Menu
By:
Filters
What's new

The nature of evil

Keleynal said:
I'm not sure what "many versions" of the Bible you are referring to, I'm only aware of one.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how this is possible. There are multiple English translations alone, and obviously the original texts were not written in English. There are huge issues with translations. One small example is the fact that a word we now know of and Christians accept as "virgin" when used to describe the mother of Jesus originally meant "unmarried" in an ancient text. At the time of Jesus' birth, as I understand it, there were not separate words for a person who had not had sexual relations and an unmarried person since the act of intercourse is what defined you as married.

I was a religious studies major so this topic interests me. It was my goal to learn ancient languages so I could, as best as one can with incomplete texts, attempt to read the oldest possible versions in the language they were written so that I could ascertain for myself what was there and what wasn't. I wasn't able to continue my studies, though, and was forced to leave school early. (What sort of fool tries to learn Greek AND Hebrew at the same time? This gal.)

Additionally, there are various religions and generations of the church that embrace or reject wholly different editions of the Bible. Consider the Apocrypha, which I never knew existed during my upbringing in the Christian church. Imagine my surprise when I was presented with a "Bible" for my first history of Christianity class that contained an entire set of books that I'd never heard of. These books were fully accepted as a part of the bible until the 16th century, yet I had never heard of them.

The Bible that I carried with me to Sunday School my entire young life does not in many ways resemble the text as originally assembled. The key word here is "assembled" as the Bible is a collection of writings that have been collected and compiled in various ways throughout the centuries as well as widely edited and subjected to countless translations.
 
I've read the Apocrypha and I found it interesting, but I don't accept it as cannon. The 66 books that are widely accted were put through a lot of scrutiny, and as you said, a lot of factors other than just spiritual reasons went into their acceptance. Many of the texts that were left out were repetitive, considered unreliable by authorship, or contained flat out contradictions to the rest of the cannon.

I said this before, but if scripture is indeed the inspired Word of God, then He would have taken care to preserve it through the ages. Not word by exact word necessarily, especially since 100% exact translation is not possible, but staying true to the original message. I do believe that any errors contained in my Bble vs the original are not such that serious doctrinal errors occurred.

Your example of the use of the word "virgin" is a good example. Since the English were very familiar with the fact that an unmarried woman more commonly had intercourse before marriage in their time, they chose a word that most faithfully described Mary's state as an unmarried virgin at the time of conception. This may have altered some of the packed in meaning of the original text, but stayed true to the doctrine.

One of the nice things about having different English translations is that they can sometimes be helpful to see texts in a slightly different light. There is also a lot to gained from the original language, of course. Any good, in depth Bible study uses several translations as well as the original language to get as much from a passage as possible.
 
Keleynal said:
I said this before, but if scripture is indeed the inspired Word of God, then He would have taken care to preserve it through the ages. Not word by exact word necessarily, especially since 100% exact translation is not possible...
Click to expand...

Not possible? He's God. Omnipotent, Omniscient. Why the hell would he have not ensured that exact translation was possible.

Or you know, just allowed us to keep speaking the root language so we wouldn't have this problem?

Assumng God exists, anyway.
 
The only god I believe in is the Flying Spaghetti Monster because his word is constant in every bowl of spaghetti-o's, that being "Ooooooooooooooooooooo".

Also this:
Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg
 
Evilcat said:
The Roman Catholic church officially canonize the Apocrypha at the council of Trent in 1546 AD.

Any way, i have to withdraw form this discussion. Our world Views are too intractable and Apposed and i want to stop before one of us becomes angry and says something we regret. I'm sure you will be a nice person to talk with but i think we should perhaps not discuss religion with each other anymore. Apologies. Its just not worth the aggravation to argue Faith or politics on the internet.
Click to expand...

That is why this is the Rant forum. Check the rules thread in this forum. Obviously if you feel uncomfortable and do not want to continue participating then thats all good. The rant section is a place for people to vent, and have sometimes heated discussions on topics.

Before you RANT: http://alttabme.com/forum/index.php?threads/before-you-rant-read-here.1817/

To stay on topic, my thoughts on Catholicism and religion in general: http://alttabme.com/forum/index.php?threads/why-doesnt-god-compromise.3232/#post-34563

To me again thats where I can't fathom people worshipping a fairy tale, as it is interpereted and wielded by key figures. Perfect example is Kel not accepting the Apocrypha as canon and others do. You have priests, imams, rabbi's telling you that you cant stray from the book or the faith, meanwhile they sit there and spin their own interpretation of a mythical story. You cant have it both ways, it cant be evil and not evil or follow this part of whatever teaching and not the other imo. Im not really up on the details though, I ignored all 7 years of religion class in Catholic school. Frankly I am kinda pissed I wasted so many Sunday's on that stuff too.
 
As was expected this conversation turned into who believes in religion or not.

For those of you arguing for or against religion; Do you believe evil exists and if so how do you define it?
 
ThatOneGuy said:
As was expected this conversation turned into who believes in religion or not.

For those of you arguing for or against religion; Do you believe evil exists and if so how do you define it?
Click to expand...

