Why The Need To Classify Ideas, People, Groups, And Activities As "Evil".

[The Nehor]

You forgot Johnny Lingo

This is an evil thing to say and you are evil for saying it.

[pmccombs1]

L

Yes I am, based on what God has told me.

No, because you can't prove to anyone but yourself that God has told you anything. I mean, you can state your opinion and invite people to consider it. That's about it.

Says you, and probably them too, but so what? What God has told me is still true regardless of what anyone else says about it.

Well, "so what" is the right attitude, from your point of view. You think God has spoken to you and that the things he has told you are true Universally, like gravity. Except I think God hasn't said anything at all to you, because actually he's been talking to me all along, and others like me; and He says that the god that is talking to you is silly and wrong. And arrogant! So Nyah! You can't prove me wrong. I know my own experiences are superior to yours, because I had them, and they were incomparable. So stop it.

(I'm just kidding about that, but if I weren't, I'd be as justified in saying it as you are in saying your stuff).

I'm glad you agree, but even if you didn't agree it would still be true.

Yes, to some other people also.

You seem to think everyone would arrive at the same answers as if the right answers are the only options. People can be wrong, bro. People can choose to believe an idea which isn't correct. What is is, independent of subjective ideas or interpretations.

Yes, true. Just like some people suspect that policemen are frauds who dress up in uniform in order to take advantage of others, and that it's all a great big conspiracy. Very rarely they are correct. Some people never do go along, because after all this life is just one huge subjective holiday. But, you know, most people understand and accept reproducible phenomena as "objective" because it is reliable and guaranteed to produce the same results every time. Mostly. We see that, in the religious sphere, there is nothing at all available on this level.

I know what I know about God based on what God has taught me about what he knows/thinks, and feels, so when someone claims God has taught them something contradcitory to what God has taught me, then I know they don't know what I know which God has taught me. Like when people who say Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God. God has told me he was, so he was, regardless of their contradictory statement.

Well, God has clearly told other people that Joseph Smith was a dangerous heretic and not a prophet. Like you, they also are certain of their knowledge from God, regardless of your contradictory statement. Should the Impartial Spectator himself desire to verify his own evidence on the matter, he would be sadly disappointed, for he would not know which god he had gotten his own information from.

I'm on your side about Joseph Smith, though. Alas, we are outnumbered. Well, probably not here.

No, it's both logical and true, regardless of your statement to the contrary. I said:

There is religious authority that arises from God despite the fact that not everyone consents to be governed by it, which is why each person must do something to be included in his kingdom and not end up living outside of it.

Can't be logical. Draw me up the truth table, please. Demonstrate the truth of each claim in deterministic language. Logic allows for very little subjectivity. It has to follow the rules. If a prophet can't himself produce reliable evidence of his authority from God, then he doesn't have it. For God to give authority to a man, and then withhold a reliable way for others to know of this fact, would be unjust. The way that we claim one knows that the authority comes from God is not reliable. It does not produce the evidence that can be quantified and acknowledged by all. It can only be acknowledged by each, and some of them deny it. They get the contrary witness. That isn't a good sign.

Must be? Nope. Can be, yes, but not must be. And for me it has been.

Must be, I insist. Otherwise, injustice prevails. If the Powers That Be refuse to vet their own authorized representatives and require that others verify for themselves through unquantifiable means, then they are unworthy of their power. They have given the authority to those who were meant to be subjected to it, and made it by consent. They have given the power of the master to the servant.

Maybe right, depending on what a person would consider to be proof. Authority is what someone gives you to enable you to do something for them, on their behalf, and all it takes for you to receive it is for you to accept the word of a person if or when he gives it to you. Like when Jesus said our Father had given him authority over all of the world in regards to proclaiming the gospel when he authorized certain people to proclaim what he had taught them. What proof do you think Jesus had that our Father had given him the authority he claimed to have received from our Father? Do you think his apostles saw our Father give it to him?

No, but Jesus was transfigured before them. Signs followed him, and even the Pharisees could read them clearly even though they refused to accept them. That refusal is a different matter altogether.

