LoginRegister
Nintendo Wii / Wii U Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5
Results 41 to 44 of 44
  1. #41
    Jet-Set-Jesse En4Neo's Avatar
    Member #
    16323
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,744
    Friends
    0
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    No I'm Christian, but my friend is.

    He said he was celebrating some holiday today...

  2. Ads


  3. #42
    A li'l bit different Squall7's Avatar
    Member #
    89
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Cornwall, UK
    Posts
    1,743
    Friends
    4
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    8420-0141-9022-6948
    Quote Originally Posted by yungblood6
    so basicly you are saying when some one kills some one like say a kid its not a bad or evil thing but good can come of it?
    Yes, good can come from anything, same as bad. Of course, we assume it's bad, simply because we like to think how much "good" they could've done if they'd have been under our control (or at least that's one way of putting it).

    and its uncontrolable?
    The good or evil parts is uncontrollable. If a random person was killed today, we don't know whether it's a good thing really or not. If that person wasn't killed, perhaps he may have killed millions in the future. It's the whole "would you kill Hitler before he got into power if you went back in time?" kinda thing. And what about killing animals? Killing and animal to sustain yourself. Or is "evil" and "good" only to do with man? And if you consider intent, then it's either "constructive or destructive", neither one exclusively "good" or "evil".

    so when a woman is beat and raped thats not evil and bad?
    You're so misinterpretting me, simply because of your "so-called" moral compass. For Christianity (strict Christianity anyway), homosexuality is a sin and evil. I don't consider it so. Your moral compass says I'm wrong, my logic says you're wrong.

    And to answer your question: For the woman, it is absolutely devestating. For the rapists, it's a crime (which, if the justice system worked properly, they would be tried and convicted for). It's also devestating a lot of people's lives in a negative manner. In essence, it's one of those actions that is almost universally "consequential", if only for the effects of the people around the woman and the woman herself. Evil and bad are concepts that only go to further the control of people presenting the news through basic emotional manipulation. To be fair, it does work. I wouldn't say it's "bad and evil", because once again, I believe those are terms used for emotional manipulation of others. What I will say is that I would sympathise with the woman and if it were to happen to someone close, I would try and support her as much as possible.

    so when stupid ass kids walk into malls and schools and just start shooting people, thats not evil?
    Nope. Tragically misguided. If a man kills another man it's considered Evil by some. If a man kills an evil man, it's considered a good thing. Who is to say what is evil, other than the consequences the supposedly "evil" leaves on the world?

    Mike vick beating, drowning, and electricuting dogs is not evil?
    People that burned and got crushed in twin towers that wasnt evil?
    Okay, only one example was need. Now you're trying to control everyone's opinions through emotional means.

    Thats one f**ked up world you live in, where things like that are just ok and just happen because its happens.
    Okay, you have to step back from your ideas about this kind of stuff if you're ever going to be objective in your perceptions of reality. You have to think about "what is evil?", "where did the word come from?", "what was it used to dennote/connote?", "since the concept itself is man-made, does it really have a bearing on anything beyond man?", "who decides what is evil and not?", "Do I consider this action 'evil' if it has positive (if limitedly so) outcomes?".

    Oh, and please, if you're going to swear, at least try to understand what I'm saying first. Okay?

    See the thing with controll in religion is the devils doing, see if every one would worry about there own self being, and not trying to save every one else there would be no controll issue in religion.
    One could argue that religion itself is a control - a control of ideas, a control of behaviour, a control of routine, a control of proximity, a control of understanding, a control of information, a control of attitudes, a control of prejudices etc...

    But its not like that you got every body worried about what the next person is doing and not worried about what they are doing, or thinking that they are just perfect.
    So, you've basically incorporated capitalism into your sense of idealised religion - look out for number one, be the best and screw the rest. Yeah, nice ideology there... Of course, I'm not advocating that everyone should try and convert everyone else - just that a little tollerance of what other's believe, and not a case of "I don't understand how you can think like this, or be like that". Insert the words "want to" after the don't and you'll be saying your real statement.

    Then you have politics who try to play the religion roll to get votes or to get people to see thier point.
    Yep. Every politician does that, because what better way to get into power, than to convince your electorate that without you, there's no defense against X or Y. This could be a physicaly threat, emotional, moral etc...

    If you look at the core princepals in every religion it has nothing to do with control, but about bettering one self, and gaining knowledge.
    Knowledge is only good when it's fully understood. Knowledge can also be false. And bettering oneself in what way? Being a "better" person? Doesn't that mean "more Charitable"? or "more socially understanding"? Or do you mean "can breathe underwater"? If a person is a person, how can one be a better "person"? And who would decide what is better? You? Aren't you just growing to be what you want, rather than growing into a better person? They're all subjective terms that restrict one's thinking and perceptions, anchoring them to whatever it's tied to, be it society, the church, anything.

    its the other aspects of it that people missinterpet or try to use to controll things.
    So, say for example, the 10 commandments, that is in no way a means of control? Even informal? What about the anchoring of understanding of the Holy Trinity? Are they not a way of saying "you will be watched over, no matter what you do"? What about the concept of sinning? You go to hell if you sinned and have not been forgiven. In what way is that not a control? The Bible is completely didcatic. There's very little of it that isn't control, if any at all. Everything is all about control. It's how we see our reflection in the world. It's how we know we exist. It's natural, and when used, it creates a bias. This leads into my original point.

