Not a Question of Our Goodness - Page 18

Fun

Actually, those are the rules set in stone and no, that's not what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about situations or events that involve what you consider evil.  But I'll take that and get back later today or this evening, I have to go to work in an hour.

I really want to have a discussion about this and I'm just making sure we agree on some definitions so we have the same starting point.  Clarity is important.

GSD travels - I defined it for your here:

"evil - "sapros", or "ra a" . In either case, "spoiled", "corrupt", "broken into pieces". Evil is the antithesis, while God is thesis. This is in direct conflict with the prevalent philosophical flavor of the month, Hegellian dialecticism, which is based on the synthesis of the process, thus "process philosophy", the foundational ideal of the modern progressive."

As far as application, Ruger offered you this:

"..I have witnessed in my own life my desire to do that which makes me feel good, opposed to doing what is best for me, for others or most importantly what is in accordance with God's Word..IMO whatever sets itself against that which is considered ( by the Bible ) to be good and right is evil..."

The "rules" of rhetoric are based soundly on Aristotelian reason, and have been for millenia; pretty straightforward. In terms of "evil", you fall into either one of two camps. Either you subsrcribe to a relative philiosophical environmentalism, or you subscribe to antithetical thinking. Each of those begins with a statement of faith, contrary to the musings of the "rationalist".

Carlin, I'm looking for something specific, from Ruger.  I don't need you to explain what she's saying, I get it ----> and it's still not a specific answer.

That doesn't sound much like the "discussion" you expressed a desire to have. What good what a specific example do anyone unless a certain consensus can be reached first. Unless of course, you are unwilling to examine your own definitions before liberally applying them to whatever example Ruger may offer. Whatever floats your boat - have at it. My own opinion, is that Ruger is a bit too sharp for the trap.

Travels,I actually think the point made above is a valid one,,For the sake of clarity on both sides, you should provide a definition of your own as well...I am puzzled as to why my responses have not satisfied your question yet..??,,So, maybe after defining what these terms mean to you, things will become more clear...As you said, --------------> "I really want to have a discussion about this and I'm just making sure we agree on some definitions so we have the same starting point.  Clarity is important."......

Carlin and Ruger, I'm not looking for Biblical definitions or Webster's definitions of evil.  I'm not looking for a list of your standards, I'm asking you for an example where you've used those standards to measure something.  After measuring, according to your own standards, where did it fall on the scale?   Let's just say 0 being perfect and 10 being pure evil.  I'm trying to get to what you take as being evil "incarnate", if you will.  What evil have you witnessed and how did YOU determine it was evil?  Is that really difficult?  What I'm asking is really simple and you both seem to want to make it as complicated as possible. 

Maybe one of you witnessed a crime or an accident or a fight, or just encountered a person you perceived as being "evil".  What was it that made he/she/it evil, by YOUR determination, using YOUR standards?  How sure are you that it was evil?  Why?  How do you use your scale?

Travels wrote "After measuring, according to your own standards, where did it fall on the scale? Let's just say 0 being perfect and 10 being pure evil"

I don't think I operate with that sort of "rubric".  I try not to judge people.  As a human being, when I observe murder for instance, I wonder how the individual internalizes what strikes me psychologically and emotionally as a terrible and senseless act.  On a deeper and perhaps more "developed" level, I associate murder with the same genesis as I do something a bit more innocuous such as stealing from another, with my view of the perpatrators being similar, though with perhaps more sympathy for someone who resorts to killing.

" I'm not looking for Biblical definitions or Webster's definitions of evil." 

But you did ask for a definition, and you are asking people whose philosophy is founded upon faith in an omnipotent, transcendent, and imminent God.  All spheres within that person's worldview will then necessarily fall under that umbrella.  It seems as though your own philosophy may incorporate the idea of cultural relativism, for instance, wherein behavior is thought to be apprehended only within the context of the culture and society  of which they are a part.  This perspective (one of cultural relativism) conflicts with the antithetical model held by Christians, and is subscribed to primarily by atheists and philosophical environmentalists.  Interestingly, each of the aforementioned philosophies begins with a statement of faith; the former in a revelation epistemology, and the latter in a rationalist epistemology. 

"I know indeed what evil I intend to do, But stronger than all my afterthought is my fury, Fury that brings upon mortals the greatest evils."  - Euripides, 5th century B.C.

 

10  Massively, satanically evil.
9    Very very evil, but not quite as bad as 10
8    Very evil, with knobs on.
7    Evil, but maybe with mitigating factors.
6    Slightly less damaging evil, but still horrible.
5    Medium-evil, not many hurt.
4    Evil but with redeeming factors.
3    Evil but carrying a lot of associated baggage
     which many will regard with sympathy.
2    Just a bit evil.
1    Not very evil.
0   Not evil at all, really ...


ROFL