good or evil [Archive]

View Full Version : good or evil

master of the puppets

08-09-2005, 19:06

i have a question, do you people are at the core good with some bad points and tendencies. or altogether bad with some good tendencies.

are we bad and do nice things or are we good and do bad things.
just want to know your opinion.

mine is that humanity is at its very core, selfish, animalistic almost. with its only basis being self satisfaction, we can and will do good and nice things but that is if its how we are raised as it would be if we do bad and terrible things. if we were to be raised sterile not pushed any way by society i belive we would be utterly selfish willing to do anything if only to prosper for the next ten minutes regardless of who you would hurt or help.

once again i just want your opinion.

Alrowan

08-09-2005, 19:10

your post pretty much sums up humanity, even from my point of view, though i tend to think we are inherrintly bad (sinners) we are capable of doing good

Don Corleone

08-09-2005, 19:11

sharrukin

08-09-2005, 19:25

I have to disagree Alrwoan. We were all made in God's image, so we're all inherently good and of value. We are all sinners, and that makes us less then we could be, but how much less depends on who we are and the choices we make.

My understanding was that Christianity held that man is born into sin?
He is capable of inherent goodness by the sacrifice on the cross.
Whats the scoop on that?

I think that men are basically evil but capable of good, and are socialized to act in the communities best interests. This is why Communism fails and Capitalism works. Capitalism harnesses our selfish desires for the greater good, while Communism assumes a false human nature and fails accordingly.

Don Corleone

08-09-2005, 19:29

My understanding was that Christianity held that man is born into sin?
He is capable of inherent goodness by the sacrifice on the cross.
Whats the scoop on that?

I think that men are basically evil but capable of good, and are socialized to act in the communities best interests. This is why Communism fails and Capitalism works. Capitalism harnesses our selfish desires for the greater good, while Communism assumes a false human nature and fails accordingly.

Man is a sinful creature. There is no doubt about that. I personally believe that Christ died for my sins and in rising, earned my salvation.

But that doesn't mean that man is worthless. If we were, Christ wouldn't have bothered to die for us. The fact that God loves us means that we must have an inherent worth. The fact that we all were created in God's image means there is something good in each of us.

I don't think it's a simple of question of 'man is good' or 'man is bad'. Is a battleship black or white?

Pindar

08-09-2005, 19:48

My understanding was that Christianity held that man is born into sin?
He is capable of inherent goodness by the sacrifice on the cross.
Whats the scoop on that?

This view is known as Original Sin. It was developed by St. Augustine in the Fourth Century during his battles with Pelagius over whether or not man can perform meritorious acts.

This position has been adopted by Catholicism and Protestantism. Eastern Orthodoxy rejects this view as do all other Eastern Christian sects.

Don Corleone

08-09-2005, 19:58

This view is known as Original Sin. It was developed by St. Augustine in the Fourth Century during his battles with Pelagius over whether or not man can perform meritorious acts.

This position has been adopted by Catholicism and Protestantism. Eastern Orthodoxy rejects this view as do all other Eastern Christian sects.

So Eastern Orthodox don't believe that Christ's death on the cross was required for man to have a chance at salvation?

Ronin

08-09-2005, 20:16

I think people are just people, and that biology has nothing to do with morality.

ditto...

i´m me...and you guys are you guys....

i have good and bad days as everyone else...i think...

Pindar

08-09-2005, 20:27

So Eastern Orthodox don't believe that Christ's death on the cross was required for man to have a chance at salvation?

No, they believe Christ is essential for salvation, but reject the view that man inherited the stain of sin from Adam. Sin is a personal act not an inheritance.

The general view of baptism in the West appears to be redemptive. The Orthodox view, as I understand it, sees baptism more as the gateway to participate with the Divine. The emphasis is different. The Catholic Tradition with its Protestant children seems to take a more jurisprudential view of theology and salvation*: this is very evident in Evangelical Christian circles with the refrain about being "saved". The Orthodox standard is more mystical with a greater stress on communion with Deity.

