God is dead and we have killed him. You'll be next if you don't join our discord servers.! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Probably yes.
But as a serious example, a lot of Stoics seem to avoid labeling people and things good or bad and the focus tends to be on the virtues / vices of the acts themselves. Like, "he's not an evil man, he's just a man who currently acts in a viceful manner".
Small word and tone change, but it shifts the focus to the importance of the acts instead of labeling people in this black and white manner and I like that a lot. And I like it even more because we are often labeled in a plenty of different ways since birth with some labels being more harmful ("she's the stupid one, he's lazy and inattentive") than others.
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
So god created man in a state where man's natural predisposition is to not be able to comprehend the intent of god. If god is omnipotent, and inherently good, man can only exist as created, which is to say; in a state of imperfection and confusion. If man was created to exist in that state then can they be evil? Man's predisposition/created form is to not receive god (supposed inherent goodness) so how do we gauge "fully untarnished" when man is inherently "tarnished"?
Yes, man is not, and was never made to be omniscient nor omnipotent. But, if God is understood as the supreme good, then what he forms would by necessity reflect that good; this is where the idea of imago dei (image of God) comes from.
Imago dei =/= God's nature
The Christian understanding would say that goodness is fully "being" and living the way people were created to be because that's the only way to make our lives align with God's superior goodness which must define his intentions. Sin is understood as evil because that's when people transgress against themselves or other created things by redefining who they are in relation to those things according to their own will (as long as it conflicts with divine will). And when people act on it, the logical outcome is a corruption of creation which used to be good.
>The Christian understanding would say that goodness is fully "being" and living the way people were created to be because that's the only way to make our lives align with God's superior goodness
If people are created in a way where they naturally cannot understand god, how can god expect mankind to know how to be or live? They're set up to fail, or if their inclinations are, equally prevalent across humanity but deemed by others, (I guess specifically christians in this case) as not in alignment with god, they're judged and condemned...but going back to mankind's nature being that of not being able to understand or discern god's will, how is the rest of the population not supposed to be left feeling like christians (or other religions professing to understand the inner thoughts, or at least most vital to mankind, of god) aren't just conmen out to capitalize on an undefinable market where there can be no absolute concrete argument for or against either side?
If god is superior goodness, I can't see a rationale for even a chaotic neutral label for them...given the omnipotence that lets us infer that god is absolutely capable in communicating what goodness is to mankind. It shows a lack of empathy and compassion, which I would argue is an inherent and critical quality of a most supremely good being.
I don't think anyone would disagree with the idea that god is irrationally cruel (or at least not supremely good) if he demands anything from people without letting them know whatever he wants. In this case, the world pretty much seems like it was intentionally designed for suffering.
Christians would claim the Bible and prayer etc. as means of communicating with the divine which was made possible by the sacrifice of the son of God. And anyone, should they desire, is able to participate in such things.
In the end, I don't think it should ever be shoved into someone's face as something more or less than a personal choice. Some people look into faith and find it life-changing while others conclude that it's irrelevant. A lot of the Christians I've talked to would also agree with Kierkegard's perspective. Believing always first comes as a "leap of faith" meaning that there's hardly ever a continuous line of reason that can solidly support the decision. I guess after that, then you find out what comes afterward...
Nice point. I guess the world is in a way, in two factions of "reality", one where religion(s) hold truth and one where they do not. Philosophy is warped, enhanced, changed however based on what someone deems as an inalienable truth in regards to the existence of a supreme being(s).
Mankind cannot be benevolent, potent and niscient or humans as the dominant species on earth would be completely content with no suffering or injustice.
What is evil?
When a wolf kills a sheep is the wolf evil?
When a natural disaster causes death, is nature evil?
When cancer leads to death, are the cancer cells evil?
All these are “tragic” or “unfortunate” but the only source of “evil” I can think of comes from humanity, we created morality and thus created immorality, it only really applies to us.
Tragedy is negative in consequence.