    But looking at life in terms of black and white, good and evil, man and woman, etc... is missing the point completely. No matter what any organisation says, living in a black and white world, right and wrong, whether it be religion, politicians, TV, Movies, family, friends etc... is always subjective and restrictive.
    Last edited by Squall7; 12-19-2007 at 04:58 PM.


    Mail me if you want to add me on either the Wii or the 360.


  4. #43
    Special Olympics Medalist BrandonMcAuslan's Avatar
    Member #
    3742
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    633
    Friends
    0
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    1234-1234-1234-1234
    Here's a long post/article on the nature of evil
    (well off topic I might add..!? Should start a good vs evil thread...)


    -AVERT YOUR EYES IF YOU DON'T LIKE READING!-


    "The Nature of Evil
    Determining the nature of good and evil as a theological idea - is something that even the greatest philosophical minds of history have struggled to comprehend. - I doubt anyone alive today is going to be able to define or explain definitively these (man-made) concepts.
    But that's not to say that it can't be personally enlightening and overall productive to society to discuss these things..!
    My views =

    The idea that no-person is inherently evil is one that I believe. To believe in Evil as a force of nature/spirituality, is to believe that divinity/morality is something that exists outside the human condition. Mankind created the concept of evil as a means to express acts or behaviours that are reprehensible to the well being of society as a whole (Or groups of individuals).

    Evil can be looked at as either a motive or an effect:
    I believe that the motive to "do harm" can be said to be evil. Sadistic tendencies in a person, and the willingness to cause suffering in another (sentient) living being (for self-fulfilling purposes) is what can define a person as being "evil". Yet this creates problems in the theological argument about the nature of evil as a concept, Vs evil as a force of nature/divinity.

    Can a person be born evil? The idea that people can be simply born evil doesn't sit with me. We're a product of nature & nurture (I believe). Our genetics and the way we are raised help determine the person we become. A person can be born with Sociopathic personality disorder (or a person can develop this disorder) – but does that make them evil? Or is it a severe personality disorder that doesn’t allow a sociopathic person to function properly in society?

    Can a person become evil? I believe so. There comes a point where you have to try and analyze the personal behaviours of obvious evil characters in order to understand the position. One can only speculate on the personal position of say Adolf Hitler, or Pol Pot with regards to what made them what they were. Without a doubt the actions sanctioned by these men fit any societies definition of evil – wanton mass-slaughter of the innocent. I would call these men evil – but was Hitler evil when he was 10 years old?

    I can only surmise that evil (as we collectively understand it – and as I have tried to define it above) is a condition that can only be created/nurtured into a being, and that nobody is “born” evil…" (Article does continue…)

    Anyway...

    "To suggest that evil is a man-made concept, and therefore has no true bearing or authority on life and liberty is a nihilistic, regressive and irrelevant argument. This argument can be used against any philosophical position. That something/an idea (a concept) does not truly exist – or is cannot be right or wrong - because it is a man-made concept is flawed logic.
    The very concept or idea in question “does” in fact exist. The fact that it is man-made does not diminish its bearing upon us. Without our intellect, ideals, and beliefs we would not be human. Without these concepts or right/wrong, divinity/nature etc, anarchy would prevail in the sense that society would not exist. We’d perhaps be a step above monkeys…"
    (Copyright, B McAuslan)

    (Theological religious debate returns to wiichat!..)
    *Waits 10 seconds for thread to be locked*...

  5. #44
    A li'l bit different Squall7's Avatar
    Member #
    89
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Cornwall, UK
    Posts
    1,743
    Friends
    4
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    8420-0141-9022-6948
    Quote Originally Posted by BrandonMcAuslan
    Determining the nature of good and evil as a theological idea - is something that even the greatest philosophical minds of history have struggled to comprehend. - I doubt anyone alive today is going to be able to define or explain definitively these (man-made) concepts.

    But that's not to say that it can't be personally enlightening and overall productive to society to discuss these things..!

    My views =

    The idea that no-person is inherently evil is one that I believe. To believe in Evil as a force of nature/spirituality, is to believe that divinity/morality is something that exists outside the human condition. Mankind created the concept of evil as a means to express acts or behaviours that are reprehensible to the well being of society as a whole (Or groups of individuals).
    Are you saying that you consider good and evil to be a basis for an intent upon people as a whole? Would you consider manipulation of a politician to get into power, and consequentially do harm onto an unknown number of people, to be evil? How about doctors who perform abortions? Do you consider the taking of one "life", for whatever reasons, to be justified? Can one ever justify abortion? But surely, an unwanted child is a problem for society and not just for a parent (for example, broken home families are often thought to be more disruptive than nuclear families (not that I'm advocating that ideology)).

