Calling Good Evil And Evil Good In Today's World

[foster]

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...

 

plus 1 again.  There is also the "Articles of Faith", Jesus teaching "Give unto Ceasar..."   

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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"....

I have many black friends, people who I have worked with and worshiped with, all whom I know are insulted that people seek to link the gay issue to the horrors inflicted on their mother, fathers and slaves linked to these issues. God calls us to do what we believe to be right, and anyone who believes the Biblical account in Genesis 1&2 know how God instituted marriage and what he expects. If marriage is redefined all over our country, then only time will removed all definitions. The USA is a Christian Nation and our laws are based in Judeo-Christian values.

Good...

Loving one's family

Obeying the laws of the land

Following Christ

Being honest

Being true to one's beliefs

If a believer following the Prophet

The 10 Commandments

Being kind

Evil...

Murder

Offending little one's

Lying

Beating family members

Hate

Malice

Just a few to answer to your request.

Most know I have a gay child whom I love and am very close too, or does my objection too gay marriage make me "evil" or make me wrong? Are we supposed to go against our beliefs because we "might" be wrong.

[Questing Beast]

I have many black friends, people who I have worked with and worshiped with, all whom I know are insulted that people seek to link the gay issue to the horrors inflicted on their mother, fathers and slaves linked to these issues. God calls us to do what we believe to be right, and anyone who believes the Biblical account in Genesis 1&2 know how God instituted marriage and what he expects. If marriage is redefined all over our country, then only time will removed all definitions. The USA is a Christian Nation and our laws are based in Judeo-Christian values.

Good...

Loving one's family

Obeying the laws of the land

Following Christ

Being honest

Being true to one's beliefs

If a believer following the Prophet

The 10 Commandments

Being kind

Evil...

Murder

Offending little one's

Lying

Beating family members

Hate

Malice

Just a few to answer to your request.

Most know I have a gay child whom I love and am very close too, or does my objection too gay marriage make me "evil" or make me wrong? Are we supposed to go against our beliefs because we "might" be wrong.

I too have a "bi" daughter. She chooses presently to ID sexually with another female. I have remonstrated with her about it, in a loving way, because I accept her as a person as she is. But her choice is flat wrong-headed, and I tell her that her choice is therefore wrong. Part of my recent response on this topic on this forum is because of her, naturally. I have to think about it a lot.

 

But the GLBTQ advocates will argue for defining the list of "bad" things about them differently, as you know. How is love a bad thing? How is sexual expression of real love a bad thing? How is marriage between any two consenting adults a bad thing? How is raising children in a loving home environment a bad thing? All that is required, of course, is for society to redefine millennia of mistaken thinking. We have literally 2K years of Christian thought on sexual morality. And all we hear is that history has clouded the issue with anti homosexual thought; in fact, historically, we are told, homosexuals were often allowed to marry. At the very least they were allowed to coexist with heterosexuals in an open fashion. Only bigoted Christianity took over and forced homosexuals to retreat into hiding. We are told that any love has an equal civil right to expression. Never mind the slippery slope of that reasoning, "they" (the final prohibited demographic of sexual deviants - even the GLBTQs will agree the rest are deviant) will never convince moral people that they have a legitimate argument. To compare them to the deviants is offensive and not politically correct, how dare anyone do that? Yet not so long ago society compared sexual morality in monogamous marriage on the one hand, to EVERYTHING else; the category included all immoral activities. Society has decided that licence is better, that it is "liberating". And that is the quintessence of "calling evil good" that we are battling against right now, and losing the battle. I can't even talk sense to my own daughter....

Edited August 22, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Ahab]

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.

Not sure about what you mean here. Are you suggesting family is the last bastion of public morality? Where do you get that idea? The people involved in a family can be either good or evil, and not necessarily either one based on the fact that they are a family. And marriage doesn't make the people involved necessarily good or evil, either. In reality good is good and evil is evil regardless of whether or not people like either one.

 

 

 

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....

It's not a "we" thing, because not all of us are in agreement.  Some of us can define what is good, and some of us can't or don't define it correctly.  Come on, now .  Give it your best shot.  How do you define what good actually is.  Who is your role model?

Edited August 22, 2013 by Ahab

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

 

It's not a "we" thing, because not all of us are in agreement.  Some of us can define what is good, and some of us can't or don't define it correctly.  Come on, now .  Give it your best shot.  How do you define what good actually is.  Who is your role model?

