ForumGarden

I've been wondering for a long time now just how far Evil is going to be able to go before it is crumbles and comes tumbling down due to it's own arrogance.

The Tower of Babel is not just a metaphor you know. It is more than meets the eye. It is the story of how Evil gets so far and reaches so high, and then is destroyed by a higher power. It is the story of the history of the Earth.

If there is a God (And I know that there is), then that must mean that it can see EVERYTHING, be EVERYWHERE, and know EVERYONE. Therefore, there is nothing that slips past it's eyes. And in order for Evil to be self aware, it must also be extremely afraid of this. Although it must also by it's own nature love it's own destruction, and enjoy any punishment that could ever be layed upon it. The true nature of Evil is suffering, and this includes all forms of suffering, including self-suffering.

So, my curiosity leads me to wonder just how far Evil is going to be allowed to get this time, before it is yet again brought down to it's knees (and that's a major understatement). I really do wonder when Humanity is going to have to pay for what we have done to eachother. I think that day is getting closer and closer and closer. And only by the law of Grace do I imagine anyone will be spared from the wrath that we will see when that day comes.

"Evil" is self-aware? You don't see that as falling within the realm of a religious statement?

A definition would help to discuss the OP. How would you distinguish evil from bad, for example? I know about bad. The difference would give me an idea of what you think evil means.

spot;1282085 wrote: "Evil" is self-aware? You don't see that as falling within the realm of a religious statement?

A definition would help to discuss the OP. How would you distinguish evil from bad, for example? I know about bad. The difference would give me an idea of what you think evil means.


Well, for a basic idea of how I view Evil, I feel that I have already gone over it in this thread:

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... -evil.html

I also feel that an easy way to sum up Evil is to state that it is a force that destroys for the sake of destroying, causes suffering for the sake of causing suffering, creates pain for the sake of creating pain, but is different from any automated force in the Universe that does the same, in that it ENJOYS these things at the same time. It has the ability to feel enjoyment from it, and in turn it craves that feeling. So that eliminates any force that does those things simply because they were designed to. The enjoyment of self caused suffering is what separates the Evil from any other force in the Universe.

So, if I take this quote as central to your meaning, that would be fair?

TruthBringer wrote: If you hate God. Or any notion of a God. And if it makes you queezy and upset and angry to the point where you want to hurt someone or break something anytime someone mentions a Creative Force, or anything to do with a Creative Force, then you are Evil in my opinion. Not that it makes you laugh when you think of the thought of a Creative Force for all things, and that you think it is a silly concept, but that it truly makes you angry and makes you want to change the subject immediately before you end up having an outburst. If so, then you are Evil in my opinion.


It all depends on what you mean by "God" then, doesn't it.

Fortuately we know what you mean by the word.

TruthBringer wrote: If there is a God (And I know that there is), then that must mean that it can see EVERYTHING, be EVERYWHERE, and know EVERYONE.


From "only by the law of Grace do I imagine anyone will be spared from the wrath that we will see when that day comes" I take it you also include all-powerful in that list of attributes? That would fit in with your saying "Evil gets so far and reaches so high, and then is destroyed by a higher power".

Monotheists have used a disgusting get-out over the years that God's ways are mysterious, that we aren't permitted to understand His reasons. On the contrary, I have an ethical sense and it applies to all situations. There's just been an earthquake in Haiti, for example. Am I to assume that God refused to hold back or divert or mitigate the disaster? I have no other choice if God is all-powerful and ever-present, as you insist. Am I to accept such Divine behaviour as ultimately good? Yes, by definition, if I'm to avoid being classed as Evil. You'll pardon me for refusing. My ethical sense is outraged. If that's God then I'm entirely in the other camp. God, in my opinion, is the Evil party in such a situation, not me.

If, on the other hand, God is weak instead of all-powerful, and was incapable of holding back the Haitian earthquake this week, then I'm entirely on God's side.

What makes you think God's all-powerful?

TruthBringer;1282092 wrote: I also feel that an easy way to sum up Evil is to state that it is a force that destroys for the sake of destroying, causes suffering for the sake of causing suffering, creates pain for the sake of creating pain, but is different from any automated force in the Universe that does the same, in that it ENJOYS these things at the same time. It has the ability to feel enjoyment from it, and in turn it craves that feeling. So that eliminates any force that does those things simply because they were designed to. The enjoyment of self caused suffering is what separates the Evil from any other force in the Universe.