    Evil can be looked at as either a motive or an effect:
    I believe that the motive to "do harm" can be said to be evil. Sadistic tendencies in a person, and the willingness to cause suffering in another (sentient) living being (for self-fulfilling purposes) is what can define a person as being "evil". Yet this creates problems in the theological argument about the nature of evil as a concept, Vs evil as a force of nature/divinity.
    But surely, judging a person by their tendancies, and not by their actions is not correct. Many people remain in control, despite desires to the contrary. And what about someone that goes around with the intent or perception they are doing good (such as a BNP candidate), only to find they're doing more harm? Wouldn't your reasoning say he was a "good" person, despite the fact that he tries to influence people into racial hatred?

    Can a person be born evil? The idea that people can be simply born evil doesn't sit with me. We're a product of nature & nurture (I believe). Our genetics and the way we are raised help determine the person we become. A person can be born with Sociopathic personality disorder (or a person can develop this disorder) – but does that make them evil? Or is it a severe personality disorder that doesn’t allow a sociopathic person to function properly in society?
    Technically, it could be considered that there is something wrong with any that breaks the law, and therefore mentally unwell. With that idea, can "Evil" really exist, if the people that we brand Evil are just unwell, and victims of a disease? Where is the line drawn in your head between "mentally unwell" and "Evil"?

    Can a person become evil? I believe so. There comes a point where you have to try and analyze the personal behaviours of obvious evil characters in order to understand the position. One can only speculate on the personal position of say Adolf Hitler, or Pol Pot with regards to what made them what they were. Without a doubt the actions sanctioned by these men fit any societies definition of evil – wanton mass-slaughter of the innocent. I would call these men evil – but was Hitler evil when he was 10 years old?
    I believe Hitler was misguided, rather than evil. I believe every person wants to make the world a better place, but just disagree on exactly what that means and how that would be. Some want it to be place of freedom of speach and though, some believe that the only way for peace is to be united against a common foe, others just believe in uniformity. For Hitler, it was a place without opposition, where difference was wiped out in favour of the strongest or fittest. Personally, I don't think it's possible to have complete peace, but I do believe that tolerance and not annihilation is the key to a better world.

    I can only surmise that evil (as we collectively understand it – and as I have tried to define it above) is a condition that can only be created/nurtured into a being, and that nobody is “born” evil…" (Article does continue…)
    But that implies a conscious force of creating evil, which would be evil, therefore it's a paradox. What created the original "evil"? Not taking from the bible, where exactly do you go? And surely, one has to be susceptable to said nurture/creation, and why are we susceptable? Is it because of greed? Is it because we see things different to one another? Or is it because we feel we have the right to put things "right" or "better"?

    Anyway...

    "To suggest that evil is a man-made concept, and therefore has no true bearing or authority on life and liberty is a nihilistic, regressive and irrelevant argument. This argument can be used against any philosophical position. That something/an idea (a concept) does not truly exist – or is cannot be right or wrong - because it is a man-made concept is flawed logic.
    It's not flawed. Surely it has to be true. If man is subjective and not objective, we cannot see the full action - the full origin, the act itself and the full consequence. It's not that any idea is irrelevant based on the logic that it could be false, it's the we pressume that one idea or concept is correct and that the second idea is based upon it. Technically, how do you prove that you're not a brain in a jar being fed stimuli? You cannot, but assume you are not to go and judge the second idea of whatever. No man can ultimately prove anything apart from your thoughts (I think therefore I am). No man could also prove that you're not just a brain in a jar. Therefore, philosophy is based on the proviso that something cannot be proven one way or another if something is definately right or wrong. And technically, if they could, it would actually come under the term of one of the sciences.

    The very concept or idea in question “does” in fact exist. The fact that it is man-made does not diminish its bearing upon us. Without our intellect, ideals, and beliefs we would not be human. Without these concepts or right/wrong, divinity/nature etc, anarchy would prevail in the sense that society would not exist. We’d perhaps be a step above monkeys…"
    No, without our intellect, ideals and beliefs, we would not be what we are now. That is not to say we won't be human though (take for example, somebody in a vegetative state - they're still human, but do they neccessarily have our intellect, ideals or beliefs?). Technically, anarchy is "no rules". We'd still have intelligence, ideals (what should/shouldn't be) and our beliefs (Even if it were only for what we see). Basicaly, anarchy IS freedom to the extreme. Doesn't mean society wouldn't exist (remember a society doesn't have to co-exist willingly). Nor would our sense of community (our knack for striking deals and alliances would provide a "something in common" quality).

    (Theological religious debate returns to wiichat!..
    *Waits 10 seconds for thread to be locked*...
    And counting. 9...


    Mail me if you want to add me on either the Wii or the 360.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5

Ads

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts