Needing God to be good

Embracing the hate is a good start Darth Ricky soon you will be a sith lord like myself. Stick with it.

 

Nope, evil in NLP terms, is seeing something that is a fact, and calling it something else.

That suspension of reason, or faith, is evil.

For example, see something the color "red" and then call it "blue", that off centre feeling you get is the true feel of evil

 

By that definition I guess you would consider me evil since i have no faith? Dont worry about offending me its ok if you think my nature is evil

 

Nope, are you willing to call something you've seen, something that it is not?

I've swum in deep pools of folks so evil SG, I literally do not wish that on anyone, the willingness to do the above is evidence of evil, or an evil nature.



Say that is not a yellow colored fish, but a blue colored fish, and then one can experience the first stirrings of "evil"

 

I was just wondering if you thought lacking faith meant evil.

What I find interesting when talking to a zealot trying to convince me. They get very frustrated and act like I can control not having faith, I cant force myself to believe in something. When I want to frustrate the heck out them I tell them faith is a gift that god did not give me. It ussauly stumps them for a decent response.

 

This is interesting to me Shula Guy, are you able to call the yellow fish, a blue fish?

As for zealots, eh, more or less they were the patriots of Christ's day, in fact he had one or two in his Apostolic leadership

 

That really made me laugh.

 

Are you asking me if I can lie?

 

In a way, simple test in a way.

For example, say illegal aliens...undocumented workers...same thing...different name..if one is able to do so one is capable of evil

Though they'd argue night and day about it...but will never listen...

 

I think I get what your asking now. I would say yes Im capable of evil. I think your oversimplifing it but I get your point. I am capable of murder as wll but would only do it as a last resort defense. The actions are neither good or evil without the intent behind it. I can call a yellow fish blue but the reason why I do it determines if it was an evil deed IMO

 

Does not mean one is "evil" merely means one is capable of evil.

Killing someone who is going to kill you is not evil, suspending reality to lie to onesself is quite evil

 

SG, I just double checked, what I was saying is defined by God in the bible. I realize you are athiest so this probably doesn't mean much to you.
Gen 6:5 and 8:21 and several others verses say that the inclinations and thoughts of man are evil. One verse says every inclination of mans heart is evil from childhood. Another version says bad instead of evil. But the way evil is defined in the bible is what I was explaining earlier and wouldn't be the same definition as any average person would say. most people think of demonic, witch craft type things when they hear the word evil.

 

No, one does not need God to be good. Unless that is the definition someone has of good.

Therein lies the problem with this question...how do you define good? A lion feeds her cubs and she's an excellent mother, unless you're the gazelle then the lioness is a murderer.

If we're talking about good or bad on a cultural level, then which culture?

Selfishness is inherent to the human condition because its linked to survival which is instinctual to all animals. Is selfishness, good or bad in that context? Even religion is selfish on a lot of levels.

John & Jane Christian are both volunteering at a soup kitchen. John is doing it because he wants to go to heaven and he believes its what God wants of him. Jane believes God rewards people good work, but its the not reason she does it. She volunteers because she has compassion and empathy for her fellow man. Both do good work, but is one "more good" than the other?

If you say one isn't "more good" than the other, then intent is irrelevant.
If you say John is "more good" then you're saying selfishness is the definition of good.
If you say Jane is "more good" then you're saying as long as people do good for their fellow man based on compassion and empathy is good and that doesn't require God.
If you say neither are good, then nothing is good.

 

So use of euphemisms is evil?

 

...

 

Mind blown

 

Well Lmeister, the Scripture does say "..be ye wise as serpents but gentle as doves.."

IE, be gentle, but keep your eyes open and be wise as this is an evil world so to speak.

 

I'll preface this with the fact that I'm not Christian but let me ask you.

Based on what? What has mankind ever done for this planet other than destroy it and cause suffering to its other inhabitants? Curing diseases, building monuments and creating art doesn't make us "good" in any sense. It makes us feel better about ourselves somehow but really does nothing for anything else and is in most cases detrimental to other creatures.

I guess this is where not being Christian changes my view. Everything isn't about humanity to me. Right or wrong I see a much wider picture that encompasses everything in the universe.

 

Carbon Credits.

 

If we didn't have free will we would all be little puppets of God. That's not life. Also, if there were no bad in the world, none of us would know what good is.

