What exactly is the knowledge of good and evil?

[CHRISTINE77]

If it’s that simple, define them for me.

10 commandments are a good start. Likewise love God with your whole soul mind and heart and love your neighbor. The Golden rule, etc. it’s not rocket science!!

 

[friardchips]

CHRIST. My son, carefully observe the impulses of nature and grace, for these are opposed one to another, and work in so subtle a manner that even a spiritual, holy and enlightened man can hardly distinguish them.
“The Imitation of Christ,” Book 3, Chapter 54

Any definition must distinguish between these impulses. Most of the posts here simply state morals or behaviors, without a good definition. The above quote points to a somewhat different definition, but it still lacks a good explanation. Are the impulses of nature “evil?” Did Adam and Eve go from a state of experiencing the supernatural to experience things purely naturally? I’m probably the minority in my thoughts and suspicions, but I think Adam and Eve became human animals when God clothed them in garments of skin.

You have been asking several questions which is why this thread goes around in circles.

You don’t know what evil is.

You don’t know what the knowledge of good and evil is.

You don’t know if nature is evil.

You don’t understand Adam and Eve or the Fall.

You don’t know if Adam and Eve were supernatural beings before the Fall.

Do you know what you are asking specifically?

We could point you in the way of some other threads that have already dealt with some of those questions.

I happen to think we’ve already answered your questions but you’re not deciphering the answers from within the dialogue.

 

[Robert_Sock]

You have been asking several questions which is why this thread goes around in circles.

You don’t know what evil is.

You don’t know what the knowledge of good and evil is.

You don’t know if nature is evil.

You don’t understand Adam and Eve or the Fall.

You don’t know if Adam and Eve were supernatural beings before the Fall.

Do you know what you are asking specifically?

We could point you in the way of some other threads that have already dealt with some of those questions.

I happen to think we’ve already answered your questions but you’re not deciphering the answers from within the dialogue.

Knowing that you do not know something is a key form of wisdom. I’m the idiot not because I do not know, but that I know that I do not know!

 

[fhansen]

Knowing that you do not know something is a key form of wisdom. I’m the idiot not because I do not know, but that I know that I do not know!

Robert, you seem to prefer a form of dualism, where both good and evil are natural aspects of the universe- and where evil is perhaps *good *in its own right? I’m not sure, but to say that evil can play a role, so that God may bring a greater good out of it in the end, is different from saying that we *need *evil. Gluttony is an unnecessary and harmful offspring of a normal, healthy, and good appetite, when the will is misused to commit it. We either have to see the worst atrocities perpetrated by man as good in some way, or we see them as a twisted, unnatural corruption of some desired good.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

CHRIST. My son, carefully observe the impulses of nature and grace, for these are opposed one to another, and work in so subtle a manner that even a spiritual, holy and enlightened man can hardly distinguish them.
“The Imitation of Christ,” Book 3, Chapter 54

Any definition must distinguish between these impulses. Most of the posts here simply state morals or behaviors, without a good definition. The above quote points to a somewhat different definition, but it still lacks a good explanation. Are the impulses of nature “evil?” Did Adam and Eve go from a state of experiencing the supernatural to experience things purely naturally? I’m probably the minority in my thoughts and suspicions, but I think Adam and Eve became human animals when God clothed them in garments of skin.

From the various kinds of definitions that wise men have identified so far, which one would be applicable to “good” and “evil”? If God wanted to provide us with perfect definitions we should be able to find them in the Bible; however, we don’t find any. The sacred writer just affirms that you know “good” and “evil”; then, a multitude of sentences containing those words are stated in the books. And those sentences fulfill the purpose of orienting you, because though you know “good” and “evil”, you don’t know if this or that specific action, attitude or disposition is “good” or “evil”. So, you must learn. And why do you have to learn? Because otherwise your fellows will cast you out from their community; and so you will be out of paradise for the second time.