Well in that case I've seen true evil.

spot;1282095 wrote: So, if I take this quote as central to your meaning, that would be fair?



It all depends on what you mean by "God" then, doesn't it.

Fortuately we know what you mean by the word.



From "only by the law of Grace do I imagine anyone will be spared from the wrath that we will see when that day comes" I take it you also include all-powerful in that list of attributes? That would fit in with your saying "Evil gets so far and reaches so high, and then is destroyed by a higher power".

Monotheists have used a disgusting get-out over the years that God's ways are mysterious, that we aren't permitted to understand His reasons. On the contrary, I have an ethical sense and it applies to all situations. There's just been an earthquake in Haiti, for example. Am I to assume that God refused to hold back or divert or mitigate the disaster? I have no other choice if God is all-powerful and ever-present, as you insist. Am I to accept such Divine behaviour as ultimately good? Yes, by definition, if I'm to avoid being classed as Evil. You'll pardon me for refusing. My ethical sense is outraged. If that's God then I'm entirely in the other camp. God, in my opinion, is the Evil party in such a situation, not me.

If, on the other hand, God is weak instead of all-powerful, and was incapable of holding back the Haitian earthquake this week, then I'm entirely on God's side.

What makes you think God's all-powerful?


In order for the above to apply to the Haiti earthquake, than it would have to be directly to related to God's justice/punishment on the Earth. This is not something that we can prove, so it's hard for us to understand whether it was or wasn't. I don't pretend to try and link a single Earthquake to God's wrath on Humanity. Although it is entirely possible that it was.

Also, if there was an intelligent force behind the Earthquake in Haiti, than only if that force enjoyed the suffering it has caused would it then qualify as Evil in my opinion. I believe that God does not enjoy the punishment he lays upon his Children, in the same way that I would hope all parents don't enjoy the punishment they lay on their own children, but instead view it as a neccessary aid in the evolution of that child's progression in life. I believe the way a loving parent punishes their children not out of enjoyment but out of intentional guidance and direction, that God does exactly the same thing with His conscious Karmic creating Creations.

TruthBringer;1282102 wrote: In order for the above to apply to the Haiti earthquake, than it would have to be directly to related to God's justice/punishment on the Earth. This is not something that we can prove, so it's hard for us to understand whether it was or wasn't. I don't pretend to try and link a single Earthquake to God's wrath on Humanity. Although it is entirely possible that it was.

Also, if there was an intelligent force behind the Earthquake in Haiti, than only if that force enjoyed the suffering it has caused would it then qualify as Evil in my opinion. I believe that God does not enjoy the punishment he lays upon his Children, in the same way that I would hope all parents don't enjoy the punishment they lay on their own children, but instead view it as a neccessary aid in the evolution of that child's progression in life. I believe the way a loving parent punishes their children not out of enjoyment but out of intentional guidance and direction, that God does exactly the same thing with His creations.


Nowhere did I say God caused the Haiti earthquake. I said that if He was capable of preventing it and yet failed to do so then He's definitively Evil, just as I would be if I were capable but stood aside and failed to act.

Is God capable of preventing such an event or not?

spot;1282104 wrote: Nowhere did I say God caused the Haiti earthquake. I said that if He was capable of preventing it and yet failed to do so then he's definitively Evil.

Is God capable of preventing such an event or not?


If by failing to prevent it you mean that It/God wasn't responsible for creating it, and chose to sit back and enjoy the suffering it had caused than it wasn't the direct result of punishment from the God I know that created our Life-Sparking energies. But was instead the result of automated forces in the Universe/On planet Earth.

If it was God who created it, and it/God intended for it to be a just punishment on the Human race (as everything a perfect being creates is Just), than failing to prevent it wouldn't fit into the picture. Because once an action is taken it can no longer be prevented. And that goes for any living energy force.

TruthBringer;1282105 wrote: If by failing to prevent it you mean that It/God wasn't responsible for creating it, and chose to sit back and enjoy the suffering it had caused than it wasn't the direct result of punishment from the God I know created us all. But was instead the result of automated forces in the Universe/On planet Earth.


I said nothing about "enjoy the suffering it had caused", I said failure to prevent the catastrophe. I too would be Evil if I were capable but stood aside and failed to act.

Is God capable of preventing such an event or not?

spot;1282106 wrote: I said nothing about "enjoy the suffering it had caused", I said failure to prevent the catastrophe. I too would be Evil if I were capable but stood aside and failed to act.

Is God capable of preventing such an event or not?