I don't typically like to think of concepts like evil as absolutes. But if I have to explain my views I would say that no, I don't think evil exists. I think that most people/actions/behaviors that are referred to as evil are actually mental illness, depravity or degrees of selfishness. I throw the word evil around, of course, but only as a descriptor. I don't think there is a line where on one side there is good and the other is evil.

Short answer? Evil is an adjective, not a noun.
 
I think we all use it as a descriptor. Some use it to describe acts, some to describe motives, some thoughts. There has to be a line where something is evil verses just bad. I'm not asking for you to define exactly where the line is, but more in general terms as to what decides that there is a line.

For me the line between bad and evil comes down to societies rules and laws. The rules and laws are there as a tool so we as a species can keep populating the planet. Anything that harms or is likely to harm the society will be considered evil by that society.

For Kel (as best as I can speak for him) the line is defined by what the bible and his religious beliefs lay out for him.
 
I don't think everyone uses it as a descriptor. I think to many evil is a big black naughty essence that can possess or move people to do bad things. It is thought of as something that can overtake you, that can win or lose in a battle for your very soul. It is a presence, yet another idea in a society made up of victims that can be blamed for bad things that we do. The devil made me do it, etc.

Evil has nothing to do with man's law. Or at least laws are not what define good and bad. Laws themselves are often seen as evil and are a tool of control. They are supposedly made to prevent chaos, but as it is discussed in the selfishness thread, no laws made by man can ever be purely altruistic or for the good of all. A lot of laws are bullshit made by people who I would call evil.

Evil has far more to do with intent. If I kill my neighbor because he is about to kill me or my child, that isn't evil. If I kill him because I want his shit or because he's growing his fucking garden on my property, then it's evil. Both are against the law, but only one is evil. I may not be convicted for the first, but that's a different matter. I would still be charged with murder or manslaughter.

While I do not subscribe to any religion, I do try to live my life in a way that doesn't harm others. Not because laws tell me to, but because it's part of who I am and how I can live with myself. Some laws coincide with that philosophy, but many do not. Is Bernie Madoff the same sort of evil as Jeffrey Dahmer? Was Dahmer ill and Madoff just a selfish prick? I have no idea because I can never know another human being's true intent.
 
I tend to define evil as the bottom most choice on the dialog wheel in most cases especially if the words are red. That and birds. Fuck birds. Cept penguins. They are OK.
 
ThatOneGuy said:
I think we all use it as a descriptor. Some use it to describe acts, some to describe motives, some thoughts. There has to be a line where something is evil verses just bad. I'm not asking for you to define exactly where the line is, but more in general terms as to what decides that there is a line.

For me the line between bad and evil comes down to societies rules and laws. The rules and laws are there as a tool so we as a species can keep populating the planet. Anything that harms or is likely to harm the society will be considered evil by that society.
Click to expand...

Many things harm society but are not considered to be evil; homeless people, drug addicts, tsunamis. Abolishing slavery harmed America; tons of national treasure was spent, a huge percentage of the population died, killed the most US soldiers in history and was one of the most horrific wars of all time. Society didn't consider it to be evil then, or now. In fact, the war economically hurt the country, and reduced a major income source in order to do what it felt the moral thing to do was. If your postulate is correct, abolishing slavery was the greatest of evils, since it did an amazing amount of harm to society and it would have been infinitely superior to maintain the status quo. I think you are just flat out wrong here in definition.

Evil is about conscious, deliberate, malicious behavior.
 
I don't think people are 'evil'. There are no absolutes.

I think people can undertake evil acts. Actions can be evil. People are not evil.

Steven Weinberg made an excellent cooment on the subject of evil:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Please note - Faith does not make people do evil. Organised religion does. More evil has been done to the world by mankind in the name of organised religion than any other thing.
 
This may be a shocker to some, but I'm actually not a fan of organized religion, and certainly not churchianity as we know it in America today. Christianity is all about having a personal relationship with God. Masses, vespers, and Protestant church services can be a useful tool that helps the Christian deepen their relationship with God or increase their understanding of scripture, but true Christianity is lived outside of the church, not within it.

Mega churches with multimillion dollar buildings, televangelists that sell "miracles," Christians who pay lip service to God on Sunday so they feel better about their lifestyle Mon-Sat, all these things have cheapened and watered down Christianity to the point that any real message is lost in the noise.

I'm 100% certain that I am 100% wrong about some of the things I believe about God, and I'm likewise convinced that I am not completely correct on any single topic. Throughout my life, my understanding and beliefs about God have changed, matured, changed back, been taken apart and put back together. Is this because God is inconsistent? I don't think so. It's more because of my limited capacity as a human to comprehend it.

Those of you who have devoted your lives to science should be familiar with the feeling. It wasn't that long ago at all that we had no concept of DNA, microchips, radio waves, and any number of other things that revolutionize our lives when they are finally discovered, studied, and finally applied to daily life. My walk with God is like that. I'm constantly learning new things or seeing things a different way. To somehow expect that every Christian has their faith completely figured out and agree 100% on all issues is as ludicrous as every scientist agreeing on what every point of data means.

There was a time when the world's top scientists believed that flies could spawn from rotten meat and rats from rags. We wonder how anyone could possibly think that now. I wonder what will be wrong about in another 100 years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom