What exactly is the knowledge of good and evil?

[friardchips]

Satan tempts people with greed which motivates them to work and he tempts people to lust, which leads to procreation. But that aside, I still believe that Satan can cast us under a spell that has positive qualities that promote the ongoing “success” of God’s creation. Again, good and evil can work together to promote creation, and this is the reason God allows evil to exist.

It is known that our Creator allows satan the freedom to tempt, as satan has a certain amount of free reign proportionate to what he is, and his presence is known by individuals according to what we can or can’t handle, and these trials can be purgative - useful for the soul - as they can strengthen us over time. It is also possibly true that those people who are close to our Creator in a special way, are more visibly and literally tormented by satan. But this is not good and evil “working together” - this brings up an image of executives sitting around an impressively polished and impossibly long table discussing together how best to torment humanity into submission. For overly money-minded business officiates, maybe this is what they have to look forward to, or what they experience. satan’s works have been accounted for - "He was a murderer from the start; he was never grounded in truth; there is no truth in him at all:…".

It is all there, in the Bible.

 

[OneSheep]

Satan tempts people with greed which motivates them to work and he tempts people to lust, which leads to procreation. But that aside, I still believe that Satan can cast us under a spell that has positive qualities that promote the ongoing “success” of God’s creation. Again, good and evil can work together to promote creation, and this is the reason God allows evil to exist.

Isaiah 45:7 - “I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.” (Douay-Rheims)

Well, let’s apply a little “Kabbalah”, at least the principle of “looking deeper”, shall we? (note: the Gospel has its own version of this, Jesus said more often than anything else “seek, and you shall find.”)

Let’s say that a person is caught up in desire for material goods, one could say that he is “under a spell” or even “enslaved”. I think that it is fair to say that such enslavement is pretty common in the U.S. What makes it specifically “greed” is when “it makes the getting and keeping of money, possessions, and the like, a purpose in itself to live for” which I pulled from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

It is reasonable to observe that normal humans can be so engrossed in such desire that they ignore the needs of those even close to them, right? This is a blindness, a side-effect of the desire. So let’s focus on the desire a moment. Many other species are subject to single-minded “purpose” of wealth acquisition. The most obvious example is the hoarding of nuts and acorns by squirrels. Why do the human and the squirrel have such capacity for single-minded acquisition of wealth?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Well, let’s apply a little “Kabbalah”, at least the principle of “looking deeper”, shall we? (note: the Gospel has its own version of this, Jesus said more often than anything else “seek, and you shall find.”)

Let’s say that a person is caught up in desire for material goods, one could say that he is “under a spell” or even “enslaved”. I think that it is fair to say that such enslavement is pretty common in the U.S. What makes it specifically “greed” is when “it makes the getting and keeping of money, possessions, and the like, a purpose in itself to live for” which I pulled from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

It is reasonable to observe that normal humans can be so engrossed in such desire that they ignore the needs of those even close to them, right? This is a blindness, a side-effect of the desire. So let’s focus on the desire a moment. Many other species are subject to single-minded “purpose” of wealth acquisition. The most obvious example is the hoarding of nuts and acorns by squirrels. Why do the human and the squirrel have such capacity for single-minded acquisition of wealth?

I would say that materialism is largely the result of a Satanic spell we’re under. More than greed, it’s materialism that drives many people to work.

I’m still having trouble in defining what “good” and "evil’ are. I can point at actions and say that one is good and another evil, but do not know exactly what these terms are.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I would say that materialism is largely the result of a Satanic spell we’re under. More than greed, it’s materialism that drives many people to work.

I’m still having trouble in defining what “good” and "evil’ are. I can point at actions and say that one is good and another evil, but do not know exactly what these terms are.

People need to work to survive. Working for a living isn’t really materialism, although what is wrong with people liking nice things? As long as they share some of their money with the less fortunate people in this world. I wouldn’t call it evil. Now people who are consumed with wealth and never help the starving are indeed under the spell of Satan.

Materialism can be evil if it is taken to an extreme and it does indeed correlate with deadly sins. So I would say Satan is happy with people who are very selfish and greedy, but not with people who work for a living. As for your example of lust leading to procreation, very rarely is that where lust leads people, it usually leads them to pornography and non-procreational sex. I would say Satan twists the basic urges of mankind into something evil. Evil is deviant.

Actually your statement about “very good” may apply to mankind’s natural good urges in excess becoming deadly sins. For example it is good to relax, but too much relaxation equals sloth. It is good to have sex, but too much sex turns to lust, it is good to enjoy food, but too much enjoyment of food is gluttony… get my drift?

 

[Robert_Sock]

People need to work to survive. Working for a living isn’t really materialism, although what is wrong with people liking nice things? As long as they share some of their money with the less fortunate people in this world. I wouldn’t call it evil. Now people who are consumed with wealth and never help the starving are indeed under the spell of Satan.

Materialism can be evil if it is taken to an extreme and it does indeed correlate with deadly sins. So I would say Satan is happy with people who are very selfish and greedy, but not with people who work for a living. As for your example of lust leading to procreation, very rarely is that where lust leads people, it usually leads them to pornography and non-procreational sex. I would say Satan twists the basic urges of mankind into something evil. Evil is deviant.

Yes, a lot of people need to work to survive, but how much more do they have to work if they are materialistic? I would argue that all sex involves at least some lust.

“Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. If any man loves the world, the charity of the Father is not in him.”
-1 John 2:15

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I would say that materialism is largely the result of a Satanic spell we’re under. More than greed, it’s materialism that drives many people to work.

I’m still having trouble in defining what “good” and "evil’ are. I can point at actions and say that one is good and another evil, but do not know exactly what these terms are.

Is then materialism an evil tendency? Some people do not like to work: If possible, they would remain in bed the whole day. Then, they would seem to be free from that evil attitude which is called materialism here. So, due to some strange reason (Is there a reason? There must be one!) evil is not collaborating enough in this case. I guess we should call this lack of collaboration “evil”, shouldn’t we?. It would be an evil elevated to the second power, so to say. Very evil, indeed. But if “very good” is evil; “very evil” must be, at least, “good”, to keep some symmetry (by the way, is symmetry “good” or “evil”?). In some other cases, the evil tendency called materialism collaborates quite a lot (and this strong collaboration…, is it “good” or “evil”?), and then, people become very productive. I am not sure if with such level of productivity they are taking the world to completion or to destruction, but anyway they are doing it faster. All this is very confusing. It seems that for “evil” to be a “good and fair evil”, its collaboration has to be moderate, according to the practical rules of prudence. Then, it would be “a virtuous evil”. Perhaps we could say that it would be a “very good evil”… No, no! We must avoid that; because “a very good evil” would mean something like an “evil evil”, which would mean “very evil”, that is to say, simply, “good”…Can you really point at actions and say that one is good and another evil? If you remain loyal to your basic assumptions, I really doubt it. When you try to capture them with all precision and exactitude, as you say, evil becomes good; and good, evil, right in front of your eyes. Have you noticed it?

 

[OneSheep]

I would say that materialism is largely the result of a Satanic spell we’re under. More than greed, it’s materialism that drives many people to work.

I’m still having trouble in defining what “good” and "evil’ are. I can point at actions and say that one is good and another evil, but do not know exactly what these terms are.

Along the same line as Christine (with some differences, of course) our capacity for single-purpose acquisition of material wealth likely benefits our survival. After all, the trait for single-mindedness would be selected for because it would drive the individual to acquire more resources than necessary, and having extra resources around would benefit the individual and/or their tribe or family in adverse conditions. Of course, the drive can be enslaving and can cause other problems, but like all traits there is at least a net-positive effect. But of course, Jesus calls us to rise above/transcend our nature, to be set free.

So, does it make sense to attribute the capacity for single-purpose materialism itself as coming from satan if there is a net-positive effect on human survival? I did not address lust, but the same principles are operating. Yes, there is an automatic blindness often associated with those drives, and yes, problems result from the blindness. Then the temptation is there to attribute the blindness as a work of satan. But is it?

Yes, the definitions are difficult to pin down, so I keep it simple. “Evil” is an action that causes suffering or harm, and “Good” is an action that benefits someone. Sometimes there is a "net good"or a “net bad”. In all cases, the* intent* of action is for some benefit.

Does that make sense to you? Too vague? Too superficial?

 

[friardchips]

Is then materialism an evil tendency? Some people do not like to work: If possible, they would remain in bed the whole day. Then, they would seem to be free from that evil attitude which is called materialism here.

A bit far fetched. I don’t think there is anyone who doesn’t go to work or stays in bed, to avoid materialism. It might be the case that there are those who are worn out by our excessive culture and expectant system with its utilitarian thinking. There are definitely those worn out by it. But it’s not all bad. Things can be used for more positive reasons, as you later say, in ‘moderation’.

So, due to some strange reason (Is there a reason? There must be one!) evil is not collaborating enough in this case. I guess we should call this lack of collaboration “evil”, shouldn’t we?. It would be an evil elevated to the second power, so to say. Very evil, indeed. But if “very good” is evil; “very evil” must be, at least, “good”, to keep some symmetry (by the way, is symmetry “good” or “evil”?). In some other cases, the evil tendency called materialism collaborates quite a lot (and this strong collaboration…, is it “good” or “evil”?), and then, people become very productive. I am not sure if with such level of productivity they are taking the world to completion or to destruction, but anyway they are doing it faster.

This depends on what you deem as being ‘productive’. In a materialist culture that word is in severe need of looking at. Being at work is preferable to sitting around, only in that it can bring about conversations with people - life and all that, and because one has to pay for one’s family and pay the bills, and it is productive in the sense that there are opportunities for education and training when younger, and it is 'productive because, if, you have a very rewarding job that is oriented towards helping others then you can live a healthy and happy life. That is where the good stops and the materialist machine kicks in: working on Sunday’s (when not in emergency or care work), addicted to earning money and gaining possessions, people judging others and by their value in terms of commodity, the small business suffers, the wealthy get wealthier and the poor stay where they are, better equal rights and yet under the surface seriously awful issues get swept under the carpet, employer greed and company monopolies, the celebrity culture, less time to ponder spiritual path - never sitting down to rest or always having to keep busy, a culture that doesn’t even know what Christianity actually is.

There are pros and cons and not everyone is as fortunate as the ‘top dogs’. And are they really fortunate? Does such a prosperous way of life really benefit them? I actually think that materialism is dangerous for lots of reasons, in that it leads Catholics away from a relationship with their Creator - it can put up barriers leading many families away or keeping them only vaguely in touch with their Baptismal promises. Poverty of Spirit is not an easy disposition to grow into. A LOT of discernment is required. Though I am sincerely sure there are lots of naturally good people are there.

All this is very confusing. It seems that for “evil” to be a “good and fair evil”, its collaboration has to be moderate, according to the practical rules of prudence. Then, it would be “a virtuous evil”. Perhaps we could say that it would be a “very good evil”… No, no! We must avoid that; because “a very good evil” would mean something like an “evil evil”, which would mean “very evil”, that is to say, simply, “good”…Can you really point at actions and say that one is good and another evil? If you remain loyal to your basic assumptions, I really doubt it. When you try to capture them with all precision and exactitude, as you say, evil becomes good; and good, evil, right in front of your eyes. Have you noticed it?

A fundamentally capitalist system will produce a test of character for everyone, and when things are used wisely, then sure, things aren’t evil in themselves, they are just consequential, being used for better reasons, but the difference between what is necessary and what is available is not so easy for everyone to discern. There are many who fall short.

 

[friardchips]

…did I mention Sauron’s sea of marketing companies, or Sarumen’s vast and strong army of civil servants and invisible government quangos, and organisations, all set up to protect their investments…

…there are positives if you desire a completely superficial existence, or, you have discerned so well, that you’ve carved out for yourself a situation in which you are able to express your faith in the life you live. I am not sure if the majority does not just settle for less.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Along the same line as Christine (with some differences, of course) our capacity for single-purpose acquisition of material wealth likely benefits our survival. After all, the trait for single-mindedness would be selected for because it would drive the individual to acquire more resources than necessary, and having extra resources around would benefit the individual and/or their tribe or family in adverse conditions. Of course, the drive can be enslaving and can cause other problems, but like all traits there is at least a net-positive effect. But of course, Jesus calls us to rise above/transcend our nature, to be set free.

So, does it make sense to attribute the capacity for single-purpose materialism itself as coming from satan if there is a net-positive effect on human survival? I did not address lust, but the same principles are operating. Yes, there is an automatic blindness often associated with those drives, and yes, problems result from the blindness. Then the temptation is there to attribute the blindness as a work of satan. But is it?

Yes, the definitions are difficult to pin down, so I keep it simple. “Evil” is an action that causes suffering or harm, and “Good” is an action that benefits someone. Sometimes there is a "net good"or a “net bad”. In all cases, the* intent* of action is for some benefit.

Does that make sense to you? Too vague? Too superficial?

Single-mindedness, yes, I personally believe that it’s from Satan. Satan has the power to narrow our awareness and increase sinful desires. When under a state of having a “hot cognition,” sin can become irresistible.