Mine is Christ, no apologies, and my parents, even though one is gone and one does not usually remember who I am. Why is that so many lately are so critical of others opinions?

[Ahab]

Why is that so many lately are so critical of others opinions?

We're simply telling other people when we don't agree with their opinion. 

 

If we weren't critical of their opinion they might get the idea that we agree with their opinion.

[cinepro]

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....

 

 

So you were referring to "The Ten Commandments" when you said this?

 

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.

 

In what way are we "grounded" in the Ten Commandments, and how are they the "core" of our laws?  Because other than 6, 8 and 9, I wouldn't want our laws to anywhere near the Ten Commandments, let alone be grounded or otherwise based on them.

[bluebell]

 

 

In what way are we "grounded" in the Ten Commandments, and how are they the "core" of our laws?  Because other than 6, 8 and 9, I wouldn't want our laws to anywhere near the Ten Commandments, let alone be grounded or otherwise based on them.

 

7 used to be illegal in most if not all states as well I think.

[Questing Beast]

Not sure about what you mean here. Are you suggesting family is the last bastion of public morality? Where do you get that idea? The people involved in a family can be either good or evil, and not necessarily either one based on the fact that they are a family. And marriage doesn't make the people involved necessarily good or evil, either. In reality good is good and evil is evil regardless of whether or not people like either one.

 

 

 

It's not a "we" thing, because not all of us are in agreement.  Some of us can define what is good, and some of us can't or don't define it correctly.  Come on, now .  Give it your best shot.  How do you define what good actually is.  Who is your role model?

No. The "last bastion" of public sexual morality is the capacity to define the rest of the deviants; even the GLBTQs agree with the heterosexual majority on that one, and resent anti SSM proponents making the assertion that if we allow them to marry, then the next fight will be to keep some guy from marrying his horse, or pushing for sex with children, etc. But the arguments the GLBTQ advocacy use to change the marriage laws can be used by the remainder, the "deviants", and will be. If licence is the goal of the day, the GLBTQs will not be the end of the losing battle to define permissible sexuality.

 

My role model of what defines good is anyone who does not lie to him/herself. How do I tell? Their behavior is just. They do not prey on anyone. They improve the world by always giving others their due, returning what they borrow, not hording, not squabbling about "their share", the word "entitlement" is not even in their vocabulary (other than to decry it). The list is quite long, and most people possess most of the qualities I consider worthy of emulating. Famous people who model the virtues are almost entirely in agreement. That would be the mind or "spirit" of "God" working along the quite strait confines that promote Joy....

Edited August 22, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Questing Beast]

7 used to be illegal in most if not all states as well I think.

And once upon a time it was not unheard of to make it illegal to open for business on the "Sabbath". Heh, different world where that one was tried.

 

There's nothing wrong with the Ten. They are universal for a people who actually believe in God and can agree on the principles behind the Ten. It shouldn't be hard. But it is. Because too many feel that "commandments" originating from a Deity is a concept too confining for consideration....

[Ahab]

No. The "last bastion" of public sexual morality is the capacity to define the rest of the deviants; even the GLBTQs agree with the heterosexual majority on that one, and resent anti SSM proponents making the assertion that if we allow them to marry, then the next fight will be to keep some guy from marrying his horse, or pushing for sex with children, etc. But the arguments the GLBTQ advocacy use to change the marriage laws can be used by the remainder, the "deviants", and will be. If licence is the goal of the day, the GLBTQs will not be the end of the losing battle to define permissible sexuality.

 

My role model of what defines good is anyone who does not lie to him/herself. How do I tell? Their behavior is just. They do not prey on anyone. They improve the world by always giving others their due, returning what they borrow, not hording, not squabbling about "their share", the word "entitlement" is not even in their vocabulary (other than to decry it). The list is quite long, and most people possess most of the qualities I consider worthy of emulating. Famous people who model the virtues are almost entirely in agreement. That would be the mind or "spirit" of "God" working along the quite strait confines that promote Joy....

Thank you for your clarifications.

 

To some what defines good in regards to sexual morality is when they think their idea of "love" is involved, so the problem I see is when someone  you may call a "deviant" argues that they love their horse or a child that they want to "marry".  

 

It's not just how people define good, or evil, but how they define love, as well, and to my way of thinking people who have sexual relations with people of the same sex don't really love each other.  They just don't know what love really is.