Because once an action is taken it can no longer be prevented. I am referring to the action itself. Not the possible consequences thereof. And that goes for any living energy force. Not even God has the power to change that law.

It's similar to the law that God can not destroy Himself. Because ultimately something can not be completely turned into nothing. Only absorbed/changed into something else. But this part is debatable, but only debatable and not disprovable.

TruthBringer;1282107 wrote: Because once an action is taken it can no longer be prevented. I am referring to the action itself. Not the possible consequences thereof. And that goes for any living energy force. Not even God has the power to change that law.


If I see a catastrophe about to occur that I'm capable of preventing, I'd be Evil if I deliberately failed to act to prevent the catastrophe. That, I think, is a fair use of the word Evil.

Are you saying God was unaware that the earthquake was going to happen unless He intervened to prevent it?

Are you saying God did not have the power to prevent it?

Either of those suggestions would seem to limit God to less than all-powerful. Perhaps you do actually think God's not all-powerful. That would be interesting, if that's what you think.

spot;1282109 wrote: If I see a catastrophe about to occur that I'm capable of preventing, I'd be Evil if I deliberately failed to act to prevent the catastrophe. That, I think, is a fair use of the word Evil.

Are you saying God was unaware that the earthquake was going to happen unless He intervened to prevent it?

Are you saying God did not have the power to prevent it?

Either of those suggestions would seem to limit God to less than all-powerful. Perhaps you do actually think God's not all-powerful. That would be interesting, if that's what you think.


You are not taking into account the Force behind the event, and/or the intention behind the Force (if it was indeed created by an Intentional Force).

Let me put it this way. If I step to the left, there is nothing you can do to prevent that. Why? Because I have already stepped to the left. Time travel and preventing actions from being completely put into motion after the fact is only an illusion. The only thing that can be changed is the many different possible consequences that will come about after the action has been put into motion. But nothing can be done to prevent an action that has already been put into complete motion. And in order for it to be fully non-preventable than it would first have to be fully put into motion.

At that point, there is nothing either you or God can do to prevent it from already having happened.

TruthBringer;1282111 wrote: You are not taking into account the Force behind the event, and/or the intention behind the Force (if it was indeed created by an Intentional Force).

Let me put it this way. If I step to the left, there is nothing you can do to prevent that. Why? Because I have already stepped to the left. Time travel and preventing actions from being completely put into motion after the fact is only an illusion. The only thing that can be changed is the many different possible consequences that will come about after the action has been put into motion. But nothing can be done to prevent an action that has already been put into complete motion. And in order for it to be fully non-preventable than it would first have to be fully put into motion.

At that point, there is nothing either you or God can do to prevent it from already having happened.
Your God appears to be deficient in the all-knowing department, don't you think? If this notion of God you're giving us can be unaware that an earthquake's about to happen, despite being everywhere and all-powerful, He seems demonstrably impotent.

TruthBringer wrote: if there was an intelligent force behind the Earthquake in Haiti, than only if that force enjoyed the suffering it has caused would it then qualify as Evil in my opinion


That's the reasoning behind the Bush Administration's rejection of responsibility for the million plus excess deaths in Iraq since the "liberation", and the Obama Administration's use of drone Predator attacks where "collateral damage" kills women and children in the attempt to kill active insurgents. Neither is Evil because neither brings an enjoyment of suffering? On the contrary, it's Evil despite the lack of intention. It's Evil because of the lack of care or concern. The same goes for an all powerful God standing back from intervening in the Haiti earthquake to prevent the suffering it caused.

spot;1282112 wrote: Your God appears to be deficient in the all-knowing department, don't you think? If this notion of God you're giving us can be unaware that an earthquake's about to happen, despite being everywhere and all-powerful, He seems demonstrably impotent.



That's the reasoning behind the Bush Administration's rejection of responsibility for the million plus excess deaths in Iraq since the "liberation", and the Obama Administration's use of drone Predator attacks where "collateral damage" kills women and children in the attempt to kill active insurgents. Neither is Evil because neither brings an enjoyment of suffering. On the contrary, it's Evil despite the lack of intention. It's Evil because of the lack of care or concern. The same goes for an all powerful standing back from intervening in the Haiti earthquake to prevent the suffering it caused.


Just as there is nothing you can do to prevent the consequences of your actions.

It appears that you may not be familiar with the laws of the Universe my friend. There are many different sources where you can learn them from. But I find that for me personally, self analysis is one of the best ways to understand them.