I personally do not believe in evolution or personality traits coming from genetics, but rather, all our personality is the result of the spirit we are under.

I’ve heard it said that Satan has entire cities under his spell! Whether from Satan or God, I do not know, but I suspect that love is going to dominate ourselves in the not too distant future and that hate will fall to the wayside.

 

[OneSheep]

Single-mindedness, yes, I personally believe that it’s from Satan. Satan has the power to narrow our awareness and increase sinful desires. When under a state of having a “hot cognition,” sin can become irresistible.

I personally do not believe in evolution or personality traits coming from genetics, but rather, all our personality is the result of the spirit we are under.

If a person is single-mindedly loving and caring, though, it is not a problem at all, right? So it is not the capacity for single-mindedness that is the problem, and I think I made the case for some single-mindedness on other drives (wealth, status, sex) as beneficial to our survival as a species, as these same traits benefit the survival of other species. We don’t claim that satan possesses squirrels gathering nuts and dogs in heat, right?

Traits are inherited, are they not? And why would the Spirit not be involved in such inheritance? The point is, why attribute something to satan that we can attribute to God?

I can answer that question for myself - I attributed my own traits to satan that I specifically resented within. Yes, I resented, to some degree, my desire for dominance, control, material wealth, sex, stuff that others have, and my own reaction to all of the pressures (sloth). I resented, to some degree, my capacity for blindness and hate, as well as other traits. “These certainly must be from a bad source” was the voice of my subconscious.

However, what I have found is that in prayer each of these traits can be called forward and forgiven; an inner reconciliation can take place; an inner dualism becomes a monism. In the mean time, the dualism within functions as part of the conscience. When those traits are demonized, we pay close attention to them and keep them in check; it works most of the time. After the traits are forgiven, their presence is still noted but the dualism disappears.

I’ve heard it said that Satan has entire cities under his spell! Whether from Satan or God, I do not know, but I suspect that love is going to dominate ourselves in the not too distant future and that hate will fall to the wayside.

Yes, this is the Zoroastrian model, the dualistic model, the “Star Wars” model. Satan in control of part of creation. In Christianity, we couch this in “But God allows it” or “But God has more power” and we soften the departure from Monism. The fact is, if we have a power in opposition to God, a power that has unknown strength and scope, then we are talking about something of infinite reach. An unknown is an infinite unknown. An infinite power is a god.

I am convinced that there is a place for such dualism in Christianity, for the model reflects the workings of the conscience itself. However, when the concept comes under scrutiny, as you are doing in this thread, the construct begins to unravel because there is nothing that we attribute to satan that cannot be attributed to God and all of his created beings here on Earth. If we look a little deeper, we can see God’s hand and/or or we see the hands of humans in everything that happens here. (We are not completely robots, like animals essentially are. We have some autonomy.) In my view, it is not a “power of Good” working for, nor working against, a “power of Evil”. It is all from a power of Good.

So, I respect your view of the cosmos, and I present another way of looking at it. It can only really make sense in light of the prayerful inner reconciliation I mentioned. Your view makes sense too, and I think that there is a place in our faith for both positions.

Thanks, and God bless your day.

 

[friardchips]

If a person is single-mindedly loving and caring, though, it is not a problem at all, right? So it is not the capacity for single-mindedness that is the problem, and I think I made the case for some single-mindedness on other drives (wealth, status, sex) as beneficial to our survival as a species, as these same traits benefit the survival of other species. We don’t claim that satan possesses squirrels gathering nuts and dogs in heat, right?

Traits are inherited, are they not? And why would the Spirit not be involved in such inheritance? The point is, why attribute something to satan that we can attribute to God?

I can answer that question for myself - I attributed my own traits to satan that I specifically resented within. Yes, I resented, to some degree, my desire for dominance, control, material wealth, sex, stuff that others have, and my own reaction to all of the pressures (sloth). I resented, to some degree, my capacity for blindness and hate, as well as other traits. “These certainly must be from a bad source” was the voice of my subconscious.

However, what I have found is that in prayer each of these traits can be called forward and forgiven; an inner reconciliation can take place; an inner dualism becomes a monism. In the mean time, the dualism within functions as part of the conscience. When those traits are demonized, we pay close attention to them and keep them in check; it works most of the time. After the traits are forgiven, their presence is still noted but the dualism disappears.

