Real absolute and objective evil?

[Lark]

I really do think that any meaning of 'evil' has the characteristic of 'otherness'. Of something you can't identify with, you can't believe a human could do. It's a dehumnizing term, technically.

Well, I do think it is dangerous if evil is objectified/projected and "othered", so it only becomes a characteristic of "them", it leads to a variety of consequences ranging from silliness and myopic perspectives to outright wicked ideologies, in-groups and persecuted out-groups. One of the characters of some varieties of Humanism I respect is the idea that they insist "nothing human should be foreign to them", so even human evil shouldnt be foreign altogether.

 

[Lark]

I think asking for definitions, implicitly accepting relativism and subjectivity is just the same as endorsing the evil is projection theory without wishing to accept the evil is objective/external theory.

 

[KDude]

Evil is anything that opposes God.

Interestingly, God permits evil to exist, which seems like a contradiction but is not, if you know that God always uses evil for good.

But that's getting into some deep theological waters which may be beyond the scope of this thread.

That still doesn't answer anything. You or I don't know the mind of God in order to draw the lines and know what God really permits. You might be right, but then.. where do you go from there? Who are you? And who is anyone else? All you're saying is God knows. Great. Yet anytime anyone stood up and said they said actually knew how to judge every issue just as well, it ended in tragedy and diaster.

And before you say the Bible is a reliable word of God, and if we just stay firm in it's truth, we'll know true good and evil, then why does it's own definitions of evil change over time like in any other cultures? And I beg you to not play stupid, please. Like it doesn't happen, like I need to inundate you with a tidalwave of contradictory verses to prove my point. That ship has sailed, probably a zillion times. One minute love is the answer, the next war; one minute suicide is wrong, the next it's ok if you kill yourself in order to take down some dirty Phillistines; one minute prostitution is wrong, the next they're heroes; one minute slaves are ok, the next you must liberate the poor slaves; one minute you must follow a strict diet, the next everything is good in the eyes of God; and so on.

 

[xisnotx]

Evil exists only in the mind.
Minds exist.
A minds existence is real.
A minds existence is absolute.
A minds existence is objective.
Therefore; real, absolute and objective evil exists.

or something like that.

 

[Qlip]

Well, I do think it is dangerous if evil is objectified/projected and "othered", so it only becomes a characteristic of "them", it leads to a variety of consequences ranging from silliness and myopic perspectives to outright wicked ideologies, in-groups and persecuted out-groups. One of the characters of some varieties of Humanism I respect is the idea that they insist "nothing human should be foreign to them", so even human evil shouldnt be foreign altogether.

Yeah, I can relate to this. Yeah, once you brand something as objectively evil.. it doesn't matter how or why it exists, all that is left to do is to destroy it, because it implies that there is nothing left to understand. I'm not going to say that there isn't something out there that isn't actually the very embodiment of evil.. there are a lot of things out there.

 

[erm]

The whole thread hinges on the undefinedness of the term, which, though certainly fuzzy, has some core idea to it that most people share. Perhaps we agree more on what 'happiness' means than on what 'evil' is, but it is enough to work with - especially considering the importance of the work.

"most" being the key term there. Many will not share it, and many will hold contradictory definitions to one another.

However, your initial fear was that "some people define it as being subjective, some as being objective, some as relative". That, at least, should be prevented by reading the opening post.

That was effectively my answer to OP question. The objective definitions make the answer "yes", the subjective or relative definitions "no", and various other more confusing options for the stranger definitions. Pick a specific definition and I could answer the question more precisely.

It's an important point for these discussions, otherwise they are just people describing their own definitions of evil, and explaining why other people's definitions don't fit their own (sometimes saying that makes them wrong). No one's any more correct than each other, as it's a purely semantic difference.

 

[Spurgeon]

That still doesn't answer anything. You or I don't know the mind of God in order to draw the lines and know what God really permits. You might be right, but then.. where do you go from there? Who are you? And who is anyone else? All you're saying is God knows. Great. Yet anytime anyone stood up and said they said actually knew how to judge every issue just as well, it ended in tragedy and diaster.

And before you say the Bible is a reliable word of God, and if we just stay firm in it's truth, we'll know true good and evil, then why does it's own definitions of evil change over time like in any other cultures? And I beg you to not play stupid, please. Like it doesn't happen, like I need to inundate you with a tidalwave of contradictory verses to prove my point. That ship has sailed, probably a zillion times. One minute love is the answer, the next war; one minute suicide is wrong, the next it's ok if you kill yourself in order to take down some dirty Phillistines; one minute prostitution is wrong, the next they're heroes; one minute slaves are ok, the next you must liberate the poor slaves; one minute you must follow a strict diet, the next everything is good in the eyes of God; and so on.

