• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Nature of 'Good and Evil'

9-18-1

Active Member
Isaiah 45:7
יוצראורובוראחשךעשהשלוםובורארעאנייהוהעשהכלאלה
I form the light and create darkness
I make peace and create evil
I the LORD do all these things
The nature of 'good and evil' has occupied virtually every school of thought - both theistic and non-theistic - since time immemorial. Surely if there ever were a definitive answer(s) and/or solution(s) to such a problem, it would seem that a sufficiently evolved humanity will come to eventually discover it.

This thread is open to discussion/debates relating to the nature of 'good and evil' and all are welcome to participate.

I personally propose that it would first and foremost be wholly inappropriate to approach the nature of 'good and evil' in the frame work of an opposition: 'good versus evil'. I would even suggest that such a construct is detrimental to the same tune of [YHVH Elohim]'s warning to Adam: not to "eat" of the "tree of knowledge of 'good and evil'". In order to properly understand this, is essential to know what the original Hebrew words are which are rendered in English 'good' and 'evil':

טוב 'tov': pure/non-polluted (good)
רע 'ra': impure/polluted (evil)

which are found in the body of the Hebrew expression:
ועץהדעתטובורע 'tree of the knowledge of 'good and evil'.

I propose the reason as follows: by imbuing anything in 'nature' as objectively (intrinsically; in and of itself) 'good' and/or 'evil', one is effectively polarizing (internally polarized) such that his/her experience of creation will always be based on this principle (of) division/polarization which, in turn, will produce a unique 'experience' of creation directly related to that particular principle division/polarization. In other words, however (if) one individual polarizes 'good and/from evil' is precisely what will yield their own unique experience of creation which will be in direct relation to that individual polarization which, ultimately, ends in death. This brings us around full circle to the Biblical warning: eating from the tree results in death.


To use a real-world example as a debate platform, I chose two conflicted ideological factions (world religions) which lend themselves to this very dilemma: Christianity and (vs) Islam.

From the perspective of a "good" Christian, the religion of Islam may appear "evil".
From the perspective of a "good" Muslim, the religion of Christianity may appear "evil".
The ways in which this happens are many - occupying endless hours of countless discussions and debates - and well outside the scope of this post (the rest of the forums serve this purpose well over).

Undoubtedly, there exists a latent hostility between these rival factions which has lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of worshipers/believers in various manners: wars, persecutions, martyrdoms etc. regardless of from which angle one looks with any associated prejudice(s). The point I wish to emphasize here is focusing on the fact that the multitudes of peoples involved have met the same fate (death) warned of in the aforementioned Biblical account which is of immense significance.

To crudely generalize the overarching dilemma, wars are essentially a collapse into the state wherein one faction believes he/she to be on the side of "good" while their adversaries believe themselves to also be on the side of "good": resulting in both sides believing to be on the "side of good" while simultaneously believing the other to be on the "side of evil".

I thus propose that the fundamental dilemma above is but one (among many) manifestation(s) directly related to the problem of 'good vs. evil'.

Based on this, I re-iterate the one aforementioned possible construction (solution) of this dilemma and suggest an (equally viable) second:

S1: 'GOOD and EVIL' as a COOPERATION (union)
S2: 'GOOD vs EVIL' as an OPPOSITION (division)

with the former necessarily leading to conflict/death and the latter leading to the eradication of the principle dilemma (of duality/suffering/death) in the first place. In essence, designating any single aspect of creation as objectively/inherently/intrinsically 'good' and/or 'evil' without fully comprehending and/or understanding i. its counterpart and ii. how the two negate one another to produce unity, will inevitably lead to suffering/death.

S2 is already handled in the above example of Christianity and (vs) Islam: it necessarily manifests as death. However, S1 has yet to be observed, which I now address.

