Are things black and white, or is context a relevant concept?
context is relevant. agreed.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are things black and white, or is context a relevant concept?
it takes both nature and nurture; so maybe.Nice. But that does not answer my question. I don't care about energy conservation or Hitler's Manichaeism or his obsession of dividing things in right or wrong. . This is just noise trying to avoid a clear cut answer. I am only interested in the fruits, in order to evaluate your claim rationally and objectively.
Are "loving dogs" or "being a vegetarian" or "not drinking alcohol" bad fruits?
Yes/no/maybe
Ciao
- viole
And how did you determine that everything would be "pure evil", at that point?
There is no other way to view it--with zero choice available, that would mean all the people who suffer Great Harm, did so because whatever "creator" made it that way, did so out of Pure Malice.
Moreover, having no choice in the matter-- they were Harmed for no purpose, other than this "creator" willed it.
And THAT, is as good a definition of "evil" as you could ask for.
Hate must be learned if the hate isn't deserved, and certainly isn't learned if it is deserved.Is hate a learned behavior?
But the "law" was 100% arbitrary, really. Apart from slave-like "obey!" there was nothing really there one way or another.
Did Adam murder a bunch of people wantonly? No? (wait-- that isn't actually against god's laws, is it-- as god commanded exactly that, multiple times, later on in Exodus... )
Maybe Adam cheated on Eve? No? (couldn't really-- nobody else there... Hobson's choice)
Did Adam burn down the garden? No? Did he cruelly slaughter the animals just for the pleasure of it? No?
What, exactly DID Adam do that was worthy of the Death Penalty?
Other than fail to act like a mindless slave?
Hate must be learned if the hate isn't deserved, and certainly isn't learned if it is deserved.
But toddlers quickly recognize "fair" and "not-fair". Even our simian cousins show a marked understanding of "fair" and "not fair" in recent studies. I expect most of the near-sentient mammals do this, and not a few avian species as well.
So we appear to be born with ideas of "fair play"-- which we seem to use as a starting point for Morality with a capital M.
Things to ponder late at night, when sleep won't come...
1) You're assuming that "good" is wholly dependent upon human spontaneity. Illogical.
2) Spontaneity and causality are both antithetical to the idea of "choice".
Why did you do this, rather than that?
Spontaneity, or cause and effect?
I find that that tree stood for the Law of the Land.
One Law. No hardship. Plenty to eat. Just don't eat from one particular tree or loose your everlasting life.
How many fruit trees are there on Earth ?
By God saying 'Do Not Eat....' to me was as if God put up a No Trespassing sign on 'His' one-and-only tree.
What Adam did was break the known Law. By deliberately trespassing breaking the Law Adam took the Law out of God's hands and placed the Law into his own hands. Thus, Adam set up People Rule as being superior to God Rule as the best way of governing.
Since Adam was gifted with free-will choices, then God could Not go back on his gift to Adam.
So, God honored his gift to Adam. If Adam was a slave-like obeyer then Adam would Not have had the free-will choice to obey or Not obey. Are world leaders mindless slaves, after all they have educated degrees and look what their higher education had done for the world. I think Adam had No idea as to how world leaders would treat the world, but because of Adam they too have the gift of free-will choices, and how wise are their choices.
I also find there is a difference between: killing, murder and an execution.
Exodus was after the Flood of Noah's day far removed from Eden's days.
If God would Not have taken the Flood action then No one righteous would have been left on Earth.
Those violent people would have killed/murdered the righteous ones, so the Flood was an execution for the sake of justice for righteous people because God purposes that the humble meek will inherit the Earth.
If everyone who has lived, lived by the Golden Rule of Leviticus 19:18 what would the world be like?
I can agree with born with ideas of ' fair play ' because, unless damaged, humans come equipped with an inborn or innate ability of fair play because of conscience. One's conscience can either ' excuse ' actions or ' accuse ' actions.
So, a hardened conscience can become calloused to the point of having No more ' fair play ' feeling.
False dichotomy logical fallacy: that is what you have here (your #2)
The definition of "good" is 100% dependent on humans. Until (if ever) you can show sentience *other* than human, it remains a human construct.
Your claim of "illogical" is without merit-- as you give no argument in support, other than your declaration.
1) "Choices" either have causal links preceding them, or they don't. In either case--
2) If "goodness" is subjective, and man-made, how does the absence of "free will" amount to "pure evil", another subjective, man-made construct?
How can it not? [be evil] Every single system of morality invented, constructed or described by humanity describes free will as a required component, even if it is only implied within the description.
If there is no choice? Then, nothing means anything, and we are puzzle-pieces arbitrarily being force-fitted into place without a single thought one way or another in the process. Nothing would have any meaning at all. We may as well be...
... Just another Brick in the Wall. <sorry, could not resist such a topical and timely simile>
If we truly have no choice, there is no point in discussing it, as our responses are already written in Time, and even this post was ordained. There could be no good nor evil to our actions....
... but existence would become pure evil, in that case, as it would *require* some sort of Creative Intelligence to drive the complex behaviors we do see, into what would be a Fixed Path of Existence. Which would be, absolutely Evil-- due to the many, many instances of Harm that happen to pretty much everyone on a daily basis (to be sure, for some, the Harm is trivial-- but for many, it is Life Changing Harm).
Thus, the existence of Harm would automatically mean this Intelligent Driving Force is automatically Evil in nature-- it could be nothing else; it would mean life on earth was deliberately created to experience random harmful events, to no purpose-- because there would be absolutely nothing we could do about it-- no free will.
The worst Frankensteinien Existence one can think of -- to be created to experience Evil, Just Because.
It is only if our paths were open to Choice-- however slight-- do they become Meaningful.
And it is only if there are No Gods, can we eliminate Evil as the Sole Purpose. Due to the aforementioned Evil--- For if there be Gods-- the existence of Capricious Evil means these gods themselves are Evil in Nature.
The existence of observed God-Preventable Evil-- free will or no-- means that if they exist, they are Pure Evil themselves.
But the "law" was 100% arbitrary, really. Apart from slave-like "obey!" there was nothing really there one way or another.
Did Adam murder a bunch of people wantonly? No? (wait-- that isn't actually against god's laws, is it-- as god commanded exactly that, multiple times, later on in Exodus... )
Maybe Adam cheated on Eve? No? (couldn't really-- nobody else there... Hobson's choice)
Did Adam burn down the garden? No? Did he cruelly slaughter the animals just for the pleasure of it? No?
What, exactly DID Adam do that was worthy of the Death Penalty?
Other than fail to act like a mindless slave?
Surely you are not serious? Neither the Eden story nor the flood are real things.
Neither existed, apart from Myths taken too seriously.
We have proof that neither happened, and then some. The DNA record alone, proves beyond any doubts there never was two genetic bottle necks 6000 and 4000 years back-- it simply never happened.
And that? Destroys any chance of either one being real.
As Myths, however? Sure-- they may be useful stories of How Not To God-- a kind of warning for future gods to follow.
False dichotomy. Meaningless question as stated: presumes only 2 possibilities without argument showing that is the case.Answer #1, first.
Causal or spontaneous?
Adam, was...