Evil As An Explanation

[PoliticalChic]

1. An essential element in recognizing evil, in the context I mean it, is that evil is often gratuitous.
There are gradations of evil, true enough, but usually we know the motivation: money, power, love....personal aggrandizement that leads the weak of character to murder, steal, injure, torture....to attain profits of some sort.


2. But....not just to gain power.....evil can be recognized in the use of power, as well.

"The late Roman emperors were good at this sort of thing ordering someone to be killed in the middle of a dinner party,...and expecting the other guests to laugh. ...trying to be ingenious and unpredictable.

Stalin used to gather cronies and henchmen...for all night dinner-and-drinking sessions; at dawn, for fun, one or two of the guests might be led away, in sodden terror,to be executed by the NKVD. No explanation- just the heavy whimsy of the Antichrist awardng a door prize at the end of his party."
Lance Morrow, "Evil: An Investigation," p. 23




3. But, what to say when the motive is elusive?

a. "Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock"
Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock

b. "Texas Church Shooting: More Than Two Dozen Parishioners Killed Federal officials said the motive for the shooting was unclear. " More than two dozen parishioners killed in rural Texas church shooting




4. There is, of course, a way to understand most crimes....even some that we claim as 'incomprehensible.'
Evil.
It is the motivation. It may be a force, or the personification...Lucifer himself.

Evil is personified as Lucifer, Satan....the angel who lost his battle with God.
So.....evil is associated with God, in at least some sense.

"When two snipers were terrorizing the Washington, D.C. area, in the fall of 2002, at one point they left a Tarot card, "I am God," in an empty shell casing at the scene of one of their murders. The snipers were a study in the dynamics of doing a certain sort of evil: the gratuitiousness of their predations , the secrecy, the terror, the (one gathers) satanic glee, the random quality of their shootings, the sense of power, the immense injustice of their inflictions, the people struck down dindiscriminantly, with no reason, no order, no rational, all at the whim of the destoyer: Evil is an imitation of God...."
Lance Morrow, Op.Cit., p. 36-37



I say that at some level, motiveless evil is the desire, the attempt to be God-like.....exactly the same motive as Lucifer.

This all sounds like trump!!!

And....yet again, ExlaxMan brings nothing to the conversation.


OK.....back to your blanket-fort.

 

[G.T.]

Morals being objectively based upon a God ...



imposes an issue:

1. If said god is Omnipotent, they possess the ability to change.

2. If said god can change, Morals are then subject to change; therefore, not objective.....
but subjective based upon said god's whims.

3. If said god cannot change....said god is not, by definition, omnipotent.

The paradox of Objective Morality as it pertains to an Omnipotent being.

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

I don't deny there is good and evil ~ I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves. They're descriptive, not prescriptive.

" I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves."

There is as much proof of that as there is for Lucifer taking control of an individual's actions.

Proof of......good and evil being descriptive terms?

ermmkay

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. An essential element in recognizing evil, in the context I mean it, is that evil is often gratuitous.
There are gradations of evil, true enough, but usually we know the motivation: money, power, love....personal aggrandizement that leads the weak of character to murder, steal, injure, torture....to attain profits of some sort.


2. But....not just to gain power.....evil can be recognized in the use of power, as well.

"The late Roman emperors were good at this sort of thing ordering someone to be killed in the middle of a dinner party,...and expecting the other guests to laugh. ...trying to be ingenious and unpredictable.

Stalin used to gather cronies and henchmen...for all night dinner-and-drinking sessions; at dawn, for fun, one or two of the guests might be led away, in sodden terror,to be executed by the NKVD. No explanation- just the heavy whimsy of the Antichrist awardng a door prize at the end of his party."
Lance Morrow, "Evil: An Investigation," p. 23




3. But, what to say when the motive is elusive?

a. "Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock"
Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock

b. "Texas Church Shooting: More Than Two Dozen Parishioners Killed Federal officials said the motive for the shooting was unclear. " More than two dozen parishioners killed in rural Texas church shooting




4. There is, of course, a way to understand most crimes....even some that we claim as 'incomprehensible.'
Evil.
It is the motivation. It may be a force, or the personification...Lucifer himself.

