God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them.

Name the other potential and/or possible ways that evil could be spread. I come up with 3. 1) God. 2) Humans 3) other spirits...well i suppose #4 could be viruses or bacteria. The only evidence we have suggests that the phenom known as "evil" is in fact spread by humans. Just read the news. It causes us to accept responsibility rather than blaming God or satan. For a believer, the best way to fight satan is to accept God, acknowledge that God is good, and take responsibility for the choices and behaviors that you make. evil cannot flourish without a carrier.

What makes you think it's one or the other and not multiple ones at the same time? No, this is incorrect.
The evidence we have suggests that the phenomenon known as "evil" is in fact spread by intelligence. Any being with enough intelligence has the ability to spread evil. We've seen plenty of it in animal species... a sense of "fairness" and retribution for acts they deem "evil" amongst themselves.There is no evidence that says evil is restricted to humans, and all the evidence we do have actually goes against this idea. But, if the ability of evil goes hand in hand with intelligence... that still forces us to accept responsibility, doesn't it? Aren't we intelligent?
Of course, it doesn't force us to accept responsibility for any evil we are not responsible for... but that doesn't exactly make sense anyway.What sort of evil do you think people are trying to not accept responsibility for, that you think they should actually be responsible for?
Or are you just saying this and don't think it actually applies to a specific scenario?

Then he gets to lobby society to come around to his point of view. It happens all the time - take abortion as an example.Now your turn: What happens when society deems something bad, but an individual deems it good? Take Charles Manson as an example. Well, it does continue, so what's your point? Of course. How do you think slavery changed from "good" to "bad"? Because the slaves thought it was bad?

That's easy. They can leave society. Why wouldn't you leave people who didn't agree with things you wanted?
That's exactly how America was created. My point is that the reason it continues is that they system allows for it to continue. The system allows for people to say "I don't care if you say it hurts you, society has deemed that what I'm doing is good so I'm going to continue."Change the system, and we can reduce the corruption.
Probably not eliminate... but "better" should always be something to strive for, if you care, anyway.My individual-based system has no downside compared to the society-based system.
Yet, it has upside to reduces the ability for bad people to hide their evil actions.Why wouldn't we switch to it?
Get enough people to change, and things can be different.
But, regardless of that, I do personally care, and I do want my system of morality to be the best it can for helping people.
Therefore, this is a personal curiosity to see if this system really is best or not, or if something even better is available.So far, in our discussions, you have confirmed to me that the individual-based system is better than the society-based system. And no other (even-better) system has been explained as a replacement, so I'll continue to use the best-available moral system that's based on the feelings of individuals - those affected by the actions. No, I completely agree. I know this is how it works. I'm the one advocating that individuals decide what's good/bad. You're the one who's been saying it's society.. you're the one who shouldn't be saying "of course" to this idea.How can you have a group of individuals deciding that society is bad if society decides what's good/bad?
You can't.
You can only have this situation if society doesn't decide anything, and it's always individuals who decide what's good/bad.Society doesn't decide anything. It's merely a reflection of the individuals that make all the decisions.
Morality is always defined by the individuals involved in the situation.

You ignored my example. Charles Manson didn't leave society. So let's be clear: The society-based system is reality while your individual-based system is pie in the sky. Why wouldn't we switch from fossil-fuel-based transportation systems to flying unicorns? As I said, it was a group of individuals that decided that slavery was bad. That group became bigger until it became society; then society decided that slavery was bad. I repeat, it was not the victims of slavery thinking it was bad that made the difference.

I thought you meant what they people should do. Not deal with what they did do.
I'm more concerned about being a good person and wanting to help other people... that deals with that people should do.But, to deal specifically with your example, I don't have a problem with the idea of jail - removing people from society who refuse to respect other people's rights. I do have a problem with the current usage of jails today, but that's another topic. You could say the same thing about iron-age tools, at one point. I don't see how this makes it "not better."
If you want to have a better system of morality, of course you're looking for the "pie in the sky" if you don't care about other people... then, well, you're part of the reason for this reality. Because flying unicorns have no method or function in reality.
I'm proposing a system that does have a method and function in reality. If you don't care enough to upgrade.. that's your personal call. No. That group became bigger until it became society. Stop. That's it.
There is no "then society decided that slavery was bad." It's all just people. Unless, of course, you can introduce me to this "society" you keep speaking about as if it's some sort of single entity? And on this, you're factually and obviously wrong.
The group that became society thinking that slavery was bad... where do you think they got the idea from in the first place?
They saw the slaves themselves who were not happy and their sense of empathy informed them that slavery was bad.Without the victims of slavery thinking slavery was bad... there would never have been any group anywhere that thought it was a bad idea, let alone a group that grew enough to take over society.Are you seriously trying to say that some people just hatched this idea that slavery was bad all on their own... while they had very happy slaves... and created a force large enough to convince society without anyone actually thinking about the slaves at all? How would that even work?

What you've described is criminals going to prison, speeders paying their tickets, children going to school, and kids eating their vegetables.

No, I'm talking about when an innocent victim is involved between consenting adults. The examples you've provided do not apply.

Seems to me you're just talking about moving goal posts.

Who determines the dimensions of the field? Who determines what the game is about? Can not the author of a concept move their own goal posts in line with the game they are playing? Now if we can but agree what concept we are talking about, we can all construct this game together!Lets see.... we have a concept known as GOD, Creator of all seen and unseen.We have humans and decisions made by them. We have a society and laws and morality as defined by said society.I added "other spirits" to take the primary blame for evil off of GOD.I did emphasize to Stile, however, that evil was carried by and through humans.

I remember him stipulating that he was talking about consenting adults last week. Message 234

quote:

---

ringo writes:

​

So it's evil to make your children eat their vegetables.

​

No. I did not think it was necessary to clarify that we're talking about consenting adults, my apologies.
Dealing with children and those you're supposed to teach is a difficult area because so many lines get crossed. I don't think I'm ready to tackle that arena, yet.

---

Society is the group that sets the standards, makes the laws, etc. Consensus is what makes a society. It wasn't until there was a consensus against slavery that slavery could be abolished. When people see ice cream and their taste buds inform them that ice cream is good, it isn't the ice cream that's making the decision. So, if the victims of drug addiction don't think drug addiction is bad, there will never be anybody to campaign against drug addiction?

And how do rape victims fit into a discussion about consenting adults?

Sorry, I don't feel like playing dumb with you.

Right, I agree with you on all this.
I'm just saying it's a ground-up system, not a top-down one.Society's standards, laws and consensus are a reflection of what the individuals in that society think.
It all comes from the individuals.
It's the individuals that matter.It's not that some "society" makes up laws and standards and a consensus that then trickles down to the individuals in the population who then accept it. I'm not even sure how that would work. Right. It's the people who are affected by the ice-cream (action). Which is what I'm saying.Ice-cream in-and-of-itself isn't good/bad, it's just ice-cream.
Some people like to eat it (it's good to them).
Some people don't like to eat it (it's bad to them).
...it's all decided by the person being affected by the action (ice-cream).Again, you seem to be agreeing with me. Drug addiction is a problem that affects other people.
When dealing with drug addiction being bad (according to my system) you have to talk to the people affected by the actions.
That's the people who are affected by the actions of the addicted user.Now, if the addicted user never does anything that affects other people... and they don't think the addiction is bad... why should there ever be a campaign against it? What's wrong with letting people make their own decisions about what to do with their life/time if it doesn't affect other people?