If one were to temporarily grant (if even for the sake of argument) that 'things' of evil nature ("bad") exist, there are many such 'things' which could immediately come to the mind(s) of a general populace: abuse, murder, rape, sexual exploitation of vulnerable people (including minors) etc. and can be generalized as knowingly (and possibly unknowingly) performing an action(s) which necessarily results in the harm of other(s). There are certainly arguments to be made that such things are examples of how evil does find expression, but we must also take precaution to not ignore the other side: good. After all, the principle position of S1 is that 'good and evil' are unified and exist as 'one thing'. How does one reconcile this?

I propose that, if not for evil, it would be impossible to derive good from/with which to contrast with. I very simply make reference to one of the most well-known symbols known to man: the yin and yang symbol commonly understand as 'peace' and/or 'harmony':

477325000.png
Essentially there exists a relationship between good and evil such that one is constantly deriving itself from the other in perpetuity / ad infinitum. As such it is impossible for one to "overtake" the other.

This brings us back to S1 and S2: the former being the knowledge that both must exist in order to to use one to know the other (unity) and the latter being the ignorance of S1 which necessarily leads to a definite/extreme polarization (referring once again to the example of the global problem of Christianity and (vs) Islam) unique to the individual(s) generating the polarization within themselves.

TBC...

 
Last edited:

9-18-1

Active Member
To close, and to return to the Biblical account of Genesis:

Genesis 2:16-17
ויצויהוהאלהיםעלהאדםלאמרמכלעץהגןאכלתאכל
And the LORD God commanded the man saying Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat
ומעץהדעתטובורעלאתאכלממנוכיביוםאכלךממנומותתמות
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die

Genesis 3:4-5
ויאמרהנחשאלהאשהלאמותתמתון
And the serpent said unto the woman Ye shall not surely die
כיידעאלהיםכיביוםאכלכםממנוונפקחועיניכםוהייתםכאלהיםידעי טוב ורע
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof then your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil

I propose these two circumstances/outcomes directly correlate to S2 and S1, respectively:

S2: 'GOOD vs EVIL' as an OPPOSITION (division) "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"
S1: 'GOOD and EVIL' as a COOPERATION (union) "your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil"

As such, both statements made by [YHVH Elohim] and the serpent are equally correct and represent the two "solutions" to the "problem" of 'good and (vs) evil': if one has the understanding/wisdom/knowledge to not fall into the trap of labeling either [YHVH Elohim] and/or the serpent objectively 'good' and/or objectively 'evil', one will come to discover that both are equally correct, thus neutral.

While this outright defies the commonly held notion that the serpent of the garden is evil (with intention to deceive), it likewise directly correlates to and explains fully the given example of Christianity and (vs) Islam: either side is creating a polarization where none should/would exist. This is captured in both institutions' failure to understand the problem of 'good and evil' due to their collective (institutionalized/indoctrinated) designation of the serpent of the garden as objectively/inherently evil, which categorically demonstrates ignorance of the initial warning of [YHVH Elohim] issued to not "eat" from the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
No Religion is evil.

It is the action, speech and thought of humans that is either Good or Evil.
The true teaching of any true religion is always giving teaching how a human being should treat him/her self and others it also teaches how not to treat one self or others.

Example from Buddhism of karma, if you treat someone good, good will happen to you, but if you treat others badly bad will happen to you.
 

9-18-1

Active Member
No Religion is evil.

It is the action, speech and thought of humans that is either Good or Evil.
The true teaching of any true religion is always giving teaching how a human being should treat him/her self and others it also teaches how not to treat one self or others.

Example from Buddhism of karma, if you treat someone good, good will happen to you, but if you treat others badly bad will happen to you.

I would suggest the statement in-and-of-itself "no religion is evil" is incomplete. It risks committing the error of attempting to designate anything in nature of as objectively one-or-the-other.

In other words, if the following statement is true:
"No Religion is evil."

then the following statement must also necessarily be true:
"No religion is good."

and this would be consistent with:
S1: 'GOOD and EVIL' as a COOPERATION (union) "your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil".

Otherwise, it necessarily collapses back into:
S2: 'GOOD vs EVIL' as an OPPOSITION (division) "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

Because one cannot grant that "no religion is evil" without also granting "no religion is good" as this would manifest an (internal/external) imbalance that will necessarily lead to suffering/death (as per S2). To see it any other way would be eating from the tree of the knowledge of 'good and evil' in terms of opposition/division wherein something is one-or-the-other.

I would thus disagree that the teaching of "any true religion" is always "properly" teaching how a human being should treat (not treat) him/her self and (or) others. There must necessarily be (as I would argue there most definitely is) elements within religion (including both Christianity and Islam) that, rather than providing a teaching(s) which alleviate suffering/death, actually results in producing suffering/death itself, despite how well intended the teachings may be. For example there are teachings in both Christianity/Islam that tend toward suffering/death rather than liberation/life despite their attempts to teach "good".

However I do agree there is a universal system of karma and "what goes around comes around" as this is wholly consistent with both S1 and S2 as a common solution:

The more one eats from the tree of knowledge of 'good and evil' as per S2 (opposition/division), the more one manifests bondage/death.
The more one eats from the tree of knowledge of 'good and evil' as per S1 (cooperation/unity), the more one manifests freedom/life.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
However I do agree there is a universal system of karma and "what goes around comes around" as this is wholly consistent with ..
Some escape the consequences of 'karma'. A chief minister of a state was accused of corruption, the court case went on for a few years. In time the politician died. Courts later pronounced the politician to have committed a crime, but could not punish him/her. Even the amount siphoned was not returned. That is how the world is.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
This good/evil polarity simply doesn't exist in some religious paradigms. To say it does is oversimplification, generalisation, and projection. Religions and philosophies on this planet have far greater variety than that. I've never seen evil anywhere. Stupidity (anava in Sanskrit), sure.
 

SoiEiMeSil

Member
I argue that Good inherently represents righteousness in its truest form and that someone believe in the eternal Love that God The Father represents.

I do not understand evil but i have said to many people this, "I do not like evil but it is not a physical manifestation but an idea that convolutes purity and doesn't care about right or wrong.

What it means is evil is self righteous and can be malevolent but also benevolent as well. Evil thought patterns are like this: "because I'm doing something good for myself,I am doing something right for the benefit of humanity and angels, but by continuing to be me regardless of what happens, I am not subjecting myself to a God that wants only what is best for Himself.

I know this because I have been influenced by it but i have seen it before and it was terrifying.

By the way, 9-18, thank you for creating this topic and I will be involved as long as needed.........
 

Axe Elf

Prophet
In their egocentricity, humans tend to characterize things that are beneficial to them as "good" and things that are detrimental to them as "evil."

So tsunamis and hurricanes and earthquakes tend to be thought of as "evil" when in fact they are just part of a greater good--an atmosphere with weather than can support life in general on Earth.

In Xianity, the love of money (i.e., selfishness) is characterized as the root of all evil, while selflessness (i.e., giving up your life for someone else) is the epitome of goodness (love).
 

SoiEiMeSil

Member
In their egocentricity, humans tend to characterize things that are beneficial to them as "good" and things that are detrimental to them as "evil."

So tsunamis and hurricanes and earthquakes tend to be thought of as "evil" when in fact they are just part of a greater good--an atmosphere with weather than can support life in general on Earth.

In Xianity, the love of money (i.e., selfishness) is characterized as the root of all evil, while selflessness (i.e., giving up your life for someone else) is the epitome of goodness (love).

I like your train of thought but i'm only 28 and I give meaning.
I like the way I think and I do it for selfless reasons.

which one of these statements gives you a reason to think?
I argue that the first statement is a very conscious decision to be very selfless but lacks conviction.
The second statement sounds as if the way people are interrogated is very beneficial to their development as human beings.

I don't talk like either but i like food from the mouth better than food from the heart, as I am not really here to be a good man but a very good angel..............
Kill that idea and think, why is it so hard to interrupt a man's thought process and make it his own?
Answer it for me......
 