I have said before that any theoretical definition of “good” and “evil” are necessarily based on your non-conceptual knowledge of them. It happens too that in order for you to take advantage of the biblical teachings concerning those matters, your non-conceptual knowledge is strictly needed. But what precision or exactitude are we able to obtain in the end through reading, practice and reflection? Isn’t it clear to you that wise men have been discussing these matters for thousands of years and that they are still discussing them? Is there a clear and distinct set of features that characterize any possible action as “good” or “evil”? Aristotle used to say: “…] we must also remember what has been said before, and not look for precision in all things alike, but in each class of things such precision as accords with the subject-matter, and so much as is appropriate to the inquiry …] Nor must we demand the cause in all matters alike; it is enough in some cases that the fact be well established, as in the case of the first principles; the fact is the primary thing or first principle.” (Nicomachean Ethics, Book 1, section 7). Are we, after 2,500 years, in a better position to develop perfect ethical definitions?

“What exactly is the knowledge of good and evil?” was your question. I would drop the word “exactly” from it, because it makes absolutely no sense. On the other hand, we are not able to say what “exactly” are so many things that we use in our daily life, and still it does not prevent our use of them. And as those words are part of the biblical text, I would suggest you to find out how the words “knowledge”, “good” and “evil” are used in the whole Bible. As it always happens with natural languages, you will notice that the use of those words does not have sharp contours. You would need to have a long familiarity with the Author of those writings to acquire the correct use of the biblical language.

 

[OneSheep]

catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm

'*(1) the intention or purpose for which the act is done,
(2) the inherent moral meaning of the act as determined by its moral object,
(3) the circumstances of the act, especially the consequences.

To be moral, each and every act must have three good fonts of morality. The intention must be good, the moral object must be good, and the good consequences must outweigh any bad consequences. If any one font is bad, the act is immoral.** If an act is immoral due to a bad intention, the same type of act may be moral with a good intention***. If an act is immoral due to the circumstances, the same type of act may be moral in different circumstances.

But when an act has an evil moral object, the act is inherently immoral, in other words, the act is evil, in and of itself, apart from intention and circumstances. Every intrinsically evil act has an inherent moral meaning (the moral species) which is contrary to the moral law of God.** Intrinsically evil acts are never justified by intention** or circumstances because the moral species (the type of act in terms of morality) is inherently unjust.

Pope John Paul II: "But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids." (Veritatis Splendor, n. 67).

Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, and are never justified by intention, or by circumstances, or by other knowingly chosen acts.'

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

The object,** the intention**, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751** The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act**. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action.

The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action.

Yes, intent does not justify an action. What I was saying was that it is extremely difficult to find an example of “bad intent” or “evil inclination”. Have you thought of an example yet? I am sorry I am not getting the question across well; you are doing so much work expressing an answer that did not address the question I tried to ask.

Let’s say a person intends to get a pack of cigarettes, and he decides to steal. His intent is to have the cigarettes, which he sees as a good. The stealing part involves blindness or ignorance. He does not intend to hurt anyone, but if he did it would be because he is wanting justice or sees no consequence in the action, that no one of value is being hurt. He is blinded by desire. None of this justifies his actions, but it does explain his actions.

If seeing an explanation compels us to excuse a person, we need to stifle that compulsion.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[OneSheep]

On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving

).39

Okay, finally we have an example of something called a “bad intention”, vainglory.

I am finding the CCC deficient here. For example, with a google search it appears that this is the only used of the word “vainglory” in the entire CCC. It is not defined. It is defined in the Catholic Encycopedia, but nowhere in the definition is vainglory described as an intent or inclination.

If a person is thinking very highly of himself (i.e. better than others) he is ignorant. If a person desires to be looked upon with admiration, he wants status, which is a natural human desire, and all strong desires can lead to blindness. The intent for such a person is to fulfill the desire. This is not “bad intent”, for the desire for status itself is part of the goodness of who we are, even though it is subject to ignorance and blindness.

Do you see what I mean?

Thanks.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Knowing that you do not know something is a key form of wisdom. I’m the idiot not because I do not know, but that I know that I do not know!

What “exactly” is to know that you don’t know? And in what sense is it wise? Is such Socratic wisdom equivalent to the biblical wisdom?