What we have today are men who have no signs at all, save their stories and their canny business management; and they ask for loyalty and faith. Well, I'm fine with that. But it is from that consent that their authority arises. If they gave signs (say, for instance, oh, actual indisputable prophecy), then I should say their authority came from God. That is why religions such as the the Catholic Church seek very seriously to establish and verify the miracles done by their people, in order to demonstrate that God has endorsed them and given them the authority to act in His name. They understand that delegated authority is always, always grounded in unmistakable signs. The people should be able to acknowledge the sign, even if they refuse to abide it.

My point is that the police officer has the authority he has regardless of whether or not you consent to his authority, and that if you were to refuse to accept the fact that he has the authority he has you could end suffering from the consequences of not accepting his authority. Not everybody pulls over when a car with a flashing light follows them, don't cha know. It could be an unmarked police car, or it could be just some guy who bought a light to put on his car to try to get ladies to pull over so he can rape them. Just because you make certain assumptions in certain situations doesn't mean everyone thinks the same way.

You are absolutely correct in this, and have no argument from me. Regardless of the fraud that is out there, the legitimate officer still comes with certain unmistakable signs that he must give in order to act within his authority. There is no latitude for what these signs are, and if there are any questions about it, one knows where to go in order to verify them--and will always get the same answer. The signs are part of the ontology of the thing called "police officer," which some pretenders surely imitate. But, he is not asking for consent. Those who are given authority never ask for consent as a way to vet, or to verify, their authority. They aren't asking people to "find out for themselves" and come to a knowledge and belief before they become subjected (or bound) to that authority.

All authority that can only be verified through the personal qualities of those subjected to it, cannot be said to arise in God. For, if some people lack the qualities to receive the witness of the authority, it is unjust to subject them to it and they are not bound by it. They don't have to pull over; no squad is going to come and finally shred their tires and make them. So, if He truly did give authority, God would have to provide a more reliable way to vet it; one that isn't so apparently beyond the grasp of so many people, and so easily mistaken for something else.

A con man or impersonator usually wants you to willingly follow along too, rather than trying to force you to do something. Not everyone who claims to have authority from God really has it, but that doesn't mean there aren't people who do.

Yes, and the people who do have always shown unmistakable signs. But there is a famine in the land of such ones.

Your thinking is messed up, and I'm not sure what is the best way for me to be able to straighten you out.

Wait a minute... I'm the one whose straightening you out here. Isn't it working? CAN'T YOU SEE REASON?

My point is that God still has authority to do what he does and he can authorize other people to do things for him. It really doesn't matter if you don't believe that, because your disbelief doesn't make that not true. It's still true regardless of what you believe, or whether or not you consent to what someone can do for you with God's authority. And what God considers to be good and evil is still what he considers to be good and evil, even if you don't consent or agree with the thoughts he can give you.

Disbelief doesn't make things false, nor does belief make them true. For instance, there are people who believe I'm pretty smart! True story.

Being ignorant of things doesn't make them false, nor does knowing make them true. There were people who honestly knew the world was flat, I kid you not.

You say that you know some things and that you believe some things. Well, that doesn't make them true. Your certainty doesn't make things certain. The universe doesn't become what you project onto it... at least not for other people and the instruments they use for Finding Things Out.

You say that I have unbelief. Why yes, I do. It's unbelief in your sterile, boring universe with its petty deity who can't even produce the proper signs of authority in the people he authorizes. But I do believe in my own super-duper, Truer Than True Times Ten Raised to the Power of Infinity Universe of really interesting and plausible Truths And Justice. And you, sir, are the unbeliever! Yes, you!

And, holy moly, lightning almost hit my building, and you should see the wind out there. The Lord is not happy with me just now, so I'll leave it at that... Um, back to our regular program... what were we talking about... Evil?

[Ahab]

No, because you can't prove to anyone but yourself that God has told you anything. I mean, you can state your opinion and invite people to consider it. That's about it.

