let me know your thoughts!

Not a bad effort, but it still has holes big enough to drive a jihad through.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by YmirGF

Oh good god.

That was worth staying up till 2 in the morning for.

[tomspug]

Before I elaborate on my thoughts, I do want to say that I have no intention of devaluing anyone else's opinion. I'm just expressing my belief. And I would also like to say that this IS the correct Christian interpretation (if you believe in the Bible). His omnibenevolence: 1 John 4:8 "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." The establishment of free will: Genesis 2:9 "And the Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground--trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

Given that "god" is also seen as omnipresent it would seem to fly in the face of what you are saying. If "god" is everywhere then how can anything exist "away" from "god"? Riddle me that.

I do admit, however, that the perspective of evil is unique only so much because it is a fallacy of dualism that has penetrated Christianity (that is not to say I am imposing a moral judgment on the belief, but that it is improper for the belief in an all-powerful God).

For example, in the Book of Job, most people nowadays get hung up on the very first chapter where God allows Satan to hurt Job and his family. This, of course, is hardly the most important part of a book over 60 chapters long, yet people get all philosophically deranged by it. It is simply one of many, many instances in the Bible that shows that God exists while there is evil.

To say that evil is something that has 'power' is to say that God is not 'all-powerful'. In order to be all powerful, God would then have to have the capacity for both good and evil. Unfortunately, if that were true, then it would not be possible for God to be omnibenevolent (God is love). See the contradiction? That is why I say that Christians MUST accept that evil has no power, because it is only the absence of good. It is not a matter of interpretation, but a matter of self-contradiction.

If I said that evil DID exist and had any power, then I would have to consent to the point that God is limited. If I say that God is limitless and that he is all good, then you could not make the argument that God is limited simply because he cannot do evil because evil is simply NOT BEING OF GOD, which of course God would not be able to do (if he was omnibenevolent).

What I am trying to argue is that a Christian cannot have both omnipresence and omnibenevolence in one being if you hold that evil is, in fact, SOMETHING with any value.

Space, for example, is another word we use to describe nothing. If I looked up and night and said 'oh, look, space!', in truth I'd be giving a name to nothing at all. You don't walk into a pitch black room and say 'oh, look, darkness!'.

That is not to say that our world is like darkness or space, rather it is like a 'darkened' room or a 'half-empty' glass. It is simply not complete.

Follow me along here. If you experienced joy from the moment of your birth, you would not understand it as joy, as it would be your norm. You would not understand sorrow and you would not be able to trancend joy into ecstacy.

Exactly, that is what I am talking about. There would be no words to describe an absence of God or an absence of joy if that absence did not exist. This is one of the major philosophical arguments for the existence of God, one hammered home very soundly by apologist C.S.Lewis. The fact that we are able to discern between good and evil and have a general understanding that 'evil' is not desireable, proves (like you are saying) that there is an imbalance, an absence of something important.

The child may not think it's love, but the child has a lot to learn. No loving parent would let his child do whatever he wants, no matter how dangerous. In fact, a child of any intelligence at all knows that.

Any poor parent can have good intentions, but you can only carry your argument so far. A baby is not old enough to know what is good for it, so yes, you must make its decisions for it. But after a certain age a child DOES no what's good for it. At that point, a parent is only causing harm to his child by delaying the inevitable. You can't just keep someone locked up forever when it is in their very DESIGN (in other words, they were made that way) to be independent and make their own decisions. Or would you rather that you did not have free will because it is 'dangerous'?

If you are going to argue that giving someone free will is not love, than you have to accept that free will is not 'good'.