You are imagining contradictions where there are none.

The Bible is not an ordinary book. Understanding it requires wisdom and knowlege which comes directly from God.

1 Corinthians 2:14-- "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and whe is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

The good news is that God gives wisdom and knowledge in abundance to those who seek it from him. This, of course, requires humble submission to him. it requires repentance and faith.

The question is, is it worth humbling ones self in order to understand? Or does one prefer to ignorance of the truth in order to maintain their pride?

To tie this back to the thread....

Yes, there is objective Good and there is objective Evil. And there is no such thing as Neutral.

Only God is good, and if one is not God then one is evil. Therefore, all are called to repent and believe in Jesus Christ or they will experience the full wrath of God on Judgement Day.

God takes no delight in the death of the wicked, but actually rejoices when a sinner repents.

 

[Tiger Owl]

You are imagining contradictions where there are none.

The Bible is not an ordinary book. Understanding it requires wisdom and knowlege which comes directly from God.

1 Corinthians 2:14-- "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and whe is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

The good news is that God gives wisdom and knowledge in abundance to those who seek it from him. This, of course, requires humble submission to him. it requires repentance and faith.

The question is, is it worth humbling ones self in order to understand? Or does one prefer to ignorance of the truth in order to maintain their pride?

To tie this back to the thread....

Yes, there is objective Good and there is objective Evil. And there is no such thing as Neutral.

Only God is good, and if one is not God then one is evil. Therefore, all are called to repent and believe in Jesus Christ or they will experience the full wrath of God on Judgement Day.

God takes no delight in the death of the wicked, but actually rejoices when a sinner repents.

Thank you for posting this.

 

[KDude]

Great, another pat answer. You're almost like a pez dispenser or something. Remind me when we can actually discuss something.

 

[rav3n]

Good and evil don't exist. Sociopathy does exist.

 

[Spurgeon]

Great, another pat answer. You're almost like a pez dispenser or something. Remind me when we can actually discuss something.

Well, there's certainly a lot more to it. But, yes, I will always be explaining (to the best of my ability) what the Bible says. So if that's too "pat" for you, then I guess you'll just go elsewhere.

 

[KDude]

Well, there's certainly a lot more to it. But, yes, I will always be explaining (to the best of my ability) what the Bible says. So if that's too "pat" for you, then I guess you'll just go elsewhere.

I've been studying the bible for.. hmm.. believe it or not, half of my life (in my 30s now). I'm not going to be satisfied by your explanations, if they're just doctrinal statements that work in a bubble. I'm already familiar with those kind of answers, and secondly, I find them unsatisfying. I want to know what it means or how it applies on a wider scale. Which you're unwilling to provide or even challenge yourself with. I will always encounter your bubble (don't mind me though, I'm not here to burst it either).

 

[Qlip]

I've been studying the bible for.. hmm.. believe it or not, half of my life (in my 30s now). I'm not going to be satisfied by your explanations, if they're just doctrinal statements that work in a bubble. I'm already familiar with those kind of answers, and secondly, I find them unsatisfying. I want to know what it means or how it applies on a wider scale. Which you're unwilling to provide or even challenge yourself with. I will always encounter your bubble (don't mind me though, I'm not here to burst it either).

Yeah, there's really nothing to talk about at that level. Quoting scriptures and such only work if you accept the Bible as a source of authority and in exactly the same way as the other person. If you want to get there, you'd have to prove to the other person that Bible is a source of authority. I'm sure that will only take a few posts, right?

 

[Spurgeon]

Yeah, there's really nothing to talk about at that level. Quoting scriptures and such only work if you accept the Bible as a source of authority. If you want to get there, you'd have to prove to the other person that Bible is a source of authority. I'm sure that will only take a few posts, right?

That's true.

However, the purpose of quoting scripture is not to convince people, but simply to proclaim the truth.
You will never convince someone of the truth of scripture (especially where it convicts them of sin). Only the Holy Spirit can do that.

All a Christian can do (and must do) is proclaim it.

Now to tie this back to the thread and avoid a derail....

I agree with the following statement:

Well, I do think it is dangerous if evil is objectified/projected and "othered", so it only becomes a characteristic of "them", it leads to a variety of consequences ranging from silliness and myopic perspectives to outright wicked ideologies, in-groups and persecuted out-groups.

The Bible claims that ALL human beings have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
Evil is not merely the problem of "the other," but of oneself as well.

NOTE: It's actually the false assumption that human beings are inherently good that engenders the "othering" of "Evil". THINK ABOUT IT!

There's no need to water it down. Each and every one of us are bent towards evil. (Romans 3:11, I John 1:8). Thus, the need for personal repentance.

