A Wiccan's View of Evil

[technomage]

Lee asked the following question, and I felt it required a more in-depth answer than the portion of the thread it was in.

But I am more specifically referring to unqualified evil, certainly death and entropy can be bad in certain ways and good in others, bad at some times and good at others. But rape? Cannibalism? Does God encompass those evils? Have we misunderstood here, and they are not really evil?

Cannibalism I'm a bit iffy on--frankly, when my spirit leaves my body, the carcass is going to feed worms anyway. I don't particularly care for the thought at all, but we've all read about cases of survival cannibalism. :shrug: The Donner party comes to mind ... but frankly, I can't tell you if that's "unqualified evil" or not.

Rape? Definitely evil. Murder--as in killing another person without reason or provocation? Definitely evil. Stealing for greed (as opposed to survival theft)? Definitely evil. But you jump to an unwarranted conclusion: the Creator does not "encompass" these acts--these actions are the results of our free will.

Those portions or aspects of the Creator that some might call "evil" are actually not things I consider evil, even though they involve death and destruction. Hunting, predation, and all the aspects of "nature, red in tooth and claw" are not evil--these are natural processes, as life unavoidably feeds on life. Same thing with natural processes such as earthquakes, storms, famine, disease ... you name it. If it is a natural process that does not involve conscious volition on our part, it was still created by the Creator.

So what is evil? The I tend to believe that defining evil is not within the purview of a "majority vote," or any form of "authoritative statement" from a religious, political, or societal group: such "group definitions" fall under the definition of the word "morals," and that's a whole 'nuther critter. With the possible confusion between the concepts, perhaps it would be better to first define what evil is not.

Illegality does not define evil. Rape is illegal, but so is loitering in many jurisdictions. While both are against the law, the I'm quite sure that most people will agree that while the former is definitely evil, the latter is only questionably so at best.

Immorality does not necessarily define evil. Murder is immoral, but so is polyamory. While both go "against the grain" as to the "mainstream" (Western) group definition of morality, there are other definitions from other cultures where polyamory is acceptable.

Distastefullness does not necessarily define evil, else I would be in the ridiculous position of defining the ethics of spinach and mustard greens.

There are certain attributes that seem to be common in most analyses of the concept of evil. While random chance has been accorded the word, it is my opinion that storm violence, traffic accidents, and natural disasters are random. Just as "Good" requires a decision to act, "Evil" needs volition to exist.

Evil takes -- without giving: The man who steals to feed his children does something that is against the law, but few people could condemn him as truly "evil." The man who takes for his own greed -- whether "real" assets, or intangibles such as innocence and honesty -- could be classed by most as evil.
Evil hurts -- without healing: A doctor must frequently "hurt" patients in order to heal them; a medieval inquisitor had no cares but for the pain he caused.
Evil destroys -- without creating: Arson can destroy a forest, as can lumbering. While some disagree with the practice, lumber cutting does, at least, provide useful and necessary commodities -- arson produces only bare, scorched earth.
Evil chooses: Hitler is a prime example that most Westerners would agree falls under the definition of an "evil" man. He did not passively allow the slaughter of Jews, Poles, Catholics, and others, but actively chose the role.
Even considering the fact that the examples are anecdotal, these definitions can break down. Hitler was, undoubtedly, one of the most evil men in the twentieth century C.E., but he rebuilt German economy, broken by the crushing debts and massive damage of World War I. When defining evil, it seems best to remember that even the most "evil" person may do good things, just as even the most "good" person may do evil things.

Justin

[NormATive]

As evolved apes, I am frankly surprised there isn't more evil in the world among humans.

Animals can be capable of such astounding acts of savagery, it makes you shudder to think that at some point in early human development, killing your neighbour over a piece of rotting meat was routine.

Summertime, I sit out on the back porch with my wife, each of us nursing - ok, I'm guzzling - a nice, cool pint of Guiness Ale, a quiet conversation.

Meanwhile, our female cat stalks a field mouse, or mole, or baby rabbit in the grass. She pounces on the thing, nearly rips it's little head off, and then it just sits there as the thing writhes in pain. She has no intention of eating the critter, just watching it slowly die.

Is that an evil act? Or, is it just nature among the lesser evolved species?

When I read a story of some unspeakable act of cruelty one human inflicts on another, I can't help thinking of my cat.

Could it be that simple? Are there some of us who are just at a lower level on the evolutionary chart?

And, when you consider the Shoah our ancestors endured - what had all that fear of G-d gotten them? The Nazis were just cats toying with their prey. Watching them slowly die. Meanwhile, G-d turns it's back on the Chosen, allowing it to happen - as though it were just as natural as cats and mice.

I don't believe that sin and evil are the same thing. In fact, I think that sinning is the only thing that saves us from true evil. Or, rather, the suspicion that we are sinners. It's an act of the evolved conscience transcending the animal.

Where does the conscience come from? Evolved binary synapses? G-d? Satan? Alien beings?

It's an intriguing question.

NORM

[Undomiel]

Could it be that simple? Are there some of us who are just at a lower level on the evolutionary chart?



I think there's some truth to this, other than the evolutionary part. Jesus constantly stressed gaining control of the flesh, which is interpreted in this case to mean the animalistic nature, via the spirit. The buddhists refer to it as mind over matter, although it is slightly different, the principles are the same.

For example, the animalistic nature acts almost entirely on instinct. In some cases, that's good "Let go of your conscious self and act on instinct." - Obi Wan to Luke while teaching him to fight remotes in Star Wars IV: A New Hope. In a flight or fight situation, having well-honed connections between self-defense skills and the instinctual nature, is a very good thing. But how does it apply to living peaceably with others? Certainly if there's no violence to contend with, we don't require flight or fight skills above the need to dodge a falling lamp, for example.

Jesus explained it as focusing on beauty, beauty in speech, beauty in behavior, beauty in thought. Whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are good, whatsoever things are pure. The concept being that you can control your own thoughts by focusing on things above the natural instincts of your flesh, that would tend to direct you towards the animal nature that isn't required when survival is not paramount. Sex is a survival instinct, and while genuinely beautiful in the correct settings, it can be made into an ugly and degrading thing. Therefore we are instructed to gain control over it and not let it control us. This applies to pretty much everything you can have dominion over in your flesh. It also carries over into thought life. Thinking on positive things when possible. Not focusing on the negative, when possible. Trying to give others the benefit of the doubt. Not jumping to snap judgements. Praying for and blessing those who have hurt you.

Another way of looking at it is, Garbage In, Garbage Out. Watching a horror movie is an example of garbage in. It serves no purpose other than to temporarily overdose you on your own adrenalin and endorphins. It creates unhealthy mental images in your mind that have no function in your life, that glorify natural evils, the stalking cat in the yard complete with bloody, helpless victim. In some people, it feeds psychoses that become blueprints for future evils. Not that your own adrenalin and endorphins are bad -- we need them for survival skills. But you could get similar dosages and healthier images for your mind to ingest by simply jogging along a garden path or similar pleasant outdoor setting.

This goes on and on for the various parts of our lives and behaviors, but the idea is to rise above our baser instincts and apply them when necessary and healthy. Gain control over them. Something I've been working on since I became a christian, and which I'm frequently unsuccessful at but continue forward just the same.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Myself I like to use the animaniacs skit of "Good Idea/Bad Idea" to explain evil.
I see evil more or less as Stupidity, an unwillingness to look at the obvious consequences of your actions. Or you know the consequences of your actions but do it anyway.

Good Idea: Walking your Dog.
Bad Idea: walking your Dog over a Hot bed of coals.

Good Idea: Feeding the Homeless.
Bad Idea: Feeding the Homeless to Hungry Sharks

Good Idea: Making Love to your significant Other.
Bad Idea: Making love to your significant Other's entire family.

Good Idea: Watching Jerry Springer
Bad Idea: Being ON Jerry springer.

Good Idea: Dancing Naked by a bonfire in the woods.
Bad Idea: Dancing naked by a bonfire on a street corner.

The End

[technomage]

Where does the conscience come from? Evolved binary synapses? G-d? Satan? Alien beings?

It's an intriguing question.

I'm ... fairly strongly persuaded that conscience is not a biological factor, but part and parcel of childhood social training--learned behavior as related to the culture, rather than an intrinsic instinct. This would explain why some acts (such as cannibalism, or any evil act being justified against the Stranger, or "those people over there") are viewed differently in different cultures.

