Evil is not absence of good

[AndrewW94]

“Evil is not absence of good.”

There is a reason the English language uses quantifiers and articles. Let’s add some clarity. I assume you meant to say:

Evil is not the absence of good.

That is correct.

Evil is the absence of a due good.

 

[SilverShadow22]

“Evil is not absence of good.”

There is a reason the English language uses quantifiers and articles. Let’s add some clarity. I assume you meant to say:

Evil is not the absence of good.

That is correct.

Evil is the absence of a due good.

Now THAT is a very interesting modifying concept.

 

[Bahman]

Theologically this nuetral is simply not a true option. It is either good/ evil.

So you believe on evil?. Do you agree there exist a hierarchy for good and evil actions?

That is the nature of the issue. We can create “nuetral and gray” areas for our own sake, but not for God’s which is why I said about differing philosophies. With God there is Good or Evil. Within alternate theories about existence there may be a nuetral so the question here is what philosophy do you want to use for the sake of your OP premise? You would have to state a preexisting philosophy that is known or lay out in detail a new one.

I don’t know if this argument is new or not. I am a hard core idealist.

If you believe God truly cares less if X happens when the current religions disagree, you would have to present this new religion and then by its nature we would have to concede that your point is 100% correct within the philosophy…however it cannot be correct in the Catholic faith.

Even a meteor striking Pluto to no effect is Good because it is God’s will. There is simply no nuetral.

The theology is the study divine nature using scripture and sometimes facts. Theology takes it full credit from scripture so scripture must be 100% right. Any religion losses its credibility if one find a very small flaw in it. There are several flaws in Catholicism a few I recall: The problem of evil, the problem timeless God (I have a few thread on that), etc.

 

[Bahman]

“Evil is not absence of good.”

There is a reason the English language uses quantifiers and articles. Let’s add some clarity. I assume you meant to say:

Evil is not the absence of good.

That is correct.

Evil is the absence of a due good.

What do you mean with due good?

 

[MT1926]

So lets assume that there exist an Absolute Good. Then there are actions which are less good. We can sort these actions on a line depending how good they are. So now we reach to a point to believe evil is real or not. If we accept evil then we are dealing with a line which is start with Absolute Evil then less evil etc. Our line look like thus Absolute Evil in one end and reach to Absolute Good on the other end. I can represent it as following: Absolute Evil<--------->Absolute Good. The problem however is what is the point at which the action is neither evil or good? This means that there should exist a point in the middle of this line which is neutral so our line look like this “Absolute Evil<----- neutral---->Absolute Good”. Now how is the situation when Evil does not exist? Our line look like this: neutral---->Absolute Good. We have neutral point on our line since it refer to action that it isn’t good et all.

Sorry Bahman I don’t agree. Your assumptions are flawed because you are asking us to accept something that you can not prove, their is no such thing as neutral. Also, the lack of being able to prove a neutral leads us to agree more with my theory that we start with Absolute Good and as we start to lose the good we approach evil. However, at the same time it is impossible to prove an absolute evil because we have no way of knowing if good can come of this evil say 100 years down the road. Thus I conclude and agree with you that evil is not the absence of good, because good is our starting point and is always present even in the smallest percentages.

 

[MT1926]

“Evil is not absence of good.”

There is a reason the English language uses quantifiers and articles. Let’s add some clarity. I assume you meant to say:

Evil is not the absence of good.

That is correct.

Evil is the absence of a due good.

You know I read that title a hundred times and did not realize “the” was missing.

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[MT1926]

The theology is the study divine nature using scripture and sometimes facts. Theology takes it full credit from scripture so scripture must be 100% right. Any religion losses its credibility if one find a very small flaw in it. There are several flaws in Catholicism a few I recall: The problem of evil, the problem timeless God (I have a few thread on that), etc.

I am not sure if I understand what you are saying here. Theology can’t take it’s full credit from scripture. Without sacred tradition scripture can never be 100% right. We hear it said all the time 2 Timothy 3:16 scripture is the inspired word of God. Why of course it is up until the point we start reading and interpreting without proper guidance. Of course it is easy to find flaws in Catholicism when you are reading scripture with your own interpretation. Here is a great test from Patrick Madrid. Let’s see if you can pass. I tell you what I will even give you the possible answers. If you get it right I will say you are correct about neutral, if you get it wrong you have to admit I am correct about there being no such thing as neutral.

Tell me the meaning of the following 6 word sentence:

I never said you stole money.

These 6 little words can have 5 different meanings.

I never said you stole money.

If we stress the word I it could mean I didn’t say it Bob said it.

I never said you stole money.

This could be a blanket statement that I never said it.

I never said you stole money.

Could mean I did say you stole it I said Bob stole it.

I never said you stole money.

I didn’t say you stole it, I said you spent it or lost it or burned it.