[Questing Beast]

Whoa, Ahab, you've just insulted every GLBTQ who reads what you write. They don't know what love really is? Really? Here's what "love" is: biology speaking, plain and simple. While we immortals are "entangled" in mortality, it is almost entirely biologically experienced. Memories are warped by current biology. That's why human memory is so fickle. You can start out loving someone and end up quickly detesting them. What changed? The biology. Disgust and repugnance, anger and hatred replace the first pleasure center rushes that convinced us that we "love". Religious connections only make the relationship more complex.

 

Don't accuse anyone of not knowing what love is. It is a two-way street with no possibility of resolving the argument. And that's why we are in the fix we are: anyone can love anyone or anything, and that is the basis, the core, of the current GLBTQ advocacy argument, and the slippery slope that they have created for us all....

[Ahab]

Whoa, Ahab, you've just insulted every GLBTQ who reads what you write. They don't know what love really is? Really? Here's what "love" is: biology speaking, plain and simple. While we immortals are "entangled" in mortality, it is almost entirely biologically experienced. Memories are warped by current biology. That's why human memory is so fickle. You can start out loving someone and end up quickly detesting them. What changed? The biology. Disgust and repugnance, anger and hatred replace the first pleasure center rushes that convinced us that we "love". Religious connections only make the relationship more complex.

 

Don't accuse anyone of not knowing what love is. It is a two-way street with no possibility of resolving the argument. And that's why we are in the fix we are: anyone can love anyone or anything, and that is the basis, the core, of the current GLBTQ advocacy argument, and the slippery slope that they have created for us all....

Read (or reread) what the apostle Paul said about love, aka charity.

 

People who love each other don't do things that are not good for each other, and people who have sexual relations with people of the same sex aren't doing a good thing to each other when they do that.   We all have our moments of weakness when we're not at our best, but to intentionally and repeatedly do something which isn't good to another person is something we need to stop doing.

[thesometimesaint]

Read (or reread) what the apostle Paul said about love, aka charity.

 

People who love each other don't do things that are not good for each other, and people who have sexual relations with people of the same sex aren't doing a good thing to each other when they do that.   We all have our moments of weakness when we're not at our best, but to intentionally and repeatedly do something which isn't good to another person is something we need to stop doing.

 

Be very careful there. The same criteria that you use has/can/will be used against you.

[Ahab]

Be very careful there. The same criteria that you use has/can/will be used against you.

I expect the same criteria to be used "against" me.   What is "good" and what "love" is should apply to everyone, equally.

[Questing Beast]

Read (or reread) what the apostle Paul said about love, aka charity.

 

People who love each other don't do things that are not good for each other, and people who have sexual relations with people of the same sex aren't doing a good thing to each other when they do that.   We all have our moments of weakness when we're not at our best, but to intentionally and repeatedly do something which isn't good to another person is something we need to stop doing.

I can't agree more. But Paul wasn't talking about the love that motivates two people to get married! He talked about that too, elsewhere, and said his way (staying single) was recommended, though not practical for most.

 

Making sexual preference into the core argument over "love" and civil rights has created the slippery slope upon which society will slide into legalized licence....

[Ahab]

I can't agree more.

 

I think you can, if not now then sometime later.

 

But Paul wasn't talking about the love that motivates two people to get married!

In your opinion, and your opinion is wrong.  He was talking about "that kind" of love as well as any other kind of love people have for another person.  A love that involves doing only what is good to another person.

 

He talked about that too, elsewhere, and said his way (staying single) was recommended, though not practical for most.

No, you're misinterpreting Paul.  When you love someone you want to do only what is "good" to them, and there are many good reasons for a person to want to marry another person.

 

Making sexual preference into the core argument over "love" and civil rights has created the slippery slope upon which society will slide into legalized licence....

No, it's just that they don't understand what "love" is when they're trying to use that as their reason to marry someone of the same sex.  If they knew what was good for the other person, they wouldn't want to be marrying someone of the same sex because they would see that wouldn't be good for that other person.  They would want to build that person up to all that he or she can become, and that won't happen if they're married to someone of the same sex.  True "love" for another person should stop any of us from doing anything bad or detrimental to another person's character or future prospects.  It is the reason to do what is good.

[thesometimesaint]

I expect the same criteria to be used "against" me.   What is "good" and what "love" is should apply to everyone, equally.