Justin

[technomage]

Myself I like to use the animaniacs skit of "Good Idea/Bad Idea" to explain evil.
I see evil more or less as Stupidity, an unwillingness to look at the obvious consequences of your actions. Or you know the consequences of your actions but do it anyway.

Good Idea: Walking your Dog.
Bad Idea: walking your Dog over a Hot bed of coals.

Good Idea: Feeding the Homeless.
Bad Idea: Feeding the Homeless to Hungry Sharks

Good Idea: Making Love to your significant Other.
Bad Idea: Making love to your significant Other's entire family.

Good Idea: Watching Jerry Springer
Bad Idea: Being ON Jerry springer.

Good Idea: Dancing Naked by a bonfire in the woods.
Bad Idea: Dancing naked by a bonfire on a street corner.

The End
:lmbo:

Cu, that was a good one! :thumb: Pearls to you!

Justin

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Justin: Those portions or aspects of the Creator that some might call "evil" are actually not things I consider evil, even though they involve death and destruction. Hunting, predation, and all the aspects of "nature, red in tooth and claw" are not evil--these are natural processes, as life unavoidably feeds on life. Same thing with natural processes such as earthquakes, storms, famine, disease ... you name it. If it is a natural process that does not involve conscious volition on our part, it was still created by the Creator.

The problem with taking Nature as prescriptive is that then people can take that to justify areas that are indeed unjustifiable:

"[Eugenics] has indeed, strong claims to become an orthodox religious tenet of the future, for Eugenics cooperates with the workings of Nature, by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races. What Nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly" (Francis Galton).

Some monkeys kill off all the offspring that are not theirs, when they become the dominant male. Is that not real evil, if a person remarries, and does that?

I think the view that Nature is corrupted is accurate, and that we see pictures of real evil in Nature, we should not call all Nature God's ways, and follow anything we see there.

It will be ... well if Jones does not worship the sun and moon. If he does, there is a tendency for him to imitate them; to say, that because the sun burns insects alive, he may burn insects alive. He thinks that because the sun gives people sun-stroke, he may give his neighbor measles. He thinks that because the moon is said to drive men mad, he may drive his wife mad.

Nature worship is natural enough while the society is young. But Nature has another side which experience and sin are not slow in finding out, and it is no flippancy to say of the God Pan that he soon showed the cloven hoof.

The only objection to Natural Religion is that somehow it always becomes unnatural. A man loves Nature in the morning for her innocence and amiability, and at nightfall, if he is loving her still, it is for her darkness and her cruelty. He washes at dawn in clear water as did the Wise Man of the Stoics, yet, somehow at the dark end of the day, he is bathing in hot bull’s blood, as did Julian the Apostate. Stars and mountains must not be taken seriously. If they are, we end where the pagan nature worship ended.

Justin: Rape? Definitely evil. Murder--as in killing another person without reason or provocation? Definitely evil. Stealing for greed (as opposed to survival theft)? Definitely evil. But you jump to an unwarranted conclusion: the Creator does not "encompass" these acts--these actions are the results of our free will.

Then we have the conclusion that the Creator may (probably?) not have our best interest at heart, in any given action he or she might do. Which is why I brought this area up…

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Hi again,

I did want to address this point as well...

Justin: I do not see evil as a subtraction of good. Evil and good are conscious choices that we make.

Certainly, but can't we be diminished by our choices?

Blessings,
Lee

[Richbee]

As evolved apes, I am frankly surprised there isn't more evil in the world among humans.

If we evolved, and created morality through purely Naturalistic means, how then could we have arrived at what "good" is?

Evil?

If we have no objective standard for Good, or Holiness, how then did we, or could we define what is evil?

If you Cat is following his or her instincts, what was motivating Hitler to kill all the Jews, or Stalin to starve 20 or 30 million Ukrainians?

[technomage]

Justin: Those portions or aspects of the Creator that some might call "evil" are actually not things I consider evil, even though they involve death and destruction. Hunting, predation, and all the aspects of "nature, red in tooth and claw" are not evil--these are natural processes, as life unavoidably feeds on life. Same thing with natural processes such as earthquakes, storms, famine, disease ... you name it. If it is a natural process that does not involve conscious volition on our part, it was still created by the Creator.
The problem with taking Nature as prescriptive is that then people can take that to justify areas that are indeed unjustifiable:

Waitaminit, Lee! I'm not taking nature as "perscriptive," merely as "descriptive."

"[Eugenics] has indeed, strong claims to become an orthodox religious tenet of the future, for Eugenics cooperates with the workings of Nature, by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races. What Nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly" (Francis Galton).

Some monkeys kill off all the offspring that are not theirs, when they become the dominant male. Is that not real evil, if a person remarries, and does that?

Well, you've crossed a distinction that I made: conscious volition. When I spoke of "natural processes," I was referring to non-volitional processes, such as weather and tectonics. Of course these are not "perscriptive" definitions--but tell me that you've not heard such processes called "evil" before?

Justin: Rape? Definitely evil. Murder--as in killing another person without reason or provocation? Definitely evil. Stealing for greed (as opposed to survival theft)? Definitely evil. But you jump to an unwarranted conclusion: the Creator does not "encompass" these acts--these actions are the results of our free will.
Then we have the conclusion that the Creator may (probably?) not have our best interest at heart, in any given action he or she might do. Which is why I brought this area up…

Lee, you're obviously seeing a connection, but I'm not seeing it. Could you elaborate how you get from free will to the Creator not having our best interests at heart?

However, I will expand on one possible objection: I do not see humanity as a "special creation," therefore I do not see that the Creator holds our interests over and above nature. If, for whatever reason, humanity became extinct, this would not necessitate that the Creator was not vitally involved in creation: this especially becomes true because we have the technological capability to exterminate our own species. The Creator is not going to shield us from the consequences of our own choices.

Justin

[technomage]

If we evolved, and created morality through purely Naturalistic means, how then could we have arrived at what "good" is?

Evil?

If we have no objective standard for Good, or Holiness, how then did we, or could we define what is evil?

The same way that we defined what is "musical" in our culture ... though if you were to state that the stakes are quite a bit higher in the question of "Good vs Evil" than the question of "sharp vs flat," I would quite agree with you.

Rich, take just a brief look at history: it is obvious that certain acts that have been defined as acceptable in the past are no longer defined such, and that certain acts that are defined as evil in the past are viewed as acceptable. I have no doubt that you quite approve of the demise of slavery, child labor, or the second-class status of women or non-Whites in American culture. These attitudes were at one time viewed not only as acceptable, but as Good ... and were frequently justified with Scripture!

If you Cat is following his or her instincts, what was motivating Hitler to kill all the Jews, or Stalin to starve 20 or 30 million Ukrainians?

That's an attribute that we, as human beings, seem to be in sole posession of, but we're not. Other primates also engage in "power over" behavior--however, gorillas and chimps do not have the technology or social culture to extend their predations beyond line-of-site. Other animals also engage in this behavior, including dolphins.

Justin

[lee_merrill]

Hi Justin,

Justin: I'm not taking nature as "prescriptive," merely as "descriptive."

Well, here is what got me thinking you meant "prescriptive":

Lee: But when you say "an infinite being" must encompass what we think of as evil, this seems to imply all evil, and then all our understanding of evil is incorrect, but I don't think it is.

Justin: Lee, even your Bible says it: "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made."

Which seems to indeed imply that evil is part of God, and is indeed to be accepted (imitated?), to worship the goddess of Love and the god of War, to have the vestal virgins in the temple, and the devadasis there, too.

If we are not to imitate what God did, and does, doesn't that say we can (should!) be more righteous than God? But I don't think Wicca holds that…

When I spoke of "natural processes," I was referring to non-volitional processes, such as weather and tectonics.

And the behavior of monkeys must be considered volitional? I don't think it is.

Lee: Then we have the conclusion that the Creator may (probably?) not have our best interest at heart, in any given action he or she might do.

Justin: Could you elaborate how you get from free will to the Creator not having our best interests at heart?

Not from free will, but from God not having a firm commitment to justice. Including justice for you, justice for me, isn't that part of people's best interest?

Justin: The Creator is not going to shield us from the consequences of our own choices.

You could do that, and still have a person's best interest at heart. But not if you are unconcerned, at times, about justice…

Blessings,
Lee

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Which seems to indeed imply that evil is part of God, and is indeed to be accepted (imitated?), to worship the goddess of Love and the god of War, to have the vestal virgins in the temple, and the devadasis there, too. Well being a worshipper of a war and sex goddes, I dont see much of a contradiction, after the Culling of war, there needs to be a regrowth of the population hece you encourage as Much Sex as possible. (Hence the fertility rituals)Now my thinking is this that if YHWH did create evil (Meaning I accept your presupposition of YHWH being the sole creator of the universe) It would seem to follow that Evil is then simply a function of the universe, much like natural selection allowing the Strong to survive and the weak to be culled in order to make sure the race continues.

If we are not to imitate what God did, and does, doesn't that say we can (should!) be more righteous than God? But I don't think Wicca holds that… well again accepting your pressupposition, Every parent would want their child to be better than themselves. Meaning If I was a C average student, I would want My child to be at least a B or better..why? that way he would have more oppurtunities than I could.



And the behavior of monkeys must be considered volitional? I don't think it is. Animals do have some understanding of Choice and consequences...they just dont have a really GOOD grasp of it. (Yet.)

[Richbee]

Well being a worshipper of a war and sex goddes....

Fascinating, where does this mythical goddess come from?

Who invented this myth?

[technomage]

Fascinating, where does this mythical goddess come from?

Who invented this myth?

In her aspects as a war goddess, the Celts. As a "sex goddess," Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Justin

[Cu Mhorrigan]

In her aspects as a war goddess, the Celts. As a "sex goddess," Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Justin
Actually her role as a sex goddess was also acknowledged according to the story of her with the Dagdha (The "Good" God) and in the story detailing her Feud with Cu Culhain.
She was very sexual but Her children were mostly warriors. :wink:

[technomage]

Actually her role as a sex goddess was also acknowledged according to the story of her with the Dagdha (The "Good" God) and in the story detailing her Feud with Cu Culhain.

I think that you'll find that sex-romps are more a trait of the Dagda than of the Morrigan. Seems he was a randy fellow--and braver than I, to crawl into bed with one called Scaldcrow. :wink:

However, the rivalry with Cuchulain was later: The Dagda's encounter with the Morrigan was during the Battle of Mag Tuired: the Tain is a later, and separate, work.

Justin

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Lee: Which seems to indeed imply that evil is part of God, and is indeed to be accepted (imitated?), to worship the goddess of Love and the god of War, to have the vestal virgins in the temple, and the devadasis there, too.

Cu: Well being a worshipper of a war and sex goddess, I dont see much of a contradiction…

Well, does that not establish the point I'm trying to make here, then? Nature may (should, even) be imitated in all its aspects.

Cu: It would seem to follow that Evil is then simply a function of the universe, much like natural selection…

Tilt.

"Abandon all morality, ye who enter here…"

You certainly won't be able to convince me that deities within this framework will have anyone's best interest at heart, now. So why would you trust them, much less worship them?

Cu: I would want My child to be at least a B or better..why? that way he would have more opportunities than I could.

But now we are headed in the opposite direction! Well, I don't mind, actually. But we need to decide if evil should be accepted, or rejected. And if the deities accept, or reject it, as well.

Blessings,
Lee

[NormATive]

If we evolved, and created morality through purely Naturalistic means, how then could we have arrived at what "good" is?

Good is whatever best preserves the civility and safety of the community. It's agreed upon by consensus. Sort of a "group" survival technique. No gods or batteries required.





Evil?

Now, there's a concept what requires a god!

If we have no objective standard for Good, or Holiness, how then did we, or could we define what is evil?

Evil is as evil does.

If you[r] Cat is following his or her instincts, what was motivating Hitler to kill all the Jews, or Stalin to starve 20 or 30 million Ukrainians?

I never mentioned "instinct." What instinct would direct a critter to torture another to death (or, in the case of my cat; sometimes, ever-so-inches-from-near-death)?

No, I am convinced my cat is possesed of the Shekinah god/goddess (evil version, patent-pending). Ditto for dictators.

It may be mystical-magical, but the rodents in my neighbourhood sure take notice.

NORM

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Hi everyone,Hi Lee, Why do I feel Like Im In AA for some reason?



Well, does that not establish the point I'm trying to make here, then? Nature may (should, even) be imitated in all its aspects. yes and no,
Nature is niether good nor evil it Just IS...While somethings are worth imitating, (Like the wolves ability to hunt and work together as a pack) somethings are not...(Like the Sheep blindly following a shepard) Humans being a thinking and reasoning species pretty much is left to use commin sense to figure these things out and use what would be beneficial towards HImself and the group.


Tilt.[/quote} are we playing pinball or something and noone told me?

[quote]"Abandon all morality, ye who enter here…"that makes no sense along the lines of what I posted...

You certainly won't be able to convince me that deities within this framework will have anyone's best interest at heart, now. So why would you trust them, much less worship them?there are some deities who are in my best interest to work with Like An Morrigan. What you missed is that both concepts of "Good" and "Evil" work to balance out the universe. Nature has a funny way of letting us know when things are slightly out of whack and need to be corrected. Some times it's something innocuous, other times it is obvious like a flash flood, or a Firestorm, or an earthquake or a Tsunami. Predators eat Prey, Now for the predator it is a good thing, for the prey, it is an evil thing..so it is up to each to work towards fulfilling their role. The predator has to catch it's food, and the prey has to run like the road runner to avoid being eaten.
It is all apart of the balance of power, If the prey dont get eaten the over multiply and eventually eat all the food and starve. If the prey all get eaten the predators are then left with no prey and have to prey on one another and eventually die of Starvation. So it all needs to be balanced out.
Should we allow to evil things to happen? Not if we can help it. But We must balance it out with good or see to it at least the Evil is mitigated (Helping out the survivors, giving them food and shelter).

But now we are headed in the opposite direction! Well, I don't mind, actually. But we need to decide if evil should be accepted, or rejected. And if the deities accept, or reject it, as well. Not all the gods are good, Nor are all the gods evil. My goddess Morrigan Just IS...Much like a tornado or a Hurricane Just IS. Nothing has to be accepted it just needs to be dealt with as it is and worked through. Even if it means Killing a psychopathic Jerk who is going around victimizing women.

Blessings,
Lee

[Durthorin]

My goddess Morrigan Just IS...Much like a tornado or a Hurricane Just IS. Nothing has to be accepted it just needs to be dealt with as it is and worked through. Even if it means Killing a psychopathic Jerk who is going around victimizing women.


Cu, are you Celtic traditional or Eclectic?

Danu Bless, Dur

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Cu, are you Celtic traditional or Eclectic?

Danu Bless, Dur
For now Ecclectic I havent met traditional celts in My area that I am able to study with.

[Richbee]

Good is whatever best preserves the civility and safety of the community. It's agreed upon by consensus. Sort of a "group" survival technique. No gods or batteries required.

I could begin a whole thread just for this World view, but this one is very close to: "Man is the measure". Yeah man, if it feels good do it! Go your own way.

In this one, culture is King. Herodotus said this, and where ever he went, he studied what the local culture believed and wrote it down. In what is today Southern Russia, or Georgia, Scythia (sp?) when a King died, all his wives or lovers were buried alive with him. ;)

Kind of separates the gold diggers from the grave diggers.

Now this is Relativism, and not all relativism is bad. Part of this is just reality, and yes, we do have this, or Pluralism. We have different families, dialects, or slang and jargon, accents, different ethnic foods, dress or dance. I have taken over eight different dance lessons. I have done the Samba with a Brazilian American, and then gone out for Thai food! I have done the Salsa or Cha-Cha and then had cool, crisp, colossal cordial California Chardoney with Canadian cheese!

But, Religion, and finding our way to God is about Truth, and if everything was true, what then would be false?

While we have different styles or customs, eventually we arrive at values, and truth. These issues are resolved by society what ever the cultural norm. Rape, infanticide, or cannibalism, and/or live human sacrifice violated God's Laws and were abolished. (I am not implying that these things were "evil" exclusively in a Jewish or Judeo-Christian culture; however, in a pagan society how was a consensus arrived at? At the end of a Sword? We could cover “Constantine’s Sword” in another thread as well, and he spent most of his life worshipping Apollo, so I guess Apollo led him with wisdom?)