I never said you stole money.

It wasn’t money, I said you stole a car.

 

[LethalMouse]

So you believe on evil?. Do you agree there exist a hierarchy for good and evil actions?

Yes, and basically yes. The venial vs moral sin etc… intent etc… there would be a degree of hierarchy.

I don’t know if this argument is new or not. I am a hard core idealist.

Not a new arguement, as far as I know it is in line with Judiasm which dates back pretty far

The theology is the study divine nature using scripture and sometimes facts. Theology takes it full credit from scripture so scripture must be 100% right. Any religion losses its credibility if one find a very small flaw in it. There are several flaws in Catholicism a few I recall: The problem of evil, the problem timeless God (I have a few thread on that), etc.

And your flaws are like you said in your previous post, based on the religion/philosophy of Bahman. You have parameters that only Bahman is master of and we all meed to “prove” our faith within the confines of RoB (Religion of Bahman).

In the RoB the timeless God is a flaw of the rest of religions. You even admitted “I have a problem with time” in regard to accepting atheistic sciences as well as theology. So your “proven flaw” flys in the face of an outstanding majority of thinking creatures. You tell physicists they are wrong, theists they are wrong, and theist/physicists they are all wrong. For the right way is the RoB.

The best way I can put this is as follows:

When disagreeing between a christian and muslim, we can reference the Bible/Quran in both instances. The christian can note what the quaran says that might lend to a christian point and visa versa. However to use the devil as an example it is my understanding Satan is a Jinn in Islam. And he is an Angel in Christianity.

If our arguemts go like this:

Christian: Angel because the bible says so

Muslim: Jinn because the quran says so

The conversation can go nowhere. They must either have an alternate avenue to discuss the topic or move to another topic. Once other topics are revealed in understanding then perhaps one can begin to shed light into an area of stalemate.

Since your inevitably end answer to what is said includes “because the RoB book says so” not only is this difficult to work with, it is a book so obscure no one can reference it. Whereas at least with the quran I know of it and can google search quickly to narrow down the qurans points…

 

[davidv]

So you don’t kill a person who is suffering severely because of an illness? I do it happily. How such a situation could be objectively true when you cannot convince me.

God’s command is very clear. Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself. Killing is not loving. Thank you for revealing your immoral thinking.

Whether your are convinced is not the measure of Truth. Many deny the truth to satisfy their desires.

 

[SilverShadow22]

I am not sure if I understand what you are saying here. Theology can’t take it’s full credit from scripture. Without sacred tradition scripture can never be 100% right. We hear it said all the time 2 Timothy 3:16 scripture is the inspired word of God. Why of course it is up until the point we start reading and interpreting without proper guidance. Of course it is easy to find flaws in Catholicism when you are reading scripture with your own interpretation. Here is a great test from Patrick Madrid. Let’s see if you can pass. I tell you what I will even give you the possible answers. If you get it right I will say you are correct about neutral, if you get it wrong you have to admit I am correct about there being no such thing as neutral.

Tell me the meaning of the following 6 word sentence:

I never said you stole money.

These 6 little words can have 5 different meanings.

I never said you stole money.

If we stress the word I it could mean I didn’t say it Bob said it.

I never said you stole money.

This could be a blanket statement that I never said it.

I never said you stole money.

Could mean I did say you stole it I said Bob stole it.

I never said you stole money.

I didn’t say you stole it, I said you spent it or lost it or burned it.

I never said you stole money.

It wasn’t money, I said you stole a car.

You forgot emphasizing SAID - could mean wrote, or hinted. Variations on that sentence generally have every single word able to be emphasized.

 

[MT1926]

You forgot emphasizing SAID - could mean wrote, or hinted. Variations on that sentence generally have every single word able to be emphasized.

LOL. Thanks for the correction I will add it to memory.

 

[Bahman]

It’s not your place to say when suffering makes life ‘un-live-able’. It’s nobody’s place, not even the one suffering. The slope of euthanasia is sharp, steep, and slippery.

What is purpose of life if you cannot live it good anymore? What is the purpose of life in general? You may not have a member of family in lock in syndrome. That might change your belief about life a little if you have one.

 

[Bahman]

Sorry Bahman I don’t agree. Your assumptions are flawed because you are asking us to accept something that you can not prove, their is no such thing as neutral. Also, the lack of being able to prove a neutral leads us to agree more with my theory that we start with Absolute Good and as we start to lose the good we approach evil. However, at the same time it is impossible to prove an absolute evil because we have no way of knowing if good can come of this evil say 100 years down the road. Thus I conclude and agree with you that evil is not the absence of good, because good is our starting point and is always present even in the smallest percentages.

This is not really a fair answer.