 

My wife thinks dark chocolate is really good, while I prefer milk chocolate. So which one of us isn't equal?

[Ahab]

My wife thinks dark chocolate is really good, while I prefer milk chocolate. So which one of us isn't equal?

I was talking about what is "good" and  you're talking about what people think "tastes" good.  Not everything that tastes good is actually good, or good for you, don't cha know.

[Stone holm]

Interesting that the first thing that came to your mind was sex when discussing calling evil good, the first thing that came to my mind was calling greed and ambition without regards to the needs of others was the first that came to mine. I wonder if we searched the four Gospels how many times Christ condemned sex and how many times he condemned what came to my mind we would find?

[Ahab]

Interesting that the first thing that came to your mind was sex when discussing calling evil good, the first thing that came to my mind was calling greed and ambition without regards to the needs of others was the first that came to mine. I wonder if we searched the four Gospels how many times Christ condemned sex and how many times he condemned what came to my mind we would find?

You think dark chocolate and milk chocolate are referring to sex? I don't think there's any mention of chocolate in the scriptures.

 

Your previous posts are on the line of appropriateness.  Express disagreement without being insulting or you will be removed.

[Palerider]

Just saw a classic example of the difference between liberty and license on Fox News :

 

The New Mexico state supreme court has upheld the right of a same sex couple to sue a Christian photographer, who refused her services to photograph their same-sex union. She stated that she didn't want to photograph the "wedding" because it went against her Christian principles.

 

The same sex couple found another photographer and the photos went off without a hitch. But in order to "send a message" they decided to bring suit against the Christian photographer for damages of $7000.00 and the state supreme court upheld their right to sue. 

 

The photgrapher's lawyer says they're headed to the U.S. Supreme court for resolution and hopefully some sane thinking. 

 

If this lawsuit fails at the supreme court level, does anyone have ANY doubt that the LDS church will soon be performing same-sex temple marriages? 

 

In ancient Israel it became "legal" to allow their children to pass through the fires of Molech (child sacrifice). Is it any wonder God gave them up and allowed them to be conquered and carried off by the gentile nations?  

[Stone holm]

Just saw a classic example of the difference between liberty and license on Fox News :

 

The New Mexico state supreme court has upheld the right of a same sex couple to sue a Christian photographer, who refused her services to photograph their same-sex union. She stated that she didn't want to photograph the "wedding" because it went against her Christian principles.

 

The same sex couple found another photographer and the photos went off without a hitch. But in order to "send a message" they decided to bring suit against the Christian photographer for damages of $7000.00 and the state supreme court upheld their right to sue. 

 

The photgrapher's lawyer says they're headed to the U.S. Supreme court for resolution and hopefully some sane thinking. 

 

If this lawsuit fails at the supreme court level, does anyone have ANY doubt that the LDS church will soon be performing same-sex temple marriages? 

 

In ancient Israel it became "legal" to allow their children to pass through the fires of Molech (child sacrifice). Is it any wonder God gave them up and allowed them to be conquered and carried off by the gentile nations?

Yes, I doubt it. And I also doubt Fox News told the whole story.

[Questing Beast]

...

 

 

 

No, it's just that they don't understand what "love" is when they're trying to use that as their reason to marry someone of the same sex.  If they knew what was good for the other person, they wouldn't want to be marrying someone of the same sex because they would see that wouldn't be good for that other person.  They would want to build that person up to all that he or she can become, and that won't happen if they're married to someone of the same sex.  True "love" for another person should stop any of us from doing anything bad or detrimental to another person's character or future prospects.  It is the reason to do what is good.

That's all sound and logical reasoning. Except the "No" at the beginning. I think that you are in a rut automatically expecting to disagree with everyone, Ahab....

[Questing Beast]

Interesting that the first thing that came to your mind was sex when discussing calling evil good, the first thing that came to my mind was calling greed and ambition without regards to the needs of others was the first that came to mine. I wonder if we searched the four Gospels how many times Christ condemned sex and how many times he condemned what came to my mind we would find?

Sex wasn't the first thing that came into my mind by way of illustration of calling evil good or good evil. It just happens to be at the top of the "hit list" today, and a singularly unique issue, never brought up in the same way by such a powerful advocacy. As I explained, several of my children are confused thoroughly by it. That's what Isaiah was addressing: the perversion of logic and common sense until the rising generation has difficulty telling the difference, and even thinks that there is no difference. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Licence never was the way to Joy....