Consider the account of an ancient Greek historian, who remarks how disgusted the Greeks were with the morals or the habits of Egyptians. And, I quote in part:

"Habits the Greeks thought were wicked and disgusting, like marriage between brother and sister....."

So, let me get to my greater POINT:

Morals Are Mores

Another ethical theory suggests that what is morally right is determined by the culture to which one belongs. Ethics is defined in terms of what is ethnically acceptable. What the community says constitutes what is morally right for its members. Cultural practices are ethical commands. Whatever similarity may exist between moral codes in different social groups is simply due to common needs and aspirations, not to any universal moral prescriptions.

The first difficulty with this position is what is called the "is-ought" fallacy. Simply because someone is doing some-thing does not mean one ought to do so. Otherwise, racism, rape, cruelty, and murder would automatically be morally right. Further, if each individual community's mores are right, then there is no way to adjudicate conflicts between different communities. For unless there are moral principles above all communities, there is no moral way to solve conflicts between them. Finally, if morals are relative to each social group, then even opposite ethical imperatives can be viewed as right. But contradictory imperatives cannot both be true. Everything cannot be right, certainly not opposites.

I don't want to take off into Political Science or Politics, and for another discussion, we could consider how conflicts are resolved in a Democracy. And, IMO, there is a simple truth and reality we must acknowledge. Politicians choose one moral position over another. There will never be complete consensus on any moral issue so one version of morality will inevitably be imposed. We have always had Democratically elected means of representation to decide these issues, like drinking laws and deciding at what age kids can drink :cheers: :ale: :dizzy: , or sell their bodies to the night. (Roxanne.....Police, etc, turn on (off) the Red Light? :ahem: Hey Mommy and Daddy, I earned an extra $100 walking home from school today, and I learned about “Customer Satisfaction! :kiss:

Who can say what is "good"? :nsm:

Evil is as evil does.

Did you know that historically, both Hitler and Stalin had really strong feelings and convictions that they were doing what was "good". They found many who agreed, especially when they were gaining wealth, property or popular acclaim. (Hero worship, Occult (Cult) group think.)

BTW, is each Cat the measure of what is delicious? And, your Dog? It is rare, but I have heard of a dog eating a child! Just the doggie nature, huh?

Well then, it is a dog-eat-dog World, so I have to go out hunt, kill it, butcher it, and bring "it" home and eat tonight. Watch CNN today, and check for Postmodern Liberal Relativistic victims inside the Washington DC beltway. :teeth: :hehe:

:yummy:

What is Truth? What is Delicious?

[Cu Mhorrigan]

I could begin a whole thread just for this World view, but this one is very close to: "Man is the measure". Yeah man, if it feels good do it! Go your own way. again you are kind of taking things out of context and putting your religion's unique spin on it. Most cultures and religions agree that Killing someone who wasnt attackingor posing a threat to you or your fellow tribe mates is a bad thing. Most cultures will agree by consensus that Rape is also a bad thing. As is Stealing. Why because it diminishes the tribe's resources and makes people angry and upset and want tot ake their spears and ram it up your sphincter and into your heart. There are something however that Arent really up to consensu but are matters of personal conscience. If Myself and two women decide to live in a Poly Amorous relationship, and we pay our taxes, serve the community, make sure our kids are well fed and clothed and we mind our own business then it really doesnt affect you one way or the other. (Except for you being Jealous that i have two women to screw).

In this one, culture is King. Herodotus said this, and where ever he went, he studied what the local culture believed and wrote it down. In what is today Southern Russia, or Georgia, Scythia (sp?) when a King died, all his wives or lovers were buried alive with him. ;)

Kind of separates the gold diggers from the grave diggers.

Now this is Relativism, and not all relativism is bad. Part of this is just reality, and yes, we do have this, or Pluralism. We have different families, dialects, or slang and jargon, accents, different ethnic foods, dress or dance. I have taken over eight different dance lessons. I have done the Samba with a Brazilian American, and then gone out for Thai food! I have done the Salsa or Cha-Cha and then had cool, crisp, colossal cordial California Chardoney with Canadian cheese!

But, Religion, and finding our way to God is about Truth, and if everything was true, what then would be false?

While we have different styles or customs, eventually we arrive at values, and truth. These issues are resolved by society what ever the cultural norm. Rape, infanticide, or cannibalism, and/or live human sacrifice violated God's Laws and were abolished. (I am not implying that these things were "evil" exclusively in a Jewish or Judeo-Christian culture; however, in a pagan society how was a consensus arrived at? At the end of a Sword? We could cover “Constantine’s Sword” in another thread as well, and he spent most of his life worshipping Apollo, so I guess Apollo led him with wisdom?) actually Constantine followed the wishes of his mother who was a christian. it was She who directed him to destroy the pagan temples and kill the priests. (so much for christians having the be all and end all of Morality)
There are certain constants within Most religions 1) a sacredness for life (granted some have followed this less than others)
2) a unifying Moral and Ethical Code governing behaviour
3) contact to the realm of Spirit through People that have been there and seen that.
4)preparation for the afterlife.
With those things in common the rest of the practices are personal interpretations kind of like saying To MAY to and To Mah To.
Consider the account of an ancient Greek historian, who remarks how disgusted the Greeks were with the morals or the habits of Egyptians. And, I quote in part:


"Habits the Greeks thought were wicked and disgusting, like marriage between brother and sister....."

So, let me get to my greater POINT:

Morals Are Mores

Another ethical theory suggests that what is morally right is determined by the culture to which one belongs. Ethics is defined in terms of what is ethnically acceptable. What the community says constitutes what is morally right for its members. Cultural practices are ethical commands. Whatever similarity may exist between moral codes in different social groups is simply due to common needs and aspirations, not to any universal moral prescriptions.

The first difficulty with this position is what is called the "is-ought" fallacy. Simply because someone is doing some-thing does not mean one ought to do so. Otherwise, racism, rape, cruelty, and murder would automatically be morally right. Further, if each individual community's mores are right, then there is no way to adjudicate conflicts between different communities. For unless there are moral principles above all communities, there is no moral way to solve conflicts between them. Finally, if morals are relative to each social group, then even opposite ethical imperatives can be viewed as right. But contradictory imperatives cannot both be true. Everything cannot be right, certainly not opposites. The problem we run into is matters of personal interpretation Justin and I interpret Paganism differently, He worships the Lord and Lady, I worship a Specific goddess. Does His path negate Mine? far from it, to him my goddess is an extension of the Lady (Justin Im just paraphrasing her for the sake of argument) and I see my faith is heavily influenced by wicca, (Most of my teachers are wiccan right now which means i have soemthings to learn.) We dont see our faiths as being in conflict because we recognise that niether one of us knows everything about the pagan religion. True we will argue about things but even then it is merely a matter of interpreting what we have learned.

I don't want to take off into Political Science or Politics, and for another discussion, we could consider how conflicts are resolved in a Democracy. And, IMO, there is a simple truth and reality we must acknowledge. Politicians choose one moral position over another. There will never be complete consensus on any moral issue so one version of morality will inevitably be imposed. We have always had Democratically elected means of representation to decide these issues, like drinking laws and deciding at what age kids can drink :cheers: :ale: :dizzy: , or sell their bodies to the night. (Roxanne.....Police, etc, turn on (off) the Red Light? :ahem: Hey Mommy and Daddy, I earned an extra $100 walking home from school today, and I learned about “Customer Satisfaction! :kiss: Wow you fundies are really obsessed about kids havign sex and child molestors...Did it ever occur to you that a majority of Child Molestors and other perverts come from christian homes or went to some kind of church in their lives? that A majority of Pagans really are not about to have sex with an underaged child. The reason is simple, They dont have the reasoning nor the expertise to really take care of our needs.

Who can say what is "good"? :nsm: The idea of what is "Good" is pure and simple common sense. (I refer you to my "Good Idea/Bad Idea" post in this thread.)



Did you know that historically, both Hitler and Stalin had really strong feelings and convictions that they were doing what was "good". They found many who agreed, especially when they were gaining wealth, property or popular acclaim. (Hero worship, Occult (Cult) group think.) but look at what happened in the end, Hitler committed suicide, and Nazi Germany was torn apart by Allied forces and hacked into smaller chunks...the laws of Karma can be a real pain in the neck.

