Calling Good Evil And Evil Good In Today's World

[Questing Beast]

The recently closed thread on gays marrying "straight" by choice illustrated the phenomenon of disagreement over what should, imho, be obvious good and evil comparisons. The world is filled with them.

 

How can anyone uphold a consensus on what good and evil are? If our very laws fold under advocacy pressures for what was once viewed as an evil, excusing the folding on the basis of "we've been wrong before" (e.g. interracial marriage), then where is the firm grounding in defining what "good" even means?

 

This is how civilizations fold up and blow away: their people doubt the very paradigm of certainty that was once the core. Sparta was used as an example on that thread, of how "sexuality" in a powerfully controlling society was utterly alien, both to the current GLBTQ agenda and paradigm of the "brave new world" they want to create, and to the status quo of old-fashioned, Judeo-Christian values. Sparta fell when outside pressures vitiated their core paradigm of using male sexuality to instill survival mentality in the boys, who, preyed upon by the older teens sexually, had to fight practically to the death to resist (fecklessly) being violated. The upshot was, apparently, an inbred SSA which was passed onto the next generation. To perpetuate the species, Spartan men were forbidden to be single; they all married and produced offspring. Nothing about that society's approach to survival and conquest reads as a "good" thing. Sparta needed to go down, and she did, but only after that inbreeding of corrupted sexuality was weakened by doubt, and not replaced by anything as strong or stronger.

 

The USA is not officially a Christian nation and never was. But tacitly it has up till recently been a Christian culture, grounded in the very dictation of "the commandments" as the core of our laws. Now that is all going away, to be replaced with, what exactly? Nobody knows. But take away the core ID of the Nation, and fill in with "whatever floats yer boat", and you have no definition that the "Law" can possibly arrive at a consensus on. That is called anarchy, almost full term and ready to be "born".

 

Does anybody want to take a stab at writing a simple concise "good and evil" list for argument's sake? The moment you post such a list, there will be attacks by those who call it "evil and good"....

[thesometimesaint]

Good; Me being a righteous person. Evil; Me forcing you to be my definition of a righteous person.

[The Nehor]

Inform the CIA. They need to know that there is a simpler method of toppling a government: introduce pederasty.

[foster]

I would rather have anarchy, as you have defined it, than to have a system which regards only its religion, its speech, its concepts ...etc.

[foster]

Good; Me being a righteous person. Evil; Me forcing you to be my definition of a righteous person.

if I could give you a plus 1 I would.

[cinepro]

The USA is not officially a Christian nation and never was. But tacitly it has up till recently been a Christian culture, grounded in the very dictation of "the commandments" as the core of our laws. 

 

 

Just so I'm clear, how do you define "the commandments"?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Does anybody want to take a stab at writing a simple concise "good and evil" list for argument's sake? The moment you post such a list, there will be attacks by those who call it "evil and good"....

 

Good:

• Love God (Inasmuch as ye have done it to the least of these, ye have done it to me)
• Love thy neighbor as thyself

 

Bad:

• Not loving God or neighbor 

 

Evil:

• Being bad and taking pleasure out of it.

[foster]

I agree that a system of man's laws will go where the wind blows; A theocracy, without a physical manifestation of the divine, isn't much better than anarchy as you define it.

[Palerider]

Just an aside,

 

 A number of the Founding Fathers knew of and discussed the issues raised here. They had studied both Greek and Roman government and culture. 

 

It troubled them deeply that a majority might use their freedom to permit evil to become lawful. And they also knew that there was nearly no way to stop it from happening if a society chose corruption.

 

To paraphrase Franklin: "My greatest fear is that society may come to the point where they cannot distinguish between "liberty" and "license".

 

"Liberty" carries with it the responsibility to make sure one's laws are righteous as well as one's individual conduct.

 

"License" is the legal permission to do something even if it's wrong morally.

 

In order to walk that fine line of deciding how to order one's government there must exist a transcending authority by which to judge all things. Otherwise one man's opinion about what is "right" carries just as much weight as another's. That's called SECULARIZATION.

 

In other words, "I believe conjugal matrimony between the species is normative and allowable and I practice it with my horse all the time. No one can say I'm wrong. What's more I want (demand) all of you to be tolerant of my feelings and the government should back me up. We are after all a diverse and tolerant society, so don't even think of taking away my job of teaching your kids in junior high..........."

 

We do not allow comparisons of anyone to animals.  You have been removed from the thread.

[thesometimesaint]

if I could give you a plus 1 I would.

 

Sometimes it is the thought that counts.

[thesometimesaint]

Just an aside,

 

 A number of the Founding Fathers knew of and discussed the issues raised here. They had studied both Greek and Roman government and culture. 