DustyFeet

पैर है| outlaw kosher care-bear | Tribe of Dan
serpent of the garden

hmmmmm.....

gen 49:17

"Dan will be a serpent on the road, a viper on the path, which bites the horse's heels, so its rider falls backwards."

rashi on gen 49:17

"
a viper: Heb. שְׁפִיפֹן. This is a snake, and I say it is given this appellation because it bites,“and you will bite (תְּשׁוּפֶנוּ) his heel” (Gen. 3:15).

שפיפן: הוא נחש. ואומר אני שקרוי כן על שם שהוא נושף, כמו (בראשית ג טו) ואתה תשופנו עקב:
which bites the horse’s heels: So is the habit of a snake. He (Jacob) compares him (Dan) to a snake, which bites a horse’s heels, and [causes] its rider to fall backwards, although it does not touch him. We find something similar in [the story of] Samson:“And Samson grasped the two pillars of the center, etc.” (Jud. 16:29), and those on the roof died. Onkelos renders [נָחָשׁ] as כְּחִיוֵי חוּרְמָן, the name of a species of snake whose bite has no antidote, and that is the צִפְעֹנִי (adder). It is called חוּרְמָן because it destroys (חֵרֶם) everything. [Onkelos renders] וּכְפִתְנָא, and like a viper, like פֶּתֶן (Isa. 11:8, Ps. 58:5) [and he renders] יִכְמוֹן, [as] he will lie in wait.

"
 
Last edited:

SoiEiMeSil

Member
I know this is misconstrued but i like to work but resting on the seventh day is not what an omnipotent God would need to do, as He is available everywhere.

That means He can do it in the blink of an eye and no one can understand what He did unless it is Him you get the truth from.

As an angel i would not believe that it is possible for The Holy Father to rest as he is always awake, so he cannot sleep unless he has human and angelic qualities.

I have no idea what He did but the big bang is a theory but God has always been here so where are we now?

It's simple because we all dwell in the living realm and angels exist on a spiritual realm.....
It's always logical to assume that men were here before us because evolution states that we were created by chance.....

Chance doesn't exist but some one does and evil is an idea but so is chance, as it can only be conceived that chance is real only if chance can be discovered by men or women.....

I don't believe in chance but i know I have no free will if i'm an angel.

Angels really don't know this but they can't be like humanity as they are servants of God The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, so saying this is a good day is like saying this day was only going to be good by chance.....

I think I'm right but coincidence is irrelevant as choice is always an option, even for angels.
I'm going to tell you all why I'm on RF but don't kick me off but say this:" I am not really hearing you but don't shoot me in the foot for being a real angel"

Now tell me if I'm real or not but if I am an angel and I do know the true history of the universe, then what am I on RF for?
If you can find out then I will leave and go somewhere else as this may be a chance for you all to learn who God really is............
 

DustyFeet

पैर है| outlaw kosher care-bear | Tribe of Dan
So is the habit of a snake. He (Jacob) compares him (Dan) to a snake, which bites a horse’s heels, and [causes] its rider to fall backwards, although it does not touch him. We find something similar in [the story of] Samson:“And Samson grasped the two pillars of the center, etc.” (Jud. 16:29)

point of clarification: i'm making a reference to my self, no one else.
interesting tidbit... Samson is l'mahtay Dan ( "the tribe of Dan" )

ooooh danny boy, danny boy... danny boy.... i get knocked down...
 

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
A good meal is one that pleases and nourishes, as food should do.
A good book is one which succeeds in its intent, whether to inform or entertain.
A good human being is one who succeeds in being properly human — whose conduct is such as to contribute to their flourishing as such.
Simple: no need for any of the mumbo-jumbo.
 