Evil is personified as Lucifer, Satan....the angel who lost his battle with God.
So.....evil is associated with God, in at least some sense.

"When two snipers were terrorizing the Washington, D.C. area, in the fall of 2002, at one point they left a Tarot card, "I am God," in an empty shell casing at the scene of one of their murders. The snipers were a study in the dynamics of doing a certain sort of evil: the gratuitiousness of their predations , the secrecy, the terror, the (one gathers) satanic glee, the random quality of their shootings, the sense of power, the immense injustice of their inflictions, the people struck down dindiscriminantly, with no reason, no order, no rational, all at the whim of the destoyer: Evil is an imitation of God...."
Lance Morrow, Op.Cit., p. 36-37



I say that at some level, motiveless evil is the desire, the attempt to be God-like.....exactly the same motive as Lucifer.

The love of money is the root of all evil.

Yet there is no pecuniary basis for many, many evil acts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Morals being objectively based upon a God ...



imposes an issue:

1. If said god is Omnipotent, they possess the ability to change.

2. If said god can change, Morals are then subject to change; therefore, not objective.....
but subjective based upon said god's whims.

3. If said god cannot change....said god is not, by definition, omnipotent.

The paradox of Objective Morality as it pertains to an Omnipotent being.

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

I don't deny there is good and evil ~ I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves. They're descriptive, not prescriptive.

" I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves."

There is as much proof of that as there is for Lucifer taking control of an individual's actions.

Proof of......good and evil being descriptive terms?

ermmkay

Are you suggesting that you don't recognize an evil action????

 

[G.T.]

There's studies now that gut bacteria can, to an extent, control their hosts behaviors.

That alone is fascinating.

 

[G.T.]

Morals being objectively based upon a God ...



imposes an issue:

1. If said god is Omnipotent, they possess the ability to change.

2. If said god can change, Morals are then subject to change; therefore, not objective.....
but subjective based upon said god's whims.

3. If said god cannot change....said god is not, by definition, omnipotent.

The paradox of Objective Morality as it pertains to an Omnipotent being.

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

I don't deny there is good and evil ~ I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves. They're descriptive, not prescriptive.

" I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves."

There is as much proof of that as there is for Lucifer taking control of an individual's actions.

Proof of......good and evil being descriptive terms?

ermmkay

Are you suggesting that you don't recognize an evil action????

No, I am suggesting that evil is a descriptive term invented by humans to communicate their views of certain behaviors.

 

[RWNJ]

Morals being objectively based upon a God ...



imposes an issue:

1. If said god is Omnipotent, they possess the ability to change.

2. If said god can change, Morals are then subject to change; therefore, not objective.....
but subjective based upon said god's whims.

3. If said god cannot change....said god is not, by definition, omnipotent.

The paradox of Objective Morality as it pertains to an Omnipotent being.

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

I don't deny there is good and evil ~ I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves. They're descriptive, not prescriptive.

" I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves."

There is as much proof of that as there is for Lucifer taking control of an individual's actions.

Morals being objectively based upon a God ...



imposes an issue:

1. If said god is Omnipotent, they possess the ability to change.

2. If said god can change, Morals are then subject to change; therefore, not objective.....
but subjective based upon said god's whims.

3. If said god cannot change....said god is not, by definition, omnipotent.

The paradox of Objective Morality as it pertains to an Omnipotent being.

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

Evil is simple to define. Just remember the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you do something to someone that you would not like them doing to you, it's probably evil.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There's studies now that gut bacteria can, to an extent, control their hosts behaviors.

That alone is fascinating.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

I don't deny there is good and evil ~ I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves. They're descriptive, not prescriptive.

" I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves."

There is as much proof of that as there is for Lucifer taking control of an individual's actions.

Proof of......good and evil being descriptive terms?

ermmkay

Are you suggesting that you don't recognize an evil action????

No, I am suggesting that evil is a descriptive term invented by humans to communicate their views of certain behaviors.

Back to the point: there are evil acts for which no motive can be ascertained.