 

It troubled them deeply that a majority might use their freedom to permit evil to become lawful. And they also knew that there was nearly no way to stop it from happening if a society chose corruption.

 

To paraphrase Franklin: "My greatest fear is that society may come to the point where they cannot distinguish between "liberty" and "license".

 

"Liberty" carries with it the responsibility to make sure one's laws are righteous as well as one's individual conduct.

 

"License" is the legal permission to do something even if it's wrong morally.

 

In order to walk that fine line of deciding how to order one's government there must exist a transcending authority by which to judge all things. Otherwise one man's opinion about what is "right" carries just as much weight as another's. That's called SECULARIZATION.

 

In other words, "I believe conjugal matrimony between the species is normative and allowable and I practice it with my horse all the time. No one can say I'm wrong. What's more I want (demand) all of you to be tolerant of my feelings and the government should back me up. We are after all a diverse and tolerant society, so don't even think of taking away my job of teaching your kids in junior high..........."

 

An nonhuman animal doesn't have the power of consent.

[The Nehor]

An nonhuman animal doesn't have the power of consent.

You have obviously not watched enough animal mating videos and seen females spurn prospective mates.

[Questing Beast]

Just so I'm clear, how do you define "the commandments"?

The Ten for starters. Then what Jesus said in principle. Then how all of that has entered the Law of Romanized Eurocentric govt's. The current flap over "marriage" definitions is all about getting religion out of the business of secular law....

[Questing Beast]

 

Good:

• Love God (Inasmuch as ye have done it to the least of these, ye have done it to me)
• Love thy neighbor as thyself

 

Bad:

• Not loving God or neighbor 

 

Evil:

• Being bad and taking pleasure out of it.

 

If I hate myself and hate my neighbor then I am treating him as I treat myself. Is hatred now illegal?

 

I may hate my neighbor, but out of self interest never do him a blatant offense. If he is dying I can walk away. Nothing illegal in that either, you'd have to prove that I knew he was dying first and even then I could assert ignorance on some basis or other. I am a "bad" man, but all my behavior is legal as the day is long.

 

No one can measure how much "pleasure" I experience being "bad". so evil does not effectively exist as far as the Law is concerned....

[Questing Beast]

Inform the CIA. They need to know that there is a simpler method of toppling a government: introduce pederasty.

As long as it took for Sparta to dissolve into servitude, the CIA will likely no longer exist....

[SeekingUnderstanding]

 The current flap over "marriage" definitions is all about getting religion out of the business of secular law....

I don't think this is the case at all. Besides internet forums, I have seen no serious proposal to remove religion from marriage (i.e. Civil unions only).  Many christian denominations marry gays and lesbians all the time. They just don't receive state sanction for said marriage.  

[Questing Beast]

I don't think this is the case at all. Besides internet forums, I have seen no serious proposal to remove religion from marriage (i.e. Civil unions only).  Many christian denominations marry gays and lesbians all the time. They just don't receive state sanction for said marriage.  

It looks to me like you just repeated what I said in different phraseology.

 

If the State forbids some marriages on religious definition grounds that is what the change will address. Once the religious proscriptions are identified and removed all marriages will be legal. The resistance to changing the marriage laws to include all types is directly founded on public resistance on religious grounds, the same religious sentiments that entered the Law as this Nation was founded....

[thesometimesaint]

You have obviously not watched enough animal mating videos and seen females spurn prospective mates.

 

I grew up on those old Disney nature flicks.

[thesometimesaint]

If I hate myself and hate my neighbor then I am treating him as I treat myself. Is hatred now illegal?

 

I may hate my neighbor, but out of self interest never do him a blatant offense. If he is dying I can walk away. Nothing illegal in that either, you'd have to prove that I knew he was dying first and even then I could assert ignorance on some basis or other. I am a "bad" man, but all my behavior is legal as the day is long.

 

No one can measure how much "pleasure" I experience being "bad". so evil does not effectively exist as far as the Law is concerned....

 

Hate isn't illegal, but it is a waste of emotional energy.

 

Only certain professions have an affirmative responsibility to provide aid.

 

As long as you don't act on that pleasure in being bad the law has no control over you.

[Ahab]

How can anyone uphold a consensus on what good and evil are? If our very laws fold under advocacy pressures for what was once viewed as an evil, excusing the folding on the basis of "we've been wrong before" (e.g. interracial marriage), then where is the firm grounding in defining what "good" even means?

I think the only consensus we have regarding good and evil is the idea that "good" is what we like and "evil" is what we don't like.  From there we get bogged down in individual opinions and perspectives regarding what each of us likes and doesn't like while considering what we don't like to be evil.