*Recall that much of the theological confrontations that occured during the Reformation between Catholic and Protestant were about different interpretations or elements of St. Augustine's writings.

sharrukin

08-09-2005, 20:35

This view is known as Original Sin. It was developed by St. Augustine in the Fourth Century during his battles with Pelagius over whether or not man can perform meritorious acts.

This position has been adopted by Catholicism and Protestantism. Eastern Orthodoxy rejects this view as do all other Eastern Christian sects.

I had a discussion about this with one of those door-to-door guys. He was saying we cannot save ourselves but through Gods grace. Essentially a "get out of jail free" card. This would mean, I think, that nothing we do for good or evil would change that.

Is that the Catholic and Protestant view?

Don Corleone

08-09-2005, 20:44

No, they believe Christ is essential for salvation, but reject the view that man inherited the stain of sin from Adam. Sin is a personal act not an inheritance.

The general view of baptism in the West appears to be redemptive. The Orthodox view, as I understand it, sees baptism more as the gateway to participate with the Divine. The emphasis is different. The Catholic Tradition with its Protestant children seems to take a more jurisprudential view of theology and salvation*: this is very evident in Evangelical Christian circles with the refrain about being "saved". The Orthodox standard is more mystical with a greater stress on communion with Deity.

*Recall that much of the theological confrontations that occured during the Reformation between Catholic and Protestant were about different interpretations or elements of St. Augustine's writings.

So Eastern Orthodox theology holds that if a man performed no sin in his life, he would not need the death of Christ for his sins? I understand it's well nigh impossible for a man not to sin, as by my definition, sin is simply putting your own will above God's, and I cannot imagine a person who has always done this at each and every possiblity. However, the Western tradition holds that even were such a man possible, he would still be fallen from God's grace. Eastern Orthodox don't believe that? The hypothetical perfect man would not need salvation?

Don Corleone

08-09-2005, 20:45

Kagemusha

08-09-2005, 21:25

I cant say anything about what "we" are,but i personally think im bad man who is trying to be good.Its easy to be "bad" and you dont have to make anykind of sacryficies and only think your own good.But beeing good is very hard, hard for me. :bow:

Pindar

08-09-2005, 21:41

I had a discussion about this with one of those door-to-door guys. He was saying we cannot save ourselves but through Gods grace. Essentially a "get out of jail free" card. This would mean, I think, that nothing we do for good or evil would change that.

Is that the Catholic and Protestant view?

Both Catholics and Protestants believe God's Grace is essential for salvation. Man of his own accord cannot ascend to Heaven. Catholic teaching is that man, through Christ's atoning sacrifice can be redeemed. This requires an act of free will: an acceptance of Christ into your life.*

Within Protestantism there is a major divide. This first appeared between the Lutheran camp and the Swiss Reformers (a geographic not ethnic/national designation based on where many reformers gathered). Calvin is the most widely known representative of Reformed Christianity. There are several divisions that arose between the two groups for example: Lutherans were not as hostile to the Catholic view on the Eucharist, but the major point of distinction is the Reformed emphasis on Saved and Reprobate.

Looking to the Augustinian notion of Original Sin: Calvin taught that man as fallen and corrupted can do nothing for his own salvation. There are no exceptions. Those saved are saved only because of a act of Divine Grace. This grace cannot be earned or credited to the creature in any way. Man is completely fallen and deserving of the fires of Hell. The reprobate are those not chosen. They are the damned. It is a deterministic theology. Predestination is the standard. Just as man can do nothing to redeem himself, he can not resist Gods grace either. The saved become new creatures in Christ. The saved can often be identified by their good works (industriousness, success etc): for they are no longer subject to a corrupted will.** Calvinism is the basis for many of the Protestant denominations that one finds in North America as the Puritans and similar groups were Calvinist. This would include the Modern Evangelical movement though most adherents do not know their theological underpinnings.***

I hope that wasn't too confusing. I'm doing this and talking to my assistant at the same time.

*I believe this ability to choose is considered possible through the baptismal rite that occurs as an infant. Christ has bought one's freedom.