Why ignore one possibility....the one which nearly everyone agreed to prior to the ...flawed.....Enlightenment?

 

[G.T.]

There's studies now that gut bacteria can, to an extent, control their hosts behaviors.

That alone is fascinating.

I'm sure your a gut biome scientist and find that ridiculous...but it's pretty fascinating actually.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Morals being objectively based upon a God ...



imposes an issue:

1. If said god is Omnipotent, they possess the ability to change.

2. If said god can change, Morals are then subject to change; therefore, not objective.....
but subjective based upon said god's whims.

3. If said god cannot change....said god is not, by definition, omnipotent.

The paradox of Objective Morality as it pertains to an Omnipotent being.

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

I don't deny there is good and evil ~ I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves. They're descriptive, not prescriptive.

" I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves."

There is as much proof of that as there is for Lucifer taking control of an individual's actions.

Morals being objectively based upon a God ...



imposes an issue:

1. If said god is Omnipotent, they possess the ability to change.

2. If said god can change, Morals are then subject to change; therefore, not objective.....
but subjective based upon said god's whims.

3. If said god cannot change....said god is not, by definition, omnipotent.

The paradox of Objective Morality as it pertains to an Omnipotent being.

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

Evil is simple to define. Just remember the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you do something to someone that you would not like them doing to you, it's probably evil.

It is the "you" that is in question.

Why do people commit evil acts for which no motive can be found?

 

[PoliticalChic]

There's studies now that gut bacteria can, to an extent, control their hosts behaviors.

That alone is fascinating.

I'm sure your a gut biome scientist and find that ridiculous...but it's pretty fascinating actually.

1. "I'm sure your (sic) a gut biome scientist blah blah blah..."
Your 'study' is as absurd as your grammar.


2. On the other hand, if you are claiming to have an IQ low enough to have e.coli control it....
.....who could argue with that.

 

[G.T.]

I don't deny there is good and evil ~ I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves. They're descriptive, not prescriptive.

" I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves."

There is as much proof of that as there is for Lucifer taking control of an individual's actions.

Proof of......good and evil being descriptive terms?

ermmkay

Are you suggesting that you don't recognize an evil action????

No, I am suggesting that evil is a descriptive term invented by humans to communicate their views of certain behaviors.

Back to the point: there are evil acts for which no motive can be ascertained.

Why ignore one possibility....the one which nearly everyone agreed to prior to the ...flawed.....Enlightenment?

The point is NOT ignoring possibilities...


Which are abundant in the non supernatural realm alone ~ and lead me back to my originally stated conclusion: I see no reason which compels me to believe there's a supernatural force at the helm causing these phenomena.


I mean, and then there's the fact that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.....meaning: just because we dont know the motive of any given act, does not mean there's ultimately not one.

 

[G.T.]

There's studies now that gut bacteria can, to an extent, control their hosts behaviors.

That alone is fascinating.

I'm sure your a gut biome scientist and find that ridiculous...but it's pretty fascinating actually.

1. "I'm sure your (sic) a gut biome scientist blah blah blah..."
Your 'study' is as absurd as your grammar.


2. On the other hand, if you are claiming to have an IQ low enough to have e.coli control it....
.....who could argue with that.

I've called out your typos before ~ for fun, because I know that you're cocky.

You don't like that very much.


I'm not entertaining your criticism of the studies of bacteria, simply because it's absurd.

 

[RWNJ]

I don't deny there is good and evil ~ I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves. They're descriptive, not prescriptive.

" I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves."

There is as much proof of that as there is for Lucifer taking control of an individual's actions.

Proof of......good and evil being descriptive terms?

ermmkay

Are you suggesting that you don't recognize an evil action????

No, I am suggesting that evil is a descriptive term invented by humans to communicate their views of certain behaviors.

Back to the point: there are evil acts for which no motive can be ascertained.

Why ignore one possibility....the one which nearly everyone agreed to prior to the ...flawed.....Enlightenment?

Morals being objectively based upon a God ...



imposes an issue:

1. If said god is Omnipotent, they possess the ability to change.

2. If said god can change, Morals are then subject to change; therefore, not objective.....
but subjective based upon said god's whims.

