The Problem of Evil

quote:

---

Envy and greed as thoughts may well be wrong, perhaps even sinful, but also normal and if not acted upon, certainly not evil.

---

Jar,My unofficial buddhist understanding would be that "evil" things like envy and greed create or are the occassion for suffering for ourselves or others and a buddhist observes these seeking to be free of them, understanding the suffering they and others experience as a result of the actions mentally, emotionally, as well as observable real world actions. The point is to not condemned someone for having these inevietable human problems but to show a way out of the trap of ego and suffering (sometimes referred to as samsara).lfen

My understanding is you can have an alias but not to hide your identity. If Tel Rinsiel was Charles shouldn't there be a way to know that? I'm not sure how tight the precautions here are on identity spoofing etc.lfen

That's also very close to the Christian viewpoint as well.The Christian response is through recognizing such failings, repenting, contrition (trying to do better) and forgiveness. But there are remarkable parallels between Christianity and Buddhism.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sure but can we first agree upon a definition of evil in the context in which it is being debated here. Will this definition of evil work for you: A moral wrong or a sin ie: murder, rape,theft etc.Let me know.

Pecos,Note the second definition.How does one communicate nonverbally? With gestures, facial expressions, etc. How does one communicate verbally? With written or spoken words. Orally would indicate spoken, but he also said he had some trouble with written expression.lfen

Not really, since I don't see an act as evil in itself, (though it is sometimes used that way conversationally: "She committed an evil"). Perhaps some of our disagreements have been semantics.After all, can't someone commit theft and still be good?"Evil" to me isn't "a moral wrong" (an act), it is the characteristic of being morally wrong (an attribute).Hopefully that makes sense...

Thanks for responding. I don’t know if I agree with this. Can you give me an example?I guess I don’t see how you can separate the person from the act. Can a person be evil without doing evil? Or is he only evil because of his acts?One of your previous posts First you would have to establish that there is evil separate from human acts, which I am not sure of.Ill wait for your response.

Good questions - hopefully you realize I'm working through this as I go; I also am expressing my own viewpoint of evil, and not defending a definition from elsewhere. I'll try to clear up my intent:An entity is evil, not an act. Stealing food from a tyrant to feed my starving family is not an immoral or corrupt act, though the tyrant taking my family's food in order that they starve is an immoral act.However, in my opinion it is the character and intent of the entity committing the act that is "evil" or "not-evil" in this case, and not the act itself. If I were to think of an "evil" act, it is not the act itself I am describing as evil so much as the intent of those committing the act and the circumstances.You ask an important question, "Can a person be evil without doing evil? Or is he only evil because of his acts?"I suppose so - one could live with hatred and abhorrent fantasies in his heart and mind throughout his life without committing them physically. Though maybe some would define this mindset as "an act" in itself.Perhaps this is similar to the viewpoint of some that having sexually perverse fantasies is sinful even if they are not acted upon. I am not sure of this either - and much of it comes down to semantics. I guess I would answer this partly by saying that it may be only through acts that individuals reveal themselves as evil - though perhaps evil was part of their character all along.Since we can't look directly into someone's soul we can't see the evil without the acts. Not unlike in many cases where a serial killer is revealed, everyone in the neighborhood says, "He always seemed like such a nice, polite person."