The truth can be known to anyone who experiences it. It's not limited to me and only me, as if nobody but me can know the truth which I have experienced. And the fact that there are some people who haven't experienced what I and some others have experienced doesn't mean I/we haven't experienced what we have experienced, either. It's like you're saying: You don't know that because I don't know it." Just get over yourself, because I and some other people have experienced things you haven't experienced, yet.

Well, "so what" is the right attitude, from your point of view. You think God has spoken to you and that the things he has told you are true Universally, like gravity. Except I think God hasn't said anything at all to you, because actually he's been talking to me all along, and others like me; and He says that the god that is talking to you is silly and wrong. And arrogant! So Nyah! You can't prove me wrong. I know my own experiences are superior to yours, because I had them, and they were incomparable. So stop it.

Irrelevant, yet again. What you or anyone else says or thinks doesn't alter even a little bit of what I have experienced, so according to what I have experienced, you are still wrong. So Nyah!

(I'm just kidding about that, but if I weren't, I'd be as justified in saying it as you are in saying your stuff).

No you wouldn't be justified in saying that to me. You said some things that aren't true, even if you were to believe that is true.

... most people understand and accept reproducible phenomena as "objective" because it is reliable and guaranteed to produce the same results every time. Mostly. We see that, in the religious sphere, there is nothing at all available on this level.

Everything in the religious sphere is reproducible, too, just as much as anything else is, and we see evidence of this when different people get the same answers from God. It's only those who don't get their answers from God (our Father, through Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost) who don't agree with each other on those answers.

Well, God has clearly told other people that Joseph Smith was a dangerous heretic and not a prophet.

Baloney. The fact that some people say that doesn't mean what they are saying is true, and they can't prove that God said that.

Like you, they also are certain of their knowledge from God, regardless of your contradictory statement.

No, not like me, because they are opposed to what I am saying. There are others who agree with me, though, and those are the ones that are like me in that way.

Should the Impartial Spectator himself desire to verify his own evidence on the matter, he would be sadly disappointed, for he would not know which god he had gotten his own information from.

Learning to identify who is who is part of the process of getting to know God.

Can't be logical. Draw me up the truth table, please. Demonstrate the truth of each claim in deterministic language. Logic allows for very little subjectivity. It has to follow the rules. If a prophet can't himself produce reliable evidence of his authority from God, then he doesn't have it. For God to give authority to a man, and then withhold a reliable way for others to know of this fact, would be unjust. The way that we claim one knows that the authority comes from God is not reliable. It does not produce the evidence that can be quantified and acknowledged by all. It can only be acknowledged by each, and some of them deny it. They get the contrary witness. That isn't a good sign.

Contrary witnesses come from someone other than the one who can give us the witness of who God has authorized. The fact that there are naysayers doesn't mean there aren't any truthsayers, and we can each get a witness from God about who he has authorized. Again, it really doesn't matter that some people do not agree or that some people will say it's not true, because it's true anyway, even though people deny what is true.

Must be, I insist. Otherwise, injustice prevails. If the Powers That Be refuse to vet their own authorized representatives and require that others verify for themselves through unquantifiable means, then they are unworthy of their power. They have given the authority to those who were meant to be subjected to it, and made it by consent. They have given the power of the master to the servant.

"The powers that be" that authorize others are the ones we should look to for a witness that they have given their authority to others which thus authorizes those others to do what they were authorized to do, and "the powers that be" do provide their witness through quantifiable means, otherwise nobody would know what they did or said.

I was referring to the people authorized by others as those who don't necessarily need to provide evidence of the authority they have been given.

What we have today are men who have no signs at all, save their stories and their canny business management; and they ask for loyalty and faith. Well, I'm fine with that.

I wouldn't be if that was the way I saw them. I see "signs" of their authority practically all of the time, both in what they say which God then verifies to me as being in agreement with what he thinks about that, as well as what they do with the authority they claim to have. If you have the authority of the priesthood, yourself, you should also be able to see that. If you don't then you're not receiving as much as you should be experiencing.