3. If said god cannot change....said god is not, by definition, omnipotent.

The paradox of Objective Morality as it pertains to an Omnipotent being.

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

I don't deny there is good and evil ~ I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves. They're descriptive, not prescriptive.

" I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves."

There is as much proof of that as there is for Lucifer taking control of an individual's actions.

Morals being objectively based upon a God ...



imposes an issue:

1. If said god is Omnipotent, they possess the ability to change.

2. If said god can change, Morals are then subject to change; therefore, not objective.....
but subjective based upon said god's whims.

3. If said god cannot change....said god is not, by definition, omnipotent.

The paradox of Objective Morality as it pertains to an Omnipotent being.

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

Evil is simple to define. Just remember the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you do something to someone that you would not like them doing to you, it's probably evil.

It is the "you" that is in question.

Why do people commit evil acts for which no motive can be found?

There is always a motive. We may not know what it is, but it's there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

" I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves."

There is as much proof of that as there is for Lucifer taking control of an individual's actions.

Proof of......good and evil being descriptive terms?

ermmkay

Are you suggesting that you don't recognize an evil action????

No, I am suggesting that evil is a descriptive term invented by humans to communicate their views of certain behaviors.

Back to the point: there are evil acts for which no motive can be ascertained.

Why ignore one possibility....the one which nearly everyone agreed to prior to the ...flawed.....Enlightenment?

The point is NOT ignoring possibilities...


Which are abundant in the non supernatural realm alone ~ and lead me back to my originally stated conclusion: I see no reason which compels me to believe there's a supernatural force at the heml causing these phenomena.


I mean, and then there's the fact that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.....meaning: just because we dont know the motive of any given act, does not mean there's ultimately not one.

There is no 'absence of evidence' of individuals committing acts for which there is no attributable motive.

Hence, folks like you have a palpable fear of uttering the possibility that there are explanations beyond the commonly accepted beliefs.



And, along those lines, we have accredited scientists with similar views.
"Richard Charles "Dick" Lewontin (born March 29, 1929) is an American evolutionary biologist, mathematician, geneticist, and social commentator. A leader in developing the mathematical basis of population genetics and evolutionary theory, he pioneered the application of techniques from molecular biology, such as gel electrophoresis, to questions of genetic variation and evolution."
Richard Lewontin - Wikipedia

He, like you, demands that all bow down to the title 'scientist,' yet he admits that he will accept certain myths and fables.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


Must be tough having to live with the fear of having an alternative opinion.

 

[DGS49]

The fundamental fact is that evil is the "default value" in human behavior. Left to his own devices and without any countervailing influences, a given person will be selfish, vindictive, cruel, and hedonistic.

But when things go well, the family, the church, the school, and the community in general tend to mitigate those evil inclinations.

So when someone does something evil, the question is not, "Why did he do it?" The question is, 'Why did his environment fail to stifle his evil impulses?"

The interesting study is of communities where "anti-social" behavior is rare; what is it that was successful, and can it be applied elsewhere for similar results?

I would posit that Christianity has done wonders to suppress evil influences and to promote altruism, kindness, and social justice (although I despise that term) over the past 200 years, and the endless campaign by the Left to de-legitimize and destroy Christianity has been largely successful, with predictable results.

 

[Care4all]

God/the Bible says ''the love of money, is the root of all evil''

so not money alone or in and of itself,

but the LOVE of money

God/the Bible says ''the love of money, is the root of all evil''

so not money alone or in and of itself,

but the LOVE of money

From the OP:
An essential element in recognizing evil, in the context I mean it, is that evil is often gratuitous.
There are gradations of evil, true enough, but usually we know the motivation: money, power, love....personal aggrandizement that leads the weak of character to murder, steal, injure, torture....to attain profits of some sort.

Soooo.....what if we can't see any personal gain from an evil act?

then it is probably not true evil....

as example, if a mentally ill person kills for absolutely no reason...to us, it seems like nothing could be more evil than to kill for no reason, but I can assume, to God....well....He sees the WHOLE PICTURE and knows the mental illness was the real cause and not what we earthlings call and see as evil.

What if they're not mentally ill?

very good questions PC, but I honestly do not know the answers.... I'm only guessing as to what God meant about the love of money being the root of all evil...

I see evil all around me, and most of it does not involve money or greed, that I can see through my human eyes, though there is definitely a good deal of it it from that....from my point of view....

I would have to really get in to the passage I mentioned, finding out other comments the bible may have on evil, and see if I could try to discern what God was REALLY trying to tell us, in that passage that seems to put everything on to the shoulders of, The Love of Money.....?

And Merry Christmas PC, and a Happy New Year too! In case I don't go in to another one of your threads before then!

 

[PoliticalChic]

" I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves."

There is as much proof of that as there is for Lucifer taking control of an individual's actions.

Proof of......good and evil being descriptive terms?

ermmkay

Are you suggesting that you don't recognize an evil action????

No, I am suggesting that evil is a descriptive term invented by humans to communicate their views of certain behaviors.

Back to the point: there are evil acts for which no motive can be ascertained.

Why ignore one possibility....the one which nearly everyone agreed to prior to the ...flawed.....Enlightenment?

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

I don't deny there is good and evil ~ I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves. They're descriptive, not prescriptive.

" I consider them a human description of behavior ..... but, not a force in and of themselves."

There is as much proof of that as there is for Lucifer taking control of an individual's actions.

Morals being objectively based upon a God ...



imposes an issue:

1. If said god is Omnipotent, they possess the ability to change.

2. If said god can change, Morals are then subject to change; therefore, not objective.....
but subjective based upon said god's whims.

3. If said god cannot change....said god is not, by definition, omnipotent.

The paradox of Objective Morality as it pertains to an Omnipotent being.

"Morals"....as meaning what....the ability to judge an act evil or not?

True....you could demand a definition or evil....but, I'd respond as Justice Potter did when asked to define pornography.

Evil is simple to define. Just remember the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you do something to someone that you would not like them doing to you, it's probably evil.

It is the "you" that is in question.

Why do people commit evil acts for which no motive can be found?

There is always a motive. We may not know what it is, but it's there.

Really?

a. "Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock"
Las Vegas shooting motive eludes investigators as new details emerge about gunman Stephen Paddock

b. "Texas Church Shooting: More Than Two Dozen Parishioners Killed Federal officials said the motive for the shooting was unclear. " More than two dozen parishioners killed in rural Texas church shooting

 

[G.T.]

Proof of......good and evil being descriptive terms?

ermmkay

Are you suggesting that you don't recognize an evil action????

No, I am suggesting that evil is a descriptive term invented by humans to communicate their views of certain behaviors.

Back to the point: there are evil acts for which no motive can be ascertained.

Why ignore one possibility....the one which nearly everyone agreed to prior to the ...flawed.....Enlightenment?

The point is NOT ignoring possibilities...


Which are abundant in the non supernatural realm alone ~ and lead me back to my originally stated conclusion: I see no reason which compels me to believe there's a supernatural force at the heml causing these phenomena.


I mean, and then there's the fact that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.....meaning: just because we dont know the motive of any given act, does not mean there's ultimately not one.

There is no 'absence of evidence' of individuals committing acts for which there is no attributable motive.

Hence, folks like you have a palpable fear of uttering the possibility that there are explanations beyond the commonly accepted beliefs.



And, along those lines, we have accredited scientists with similar views.
"Richard Charles "Dick" Lewontin (born March 29, 1929) is an American evolutionary biologist, mathematician, geneticist, and social commentator. A leader in developing the mathematical basis of population genetics and evolutionary theory, he pioneered the application of techniques from molecular biology, such as gel electrophoresis, to questions of genetic variation and evolution."
Richard Lewontin - Wikipedia

He, like you, demands that all bow down to the title 'scientist,' yet he admits that he will accept certain myths and fables.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


Must be tough having to live with the fear of having an alternative opinion.

You contradicted yourself.

Being unable to find an attributable motive is a direct result of having no evidence of one....

making your first sentence absurd


The rest is non-sensical ~ of COURSE there's going to be untracable motives in some cases, especially in accordance with a deceased perp.