 

[LethalMouse]

What is purpose of life if you cannot live it good anymore? What is the purpose of life in general? You may not have a member of family in lock in syndrome. That might change your belief about life a little if you have one.

Because it is not a matter of personal subjectivity by which the people (or majority) of these forum members operate. Within the context of “our” objective morality we are bound by a greater call beyond our limited views. If one is operating under several different philosophies then it is plausible to make the argument about the suffering.

However, I was watching a tv show the other day when a court case was to pull someone off life support or not. The lawyer in defense of maintaining life had a file full of unexplainable “miracle” recoveries. people who have been unquestionably done via medical science and have never been understood to how they just got better out of no where. I had an uncle who was pull off support, and declared dead…hours later he was walking around asking why he was in the hospital. SO, the question subjectively is how do we “know” when this is their call or not?

 

[Bahman]

I am not sure if I understand what you are saying here. Theology can’t take it’s full credit from scripture. Without sacred tradition scripture can never be 100% right. We hear it said all the time 2 Timothy 3:16 scripture is the inspired word of God. Why of course it is up until the point we start reading and interpreting without proper guidance. Of course it is easy to find flaws in Catholicism when you are reading scripture with your own interpretation. Here is a great test from Patrick Madrid. Let’s see if you can pass. I tell you what I will even give you the possible answers. If you get it right I will say you are correct about neutral, if you get it wrong you have to admit I am correct about there being no such thing as neutral.

That is when problem appear. Sacred tradition cannot possibly be 100% correct in interpreting Bible since church assembly is made of human who could do mistake. Why does Bible written in non-literal way?

I

never said you stole money.

If we stress the word I it could mean I didn’t say it Bob said it.

I never said you stole money.

This could be a blanket statement that I never said it.

I never said you stole money.

Could mean I did say you stole it I said Bob stole it.

I never said you stole money.

I didn’t say you stole it, I said you spent it or lost it or burned it.

I never said you stole money.

It wasn’t money, I said you stole a car.

I don’t understand how I could pass this test. Could you please elaborate.

 

[LethalMouse]

That is when problem appear. Sacred tradition cannot possibly be 100% correct in interpreting Bible since church assembly is made of human who could do mistake. Why does Bible written in non-literal way?

Here is the matter of our divine guidance. Under certain criteria the Holy Spirit guides these humans and ensure the church teaches only what is true for our salvation.

I don’t understand how I could pass this test. Could you please elaborate.

If I am not mistaken, that is the point. It is not passable, neither is a personal version of this applied to the Bible. Especially when one has limited knowledge of every aspect of cultural and linguistic factors involving the Bible.

 

[Bahman]

Yes, and basically yes. The venial vs moral sin etc… intent etc… there would be a degree of hierarchy.

Not a new arguement, as far as I know it is in line with Judiasm which dates back pretty far

And your flaws are like you said in your previous post, based on the religion/philosophy of Bahman. You have parameters that only Bahman is master of and we all meed to “prove” our faith within the confines of RoB (Religion of Bahman).

In the RoB the timeless God is a flaw of the rest of religions. You even admitted “I have a problem with time” in regard to accepting atheistic sciences as well as theology. So your “proven flaw” flys in the face of an outstanding majority of thinking creatures. You tell physicists they are wrong, theists they are wrong, and theist/physicists they are all wrong. For the right way is the RoB.

The best way I can put this is as follows:

When disagreeing between a christian and muslim, we can reference the Bible/Quran in both instances. The christian can note what the quaran says that might lend to a christian point and visa versa. However to use the devil as an example it is my understanding Satan is a Jinn in Islam. And he is an Angel in Christianity.

If our arguemts go like this:

Christian: Angel because the bible says so

Muslim: Jinn because the quran says so

The conversation can go nowhere. They must either have an alternate avenue to discuss the topic or move to another topic. Once other topics are revealed in understanding then perhaps one can begin to shed light into an area of stalemate.

Since your inevitably end answer to what is said includes “because the RoB book says so” not only is this difficult to work with, it is a book so obscure no one can reference it. Whereas at least with the quran I know of it and can google search quickly to narrow down the qurans points…

Lets forget RoB and focus in the argument.

Could you please comment on my postpost.

 

[MT1926]

This is not really a fair answer.

Why is it unfair of me to ask you to prove neutral? But it isn’t unfair of you to ask me to accept something you can not prove?

 

[Bahman]

Here is the matter of our divine guidance. Under certain criteria the Holy Spirit guides these humans and ensure the church teaches only what is true for our salvation.

Let me quote from Geneses 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. We know today that earth was from from the dust left from a supernova explosion. What is the church position on this.

 

[Bahman]

Why is it unfair of me to ask you to prove neutral? But it isn’t unfair of you to ask me to accept something you can not prove?

I didn’t ask you that neutral state does not exist. All I asked is that where is the flaw in my argument?