Yes, this is the Zoroastrian model, the dualistic model, the “Star Wars” model. Satan in control of part of creation. In Christianity, we couch this in “But God allows it” or “But God has more power” and we soften the departure from Monism. The fact is, if we have a power in opposition to God, a power that has unknown strength and scope, then we are talking about something of infinite reach. An unknown is an infinite unknown. An infinite power is a god.

I am convinced that there is a place for such dualism in Christianity, for the model reflects the workings of the conscience itself. However, when the concept comes under scrutiny, as you are doing in this thread, the construct begins to unravel because there is nothing that we attribute to satan that cannot be attributed to God and all of his created beings here on Earth. If we look a little deeper, we can see God’s hand and/or or we see the hands of humans in everything that happens here. (We are not completely robots, like animals essentially are. We have some autonomy.) In my view, it is not a “power of Good” working for, nor working against, a “power of Evil”. It is all from a power of Good.

So, I respect your view of the cosmos, and I present another way of looking at it. It can only really make sense in light of the prayerful inner reconciliation I mentioned. Your view makes sense too, and I think that there is a place in our faith for both positions.

Thanks, and God bless your day.

Did someone say Star Wars?! Cool! There are various problems in this post, btw. But nevermind, Star Wars is cool!

 

[friardchips]

Yes, a lot of people need to work to survive, but how much more do they have to work if they are materialistic? I would argue that all sex involves at least some lust.

“Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. If any man loves the world, the charity of the Father is not in him.”
-1 John 2:15

Lust = ‘uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.’

So married people lust after each other? Spouses desire each other in the eternally self-giving sense of desire rather the selfish, stealing and grabbing kind. But for those who “love…the world”, this ‘love’, is of distorted strain, as lust does not manifest as self-giving love and real love does not manifest as lust.

 

[truetofaith]

I would say that materialism is largely the result of a Satanic spell we’re under. More than greed, it’s materialism that drives many people to work.

I’m still having trouble in defining what “good” and "evil’ are. I can point at actions and say that one is good and another evil, but do not know exactly what these terms are.

That’s a good cop-out. Hope God buys it !

 

[Robert_Sock]

Lust = ‘uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.’

So married people lust after each other? Spouses desire each other in the eternally self-giving sense of desire rather the selfish, stealing and grabbing kind. But for those who “love…the world”, this ‘love’, is of distorted strain, as lust does not manifest as self-giving love and real love does not manifest as lust.

Yes, there is a sense of lust in all sex, even in people who are married. Remember that sex is a most primitive urge.

Freud even says that every sex act involves some degree of aggression and notes that the part of the brain that is involved in sex is right next to that part of the brain that causes aggression.

 

[friardchips]

Yes, there is a sense of lust in all sex, even in people who are married. Remember that sex is a most primitive urge.

Freud even says that every sex act involves some degree of aggression and notes that the part of the brain that is involved in sex is right next to that part of the brain that causes aggression.

Desire and lust are not the same thing.

Attraction doesn’t equal lust.

Lust does not lead to loving acts, in itself, in its own right.

Love and hate does not manifest in identical expressions.

Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, individually or collectively, Freud can be circumvented with confidence, from a truly Catholic perspective. Yay!

 

[Robert_Sock]

Desire and lust are not the same thing.

Attraction doesn’t equal lust.

Lust does not lead to loving acts, in itself, in its own right.

Love and hate does not manifest in identical expressions.

Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, individually or collectively, Freud can be circumvented with confidence, from a truly Catholic perspective. Yay!

All lust is a desire, but not all desires are lustful.

Maybe where I’m confusing you is that the experience of lust often comes during the sex act itself. I’m not implying that attraction is necessarily lustful.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

A bit far fetched. I don’t think there is anyone who doesn’t go to work or stays in bed, to avoid materialism. It might be the case that there are those who are worn out by our excessive culture and expectant system with its utilitarian thinking. There are definitely those worn out by it. But it’s not all bad. Things can be used for more positive reasons, as you later say, in ‘moderation’.

This depends on what you deem as being ‘productive’. In a materialist culture that word is in severe need of looking at. Being at work is preferable to sitting around, only in that it can bring about conversations with people - life and all that, and because one has to pay for one’s family and pay the bills, and it is productive in the sense that there are opportunities for education and training when younger, and it is 'productive because, if, you have a very rewarding job that is oriented towards helping others then you can live a healthy and happy life. That is where the good stops and the materialist machine kicks in: working on Sunday’s (when not in emergency or care work), addicted to earning money and gaining possessions, people judging others and by their value in terms of commodity, the small business suffers, the wealthy get wealthier and the poor stay where they are, better equal rights and yet under the surface seriously awful issues get swept under the carpet, employer greed and company monopolies, the celebrity culture, less time to ponder spiritual path - never sitting down to rest or always having to keep busy, a culture that doesn’t even know what Christianity actually is.