Actually, it seems to me that you pretend to know God so well that you use certain statements about Him as a kind of axioms to reject other statements:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sock:

From our own narrow perspective, yes, they [good and evil] do often work in opposition to each other, but not from God’s perspective (reality). Who is in control of “good,” and who is in control of “evil?” No, we believe in one God who is entirely in control of both good and evil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sock:

Do Satan and God oppose each other? No, Satan may very well oppose God, but God does not oppose Satan. It’s God who is in perfect control of all, including the bad angels. If God opposed Satan, Satan would cease to exist.

How do you know so much?

Socrates used his maieutic method to help others set the rational basis for a conclusion or to discard it because it had no rational basis. But what do you want to do with it concerning biblical interpretation?

Regarding evil, one can be in favor of it, in opposition to it, or be indifferent in relation to it. So, in your concept of God, if He does not oppose evil, then is He indifferent towards it or does He even favor it?

To control something one needs to avoid “big” deviations from a pre-defined set-point. If there is a growing deviation, one reacts with an opposing action until everything is in order again. How does God, in your concept, “control” evil without opposing it?

 

[friardchips]

Okay, finally we have an example of something called a “bad intention”, vainglory.

I am finding the CCC deficient here. For example, with a google search it appears that this is the only used of the word “vainglory” in the entire CCC. It is not defined. It is defined in the Catholic Encycopedia, but nowhere in the definition is vainglory described as an intent or inclination.

If a person is thinking very highly of himself (i.e. better than others) he is ignorant. If a person desires to be looked upon with admiration, he wants status, which is a natural human desire, and all strong desires can lead to blindness. The intent for such a person is to fulfill the desire. This is not “bad intent”, for the desire for status itself is part of the goodness of who we are, even though it is subject to ignorance and blindness.

Do you see what I mean?

Thanks.

There are more answers than the vainglory reference in the Catechism citations concerning evil intent and moral culpability. There is such a thing as culpable ignorance, which you missed, and which I bolded earlier on so that it wouldn’t be.

I have also provided a kind of interpretation to the CCC citations that explain how intention is bound to its objective - when we intend something, we are basing it upon an outcome. My response was easy for you to follow and so you obviously didn’t read it properly.

You are trying to make it more difficult than it needs to be (IMO)…

The document also states that fornication is an evil in itself. An evil inspiration btw, is a very easy one, because the devil tempts. If satan tempted you to look at porn or sleep with someone who is married, you wouldn’t say it was good, as your initial motivation is to satisfy your lust. You are mixing intention with subconscious disorder of the Will (which the CCC also elaborated on).

One thought: St. Paul did say that sin came into world when the commandments were given (Romans 7:9-13).

 

[friardchips]

…with your reasoning OneSheep, you might as well excuse satan too, but we are not called to make eternal judgements and account for every reason for every person, or creature, we are called to follow our Creator, in gratitude. Judging evil acts is okay inasmuch as recognising responsible behaviour from irresponsible behaviour, but judging the state of people’s souls is not our duty. I would even say to not concentrate too much on the devil, though we do need solid foundational knowledge of his part against us in the battle and his downfall during salvation history. As I said before, evil is ingratitude at different levels, and I think that is all we need to realise.

 

[friardchips]

…or rather, we sinned when the commandments were given.

 

[Robert_Sock]

What “exactly” is to know that you don’t know? And in what sense is it wise? Is such Socratic wisdom equivalent to the biblical wisdom?

Actually, it seems to me that you pretend to know God so well that you use certain statements about Him as a kind of axioms to reject other statements:

I’m just wondering what the experience of good and evil knowledge was like.

How do you know so much?

Socrates used his maieutic method to help others set the rational basis for a conclusion or to discard it because it had no rational basis. But what do you want to do with it concerning biblical interpretation?

Regarding evil, one can be in favor of it, in opposition to it, or be indifferent in relation to it. So, in your concept of God, if He does not oppose evil, then is He indifferent towards it or does He even favor it?

To control something one needs to avoid “big” deviations from a pre-defined set-point. If there is a growing deviation, one reacts with an opposing action until everything is in order again. How does God, in your concept, “control” evil without opposing it?

Do not trust anything I say: I’m never 100% sure about anything here in the lower world.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Do not trust anything I say: I’m never 100% sure about anything here in the lower world.

If at least this comes from the deep of your heart, then you are almost naked in front of God. Choose love!