 

By your definition all creatures would have to be catorgized as being evil. Animals dont do anything intending to help the planet or any of its occupants other then themselves. Animals do what they do to survive. Mankind is no differet in that regard. We put survival in the front of our priorities as a species. Once you remove the survival element out of the decission and you leave a creature with a inconsequential choice to their own well being I believe most people choose to do what they think is good as opposed to whats evil.

 

That's not true. Animals save and help other animals including people all the time and not for self preservation.

 

What r u talking about?

 

You're referring to me, and you are assuming I do not believe in god. I am not atheist. I'm agnostic. There is a difference.

There is no tangible proof either way in the existence or not of a supreme being. I'm not arrogant enough to emphatically declare without reservation that there is certainly nothing out there, that may be beyond my ability to comprehend, that works against or even manipulates physical law...
nor am I self centered enough to think that if one being did create everything in the entire universe ever, that he'd give a flying f**k what I did on Sundays, what I ate on Fridays, how I wear my hair, or even who I have sex with.

 

I basically agree with you. Life will end on earth someday, and the blame can all be placed at the foot of one animal. Homo sapiens. If this planet had only all other animals except homo sapiens, it would continue to last longer than it has already existed to this point. 4.5 billion years, according to most scientists.
Civilization, or as Three Dog Night sang about, "building a home for the family of man" will eventually bring about extinction of all life forms, IMO.

 

What exactly did you not understand?

You said:

I said that is incorrect. What's the problem?

 

If life ends it won't be at our hands, whatever we do destructively life will still prevail. We won't even come close to ending it.

 

The problem is you offered no evidence of your thesis. I would like you to offer some examples of this phenomena you speak of.

 

Type this: "animals saving other animals" into Google. There are literally 1000's of cases and examples of animals saving other animals and people. I'd link some, but considering our history, I doubt I could post enough evidence for you to accept the fact, animals are not just furry shells hellbent on personal survival, because I think it...so instead I gave you a jumping off point so you can do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

And in the future, "asking for proof so you can understand something" is not what comes across when you say, 'What r u talking about?"

 

Sorry. You fooled me. But the more I think about it, the more I know you believe in God because it sounds like you are angry with God because he allows things to happen, or he doesn't intervine against free will to save people from things. Am i right or wrong?
IMO its like you want God to do more before you ever decide to have a relationship with God. The problem is that God has already done it all. It is finished. Don't take any of this the wrong way. It's just my opinion of the way you think, and my advice. Just my 2 cents.

 

Wrong. If that were true I would not be agnostic. I do not see any proof in the existence or non existence of a god. I don't know. You don't know. You think you know, but the fact is you really just don't know. You make an arbitrary leap of faith to believe there is a god because for some reason it seems make life more livable or gives it more purpose by imagining there is this really cool place called heaven where all the believers will go after they die, and live again in this supposed paradise.
I'd also say though, if there is a supreme being, it is nothing close to how it is described in any of the man made holy books. They are all examples of man creating god in their own image.
Like Mark Twain said, organized religion started when the first con man met the first fool.

 

The Titans are multigod and HUGE JERKS

 

He does if you are monotheistic

 

Read it again. If you're good, you have God in you whether you realize it or not. God and good are the same thing.

 

According to the Protestant view of the Bible, you mean. The Catholics believe that choosing good over evil in your actions results in actual grace, which is a path to salvation.

Greco-Roman paganism was a religion of propitiation. Judaism and Christianity are religions of moral suasion.

 

Did I use the word delusional? However, since you brought it up...
When one person suffers from a delusion they call it insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, they call it religion.
I'd guess most Christians consider the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, et al, delusional. Can't get to heaven without Christ, right? Just like most Muslims consider Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, et al, to be delusional. So on and so forth. Other than the Buddhists. They are pretty accepting toward different spiritual or religious beliefs in others. At least the ones I've met anyway.

Religion is for people who are afraid of hell. Spirituality is for people who've already been there. Religion is how man controls other men under the pretext of representing god. Spirituality is how God offers man freedom from the control of other men.

"They came with a Bible and their religion, stole our land, crushed our spirit and now tell us we should be thankful to the 'Lord' for being saved".- Chief Pontiac, Ottawa Nation

 

I'm merely expressing my opinion. I do not attempt to stop anyone else from expressing theirs. Are only theists allowed an opinion in discussions on religion? If I were sure I was correct, I'd take a side, either atheist or theist. I think neither side has any tangible proof to back them up. Therefore, until one does, I will remain agnostic.