To mike_the_wiz:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Assumptions:
1) God is a representation of pure good, and pure good constitutes God. (Omnibenevolence)
2) Satan is the opposite to everything God stands for.
3) Satan is the manifestation and root of disobedience of God (sin).Argument:
Since Satan is the opposite to God (Shatan meaning opposite or opponent) from assumption (2), a logical progression from assumption (1) is that Satan must encompass pure evil (and pure evil must constitute Satan). Bringing in assumption (3), we see that Satan represents both sin and evil.Note that all things sinful and evil can and must be attributed to Satan, and everything derived from Satan must be sinful and evil. You're right. The conclusion I have stated is not what I meant to say. What I mean is that all evil thoughts are sinful thoughts (and vice versa), and all evil actions are sinful actions (and vice versa). The conclusion I should have drawn was "From a Christian perspective, there is no difference between evil and sin, as demonstrated by the above reasoning".I don't mean to conclude that actions and thoughts are necessarily in a causational relationship, I apologise for any unintended implications and my badly worded conclusion.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To jar:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Then you're obviously not referring to the Christian perspective of evil.Consider:1) Assume that there exists a sin that is not evil. Now sin means literally the disobedience of God, thus disobedience of God may not always be evil.2) Now God is the embodiment of all that is good, righteous and moral in the world, thus disobedience towards God is in fact a challenge upon goodness, righteousness and morality. How is this not a textbook definition of evil?Your assertion (1) contradicts the logical progression of God's omnibenevolence (2). ...and so we are all, to some degree, evil. What's the problem with that? Isn't that the implication of Original Sin? Settled in other thread. ...and I'm arguing that disobedience of God in any shape or form (as described by you) may be defined as evil. Hahahahahaha.......if you use this definition of evil, then surely God is the most evil entity ever to be portrayed!Which being in all the literatures and history of mankind has acted with less remorse (I don't recall God ever apologising after any of the numerous accounts of mass murder/genocide), has always acted how He felt like (take pleasure in His actions), and have absolutely no intentions whatsoever in behaving otherwise (God is consistent - unchanging)?Surely you can come up with a better definition than that?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

It's okay SleepingDragon, no apology is necessary, as you have now clarified your post for me. Thankyou. Fair enough. I will come back to read your post when I have more time. I apologize for not finding time. But I am not really against what I have quickly read from your post, as far as I can see.

Thanks, sincerely. Like fingernails across a chalkboard, the word 'verbally' has the same effect.
George

Thanks for your reply. I too am thinking this through. An example of someone I think we can all agree was evil is Adolph Hitler.We know he was evil because of his evil acts. But his evil acts are not what made him evil, they were simply the manifestation of an evil heart and mind. I suppose some could say if he didn’t know his acts were evil, then he was not committing evil, but that would get into the realm of moral relativism. I think most people can agree Hitler was evil.So why was he evil? The scientist has a few options here. He was born evil because of some evil gene that he inherited, or he had a mental disorder that turned off his social and moral filters rendering him unable to tell right from wrong, or maybe it was purely environmental and he was just socially conditioned to do evil.The theologian would have some bible versus to turn to.Psalm 14:2-3
The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.

​

Job 15:14
What is man, that he can be pure? Or he who is born of a woman, that he can be righteous?

​

Jeremiah 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

​

Genesis 8:21
And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.So all men, both Hitler and the Pope, are born sinful. And if you define evil in terms of sin ie: sin=evil=sin, then evil exists in the heart of man, totally separated form his wicked acts, and all men are evil.But this doesn’t answer the question did God create evil?He certainly permits it. He allowed Hitler to be born, come to power, and do terrible things. In the Old Testament it says God harden pharaohs heart. Again in the Old Testament Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery. Later when he saw them in Egypt he said to them, that what you meant to me for evil, God meant to me for good.But did he create evil? I say no. God created man with free will, man rebelled and the result was sin entered into the world, but evil was not created by God.Now this does rely on the definition of sin=evil=sin. Which I imagine many will disagree with. Can someone come up with an example of a sin that is not evil, or an evil that is not a sin.--edited for terrible spelling--This message has been edited by Jasonb, 08-12-2004 12:54 PM

and left a big dirty tree in the garden and allowed Satan to tempt him - sounds like a set-up to me.So did he create Satan with Free Will? Can Satan decide not to commit evil but do good?What if Satan decides not to follow the plan in the bible? that's free will right?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-12-2004 12:54 PM

Thanks for your reply. Yes, that is the 20,000 dollar (or pound) question. But first lets stay on the debate of did God create evil.