DustyFeet

पैर है| outlaw kosher care-bear | Tribe of Dan
on the fundamental cooperation between light and darkness:

from "The Tanya" chapter 36

"
והוא התחתון במדרגה, שאין תחתון למטה ממנו בענין הסתר אורו יתברך, וחושך כפול ומכופל

[This world] is the lowest in degree; there is none lower than it in terms of concealment of His light and no world compares with it for doubled and redoubled darkness; nowhere is G‑d’s light hidden as in this world.
"
 

DustyFeet

पैर है| outlaw kosher care-bear | Tribe of Dan
on the difference between formed, made, and created in Isaiah 45:7 then related to the 1st psalm

Sefer Yetzirah

( note: this part is in the Aryeh Kaplan commentary. the link above is kinda miss-titled... )

yetzirah.jpg


then looking at the OP...

Isaiah 45:7
יוצראורובוראחשךעשהשלוםובורארעאנייהוהעשהכלאלה
I form the light and create darkness
I make peace and create evil
I the LORD do all these things
evil exists on its own, in its own system? outside of the system of light / darkness / peace?

then consider the 1st psalm? could it be read simply: "Don't worry be happy?" Don't stand in the path of sinners? AKA "leave them alone". Sinners are not the same as the "r'shahim" ( "the wicked ones" )? And even if they were? They are like chaff in the wind? And the wicked will perish [ on their own ]?

1st Psalm:

The praises of a man are that he did not follow the counsel of the wicked, neither did he stand in the way of sinners nor sit in the company of scorners.
But his desire is in the law of the LORD, and in His law he meditates day and night.
He shall be as a tree planted beside rivulets of water, which brings forth its fruit in its season, and its leaves do not wilt; and whatever he does prospers.
Not so the wicked, but [they are] like chaff that the wind drives away.
Therefore, the wicked shall not stand up in judgment, nor shall the sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
For the LORD knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked shall perish.
 
Last edited:

DustyFeet

पैर है| outlaw kosher care-bear | Tribe of Dan
i wonder what that means about things that are "abominations"...
and i wonder if that's even an accurate translation of the word...

are jews who eat shellfish worse than "wicked ones"?????

answer... they're sinners, but according to psalm #1, that doesn't automatically mean they are wicked...

a person could really run with this... if

they get hung up on the word "abomination"...

...and the walls came tumbling down...
 
Last edited:

9-18-1

Active Member
hmmmmm.....

gen 49:17

"Dan will be a serpent on the road, a viper on the path, which bites the horse's heels, so its rider falls backwards."

The tribe of Dan
of the twelve tribes
of Israel: Libra scales
of Justice through
9/23 - 10/23.

We did stand the trial
of the tribe of Gad
of the twelve tribes
of Israel through
10/24 - 11/22.

We now stand
among the tribe of Joseph
of the twelve tribes
of Israel through
11/23 - 12/21.

Matthew 12:40
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
12/22
12/23
12/24

A future
Merry Christmas
to all!

rashi on gen 49:17

"
a viper: Heb. שְׁפִיפֹן. This is a snake, and I say it is given this appellation because it bites,“and you will bite (תְּשׁוּפֶנוּ) his heel” (Gen. 3:15).

שפיפן: הוא נחש. ואומר אני שקרוי כן על שם שהוא נושף, כמו (בראשית ג טו) ואתה תשופנו עקב:
which bites the horse’s heels: So is the habit of a snake. He (Jacob) compares him (Dan) to a snake, which bites a horse’s heels, and [causes] its rider to fall backwards, although it does not touch him. We find something similar in [the story of] Samson:“And Samson grasped the two pillars of the center, etc.” (Jud. 16:29), and those on the roof died. Onkelos renders [נָחָשׁ] as כְּחִיוֵי חוּרְמָן, the name of a species of snake whose bite has no antidote, and that is the צִפְעֹנִי (adder). It is called חוּרְמָן because it destroys (חֵרֶם) everything. [Onkelos renders] וּכְפִתְנָא, and like a viper, like פֶּתֶן (Isa. 11:8, Ps. 58:5) [and he renders] יִכְמוֹן, [as] he will lie in wait.

"

Tree of Knowledge - of good and evil
Serpent of the garden
- the Scales of Libra
The Man between Two Pillars
Sting of Scorpio
- the backbiter
of heels.

The more that I know
that I know not
the more I will know
what I know not.
 
Top