You are using the age old arguement of how can something be perfect if it has limitations.

What if I told you that true perfection exists because of limitations? And that limitations are a part of that perfection.

Some of you would be surprised to learn that even God has limitations. This is something that religious texts will not present to you. Because many religions exist based on the premises that their "God" is perfect and that other "Gods" are not.

If we all understood the limitations of the true Creator than many religious walls would fall and many more people would be in sync with eachother with their belief systems. But this is something that many religious perpetuators fear, and so they guard this secret with their Life.

Perhaps the more people that understand the Truth, the more people would understand that one religion doesn't need to fit all.

TruthBringer;1282113 wrote: Just as there is nothing you can do to prevent the consequences of your actions.
Of course there is. You can avoid the act in the first place, thereby preventing the consequences. You can, if you're the all-powerful God, recognise the imminence of an earthquake and intervene to mitigate its magnitude and effect. You can, if you're the all-powerful God, shield the victims sufficiently well to save them. Failing to do so when it's an option is Evil.

TruthBringer;1282114 wrote: Some of you would be surprised to learn that even God has limitations. This is something that religious texts will not present to you. Because many religions exist based on the premises that their "God" is perfect and that other "Gods" are not.


There you are then. We've managed to agree on something. God, despite being everywhere, is limited in what He can perform. What He can't perform, for example, is intervening to prevent catastrophes. He's consequently not definitively Evil on that score.

If He ever starts dispensing Judgemental Wrath though, I'm still on the other side.

spot;1282115 wrote: Of course there is. You can avoid the act in the first place


Avoiding the act in the first place is not the same as avoiding the consequences of the act.

Without the act, there are no consequences to avoid.

If I stepped to the left, and stubbed my toe in the process, then there is nothing I can do to prevent that from having occurred.

If I saw the object that I stubbed my toe on BEFORE I took the action, then and only then can I move it and prevent that consequence from occurring. But the first example and this example are two different possibilities.

But something can not be undone that has already been done. Simple law of the Universe.

spot;1282116 wrote: God, despite being everywhere, is limited in what He can perform. What He can't perform, for example, is intervening to prevent catastrophes.


Not if He/It is responsible for having already caused them. True.

If it's something else that hasn't completed the action yet, than of course He can intervene as He chooses to. And what He chooses to do and what you choose to do are two different things entirely.

TruthBringer;1282117 wrote: If I see the object that I stubbed my toe on BEFORE I take the action, then and only then can I move it and prevent that consequence from occurring. But the first example and this example are two different possibilities.
"If there is a God (And I know that there is), then that must mean that it can see EVERYTHING".

If I'm aware that by throwing this brick, the window in front of me will shatter, I can avoid the consequence of a broken window quite easily be putting down the brick. If I see a dangerous situation I can avoid the consequent catastrophe by defusing the danger. We're agreed God can't, though I doubt whether we'd agree on why.

TruthBringer;1282118 wrote: If it's something else that hasn't completed the action yet, than of course He can intervene as He chooses to. And what He chooses to do and what you choose to do are two different things entirely.
No, there's a single ethical principle at work here which applies equally to me and to God. You're falling back on Mysterious Ways again. If it's wrong for me it's wrong for God too. Wrong is wrong, regardless of which conscious entity is involved. Both God and I are subject to the same judgemental standard. I have an ethical sense and it applies to all situations.

spot;1282119 wrote: "If there is a God (And I know that there is), then that must mean that it can see EVERYTHING".

If I'm aware that by throwing this brick, the window in front of me will shatter, I can avoid the consequence of a broken window quite easily be putting down the brick. If I see a dangerous situation I can avoid the consequent catastrophe by defusing the danger. We're agreed God can't, though I doubt whether we'd agree on why.


Right you can prevent yourself from putting an action into motion. This is also true. But you are at the mercy of the universe once you throw that brick at the window. At that point, you have already thrown the brick, and unfortunately nothing you can do can change that. But you are right that you can prevent yourself from throwing the brick before you throw it. That is something that you, and God, can both prevent.

spot;1282119 wrote: If I see a dangerous situation I can avoid the consequent catastrophe by defusing the danger. We're agreed God can't, though I doubt whether we'd agree on why.


We are not agreed on that. God is perfectly as capable of defusing a danger whenever He wants to. Especially if that danger is going to adversely effect Life outside of our sphere of influence.

