What makes it the opposite? What does opposite really mean?Not only must it not be loving, kind, etc. but it must be the opposite of those. There's a subtle difference there. I can be unloving for example, without being hateful and resentful. That's precisely why evil (injustice, malice, etc.) isn't merely the absence of good, but rather its opposite. — Agustino
I think that some of the modern, and perhaps not so modern, theological efforts to define evil in terms of goodness (as if evil was nothing but not good) are one of the most profound theological mistakes ever made. This definition of evil is a subversive reification - attempting to attribute existence to an abstraction, thereby denying the independent reality of evil. — Agustino
Once this is affirmed, then God becomes the Creator of the good and of the evil — Agustino
Why worship a God who deliberately creates evil? Just as we wouldn't follow or admire a human being who caused evil, so we shouldn't do the same of God. It would be morally obligatory to oppose such a being — Thorongil
That's like asking why love pulls people together. It's just it's nature.Hmmm...true opposite must be the complete absence. Why does hate push people apart? — Lone Wolf
Selfishness, pride, etc.?but what are the elements of hate? — Lone Wolf
This is a philosophy of religion discussion... it's not placed in Ethics this topic, you know...That isn't "evil". It's just misguided, lost, malicious &/or dangerous people. — Michael Ossipoff
This is a philosophy of religion discussion... it's not placed in Ethics this topic, you know... — Agustino
For the same reason that good isn't just the absence of evil either :P . The fallacy there is that two different aspects of reality cannot be defined in terms of each other, but must rather be defined in-themselves. The experience of evil, is different than the experience of good. So defining evil in relation to good is just as false as defining good in relation to evil. It would mean to reify it.Why couldn't evil be real and goodness the absence of it? Why couldn't there be a Form of Evil as the one true reality instead of a Form of the Good? — Thorongil
What's the problem with this? God is God, He's not a human being. I find this highly incoherent, trying to judge God by the very Law (which you call morality and is written in everyone's heart) that God Himself has created :s Human beings, and those under the Law can be judged by the Law, but God? That's silly - it is blasphemy, treating God as one of your fellow creatures that you can judge. God is His own justification, He is above good and evil. How could anything God does be evil, ie against the Law, when God is the Creator of the Law and supreme over it? God ordered Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Can you imagine being Abraham, and approaching Mount Moriah, knowing that you have to pull that knife and thrust it into your son's neck?! That seems horrifying to us, and it is. It is completely against the moral law that is written in our hearts. But God is above the Law. That is why Abraham was right to have faith in God, believing both that he will kill Isaac, and that Isaac will live - even though it was absurd. For nothing is impossible for God.Why worship a God who deliberately creates evil? — Thorongil
No it wouldn't. This is precisely the difference between creature and Creator. I have no right to destroy God's creation, for it is God's, not mine. But God has a right to destroy all of creation if He so desires, for it is His. I don't understand why so many people insist that God must be an anthropomorphism of the human :s Why make out of God a creature like us? :sJust as we wouldn't follow or admire a human being who caused evil, so we shouldn't do the same of God. It would be morally obligatory to oppose such a being. — Thorongil
Because God doesn't demand them that (therefore this premise would be false)? Human beings are bound by the moral law, and they will be judged by the Law. So if you break the law (remember that Abraham didn't actually break the law), then you'll be judged for breaking the law.God demands them to kill for the sake of faith — Beebert
No, the actions wouldn't be considered good. Remember that with Abraham, he didn't believe God was commanding him to do evil, for he believed in his heart that Isaac would live, since God promised him earlier that Isaac would live. It was however a teleological suspension of the ethical, in that Abraham's direct relationship with God was more important than his commitment to the law. The good was his faith, not his actions. So Abraham didn't actually break the law, it was just his readiness to break the Law for the sake of God that was in question - namely his faith.it is certainly a risk to say that God is above his law and can demand people to do evil things and consider it "good"(though I know that God prevented Abraham from killing Isaac)... — Beebert
Yes, exactly, for man is not God.I mean, you say that God is beyond good and evil but yet that man is to be condemned if he acts "beyond good and evil", if I have understood correctly? — Beebert
There is no indication that God wants you to act beyond good and evil, which is for example why He stopped Abraham from killing Isaac. That's also why we're judged by the Law. It was but a test of faith, of bringing Abraham closer to God and making him trust God more than he trusts himself that such was demanded of him. The story and the rest of the Bible though does make it clear that such demands are exceptional, and God doesn't actually intend any creature to do evil unto another.But what if God wants us to act beyond good and evil? — Beebert
Well God prevented Abraham, not Himself, from breaking the Law in that case.True, the law wasn't broken by Abraham, and God prevented it. But why? — Beebert
I don't think it is coherent to say that God breaks the Law, for God simply is His own justification, so God doing evil, or breaking the Law, etc. is incoherent.Isn't the answer to that also because GOD never breaks this law? — Beebert
Well again, as I said before, human beings will be judged by the Law, and are in fact bound by the Law. So if they do evil, then they are to be judged for it. Remember that Abraham didn't actually do evil, if he were to have done it, he would have been judged for it. So the terrorists in question will be judged since they are under the Law - they are not God. And the fact that they think they are God, and are thus above the Law is actually blasphemy.I agree with you, it is probably a correct interpretation and I would hold the same view, but still: The terrorists would probably also like this interpretation and use it to their advantage... They would probably say that they hear God's voice, perhaps even that he communicates with them as directly as he did with Abraham, that this relationship is more important than their commitment to the law and therefore... They might say "I break the Law and destroy the World Trade Center for the sake of God - namely my faith!" — Beebert
Both really, BUT some of those 613 commands of the Torah are particular commandments to the Jewish people, not to everyone else. Noahide Laws + 10 Commandments (for Christians) form the "core" of the morality of everyone else.By the Law here, do you mean how we have treated our neighbour, mainly if we have clothed the naked and visited the sick and helped the homeless etc? Or do you mean if we have followed the 613 commands of the Torah? — Beebert
Personally I find Spinoza's ontological argument for Substance valid if we were to transfer it to God. But what do you think of this Catholic theologian:I know you are joking, but seriously haha... What would he answer? He can't stop existing and there isn't a point where he didn't exist... So... Does he know why he exists? xD — Beebert
No, for He is beyond Being and Non-Being. Being beyond both, He cannot fall under either. If you want it, God exists more real-ly than Being, for He is not constrained by Non-Being.Well, so if I asked God; "Why do you exist?", would he then answer "Well... In a sense I don't actually"? :P Is that really an answer? xD — Beebert
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.