There are pros and cons and not everyone is as fortunate as the ‘top dogs’. And are they really fortunate? Does such a prosperous way of life really benefit them? I actually think that materialism is dangerous for lots of reasons, in that it leads Catholics away from a relationship with their Creator - it can put up barriers leading many families away or keeping them only vaguely in touch with their Baptismal promises. Poverty of Spirit is not an easy disposition to grow into. A LOT of discernment is required. Though I am sincerely sure there are lots of naturally good people are there.

A fundamentally capitalist system will produce a test of character for everyone, and when things are used wisely, then sure, things aren’t evil in themselves, they are just consequential, being used for better reasons, but the difference between what is necessary and what is available is not so easy for everyone to discern. There are many who fall short.

Robert had already mentioned that he was able to distinguish between evil and good actions. You state that things aren’t evil in themselves; but that it all depends on how you use them (in other words, it depends on your actions). It certainly happens that when you try to find evil in things, you simply don’t find it, but what happens when we consider their “situation”?

You have mentioned “culture”, and “capitalism”, and “materialism”. Those are complex systems of things, and as such systems they induce or strengthen certain tendencies, certain attitudes and desires in their human members. If those tendencies, attitudes and desires are associated to that class of actions which you and Robert are able to identify as evil, we could say that the systems inducing them are evil themselves. So, isolated things are not evil, but when they integrate complex systems a new situation arises: They become machines which continuously trigger certain classes of actions. Within them, individual things acquire certain meanings and a more or less defined set of their possibilities is enabled. Individual things are not evil themselves, but they become evil within certain complex systems, because of the tendencies they enhance there, producing dangerous tensions and imbalances.

Laws, rules, norms, cosmovisions play the role of giving shape to societies (complex systems) in order to avoid evil, in order to promote certain classes of actions and avoid others, or to establish limits to them; but sometimes some of them have adverse effects, and then we could say they are evil too.

Given the fact that you and Robert are able to distinguish between good and evil actions (which are the actuality of tendencies), I would say that a tendency, just because it is a tendency, is not evil. Evil is certain peculiarity of a given tendency; but what is such peculiarity and why does it “exist”?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Robert had already mentioned that he was able to distinguish between evil and good actions. You state that things aren’t evil in themselves; but that it all depends on how you use them (in other words, it depends on your actions). It certainly happens that when you try to find evil in things, you simply don’t find it, but what happens when we consider their “situation”?

You have mentioned “culture”, and “capitalism”, and “materialism”. Those are complex systems of things, and as such systems they induce or strengthen certain tendencies, certain attitudes and desires in their human members. If those tendencies, attitudes and desires are associated to that class of actions which you and Robert are able to identify as evil, we could say that the systems inducing them are evil themselves. So, isolated things are not evil, but when they integrate complex systems a new situation arises: They become machines which continuously trigger certain classes of actions. Within them, individual things acquire certain meanings and a more or less defined set of their possibilities is enabled. Individual things are not evil themselves, but they become evil within certain complex systems, because of the tendencies they enhance there, producing dangerous tensions and imbalances.

Laws, rules, norms, cosmovisions play the role of giving shape to societies (complex systems) in order to avoid evil, in order to promote certain classes of actions and avoid others, or to establish limits to them; but sometimes some of them have adverse effects, and then we could say they are evil too.

Given the fact that you and Robert are able to distinguish between good and evil actions (which are the actuality of tendencies), I would say that a tendency, just because it is a tendency, is not evil. Evil is certain peculiarity of a given tendency; but what is such peculiarity and why does it “exist”?

I’m really not able to define evil, therefore, I’m not able to really know what is good and what is evil, but I’m able to point at certain things, like abortion, and say it is evil. I also contend that our world is good and evil, which makes discernment especially difficult.

 

[friardchips]

All lust is a desire, but not all desires are lustful.

Maybe where I’m confusing you is that the experience of lust often comes during the sex act itself. I’m not implying that attraction is necessarily lustful.

Desire in itself is not evil, so you are correct in saying that not all desire is lustful, because all lust is distorted desire.

The words in need of study, are ‘eros’ and ‘agape’, found here:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/god-of-desire