** This is the theological beginnings of the "Protestant work ethic".

*** Protestantism is known for its divisions and also saw separation within the Reformed camp. A fellow know as Arminius rejected the determinism and predestinationalism of Calvinist teaching and focused again on man as a free agent. This came to the fore in the Synod of Dort 1618. Methodism traces itself to the Arminian movement. Arminianism serves as an interesting corollary to a movement within Catholicism known as Jansenism that had a deterministic strain.

Silver Rusher

08-09-2005, 21:42

There is no such thing as evil, just opinion.

Don Corleone

08-09-2005, 21:54

Papewaio

08-09-2005, 22:01

First define what is good and what is evil. From the definitions it should be apparent which part of the spectrum we fall in.

====

I think it is a biological irony that our most nice traits as an individual are due to the
selfish gene.

Pindar

08-09-2005, 22:02

So Eastern Orthodox theology holds that if a man performed no sin in his life, he would not need the death of Christ for his sins? I understand it's well nigh impossible for a man not to sin, as by my definition, sin is simply putting your own will above God's, and I cannot imagine a person who has always done this at each and every possiblity. However, the Western tradition holds that even were such a man possible, he would still be fallen from God's grace. Eastern Orthodox don't believe that? The hypothetical perfect man would not need salvation?

Eastern Orthodoxy is not doctrinally precise. For example: the Bible is considered canon, but does not hold the sola scriptura position as found in Protestantism. Along with the Bible there is the pre-Biblical Patristic Tradition etc. I have never run across any who have addressed the hypothetical. Eastern Orthodoxy holds that men inherited physical death through Adam, but sin is a personal act. My guess is an Orthodox practitioneer would say:

"That is an odd question". "Man needs the Divine in order to progress and know any perfection." "God is the purpose and measure of perfection such does not exist outside His dominion". "It is not a question of rectitude under the law, but participating in the glory of the Divine life."

This ultimate state is known as Theosis literally: deification.

Lazul

08-09-2005, 22:08

seeing as I dont bring god or the gods into to anything I believe that it is the society that brings out the good or bad in people and how you are shaped by the culture your in.
sadly I think most cultures and societies in the world brings out more bad then good at the moment.
*cough* corrupt capitalism *cough* ~;)

Pindar

08-09-2005, 22:10

Pindar,
I thought that Methodism traced itself to the 'Religious Method' of John Wesley, an anglican priest. Any more information on this Arminism?

Has anyone else ever noticed that the Anglican communion plays the 'faith and works' versus 'faith alone' argument on both sides of the fence? I think they're the only denomination, Catholic, Protestant or otherwise that claim both (which I've never quite understood, as they're mutually exclusive).

Methodism does trace to Wesley. Wesley was an Arminian.

This would be a simple introduction to Arminianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism)

Anglicanism is a hybrid of the two Traditions in many ways.

Kagemusha

08-09-2005, 22:11

sharrukin

08-09-2005, 22:14

There is no such thing as evil, just opinion.

Then there can be no such thing as good in your opinion?

Silver Rusher

08-09-2005, 22:18

Lazul

08-09-2005, 22:26

Aaargh Lazul!Lets not turn this thread in to politics.Pleeeeease? :surrender:

uhr, fair enough.. ill try and not express my hatred towards... stuff :bow:

sharrukin

08-09-2005, 22:26

Yeah, I just believe that mankind does what benefits itself whether it is "good" or "bad". It only does good things so that it and others can benefit, from a happy feeling for example. What I mean is that no individual can be evil, perhaps they are just misunderstood or have differing opinions on big moral issues to the majority.

So there is no real difference between individuals and their behaviour regardless of their conduct?

The concentration camp guards and the inmates have differing opinions as to the proper future course of action, but morally there is nothing to choose between them?

Or do you mean something else?

Kagemusha

08-09-2005, 22:29

uhr, fair enough.. ill try and not express my hatred towards... stuff :bow:

Thanks lazul.I respect you for that. :bow:

AggonyDuck

08-10-2005, 01:05

I believe that no human is either good or evil at the core. I also believe that no action is originally either evil or good, but the evil/good-part is added by others according to how it affects them. Of course we are selfish beings, but I can't see how selfishness would be either evil or good.
It's just something that is required in some degree to survive. ~:)

Franconicus

08-11-2005, 09:02

Master, your question is easy to answer. If you judge about good or bad you need a benchmark for that. What else could it be than the whole human beings? If this is it, well I guess we are average.

Ja'chyra

08-11-2005, 09:12

1 reply to turn it into a religion debate, well done guys.

Byzantine Prince

08-11-2005, 10:07

Aaargh Lazul!Lets not turn this thread in to politics.Pleeeeease? :surrender:

*scratches scab*

Good and evil are intertwined with politics and economics, that is, if good and evil exists. Maybe everything that hapens needs to be accepted for what it is. Plain and simple. Someone stabs someone with a knife, that just what someone did. Someone else helps an eldelry person cross the street, that's just what he did. What a person does is their responsibility, and it's unfear to label things good or evil, because it demeans the choice a person has made.

Aww I'm bleeding on my keaboard now... :furious3:

sharrukin

08-11-2005, 10:13

*scratches scab*

Good and evil are intertwined with politics and economics, that is, if good and evil exists. Maybe everything that hapens needs to be accepted for what it is. Plain and simple. Someone stabs someone with a knife, that just what someone did. Someone else helps an eldelry person cross the street, that's just what he did. What a person does is their responsibility, and it's unfear to label things good or evil, because it demeans the choice a person has made.

Aww I'm bleeding on my keaboard now... :furious3:

But, then wouldn't demeaning a person because of the choices they have made be just a choice someone makes? :dizzy2: So how can it be unfair? Unless you have a benchmark for what is, and is not fair. And we are back to good-evil or good-bad, or whatever you care to call it.

Ja'chyra

08-11-2005, 11:53

Ok, I'll bite. I believe that man is born neutral and it is the choices they make that determine whether they are good or evil.

But, while on the subject, what exactly is good and evil? For example what would you say cannibalism is? I can't remeber seeing anything about it in the bible and it definately occurs in nature but man seems to regard it as evil.

I would say that good and evil are concepts and vary from person to person.

Idaho

08-11-2005, 13:13

Concepts such as good and evil are just that - concepts.

I would broadly go along with 1pain1duck:

I believe that no human is either good or evil at the core. I also believe that no action is originally either evil or good, but the evil/good-part is added by others according to how it affects them.

I also don't believe that humans are fundamentally selfish. Quite the opposite. Look around you - you are surrounded by the proof of it! The products, cities, civilisations surrounding you are a testament to how much humans seek out cooperation. Yes there is a struggle between what people put into that cooperation and what they get out of it (economics) and a struggle with organisation and what that cooperation is supposed to achieve (politics) - but overall we are social animals.

An alien looking down from space would find the comment 'we are all individuals' to be very amusing.

Byzantine Prince

08-11-2005, 17:55

But, then wouldn't demeaning a person because of the choices they have made be just a choice someone makes? :dizzy2: So how can it be unfair? Unless you have a benchmark for what is, and is not fair. And we are back to good-evil or good-bad, or whatever you care to call it.
Yeah, EVERYONE has their own version of what one and the other is. That's the point. It's unfair to judge people based on that. You should rather be judging them in a this way:

~Do the harm society with their actions?~
A)Yes.
B)No.

There can only be one answer to this.

sharrukin

08-11-2005, 19:27

Yeah, EVERYONE has their own version of what one and the other is. That's the point. It's unfair to judge people based on that. You should rather be judging them in a this way:

~Do the harm society with their actions?~
A)Yes.
B)No.

There can only be one answer to this.

You are attempting to impose your morality on me by demanding that we all follow your concepts of good and evil!

Well I have my own concepts of good and evil and they don't put society first but rather the individual. And my neighbour thinks God should come first.

Who are you to be telling us how we should judge people? ~D
See link (Who gets to "impose morality"?)
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=52216

Your fair and unfair is different from good and evil in what way?