 

Give any example you can think of for what some people call "evil" and the people who like it will say it is good.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Good; Me being a righteous person. Evil; Me forcing you to be my definition of a righteous person.

Curious. Does that count when the government forces you by a tax and gives your money to someone else? Does your standard still stand?

Edited August 22, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Palerider]

Just an aside,

 

 A number of the Founding Fathers knew of and discussed the issues raised here. They had studied both Greek and Roman government and culture. 

 

It troubled them deeply that a majority might use their freedom to permit evil to become lawful. And they also knew that there was nearly no way to stop it from happening if a society chose corruption.

 

To paraphrase Franklin: "My greatest fear is that society may come to the point where they cannot distinguish between "liberty" and "license".

 

"Liberty" carries with it the responsibility to make sure one's laws are righteous as well as one's individual conduct.

 

"License" is the legal permission to do something even if it's wrong morally.

 

In order to walk that fine line of deciding how to order one's government there must exist a transcending authority by which to judge all things. Otherwise one man's opinion about what is "right" carries just as much weight as another's. That's called SECULARIZATION.

 

In other words, "I believe conjugal matrimony between the species is normative and allowable and I practice it with my horse all the time. No one can say I'm wrong. What's more I want (demand) all of you to be tolerant of my feelings and the government should back me up. We are after all a diverse and tolerant society, so don't even think of taking away my job of teaching your kids in junior high..........."

 

We do not allow comparisons of anyone to animals.  You have been removed from the thread.

 

 

I apologize if anyone thought I was making any sort of a comparison between animals and humans. That certainly wasn't my intent.

[Questing Beast]

I apologize if anyone thought I was making any sort of a comparison between animals and humans. That certainly wasn't my intent.

Glad to see you "reinstated". I didn't get any comparison to a human with animals in what you posted....

[thesometimesaint]

Curious. Does that count when the government forces you by a tax and gives your money to someone else? Does your standard still stand?

 

By being citizens of this country we agree with the power of the government to lay taxes. To use those taxes for a variety of purposes as determined by law.

 

See US Constitution

 

In principle it is no different than where God, through his prophets, demanded that we pay tithes and offerings to some earthly representive of God.

 

See Malachi 3:10

 

Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts...

[Questing Beast]

I think the only consensus we have regarding good and evil is the idea that "good" is what we like and "evil" is what we don't like.  From there we get bogged down in individual opinions and perspectives regarding what each of us likes and doesn't like while considering what we don't like to be evil.

 

Give any example you can think of for what some people call "evil" and the people who like it will say it is good.

Of course some people will say that anything whatsoever is "good". But are those people rare? Is it common for a huge segment of the population to condone and promote bestiality? Child porn and pederasty? Only the warped minds of those practitioners define "good" by insane parameters.

 

We used to think that all GLBTQs were warped. Now a small majority of "the moral majority" are willing to allow the experiment of "marriage" and "family" according to the lights of the GLBTQ advocacy. That leaves one bastion of public morality still standing, only the outer surface has been chipped away at. But the corrosive element is already applied and it will come down - if I were a prophet I'd say "thus saith the Lord".

 

I keep resorting to the current flap over "same sex attraction/marriage", because that is the battleground today. Nobody in popular Medía is advocating for the last bastion to go down, yet.

 

Ben Franklin said "liberty is not licence", or words to that effect. What we have here is licence advocated as a civil right. It was not so not long ago. We the People have been wrong before, and our laws were corrected. That excuse is being used on us to advocate for changes allowing licence to be legitimized. We already allow licence without prosecution in so many areas where public outcry once upon a time resulted in the Law coming down hard on individuals from time to time, and then there was that lamentable experiment called "Prohibition", which not only backfired, but blew up in the faces of the "do-gooders" promoting it at the Supreme Court level. It would have been "nice" if Prohibition had accomplished what they wanted it to: clean up peoples' lives, drive way the evils of drinking, raise morality, family quality, clear thinking, etc. But instead we got increased crime and the Roaring Twenties and the Great Depression all in overlapping succession. We the Allied Powers coming out of the 1WW applied our superior "wisdom" to the German problem and caused the 2WW. Evil was said to be good and the greatest war in human history resulted.

 

Now we have had relative peace for two generations, wars are in decline, people affected by the calamity of war are decreasing steadily in number. But licence is on the upswing. Will a lack of war and a blooming surge in licence as legalized activity result in a good thing? Is licence good? It used to be labeled as "evil" or at least a bad thing.

 

We seem to have lost our capacity to define what "good" is, and licence has inserted itself into the spot where "good" used to be. The language of the Founders reads today like some foreign text....

Edited August 22, 2013 by Questing Beast