 

[KDude]

Proclaiming doctrine never gets to the heart of the matter (philosophically speaking) on some issues. It doesn't answer whys or hows.

And forbidding questioning any of it isn't what the Bible itself teaches either. You know, the very namesake of the first "people" of God is Israel.. from the man Jacob. The story of his name is an allegory of sorts. Jacob is said to have gotten in a fight, a wrestling match with a strange man in the night.. he struggled with the man the entire night, until the man finally was about the leave at dawn. Jacob grabbed on to him and wanted his blessing. He knew it was God or some angel of God. And the man decided to change Jacob's name right there and called him "Israel" - which means, "struggles with God". One who is honest with God. And by honest, it doesn't mean submissive and placating. It means honest. You might be a Christian, but this is the very root of your own religion. A story of people who struggle and seek out God. Proclamations do little to satisfy this type. And it doesn't really change in the New Testament either. Most of Jesus' followers question him, and even abandon him at points. I don't think it was ever to supposed to be easy as you make it.

 

[Savage Idealist]

An absolute and objective evil does not exist, and niether does an absolute and objective good. What is considered good by some is evil to another and vice versa; the two concepts are relative to the values of indiviaul people and/or groups. And like all concepts, it does not exist a priori; what things can be considered to be good or evil is entirely relevant on thinking agents who can comprhend this idea, but what they fail to realize is that they are looking at things in an illusionary manner when they speak of good and evil in the most absolute sense.

 

[Nicodemus]

It's an important point for these discussions, otherwise they are just people describing their own definitions of evil, and explaining why other people's definitions don't fit their own (sometimes saying that makes them wrong). No one's any more correct than each other, as it's a purely semantic difference.

Of course people will describe their own definitions, explain why other people's definitions don't fit or are wrong. Did you expect to solve a problem or find the truth here?

The core idea is probably that evil is the (extreme) opposite of good. That, it seems to me, is as far as the consensus goes. Whatever follows are foolish attempts to get to the 'nature' of it.

 

[erm]

Of course people will describe their own definitions, explain why other people's definitions don't fit or are wrong. Did you expect to solve a problem or find the truth here?

The core idea is probably that evil is the (extreme) opposite of good. That, it seems to me, is as far as the consensus goes. Whatever follows are foolish attempts to get to the 'nature' of it.

Well I didn't expect anything, but yes that is probably the only universal definition, its relation to good. I would like to understand why such a term came about, and why people continue to treat it the way they do. Those questions could be answered here, who knows?

 

[Nicodemus]

Those questions could be answered here, who knows?

I think 'evil' is the superlative to 'not to my liking'. In order to express just how much one does not like something, a word that goes beyond the subjective (positive: not to my liking), beyond simple facts (comparative: wrong) is required. If there is evil, one cannot disagree (subjective), or content oneself with mere acknowledgement (simple facts); if there is evil, one has to do something about it.

 

[Spurgeon]

Proclaiming doctrine never gets to the heart of the matter (philosophically speaking) on some issues. It doesn't answer whys or hows.

And forbidding questioning any of it isn't what the Bible itself teaches either. You know, the very namesake of the first "people" of God is Israel.. from the man Jacob. The story of his name is an allegory of sorts. Jacob is said to have gotten in a fight, a wrestling match with a strange man in the night.. he struggled with the man the entire night, until the man finally was about the leave at dawn. Jacob grabbed on to him and wanted his blessing. He knew it was God or some angel of God. And the man decided to change Jacob's name right there and called him "Israel" - which means, "struggles with God". One who is honest with God. And by honest, it doesn't mean submissive and placating. It means honest. You might be a Christian, but this is the very root of your own religion. A story of people who struggle and seek out God. Proclamations do little to satisfy this type. And it doesn't really change in the New Testament either. Most of Jesus' followers question him, and even abandon him at points. I don't think it was ever to supposed to be easy as you make it.

The Bible does explain the hows and whys. One's inability to understand it (or unwillingness to accept it) says nothing about the veracity of it's claims.

Also, it seems you've really missed the point in regard to Jacob . He is not being commended for wrestling with God. It's to his shame. In fact, he gets his hip put out of joint as a reminder of who is really in charge. And actually, that was an act of mercy, considering that God could have utterly destroyed him.
Jacob himself understood that, thus his response: "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered."

I could go on and on about the fallacies in your arguments, but suffice it to say, you are interpreting scripture from a human-centered point of view rather than a God-centered one. Therein lies the whole problem.

In fact, the concept of absolute Good and Evil is not hard to understand, it's just hard to accept, because it implies moral responsibility to an absolute authority.

Thankfully, all one must do to gain a real understanding of these things is to stop trying to place themselves above God and surrender to him.