I’m just wondering what the experience of good and evil knowledge was like.

No doubt in my mind you have the pre-conceptual knowledge of good and evil, like anyone else. You just have to follow the teachings of your community.

 

[OneSheep]

There are more answers than the vainglory reference in the Catechism citations concerning evil intent and moral culpability. There is such a thing as culpable ignorance, which you missed, and which I bolded earlier on so that it wouldn’t be.

Oops! However, ignorance itself is not an “intent.” Can you give me an example of “culpable ignorance” being an “bad intent” or an “evil inclination”? What is “culable ignorance”? It is very, very poorly defined. Can you shed some light on it?

I have also provided a kind of interpretation to the CCC citations that explain how intention is bound to its objective - when we intend something, we are basing it upon an outcome. My response was easy for you to follow and so you obviously didn’t read it properly.

Yes, I read that part. I am still looking for an example though, for instance, what is an example of an “intended outcome”, where the* net effect* is “bad”? You see, when we are talking about morals, it doesn’t matter what the reasons are behind a behavior, wrong is wrong, period. However, when we are talking about anthropology, understanding human behavior, then we are looking for the reasons why people behave the way they do. We essentially have to “put on a different hat”. We take off the policeman’s cap and put on a thinking cap, and a lab coat.

For example, a guy steals an item he wants. The intended outcome is the possession of the item desired.

Policeman hat: “Means do not justify ends! What he did was wrong, even if it is understandable.”

Lab coat: “Justice does not give us the means to understand behavior! The behavior is understandable in terms of good intent, even if it is wrong.”

You see, though, that the two work together just fine.

You are trying to make it more difficult than it needs to be (IMO)…

The document also states that fornication is an evil in itself. An evil inspiration btw, is a very easy one, because the devil tempts. If satan tempted you to look at porn or sleep with someone who is married, you wouldn’t say it was good, as your initial motivation is to satisfy your lust. You are mixing intention with subconscious disorder of the Will (which the CCC also elaborated on).

One thought: St. Paul did say that sin came into world when the commandments were given (Romans 7:9-13).

I sleep with a married person every night. My wife.
Of course fornication is an evil in itself, but the intent, sexual pleasure, is not evil. This is the same for the adulterer. Again, this is not making excuses, for there are none to make. But these are not examples of bad intent. The outcome wanted is the adventure, the pleasure, the freedom, etc. Maybe someone wants to “pay back” their spouse for something, but the side-effect is the damage to the marriage. This is not about “justification”. I know, it is hard to put on the lab coat and be objective.

We don’t need satan to tempt us to look at porn. People find pleasure looking at porn, it is a natural inclination. I’m not saying looking at porn is right, keep the lab coat on! Indeed, dogs enjoy sniffing other dogs, correct? It is part of their nature to investigate with their noses, and people with other senses. We don’t need satan to tempt us to sleep around, either. It is in our nature to “spread the seed” as they say - still got that lab coat on? Fidelity, to some degree, is also in our nature to help our offspring make it to adulthood, but promiscuous people are going to have more kids, so it is possible that they may have more offspring survive. Still have the lab coat on?

Before we go on, can I comment on something? I want to thank you for not approaching this as if you have to defend the world against an alien being. Nothing I am saying is a threat to doctrine. Doctrine changes over time, but very, very slowly. It’s all okay.

Thanks, it is interesting to bat this back and forth.

 

[friardchips]

I’m just wondering what the experience of good and evil knowledge was like.

…ah, yet another question, to add to the list?!

 

[friardchips]

Oops! However, ignorance itself is not an “intent.” Can you give me an example of “culpable ignorance” being an “bad intent” or an “evil inclination”? What is “culable ignorance”? It is very, very poorly defined. Can you shed some light on it?

Look up ‘culpable’ and look up ‘intent’.

Yes, I read that part. I am still looking for an example though, for instance, what is an example of an “intended outcome”, where the* net effect* is “bad”? You see, when we are talking about morals, it doesn’t matter what the reasons are behind a behavior, wrong is wrong, period. However, when we are talking about anthropology, understanding human behavior, then we are looking for the reasons why people behave the way they do. We essentially have to “put on a different hat”. We take off the policeman’s cap and put on a thinking cap, and a lab coat.

The law of the land is not equal to our Creator’s law. We know this.

For example, a guy steals an item he wants. The intended outcome is the possession of the item desired.

The ‘objective’ is to gain possession of said-item. The ‘intent’ is to steal to get it.

Policeman hat: “Means do not justify ends! What he did was wrong, even if it is understandable.”

That is not what ‘end justifying the means’ means.

You seem to be talking about correction and treatment rather than punishment. Justice is not only for the individual but also for the protection of everyone else.

We don’t need satan to tempt us to look at porn. People find pleasure looking at porn, it is a natural inclination. I’m not saying looking at porn is right, keep the lab coat on!

Satan does, nevertheless, and people are tempted by him, nevertheless.

Looking at porn, adultery and fornication are perversions from the natural state that are consequences of Original Sin which brought trauma to the psyche with the effects being a darkening of our reason that draws us away from the truth of knowledge that pro-creation is really a blessed gift.

Nature was made ‘good’ and anything made by our Creator, in its most basic form cannot be unblessed, because it was made by Him. Those who act in selfish ways commit evil (to varying degrees of accountability).

This varying degree of accountability is summed up with the terms venial sin and mortal sin. For those who aren’t aware of these things, yes, evil is more ‘understandable’, although evil-doers are still ‘accountable’, but for those who have knowledge of Revelation, our ‘excuses’ are thinly veiled, as even our reasons for intent are tested by faith. This is why we leave it to our Creator to judge.

Indeed, dogs enjoy sniffing other dogs, correct? It is part of their nature to investigate with their noses, and people with other senses. We don’t need satan to tempt us to sleep around, either. It is in our nature to “spread the seed” as they say - still got that lab coat on? Fidelity, to some degree, is also in our nature to help our offspring make it to adulthood, but promiscuous people are going to have more kids, so it is possible that they may have more offspring survive. Still have the lab coat on?

We are humans, not dogs.

Cats are cats and dogs are dogs, but neither animal is human.

Before we go on, can I comment on something? I want to thank you for not approaching this as if you have to defend the world against an alien being. Nothing I am saying is a threat to doctrine. Doctrine changes over time, but very, very slowly. It’s all okay.

Doctrines develop, not change or become obsolete.

Thanks, it is interesting to bat this back and forth.

 

[OneSheep]

Look up ‘culpable’ and look up ‘intent’.

The law of the land is not equal to our Creator’s law. We know this.

The ‘objective’ is to gain possession of said-item. The ‘intent’ is to steal to get it

culpable:Morally responsible for an evil action.

All of us are responsible for all of our actions, we are not puppets. We make choices and we act. Our underlying intents are all good, though.

Intent: is an act of the will by which that faculty efficaciously desires to reach an end by employing the means.

If an intent is an act, then yes, there is such thing as “bad intent”. If intent has more to do with what the person desires, what they intend to gain, then there is no such thing as bad intent. When a person steals, they intend to achieve possession. If he could get it without stealing or paying, then that would suffice.

Therefore, if “intent” includes will to do the act itself, it would be better to say that there are no evil objectives, and there are bad intents. We can find, though, that evil acts in themselves are not what is wanted, what is wanted is the ends. The underlying intent is to achieve possession in this case. “What do you intend to gain in these acts?”

That is not what ‘end justifying the means’ means.

Thanks for the correction. That is what I meant.

You seem to be talking about correction and treatment rather than punishment. Justice is not only for the individual but also for the protection of everyone else.

I’m not talking about correction, treatment, or punishment. I am talking about the source of all actions coming from humans and God.

Satan does, nevertheless, and people are tempted by him, nevertheless.

This cannot be known, even though it can be perceived. We do know that human nature drives us, and when blindness or lack of awareness are occurring, bad acts can be chosen. When acts are influenced by two powers, it is a dualistic concept. When all acts are narrowed down to coming from one power, it is monism.