We have an enormous amount of free-will to be used inside of our sphere, but once we step outside of it and off of it and try to harm other objects/lifeforms in space or in the Universe we are playing with fire because if anything will bring immediate just reaction/punishment from God than that will definately do it.

The Native Americans were not kidding around when they said that the **** would hit the fan as soon as man started playing around in space.

If I was the leaders of Earth I would be extremely careful with what they do up there. Because the consequences of using destructive intention in space would be extreme and we would be crossing a line that Human Beings are not permitted to cross. Or else.

TruthBringer;1282133 wrote: We are not agreed on that. God is perfectly as capable of defusing a danger whenever He wants to.


And yet, despite being able to, He didn't this week in Haiti at the time of the earthquake?

If I'd been able to and had stood back and allowed the tens of thousands of deaths to happen, you'd describe me as Evil.

There's only one ethical standard. God doesn't stand outside of it. If I'd have been Evil in standing back, then that's the verdict on God and He deserves no respect whatever for anything.

If, on the other hand, the reality of God excludes this "all-powerful all-knowing" claptrap then He's in the clear.

The problem we have, discussing this, is agreeing on the attributes of God. Either your image of Him is correct or mine is, but we're not speaking of the same Divinity at all and there can only be one. Mine's consistent with my view of reality and has positive aspects. Yours sounds entirely demonic, going on the content of this thread.

To try for me to understand a God and his all encompassing control over all that happens on this Earth and it's inhabitants, would it be appropriate to analogise it by imagining me and the similar powers I might possess over an ant colony ? I'm not trying to pretend to be a God but simply to understand the parallels, if any, of the ways that power and influence would be used. For the purpose of this analogy, I'm assuming the same "gap", sphere of influence, for want of another word, between me and the ant colony and God and this Earth.

As "Lord" of my "world", how much do I care about its inhabitants to influence any change, say, a partial collapse. I may be concerned but I might also shrug my shoulders and pretend there is no real harm done to the colony as a whole and given time will recover fully.

Would my parallel God might not have the same view of things or am I being evil in my ambivalence ?

Apologies in any confusion in my efforts to simplify things

TruthBringer;1282079 wrote:



So, my curiosity leads me to wonder just how far Evil is going to be allowed to get this time, before it is yet again brought down to it's knees (and that's a major understatement). I really do wonder when Humanity is going to have to pay for what we have done to eachother.


Were not paying now?

Someone is shot for a pair of tennis shoes, bombs fall from the sky and land on innocents, drunk drivers kill children, greed, power, indifference, the Pat Robertsons.........

Were paying.

spot;1282161 wrote: Yours sounds entirely demonic, going on the content of this thread.


There is only one God. No matter who tries to describe it.

Snowfire;1282236 wrote: To try for me to understand a God and his all encompassing control over all that happens on this Earth and it's inhabitants, would it be appropriate to analogise it by imagining me and the similar powers I might possess over an ant colony ? I'm not trying to pretend to be a God but simply to understand the parallels, if any, of the ways that power and influence would be used. For the purpose of this analogy, I'm assuming the same "gap", sphere of influence, for want of another word, between me and the ant colony and God and this Earth.

As "Lord" of my "world", how much do I care about its inhabitants to influence any change, say, a partial collapse. I may be concerned but I might also shrug my shoulders and pretend there is no real harm done to the colony as a whole and given time will recover fully.

Would my parallel God might not have the same view of things or am I being evil in my ambivalence ?

Apologies in any confusion in my efforts to simplify things


I believe there is some truth to what you have said. Although God looks at us with more interest and love than the average Human Being looks at an ant.

TruthBringer;1282380 wrote: There is only one God. No matter who tries to describe it.


The problem we have, discussing this, is agreeing on the attributes of God. Either your image of Him is correct or mine is, but we're not speaking of the same Divinity at all and there can only be one. Mine's consistent with my view of reality and has positive aspects.

spot;1282386 wrote: The problem we have, discussing this, is agreeing on the attributes of God. Either your image of Him is correct or mine is, but we're not speaking of the same Divinity at all and there can only be one. Mine's consistent with my view of reality and has positive aspects.


Why?

Nomad;1282519 wrote: Why?


It's a matter of vocabulary. If you want to use "God" as a word to describe each of a multiplicity of divine beings then that's what the word means in your context. Monotheists use it differently.

The issue of God being malevolent if He's able to prevent natural disasters but chooses not to is elegantly discussed today at BBC News - Why does God allow natural disasters?

Very interesting article