But it is from that consent that their authority arises.

No. Their authority arises from the fact that God has given them his authority. The fact that some agree that God has isn't what makes that authority valid, because they would still have that authority from God even if the whole world denied it.

If they gave signs (say, for instance, oh, actual indisputable prophecy), then I should say their authority came from God.

The spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus Christ, meaning those who declare prophecy are simply telling what God has told them. Or to put it more simply, all anyone has to do to declare prophecy is to say something Jesus Christ would say himself, which is anything which is true, because the testimony of Jesus Christ is what he would say, which amounts to the truth.

So are you telling me that all they would have to do is tell the truth, as Jesus Christ would tell it, for you to know their authority was given by God? I suspect you would want a little more than that, based on how I understand you, but that is what you were basically saying.

You are absolutely correct in this, and have no argument from me. Regardless of the fraud that is out there, the legitimate officer still comes with certain unmistakable signs that he must give in order to act within his authority. There is no latitude for what these signs are, and if there are any questions about it, one knows where to go in order to verify them--and will always get the same answer. The signs are part of the ontology of the thing called "police officer," which some pretenders surely imitate. But, he is not asking for consent. Those who are given authority never ask for consent as a way to vet, or to verify, their authority. They aren't asking people to "find out for themselves" and come to a knowledge and belief before they become subjected (or bound) to that authority.

No, but like the imposter and con man, they expect you to believe them as if they have the authority they claim to have.

Disbelief doesn't make things false, nor does belief make them true.

True, and those who have authority from God have it even if people don't believe they really do.

Being ignorant of things doesn't make them false, nor does knowing make them true. There were people who honestly knew the world was flat, I kid you not.

Yes, people are often wrong while being certain they are right, but you can also be certain while knowing the truth.

I've reached my maximum quote limit, so I'm switching to the bold text option, now:

You say that I have unbelief. Why yes, I do. It's unbelief in your sterile, boring universe with its petty deity who can't even produce the proper signs of authority in the people he authorizes.

You misunderstood me. I hope I have you straightened out now.

And, holy moly, lightning almost hit my building, and you should see the wind out there. The Lord is not happy with me just now, so I'll leave it at that... Um, back to our regular program... what were we talking about... Evil?

Yes, and how to know what it is, as well as how to know when something is good and of God.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Ahab

[ERayR]

No, because you can't prove to anyone but yourself that God has told you anything. I mean, you can state your opinion and invite people to consider it. That's about it.

I am not trying to prove anything to you or anyone else. I relate you decide.

[Ahab]

I am not trying to prove anything to you or anyone else. I relate you decide.

Let's take it a step beyond that, and you will then hopefully see how you are providing some proof.

Suppose you say something which is true, and let's also suppose it relates to whether or not something is good or evil.

Suppose I don't already know whether or not what you said is true or its relationship to either good or evil.

Suppose I ask God to help me know if what you said, or if what I understand from what you said, is true, and also good or evil.

Suppose God helps me to know that what I understand from what you said is true and good.

I then would have proof that what you said is both true and good.

Wha la!

[pmccombs1]

The truth can be known to anyone who experiences it. It's not limited to me and only me, as if nobody but me can know the truth which I have experienced. And the fact that there are some people who haven't experienced what I and some others have experienced doesn't mean I/we haven't experienced what we have experienced, either. It's like you're saying: You don't know that because I don't know it." Just get over yourself, because I and some other people have experienced things you haven't experienced, yet.

What do you know about the things I've experienced? Nothing.

Now, I don't deny that you have experienced what you say you have experienced. I can't do that, because I'm not you. I can't deny anyone's experience, I can only try to make sense of those things according to my own worldview.

I have no reason at all to believe that you are being anything other than completely sincere about the things you have experienced.

But, I also have some hard news for you. I don't know how you are going to take it. While it's true that you have experienced what you call "God," and others have have likewise done so in a similar way to you, the truth is that we all exist within a simulation. You see, this universe is an experiment in emergent complexity, and we arose spontaneously within this program after several billion runtime iterations. Noting this predicted development, the Chief Master Scientist assigned one of its interns to run a few studies.

You belong to group C and have received a manifestation through, via simulation runtime, for a narrative that had been placed within it. Members of group C receive witnesses of varying degrees. Some of them include audible voices, others visions, and still others a physical presence. This evidence is withheld from all those who do not demonstrate group-C affinity.

There are other groups in this study with different affinities. Group B has been given a contrary witness. The plan is to see how sentience born of spontaneous complexity will deal with these incongruities.

I feel that I have been authorized by the Chief Master Scientist Itself to reveal this to you at this time, so that you can cease asserting group-C truth on those of other groups who have received what you perceive to be something incomplete or lesser, even though you can't know that. The CMS does not wish to harm any of its subjects, though sometimes this is the result of the experiment. Because I have a unique connection with this entity, I have petitioned for benevolence in this case.

Irrelevant, yet again. What you or anyone else says or thinks doesn't alter even a little bit of what I have experienced, so according to what I have experienced, you are still wrong. So Nyah!

That is correct. But do not forget that the road run both ways. What you or anyone else says doesn't alter even a little bit of what I (or anyone else) has experienced. And according to my experience, you are still wrong.

No you wouldn't be justified in saying that to me. You said some things that aren't true, even if you were to believe that is true.

That's right, I wouldn't be justified. Recall that I said that I would be "just as justified as you" in making some assertions, by which I meant to say, not at all. You can't tell people that we have no right to deny your experiences and truths, and then turn right around and accuse them of "saying things that aren't true." Hypocrisy! You aren't justified in that, because you don't know what we have experienced. You don't know how we received our truth. You may think your own experience was definitive, but you have no way to measure it against anyone else's in order to claim that they still lack something or are wrong in some way. Shame on you.

Everything in the religious sphere is reproducible, too, just as much as anything else is

No, not as much as anything. Some claim to reproduce religious experience that others have had, but we have no way of knowing this outside of "agreement." Tell me, is there as much agreement about religious experience as there is about the phenomenon that we all are bound to the earth by gravity? I thought not. What you have claimed is a clear falsehood that is obvious to anyone with senses.

Baloney. The fact that some people say that doesn't mean what they are saying is true, and they can't prove that God said that.

Just as you can't prove that God said anything.

Learning to identify who is who is part of the process of getting to know God.

Says you, without any authority or justification beyond your own self.

"The powers that be" that authorize others are the ones we should look to for a witness that they have given their authority to others which thus authorizes those others to do what they were authorized to do, and "the powers that be" do provide their witness through quantifiable means, otherwise nobody would know what they did or said.

Ok, quantify away. Nobody has measured these things on any instrument capable of being presented congruently to others. Again, you are stating a falsehood. Nobody has quantified spiritual things. They aren't objective.

I wouldn't be if that was the way I saw them. I see "signs" of their authority practically all of the time, both in what they say which God then verifies to me as being in agreement with what he thinks about that, as well as what they do with the authority they claim to have. If you have the authority of the priesthood, yourself, you should also be able to see that. If you don't then you're not receiving as much as you should be experiencing.

Sorry, these signs have to be clear to everyone, not just you and a small fraction of the rest of them.

No. Their authority arises from the fact that God has given them his authority. The fact that some agree that God has isn't what makes that authority valid, because they would still have that authority from God even if the whole world denied it.

Unjustifiable claim if applied universally. Can't be demonstrated.

So are you telling me that all they would have to do is tell the truth, as Jesus Christ would tell it, for you to know their authority was given by God? I suspect you would want a little more than that, based on how I understand you, but that is what you were basically saying.

No, I'm saying that a prophet would have to provide a thing recognizable as prophecy: The correct revealing of hidden things that are later made obvious to all. Some people don't believe in Jesus, but everyone knows when something beyond nature has been manifest. This would be a clear type of sign necessary for a God who gives his authority to men. But, I don't believe that is how God works, so I don't expect to see those sorts of signs.