Robots programmed to find food for themselves and their group and learn from their actions eventually cheat. For example, for the benefit of the “tribe” robots will learn to signal to others when they find food. They learn this from each other, and it becomes a shared response. However, sometimes when the robots are learning that their own health is threatened by the signalling, they will signal away from the food they find, and then go “eat” by themselves, they cheat! It is a function of creative “intelligence” (it is actually cause-and-effect deduction). Yes, a person could say that the devil is influencing the robots, but that would be dualism.

Looking at porn, adultery and fornication are perversions from the natural state that are consequences of Original Sin which brought trauma to the psyche with the effects being a darkening of our reason that draws us away from the truth of knowledge that pro-creation is really a blessed gift.

So, we agree on a “darkening of our reason”. I call this “blindness” when it is connected to desire or resentment. Also, we are born without having developed reason, so the person will simply be lacking in awareness if blindness is not a factor in an evil act. So, if “original sin” is that we are born in such a way, without awareness, that is a logical definition, but some may have problems with that definition. For example, part of the whole concept of “original sin” is that we are expressing a negative about humanity. A person born ignorant, which we are, does not trigger those feelings of negativity. It is the seeing of bad behavior that trigger the negativity.

And that is one of the contradictions. We want people to see that the truth is that pro-creation is a blessed gift, but at the same time we have this doctrine of original sin based on a belief that there is something negative about the human. If the definition of original sin can be put more in line with seeing that the human is blessed, then the doctrine would be more harmonious.

Nature was made ‘good’ and anything made by our Creator, in its most basic form cannot be unblessed, because it was made by Him. Those who act in selfish ways commit evil (to varying degrees of accountability).

This varying degree of accountability is summed up with the terms venial sin and mortal sin. For those who aren’t aware of these things, yes, evil is more ‘understandable’, although evil-doers are still ‘accountable’, but for those who have knowledge of Revelation, our ‘excuses’ are thinly veiled, as even our reasons for intent are tested by faith. This is why we leave it to our Creator to judge.

Well, we say that we leave it to our creator to judge, but that is a matter of discipline. In fact, if we did not judge anyone else, there would never be a need to forgive! So Jesus says not to judge, but He very realistically addresses what to do when our judgment of others is triggered; He calls us to forgive.

The whole “accountability” thing, when scrutinized, makes little sense. We are all accountable for everything we do, period. We are all to be held respond-able. It would only be the most self-aware, however, capable of responding as to why they did what evil acts they did. When we become aware, the forgiveness follows.

We are humans, not dogs.

Cats are cats and dogs are dogs, but neither animal is human.
.

Yes, but when you see a human looking at porn or looking at someone from the opposite sex (or the same sex) in a certain way, we can definitely see that the behavior is analogous with a dog sniffing another. Both are behaving from the compulsion of their (good) nature.

Doctrines develop, not change or become obsolete

I agree!

Thanks, I look forward to your response.

 

[friardchips]

culpable:Morally responsible for an evil action.

All of us are responsible for all of our actions, we are not puppets. We make choices and we act. Our underlying intents are all good, though.

Intent: is an act of the will by which that faculty efficaciously desires to reach an end by employing the means.

If an intent is an act, then yes, there is such thing as “bad intent”. If intent has more to do with what the person desires, what they intend to gain, then there is no such thing as bad intent. When a person steals, they intend to achieve possession. If he could get it without stealing or paying, then that would suffice.

Therefore, if “intent” includes will to do the act itself, it would be better to say that there are no evil objectives, and there are bad intents. We can find, though, that evil acts in themselves are not what is wanted, what is wanted is the ends. The underlying intent is to achieve possession in this case. “What do you intend to gain in these acts?”

This cannot be known, even though it can be perceived. We do know that human nature drives us, and when blindness or lack of awareness are occurring, bad acts can be chosen. When acts are influenced by two powers, it is a dualistic concept. When all acts are narrowed down to coming from one power, it is monism.

Robots programmed to find food for themselves and their group and learn from their actions eventually cheat. For example, for the benefit of the “tribe” robots will learn to signal to others when they find food. They learn this from each other, and it becomes a shared response. However, sometimes when the robots are learning that their own health is threatened by the signalling, they will signal away from the food they find, and then go “eat” by themselves, they cheat! It is a function of creative “intelligence” (it is actually cause-and-effect deduction). Yes, a person could say that the devil is influencing the robots, but that would be dualism.

So, we agree on a “darkening of our reason”. I call this “blindness” when it is connected to desire or resentment. Also, we are born without having developed reason, so the person will simply be lacking in awareness if blindness is not a factor in an evil act. So, if “original sin” is that we are born in such a way, without awareness, that is a logical definition, but some may have problems with that definition. For example, part of the whole concept of “original sin” is that we are expressing a negative about humanity. A person born ignorant, which we are, does not trigger those feelings of negativity. It is the seeing of bad behavior that trigger the negativity.

And that is one of the contradictions. We want people to see that the truth is that pro-creation is a blessed gift, but at the same time we have this doctrine of original sin based on a belief that there is something negative about the human. If the definition of original sin can be put more in line with seeing that the human is blessed, then the doctrine would be more harmonious.

Well, we say that we leave it to our creator to judge, but that is a matter of discipline. In fact, if we did not judge anyone else, there would never be a need to forgive! So Jesus says not to judge, but He very realistically addresses what to do when our judgment of others is triggered; He calls us to forgive.

The whole “accountability” thing, when scrutinized, makes little sense. We are all accountable for everything we do, period. We are all to be held respond-able. It would only be the most self-aware, however, capable of responding as to why they did what evil acts they did. When we become aware, the forgiveness follows.

Yes, but when you see a human looking at porn or looking at someone from the opposite sex (or the same sex) in a certain way, we can definitely see that the behavior is analogous with a dog sniffing another. Both are behaving from the compulsion of their (good) nature.

I agree!

Thanks, I look forward to your response.

Human beings have freewill and consciousness and a conscience.

Intent is a free, conscious decision to do something according to one’s conscience.

The conscience is based on a set of rules and an inbuilt moral compass.

Whether or not there are things going on in the realms of the subconscious, for better or worse, intent is a free, conscious decision that goes against the conscience, or not, and yes, people can go against their consciences in the knowledge than an act is wrong in the eternal sense and yet do it anyway - this is called mortal sin. Intent can be an evil decision. There is such a word as evil and this would be one way of recognising it.

 

[friardchips]

cont. from previous post…

However, when delving into what is meant by good and self-gain, and delving into topics to do with OS which has left humanity with a pull on the soul towards acting out of accordance with grateful living, when the ability of reason kicks in, is another topic. And will give it more thought as there are various levels of complexity here.

For the time being, we know the Creator is perfect. He made Creation as ‘good’ not perfect - Creation is not another Creator - and so Creation is less than perfect - it takes sanctifying grace to keep it, well, eternally 'living’ (): it came from Him, and through Him, is of Him, but is not Him. Now let’s take an extreme example: Hell. Hell is part of a good Creation, only in the absolute sense - that it has to exist because of those who turned away from His Will. It is not perfect because it is not equal to Him or to Heaven. It is not a ‘good’ that there are evil creatures in it. Yet, if our Creator did not exist, then neither would Hell, so the whole of existence is in Him who is Perfect. But would this mean that those in Hell have good intentions? No. I’ll tell you why. Because they are faced away from His Will. And (IMO) this is tantamount, not to an eternal state of death that stays the same, but to an **eternal dying ()**, and so they get uglier and more bitter the longer they remain (actively - key word) facing away from His grace. I have read this before so it is not a new theory. So this way even those in Hell are held in existence by the Creator’s grace, yet they can’t experience it, as they are turned from it, and so they are not doing good but being evil, though they are held in grace they are not participating in it, they are actively moving away from Who is Perfect and who is good for them for all eternity. So the same could be applied to our existence. We actively turn away from His grace. So when we mortally sin we are facing away from His grace not towards it. Those acts, though within His grace, are not partaking of His grace, and so are evil. In fact, when one acts with evil intent then one actually loses graces. We remain in His good creation, but become perversions facing away from His goodness. A paradox of sorts. So when we intend to do something bad and carry it out we are committing an act of eternal dying. This is ‘good’ inverted to whatever degree.

I hope that makes sense (for now).

 

[OneSheep]

Human beings have freewill and consciousness and a conscience.

Intent is a free, conscious decision to do something according to one’s conscience.