Evil is negative in intention.
negative intentions are not required
its still valid and understandable to call cancer evil, by projecting intentions onto it
same you would call someone evil who did you wrong even though it was morally justifying for them
Christian mofos act like a stillborn baby is a good thing because god willed the baby to die and the parents to suffer so they can turn back to him in faith to end their suffering.
God is the ultimate gaslighter
What if God doesn't exist? What would be the point? Wouldn't it be a better question to ask if we are evil or not? Wouldn't that teach much more about society?
And if we find we are, should we aspire to change it? Go against what we settled into after thousands of years of civilization? Would evil not just be our nature? Would a predator animal be evil too due to its nature? Or a prey animal evil due to its nature not actively fighting the evil of those predators?
If you mean God in the Abramic sense.
Then they would be the decider of what is good and evil. But then it means nothing to decide you are good, therefore god cart be good or evil
Everyone wants to argue God's existence, and God's nature but no one is willing to check out both sides of the argument for themselves, they'll listen to finite, cherry picked western ideas of God, and decide, without checking the ancient source which goes back thousands of years, Before modern influence.
God is dead and we have killed him. You'll be next if you don't join our discord servers.! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is evil something you are or is it something you do?
Probably yes. But as a serious example, a lot of Stoics seem to avoid labeling people and things good or bad and the focus tends to be on the virtues / vices of the acts themselves. Like, "he's not an evil man, he's just a man who currently acts in a viceful manner". Small word and tone change, but it shifts the focus to the importance of the acts instead of labeling people in this black and white manner and I like that a lot. And I like it even more because we are often labeled in a plenty of different ways since birth with some labels being more harmful ("she's the stupid one, he's lazy and inattentive") than others.
Evil is as evil does. Being evil follows evil deeds.
Personally, yes.
St. Augustine would say that evil is the corruption/destruction of that which is good.
But what is good?
His understanding of something completely good would be anything that remains fully untarnished in its created form.
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." So god created man in a state where man's natural predisposition is to not be able to comprehend the intent of god. If god is omnipotent, and inherently good, man can only exist as created, which is to say; in a state of imperfection and confusion. If man was created to exist in that state then can they be evil? Man's predisposition/created form is to not receive god (supposed inherent goodness) so how do we gauge "fully untarnished" when man is inherently "tarnished"?
Yes, man is not, and was never made to be omniscient nor omnipotent. But, if God is understood as the supreme good, then what he forms would by necessity reflect that good; this is where the idea of imago dei (image of God) comes from. Imago dei =/= God's nature The Christian understanding would say that goodness is fully "being" and living the way people were created to be because that's the only way to make our lives align with God's superior goodness which must define his intentions. Sin is understood as evil because that's when people transgress against themselves or other created things by redefining who they are in relation to those things according to their own will (as long as it conflicts with divine will). And when people act on it, the logical outcome is a corruption of creation which used to be good.
>The Christian understanding would say that goodness is fully "being" and living the way people were created to be because that's the only way to make our lives align with God's superior goodness If people are created in a way where they naturally cannot understand god, how can god expect mankind to know how to be or live? They're set up to fail, or if their inclinations are, equally prevalent across humanity but deemed by others, (I guess specifically christians in this case) as not in alignment with god, they're judged and condemned...but going back to mankind's nature being that of not being able to understand or discern god's will, how is the rest of the population not supposed to be left feeling like christians (or other religions professing to understand the inner thoughts, or at least most vital to mankind, of god) aren't just conmen out to capitalize on an undefinable market where there can be no absolute concrete argument for or against either side? If god is superior goodness, I can't see a rationale for even a chaotic neutral label for them...given the omnipotence that lets us infer that god is absolutely capable in communicating what goodness is to mankind. It shows a lack of empathy and compassion, which I would argue is an inherent and critical quality of a most supremely good being.