The conscience is based on a set of rules and an inbuilt moral compass.

Good Evening, Mr. Chips. (Oh,was it fun to write that)

If a person only knows how to fight rather than forgive, his free will is limited by ignorance.

If Bill is angry at Fred, Bill’s eyes are affected by blindness. In the moment, Bill’s value of Fred is greatly diminished. In addition, if Bill is angry or resentful enough, his own ability to objectively apply what his conscience dictates is greatly compromised. His empathy is blinded, and so is his conscience. This is how people do evil.

Whether or not there are things going on in the realms of the subconscious, for better or worse, intent is a free, conscious decision that goes against the conscience, or not, and yes, people can go against their consciences in the knowledge than an act is wrong in the eternal sense and yet do it anyway - this is called mortal sin. Intent can be an evil decision. There is such a word as evil and this would be one way of recognising it.

There is a blindness that can accompany all desires. Going back to the shoplifter, the shoplifter can conclude that stealing “just one thing” from “this big, rich store” is no big deal. What has happened is that their conscience, if it was formerly well-informed, was blinded by desire. So what you and I might say is “bad intent” is to the perpetrator a “justified intent”, his behavior is rationalized. When a person actually believes a rationalization, which he proves by “voting with their hands” (theft) then he is irrational, not “knowledgeable”.

cont. from previous post…

However, when delving into what is meant by good and self-gain, and delving into topics to do with OS which has left humanity with a pull on the soul towards acting out of accordance with grateful living, when the ability of reason kicks in, is another topic. And will give it more thought as there are various levels of complexity here.

For the time being, we know the Creator is perfect. He made Creation as ‘good’ not perfect - Creation is not another Creator - and so Creation is less than perfect - it takes sanctifying grace to keep it, well, eternally 'living’ (*): it came from Him, and through Him, is of Him, but is not Him. Now let’s take an extreme example: Hell. Hell is part of a good Creation, only in the absolute sense - that it has to exist because of those who turned away from His Will. It is not perfect because it is not equal to Him or to Heaven.

Yes, He made His creation good.

It is not a ‘good’ that there are evil creatures in it.

Since all creatures were made by God, they are all good. They are not evil.

“It is through the Spirit that we see that everything that exists is good.” - St Augustine.

Yet, if our Creator did not exist, then neither would Hell, so the whole of existence is in Him who is Perfect. But would this mean that those in Hell have good intentions? No. I’ll tell you why. Because they are faced away from His Will. And (IMO) this is tantamount, not to an eternal state of death that stays the same, but to an eternal dying (*), and so they get uglier and more bitter the longer they remain (actively - key word) facing away from His grace. I have read this before so it is not a new theory. So this way even those in Hell are held in existence by the Creator’s grace, yet they can’t experience it, as they are turned from it, and so they are not doing good but being evil, though they are held in grace they are not participating in it, they are actively moving away from Who is Perfect and who is good for them for all eternity. So the same could be applied to our existence. We actively turn away from His grace. So when we mortally sin we are facing away from His grace not towards it. Those acts, though within His grace, are not partaking of His grace, and so are evil. In fact, when one acts with evil intent then one actually loses graces. We remain in His good creation, but become perversions facing away from His goodness. A paradox of sorts. So when we intend to do something bad and carry it out we are committing an act of eternal dying. This is ‘good’ inverted to whatever degree.

I hope that makes sense (for now).

It does, somewhat, except that you still seem to be self-contradicting. Your first statement, that we are all good, is true. The following statements that talk about “evil” in “being” are statements that ordinarily reflect a resentment toward people. When we use the label “evil” toward some part of creation, we are ordinarily expressing resentment. Since resentment blinds us to the value of someone, the label “evil” seems to make sense, even though it clearly contradicts what you said about God making all creatures “good”. The paradox makes sense in the context of the blindness caused by resentment.

To be “freely” objective, we have to forgive as God forgives. Indeed, forgiveness also has a way of removing the obstacles we have against loving others, especially when removing the obstacle of resentment itself.

Now, do you see a contradiction in my statement? Please let me know.

And of course, show me that my observations and evaluations are completely off-base.

Thanks.