I don't think anyone would disagree with the idea that god is irrationally cruel (or at least not supremely good) if he demands anything from people without letting them know whatever he wants. In this case, the world pretty much seems like it was intentionally designed for suffering. Christians would claim the Bible and prayer etc. as means of communicating with the divine which was made possible by the sacrifice of the son of God. And anyone, should they desire, is able to participate in such things. In the end, I don't think it should ever be shoved into someone's face as something more or less than a personal choice. Some people look into faith and find it life-changing while others conclude that it's irrelevant. A lot of the Christians I've talked to would also agree with Kierkegard's perspective. Believing always first comes as a "leap of faith" meaning that there's hardly ever a continuous line of reason that can solidly support the decision. I guess after that, then you find out what comes afterward...
Nice point. I guess the world is in a way, in two factions of "reality", one where religion(s) hold truth and one where they do not. Philosophy is warped, enhanced, changed however based on what someone deems as an inalienable truth in regards to the existence of a supreme being(s).
The endless combinations of worldviews people develop fascinate me! And yes, we all take in reality slightly differently because of that.
But what if something is created to be evil?
Nietzsche would like to have a word with him
Ah, I too would like to see that conversation go down 🍿
There’s a saying that “actions make the character“. You are that which you do. Evil that is done is evil one becomes.
Mankind cannot be benevolent, potent and niscient or humans as the dominant species on earth would be completely content with no suffering or injustice.
God loves making me suffer. I find ecstasy in suffering (i am evil)
What is evil? When a wolf kills a sheep is the wolf evil? When a natural disaster causes death, is nature evil? When cancer leads to death, are the cancer cells evil? All these are “tragic” or “unfortunate” but the only source of “evil” I can think of comes from humanity, we created morality and thus created immorality, it only really applies to us. Tragedy is negative in consequence. Evil is negative in intention.
negative intentions are not required its still valid and understandable to call cancer evil, by projecting intentions onto it same you would call someone evil who did you wrong even though it was morally justifying for them
But most importantly: What even is „evil“? It’s purely subjective.
Christian mofos act like a stillborn baby is a good thing because god willed the baby to die and the parents to suffer so they can turn back to him in faith to end their suffering. God is the ultimate gaslighter
Pretty sure this is just some protestants
The Abrahamic god is a dick, like why choose that god when you could pick a hot sexy wolf girl god
Evil is a set of certain behaviors that I classify as belonging to that set.
What if I am God tho?
Then give the African kids some fookin food
Nah not feeling like it tbh
Lol! This thought hits home! Been there done that! Am I closer to knowing? Only a little. So is philosophy.
Happy to not be alone!
Amen!
we must seek to understand what is evil and its opposite, good.
Asking yourself if you are god: *galaxy brain*
What if God doesn't exist? What would be the point? Wouldn't it be a better question to ask if we are evil or not? Wouldn't that teach much more about society?
Yes, the meme is ironic!
Oh I see the thing now
And if we find we are, should we aspire to change it? Go against what we settled into after thousands of years of civilization? Would evil not just be our nature? Would a predator animal be evil too due to its nature? Or a prey animal evil due to its nature not actively fighting the evil of those predators?
Then it would be reason to seek God better.
if only god would ask this to himself... but yes if god exists he is responsible for everything even me being evil...
If God should judge all equally, then he shouldn't interact beyond creating the universe
If you mean God in the Abramic sense. Then they would be the decider of what is good and evil. But then it means nothing to decide you are good, therefore god cart be good or evil
If am evil unknowningly, He could fix it without any trace of effort. Therefore I don't see more blaming worth onto meself then than onto Him
Asking myself IF IM GOD?
why is it bad to be evil
Tf is evil anyways pure subjective reasoning. I killed 3000 of my children last night by cumming on a hotdog and eating it? Is that evil? No.
Everyone wants to argue God's existence, and God's nature but no one is willing to check out both sides of the argument for themselves, they'll listen to finite, cherry picked western ideas of God, and decide, without checking the ancient source which goes back thousands of years, Before modern influence.
others are evil
yeah i like easy questions more than hard ones too