BTW, is each Cat the measure of what is delicious? And, your Dog? It is rare, but I have heard of a dog eating a child! Just the doggie nature, huh? and what is your point..I have also seen dogs that have defended their weaker pack members (Our Children) to the death.

Well then, it is a dog-eat-dog World, so I have to go out hunt, kill it, butcher it, and bring "it" home and eat tonight. Watch CNN today, and check for Postmodern Liberal Relativistic victims inside the Washington DC beltway. :teeth: :hehe:

:yummy:

What is Truth? What is Delicious?

[Richbee]

again you are kind of taking things out of context and putting your religion's unique spin on it. Most cultures and religions agree that Killing someone who wasn't attacking or posing a threat to you or your fellow tribe mates is a bad thing.

Thanks for your post. I should mention that I am open to someone starting a new thread if suggested, but I will try to keep this topic in mind.

Cultural mores don't work, and for some, "Might is Right", and the victor sets the ethics or Laws.

First, here are some extracts about human sacrifice among the Celts from two Classical authors. - Click Here (http://www.digitalmedievalist.com/faqs/sacrific.html)According to Strabo (64/63 B.C.E. - 21 C.E. at least) in his Geography (4.1.13):
The Romans put a stop both to these customs and to the ones connected with sacrifice and divination, as they were in conflict with our own ways: for example, they would strike a man who had been consecrated for sacrifice in the back with a sword, and make prophecies based on his death-spasms; and they would not sacrifice without the presence of the Druids. Other kinds of human sacrifices have been reported as well: some men they would shoot dead with arrows and impale in the temples; or they would construct a huge figure of straw and wood, and having thrown cattle and all manner of wild animals and humans into it, they would make a burnt offering of the whole thing (trans. by Benjamin Fortson, in Koch and Carey 1995, 18).
[Most people know better, and most of us here have seen.....]

And according to Julius Caesar (writing c. 15 March, 44 B. C. E.) De Bello Gallico 6.16):
All the people of Gaul are completely devoted to religion, and for this reason those who are greatly affected by diseases and in the dangers of battle either sacrifice human victims or vow to do so using the Druids as administrators to these sacrifices, since it is judged that unless for a man's life a man's life is given back, the will of the immortal gods cannot be placated. In public affairs they have instituted the same kind of sacrifice. Others have effigies of great size interwoven with twigs, the limbs of which are filled up with living people which are set on fire from below, and the people are deprived of life surrounded by flames. It is judged that the punishment of those who participated in theft or brigandage or other crimes are more pleasing to the immortal gods; but when the supplies of this kind fail, they even go so low as to inflict punishment on the innocent (trans. Anne Lea, in Koch and Carey 1995. 22).
Strabo's reference to arrows is especially intriguing; there's little or no archaeological data to support Celtic use of bows and arrows. Neither are mentiond in the medieval Irish tales, and the Irish words for bow and arrow are borrowed from Latin and Norse (Piggott 1975, 110).

The idea of a "wickerman" is reminiscent of references in both Irish legend and the second branch of the Welsh Mabinogi to men being inveigled into a specially built house, which is then set fire, immolating them. There is also a reference by Lucan, and the comments by later scholars as part of the Lucan scholia, in the Pharsalia, to three Celtic deities; Taranis said to have been propitiated by burning, Teutates by drowning, and Esus by hanging. Esus is mythologically similar to the Nordic deity Odin, also associated with hanging from a tree. And there is Tacitus' account of the Roman attack on the Druid stronghold of Anglesey, which, although almost certainly politically motivated (Aren't we Romans wonderful! We stopped those dreadful human-sacrifices by those nasty druids), he does refer to altars as "soaked with human blood" (I can't help but wonder how he knew the blood was human) and Boudicca also impaled victims during her rebellion in 60 A.D.

[Note as well that over 700,000 were "sacrificed" in the Roman arenas to venerate the Roman dead. The blood acted to grease the skids into the afterlife. More if you are seeking the truth.]

The best archaeological data supporting Celtic human sacrifice is the body of the man placed in Lindow bog in the first or second century C.E. We actually have the body (well, most of it) so well preserved that scientists were able to analyze his stomach contents to discover his last meal (a partially scorched grain cake). Lindow man was almost certainly a ritual sacrifice; he was strangled, hit on the head, and had his throat cut, in quick order, then surrendered to the bog. This pattern fits the "three-fold" death referred to in medieval Irish tales. What's more, the man seems to have been of high social rank, and a willing victim. There are also other bog burials (the Tollund Man bog body in Denmark is very similar) in various places in Europe, as well as in grain storage pits and shafts in Britain, that, once they were no longer used for storage, had human bodies thrown in them, for instance at the Danebury hillfort. While Anne Ross in Pagan Celtic Britain is positive that the Danebury bodies were ritual sacrifices, most scholars are less certain.

A late Iron age shaft in Holzhausen in Baviaria with a post at the bottom was presumably used for impaling a human victim; the pole when analysed had traces of human flesh and blood. In East Yorkshire, at Garton Slack a young man and a woman of about thirty were found huddled together in a shaft, a wooden stake between them pinning their arms together; the woman was apparently pregnant, since a fetal skeleton was found beneath her pelvis. Presumably the two adults were ritually killed for punitive purposes. There have also been several instances of foundation burials, often of children, which may or may not have been sacrifices (Green 1992, 183-84). Both bog and shaft burials seem particularly appropriate for cthonic otherworld-dwelling deities.

Most cultures will agree by consensus that Rape is also a bad thing.

Oh, but if a family was being killed in Rome, because of a crime of the Father, as Tacitus tells us, no virgin could be put to death. Oh well. No virgins girls were ever killed, without being raped first.

Hello?

Not to mention that raping slaves, boys or girls was the cultural norm.

As is Stealing

Tell that to Lewis and Clark.

If Myself and two women decide to live in a Poly Amorous relationship, and we pay our taxes, serve the community, make sure our kids are well fed and clothed and we mind our own business then it really doesnt affect you one way or the other. (Except for you being Jealous that i have two women to screw).

C'est la vie. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. "Painted Wagon"? Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood? No wonder Clint couldn't sing that tune.

..... actually Constantine followed the wishes of his mother who was a christian.

Really? Yes, Helen was a Christian, or so history tells us, but why didn't Constantine drop Apollo?

He did follow his own desires right? Was he just acting in the wisdom of his day, because the population was over 50% Christian?

Near the end of his life, he was Baptized Christian, why did he wait to become a real True Christian™?

....it was She who directed him to destroy the pagan temples and kill the priests. (so much for christians having the be all and end all of Morality)

False. You have confused your Emperors. and you are off by 80 to 100 years.

There are certain constants within Most religions 1) a sacredness for life (granted some have followed this less than others)

2) a unifying Moral and Ethical Code governing behaviour

3) contact to the realm of Spirit through People that have been there and seen that.

4)preparation for the afterlife.

OK, we agree!

:joy:

Look for Part 2......


Double posting is NOT allowed!

[Durthorin]

For now Ecclectic I havent met traditional celts in My area that I am able to study with.

Did you find The Morrigan or did she find you? :) I ask cause I'm of a more traditional Celtic bent following Brighid, Danu and Morrigan.

Danu Bless, Dur

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Part 2....
He does? Who is the Lord and Lady? Think of them as Kinf od The Father and the Holy Spirit except the holy spirit is female. there you go you have the lord and lady (In it's most abstract) they Pretty much (According to My understanding of Wiccan belief and Justin feel free to correct me) they are the Ultimate in Divinity each one is co equal in power, and wisdom, and Love and Majesty, each one has different roles and they both keep the universe busy.

Who says? Wiccan teaching I personally dont agree with all of it, I am more of a polytheist myself.



Please tell me.

I had a "goddess" once. I doubt it, Having sex with a goddess is a mind numbing experience that few mortal men can handle.



Thanks, no wonder you and Justin desparately deny objective moral Law(s) and God's objective standard for truth, and the truth about truth. Okay Rich this is kind of where your reasoning dwells a little on the Stupid Side. Number one Both Justin and I Do have an objective Moral Code. I think twhat confuses you is that we dont have a little black book telling us what to think and not think, what to believe and Not believe.
Our Common moral code (And this is kind of where He and I agree) is if at all possible Harm None. It's simple, It's direct and to the point and those two words can be extrapolated into Many different areas of One's Life.
Number two: The fact that you wish to assume we have no objective moral code is the desire for you to say "My religion is better than yours because we have a little black book that tells us what is right and what is wrong." So what would happen if your little black book suddenly disappeared? would you still be able to tell right from wrong? would you still be able to follow your religion the way your god intended?
If everyone did what was "right" in their own eyes our Society would be chaos. again you are assuming that we pagans teach Lawlessness.
Not all of us and certainly Not a majority of us. (Many of Us pagans are actually cops and soldiers and Troopers.) There are definite codes of ethicas and behaviour within our religion we just dont go bragging about them being the be all and end all of morality, faith and ethics. We also understand that not every issue is black and white, and sometimes it requires wisdom to solve these issues.

No Society, like America could be founded or built on these principles or old stories. Hrm, tell that to the celts, the egyptians, the greeks, the Messopotamians, Babylonians, the Hindu, the Chinese, the Japanese, The Romani, the Mayans, the Aztecs, the Swahili, the Zulu,......I could go On but I have other things to do.



No, not at all, but in case you missed it, this has been in the News of late, although drinking is down among most teens, this is an issue for all time.

When did you have you first beer? Or drink? I had my first sip of beer when I was seven. (that I can remember) I am still a social drinker Hardly have anything except a beer while hanging out with friends once every few weeks or Months.

I was 13. Well thank you for sharing!



Well, yes, and some pedophiles target children and try to get close, in positions of authority. Approx. 1% have these desires and become school teachers, police men, or sadly RCC Priests or school little league coaches and boy scount leaders. My brother was molested by a Penn State Professor of Engineering back in the 60's. A "friend" of my Fathers.

It should be noted, that in the majority of sex with minor offenses, this is same sex cases. Like Mary Kay Letourneau - "woman is the measure", and she was in Luv!From what I hear she was also a christian..

Christians represent over 100 million in America, and over 50% say they have been "born again" or attempted to become Christians. that still doesnt take away from the fact that there are more Known sex offenders in christian circles than pagan ones.

For many, Christianity gets in the way with hedonism, or humanism. :doh: I could tell you stories of when I was in a pentecostal bible school.

Some think they need to work their way to God's love, like a earthly Father, and yet, many find "saved by grace" as a free gift and freely receive and discover divine joy, freedom and forgiveness. with our religion there is nothing to be forgiven from, Our Gods dont hold their favor from us unless we do something stupid and usually it requires Us making amends to the person we wronged.



Lucky for you, pedophile fans can't get close to kids by becoming Wiccan, that might hurt their chances of "scoring".Oh there are some sleeze bags out there but we usually tell our followers not to take every person at face value. and we also tell them to feel free to tell someone if they are full of Bull Excreta.

BTW, I hope the RCC's have caught all these "evil" Priests or lay workers, or basebal coaches or school teachers.As do I but I doubt it.


Sorry, God is Good. In the Judeo-Christian tradtions, we have an objective standard for Good, and I assert, objective moral values exist, and this is IMO, an unchanging absolute, because God is the same yesterday and today. Just liek slavery was accepted by your moral absolute? or the murder of the native americans, or the Subjugation of women or the murder of the Herbal healers, or...need I go On?

When I am wrong, and when any Christians practice what is evil, like racism or wife beating, we are wrong because the Bible says so. and when we are wrong we have harm none to tell us where we messed up and we also have other pagans screaming at us about being idiots. Heck on My first day Justin called me on the carpet.

The really big debates about Witch burning, the Crusades and the Spanish Inquistion represent perversions or distortions of the Christian faith, and in no way represent Christain values. This is where you are wrong, They do represent christian values because your Old testament and even parts of your new testament talk about exterminating the unbelievers and punishing them with the sword. (Ever heard of Spiritual warfare? well where do you folks think the idea came from?)

As one example, the King and Queen of Spain were excommunicated by the Pope. Additionally, many so called "witches" were convicted in Civil, not ecceliastical courts. In Salem, Mass, we now know, or most of know, that many poor Christians died at the hands of a Mayor or colony Gov' and on the emotionism or group think of adults and childen "witnessess". Assuming your presupposition is even remotely accurate, Why did not the christian churches step in and put a stop to the atrocities? And dont give me that crap about Rome not liking the inquisition, If they didnt then Pope John Paul would not have apologised for it and the Other Pogroms carried out in christ's name. Rome made a nice little sum of money from the persecution of the jews.

This was ended by a Pastor and most of know, and will acknowledge by the Light of clear fair-minded reasoning, that these are not, and were not Christian virtures. What pastor? No Pastor stoped the salem witch trials they were stopped by the magestrate soon after it came to Light that the Girl who acted as their "Visionary witness" was nothing more than a petty vindictive attention seeking brat.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Did you find The Morrigan or did she find you? :) I ask cause I'm of a more traditional Celtic bent following Brighid, Danu and Morrigan.

Danu Bless, Dur
A little of both, I met her when I was doing devotional artwork of various goddesses and she kind of stuck around it's a whole long story.

[Durthorin]

A little of both, I met her when I was doing devotional artwork of various goddesses and she kind of stuck around it's a whole long story.

I can relate to that.

Danu bless, Dur

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Lee: Which seems to indeed imply that evil is part of God, and is indeed to be accepted (imitated?), to worship the goddess of Love and the god of War…

Cu: Well being a worshipper of a war and sex goddess, I dont see much of a contradiction…

Lee: Well, does that not establish the point I'm trying to make here, then? Nature may (should, even) be imitated…

Cu: While somethings are worth imitating, (Like the wolves ability to hunt and work together as a pack) somethings are not…

I agree! But if there was initially no contradiction with my first statement here, then I think that we're now saying something different. I don't mind, though…

Lee: "Abandon all morality, ye who enter here…"

Cu: that makes no sense along the lines of what I posted…

Well, now on what basis will Wiccans pick one aspect of nature to imitate, and refuse the others? Especially if the deities embody all the aspects…

Lee: So why would you trust them, much less worship them?

Cu: What you missed is that both concepts of "Good" and "Evil" work to balance out the universe.

In An Morrigan, too? Then again, how can this deity always have your best interest at heart, if the balance needs to be restored by doing some evil to Cu or your friends?

Cu: But We must balance [evil] out with good or see to it at least the Evil is mitigated (Helping out the survivors, giving them food and shelter).

But what if I see I should act like a predator today, and give myself food, and eat them?

Blessings,
Lee

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Hi everyone,

I agree! But if there was initially no contradiction with my first statement here, then I think that we're now saying something different. I don't mind, though… There is no contradiction here lee we are both saying something that on some level we agree with.



Well, now on what basis will Wiccans pick one aspect of nature to imitate, and refuse the others? Especially if the deities embody all the aspects… Common sense mostly...The ideal is to learn the good things about nature and drop the "Bad".



In An Morrigan, too? Then again, how can this deity always have your best interest at heart, if the balance needs to be restored by doing some evil to Cu or your friends? You seem to misunderstand what I am saying but no problem I will explain it again. Morrigan is Niether Evil Nor Good, She Just is. While that kind of concept is hard for a dualist to grasp, You kind of have to look at it from this perspective. The WInd can bring Life, and the Wind can bring death...the wind can generate a cooling breeze to keep us from over heating, or it can become a tornado or Hurricane. the Wind is niether good nor evil it just exists...it just happens to have different moods to it. For Balance to be reached the Wind and the other elements need to be allowed to do what they need to. It helps keep the planet, and the universe running at optimum efficiency. The Gods are the same way. Since Morrigan is a war Goddess, then I would expect some elements in my life to be come Militaristic. Not because My goddess hates me but Since She is My patron, I can safely expect her to test me in areas where I need to grow a back bone and to Confront things that would normally intimidate me.



But what if I see I should act like a predator today, and give myself food, and eat them? then you will be killed by the ones protecting the victims..See how it works? If youre going to be a jerk then the universe will deal with you accordingly.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Rich,
Regaurding your assertions about Us Celts based on the writtings of A Ceasar, Have you never heard of propaganda before? Ceasar had every reason to try Justifying a costly war against us and He needed every bit of propaganda he could Muster. (Sort of Like George W. Bush and and the Mantra "Weapons of Mass Destruction") Ceasar did not give a whit about the Lives being lost He wanted Territory, so in order for him to get it he had to motivate the soldiers to fight inspite of such fierce enemies.
Yes We did practice Human sacrifice at ONE time, as has the romans, as has the Phillitines and yes even the Jews (Jephthah and His daughter, the extermination of the canaanite peoples,) and the Christians (The witch trials, the inquisitions, constantine's and later "Holy" emperor's persecution of the hellenes, the Slaughter of the native american tribes...etc etc etc.)

[Richbee]

Rich,
Regaurding your assertions about Us Celts based on the writtings of A Ceasar, Have you never heard of propaganda before? Ceasar had every reason to try Justifying a costly war against us and He needed every bit of propaganda he could Muster. (Sort of Like George W. Bush and and the Mantra "Weapons of Mass Destruction") Ceasar did not give a whit about the Lives being lost He wanted Territory, so in order for him to get it he had to motivate the soldiers to fight inspite of such fierce enemies.

Yes We did practice Human sacrifice at ONE time, as has the romans, as has the Phillitines and yes even the Jews (Jephthah and His daughter, the extermination of the canaanite peoples,) and the Christians (The witch trials, the inquisitions, constantine's and later "Holy" emperor's persecution of the hellenes, the Slaughter of the native american tribes...etc etc etc.)

Actually I saw it as Roman pagan opposition to burning people alive.

Now, as to pagan on pagan violence. :nsm:

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Actually I saw it as Roman pagan opposition to burning people alive.

Now, as to pagan on pagan violence. :nsm:
Romans had done far worst things to torture people and kill them. The romans couldnt have cared less about Us burning people alive (Unless it was their people) they were more concerned with trying to motivate their soldiers.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Cu: The ideal is to learn the good things about nature and drop the "Bad".

Then the deities have some work to do, too? Some areas of improvement? Nature, too? We shouldn't just accept it as it is, or the deities as they are?

Lee: In An Morrigan, too? Then again, how can this deity always have your best interest at heart?

Cu: For Balance to be reached the Wind and the other elements need to be allowed to do what they need to.

Yes, but I was asking how Morrigan could have your best interest at heart. Maybe you are to be bumped (off?!), in a way that would be bad for you personally, to restore the balance?

Lee: But what if I see I should act like a predator today, and give myself food, and eat them?

Cu: then you will be killed by the ones protecting the victims..See how it works? If youre going to be a jerk then the universe will deal with you accordingly.

But Nature does this! So Nature will deal with Nature?! I don't think that follows…

Blessings,
Lee

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Hi everyone,
Then the deities have some work to do, too? Some areas of improvement? Nature, too? We shouldn't just accept it as it is, or the deities as they are?Part of what I learned as a pagan is that we are to challenge our beliefs and critique them this is something the gods themselves have told us to do. Christianity teaches that the adherents are not to challenge what is taught and it is to be blindly followed without question. (Note: I am talking about what christianity teaches not necessarily the bible). Since we are to look at everything with a grain of salt to avoid the problem christianity and islam has developed, we encourage people to not be afraid to tell one of their teachers if they are full of sugar. it helps to avoid the whole Mindless cultists following insane leader thing.



Yes, but I was asking how Morrigan could have your best interest at heart. Maybe you are to be bumped (off?!), in a way that would be bad for you personally, to restore the balance? it depends on what I personally did. I will put it this way, Morrigan is what Morrigan is, She has predicted the deaths of people before when she manifests as the "washer by the river" (Some times she is called the Ban-Sidhe), but usually when she does the person has done something obscenely stupid.

But Nature does this! So Nature will deal with Nature?! I don't think that follows… nature does take care of nature...Predators control the population of prey, Prey control the population of plants and Some times prey control the population of predators (By kicking their soccer-shoes)

[NormATive]

I could begin a whole thread just for this World view, but this one is very close to: "Man is the measure". Yeah man, if it feels good do it! Go your own way.

Man as the measure was originally a Christian idea. You know, the whole "mediator between man and G-d" thingie. Well; rabbinic Judaism, to be more specific. Paul kind of borrowed the idea while creating the new liturgy.

While freedom has its dangerous proclivities, I think it preferable to being in submission to the whims of a tyrannical god, or a capricious Fate.

But, Religion, and finding our way to God is about Truth, and if everything was true, what then would be false?

Prior to the shoah, I would agree with you. But, with G-d essentially ignoring the whole bloody mess, Truth went out the window with the first puff of smoke at Auschwitz.

No, G-d made it abundantly clear that we're on our own.

While we have different styles or customs, eventually we arrive at values, and truth.

Yes, and no matter how arbitrary these "truths" are, they have the same vision of tikun olam as every other seeker. Whether it be through Jesus, Moses, Muhammed, or Buddah, the perfection of the world is the end game.






Simply because someone is doing some-thing does not mean one ought to do so. Otherwise, racism, rape, cruelty, and murder would automatically be morally right.

No one here is suggesting this. And, the end result of relativism is not helter-skelter. Even strange and charmed particles obey the laws of physics. And, turnabout is fair play.

...there is a simple truth and reality we must acknowledge. Politicians choose one moral position over another. There will never be complete consensus on any moral issue so one version of morality will inevitably be imposed. We have always had Democratically elected means of representation to decide these issues, like drinking laws and deciding at what age kids can drink...

But, this should not be confused with "Truth" in the triumphalistic sense.

Did you know that historically, both Hitler and Stalin had really strong feelings and convictions that they were doing what was "good". They found many who agreed, especially when they were gaining wealth, property or popular acclaim. (Hero worship, Occult (Cult) group think.) emphasis mine

Yes, many keepers of the Truth were on that bandwagon.

BTW, is each Cat the measure of what is delicious? And, your Dog? It is rare, but I have heard of a dog eating a child! Just the doggie nature, huh?

My dog and cat are lovers!

NORM

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Lee: Then the deities have some work to do, too? Some areas of improvement? Nature, too? We shouldn't just accept it as it is…

Cu: we encourage people to not be afraid to tell one of their teachers if they are full of sugar.
This is Morrigan you're telling that to, though! And Nature. Are we judging Nature here? Shouldn't we say it just is?

Lee: Yes, but I was asking how Morrigan could have your best interest at heart.

Cu: She has predicted the deaths of people before when she manifests as the "washer by the river" (Some times she is called the Ban-Sidhe), but usually when she does the person has done something obscenely stupid.
But not always? Then she may not always have your best interest at heart, and your worship must be tinged with some dread, and I would recommend another God, who died for all, so they might live, even those who might be characterized as ... "obscenely stupid".

Lee: But Nature does this! So Nature will deal with Nature?!

Cu: nature does take care of nature…
But not the way you were saying this, I think! You were implying (rather severe) judgment for wrongdoing, were you not?

Then Nature judges itself? And inflicts a punishment, for having predators eat prey? On itself?

But if Nature "just is," and saying "this is good" and "this is evil" is inappropriate, then how can Nature judge itself?

Blessings,
Lee

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Hi everyone,
This is Morrigan you're telling that to, though! And Nature. Are we judging Nature here? Shouldn't we say it just is?and your point? I have a right to tell her to bug off, and she has the right to turn me into a newt...so it all balances itself out.


But not always? Then she may not always have your best interest at heart, and your worship must be tinged with some dread, and I would recommend another God, who died for all, so they might live, even those who might be characterized as ... "obscenely stupid". She only manifests as "the washer" when someone is about to die in battle or illness...And Morrigan teaches her worshippers NOT to fear or be cowardly since it kind of goes against what it means to be a warrior. And no thanks I tried your god and found him a little too obsessive for my tastes.


But not the way you were saying this, I think! You were implying (rather severe) judgment for wrongdoing, were you not?
Then Nature judges itself? And inflicts a punishment, for having predators eat prey? On itself?
But if Nature "just is," and saying "this is good" and "this is evil" is inappropriate, then how can Nature judge itself? Nature doesnt Judge itself I said ti balances it self, there is a difference. Things eventually balance out and work towards what would best promote life as a whole. think to it this way, Nature abhord vaccum, so it will do everything possible to fill that void, whether it be with gas, solid mater, liquid matter, it does not matter as long as that void is filled. I use the terms "Good" and "Evil" be cause they are terms YOU are most familiar with but there is more to nature and to Life than just Good and Evil...there are shades and colors that we really cannot give a clear and consise judgement on.

Blessings,
Lee[/QUOTE]

[lee_merrill]

Hi Cu,

Cu: I have a right to tell her to bug off, and she has the right to turn me into a newt...so it all balances itself out.

Sure, you can tell her goodbye, but that isn't the same as telling Morrigan she should make some improvements in her character. Should Morrigan be informed that she is full of empty calories?

If it's really as bad as all that, I do recommend again, looking for another god.

Lee: But not always? Then she may not always have your best interest at heart, and your worship must be tinged with some dread…

Cu: She only manifests as "the washer" when someone is about to die in battle or illness...And Morrigan teaches her worshippers NOT to fear or be cowardly since it kind of goes against what it means to be a warrior.

Dread is not cowardice, or even fear, it's the anticipation of real harm. And may I ask again, will she always have your best interest at heart, if it is only usually, when she judges, that there is a good reason?

Cu: And no thanks I tried your god and found him a little too obsessive for my tastes.

I am wondering what you mean here by obsessive, though…

Lee: You were implying (rather severe) judgment for wrongdoing, were you not?

Then Nature judges itself? And inflicts a punishment, for having predators eat prey? On itself?

Cu: Nature doesnt Judge itself I said ti balances it self, there is a difference.

No, this is what I meant:

Lee: But what if I see I should act like a predator today, and give myself food, and eat them?

Cu: then you will be killed by the ones protecting the victims..See how it works? If youre going to be a jerk then the universe will deal with you accordingly.

Then Nature should deal with Nature accordingly, and be killed by the ones protecting the victims. No more Nature, after this? That would be imbalanced!

Cu: I use the terms "Good" and "Evil" be cause they are terms YOU are most familiar with…

Certainly there are areas where moral judgments are difficult. But, well, may I say this? You seem to be trying to have various benefits of having a moral code, without the irritating inconvenience of keeping it!

Judging (as you should) people who prey on others, condemning such evil, and yet also (apparently) allowing that you may have all you wish of war, and pleasure…

As you should not…

Blessings,
Lee

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Sure, you can tell her goodbye, but that isn't the same as telling Morrigan she should make some improvements in her character. Should Morrigan be informed that she is full of empty calories? No more than you or I could, and like you or I She would only changed if she wanted to.

If it's really as bad as all that, I do recommend again, looking for another god. She isnt She's just not like you would think of as a goddess.



Dread is not cowardice, or even fear, it's the anticipation of real harm. And may I ask again, will she always have your best interest at heart, if it is only usually, when she judges, that there is a good reason?Why not ask the same as your god, He may say he has your best intrests at heart but how many of his people still languish in mental illness? Or Poverty? or terminal physical illness? How many times thave there been christians who "Suffered for the will of God" Or lost a child they so desperately wanted? while you may try to trip Me up in my faith (Which youre not) you dont ask yourself those self same quetions...Aside from some words in your little black book, what assurance do you have that YHWH has YOUR best interests at heart?



I am wondering what you mean here by obsessive, though…"I the Lord am a Jealous God" Jealousy is a sign of obsesion.



No, this is what I meant:

Lee: But what if I see I should act like a predator today, and give myself food, and eat them?

Cu: then you will be killed by the ones protecting the victims..See how it works? If youre going to be a jerk then the universe will deal with you accordingly.

Then Nature should deal with Nature accordingly, and be killed by the ones protecting the victims. No more Nature, after this? That would be imbalanced!



Certainly there are areas where moral judgments are difficult. But, well, may I say this? You seem to be trying to have various benefits of having a moral code, without the irritating inconvenience of keeping it! Nope, try thinking of it this way, You folks rely on a book to give you all your moral answers. and you also need Ministers to interpret that book other wise you are unable to interpret it correctly. If either of those two tings are ever taken away from you then you cannot persue your religion, you also cannot know what you should do or not do. you would be lost and unable to think for yourself because you are dependant on your book and your ministers to tell you what to think.
We on the other hand have books, but we dont exclusively rely on them for us to live moral lives. We have Clergy, but they dont lead us to the point where we could not function without them. We have morals but they come rom within us and outside of us. The point that I am getting to is that we are free to make our own moral decisions without YOU and your leaders telling us how to.

Judging (as you should) people who prey on others, condemning such evil, and yet also (apparently) allowing that you may have all you wish of war, and pleasure… No I do have all I wish for war and pleasure. I am not tought to fight any and everyone, Just enemies that would seek to harm me and mine. And I dont go around playing patty-cake with every man/woman I come in contact with. That is kind of what you miss and choose to ignore. I dont have to do anything but stay Hispanic and die.

As you should not… you really should learn nevver to assume...because when you assume.....

[lee_merrill]

Hi Cu,

Lee: … that isn't the same as telling Morrigan she should make some improvements in her character. Should Morrigan be informed that she is full of empty calories?

Cu: No more than you or I could, and like you or I She would only changed if she wanted to.

I'm not asking if she wants to change, though, should she change? Does she have flaws?

Apparently she is about on the level of ordinary people, in the area of morality. She should change. And thus she is not, I think, worthy of such devotion.

Lee: If it's really as bad as all that, I do recommend again, looking for another god.

Cu: She isnt She's just not like you would think of as a goddess.

Indeed, I do not think she meets the qualifications for being worthy of worship, she seems not to even be a good example. She just is. Well, I just am, too, you are, and the plant next to my computer…

Lee: May I ask again, will she always have your best interest at heart, if it is only usually, when she judges, that there is a good reason?

Cu: Why not ask the same as your god…

I can point to a cross, has Morrigan suffered ... for you?

How many times have there been christians who "Suffered for the will of God"

There is a reward for that, and I see good fruit from suffering even now, in God removing faults in me that way. Does war remove human faults? Sex? Does this make them better persons?

"I the Lord am a Jealous God" Jealousy is a sign of obsession.

Can you be jealous in a good way too, though?

Cu: then you will be killed by the ones protecting the victims..See how it works? If youre going to be a jerk then the universe will deal with you accordingly.

Lee: Then Nature should deal with Nature accordingly, and be killed by the ones protecting the victims. No more Nature, after this? That would be imbalanced!

I would like to hear a comment on this…

Lee: But, well, may I say this? You seem to be trying to have various benefits of having a moral code, without the irritating inconvenience of keeping it!

Cu: The point that I am getting to is that we are free to make our own moral decisions without YOU and your leaders telling us how to.

Yes, I understand that you choose. But I think my point has not been addressed by replying that you are free in this way. Are you not making judgments, based on your standards? But you seem to be worshipping war and pleasure, while speaking against those who war for their pleasure.

Cu: No I do have all I wish for war and pleasure.

No, I meant that you may have all you wish of these. You set your own moral standards, do you not? And you worship a war and sex goddess, do you not? I think I may then make my conclusion here, you may have all you wish of war and pleasure, it is allowed, though it may not actually be possible to do this, in any given instance.

I dont have to do anything but stay Hispanic and die.

Glad to hear you're Hispanic, but you have to love people, and God, that is required, as well. And a God more worthy of that love, than Morrigan.

Lee: As you should not…

Cu: you really should learn never to assume...because when you assume…

If you are protesting my conclusion here, then I think you are indeed saying people do not have a right to set their own standards, and allow the boundary to be war and pleasure, as much as they are able to do.

But that's my conclusion here, this is indeed wanting various benefits of having a moral code, without the drawback ... of having to keep it yourself.

Blessings,
Lee

[Durthorin]

But that's my conclusion here, this is indeed wanting various benefits of having a moral code, without the drawback ... of having to keep it yourself.

Blessings,
Lee

Lee as an observation and not to paint Cu in a corner, ie this is my belief and not binding on him. Moral codes in most Pagan cultures is external to our Gods. The Gods follow them and many occasions do break them, our stories also tell of them haveing to make good and correct those errors of morality when they do break them an are thus examples to us in the same way for example Christs life or the Liives of the Saints might be examples to a Christian. We do not hold our Gods to be paragons of even our virtues in most cases but as elders. I doubt you will find a Pagan that believes his God or Goddesses conduct is perfect, but in its way thats the point.. they are not perfect and they thus accept and love us as we love them with our imperfections.

As an example you might read Myths and Legends of the Celtic Race by Thomas Rolleston. You can find a copy free online at www.blackmask.com.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Hi Cu,
I'm not asking if she wants to change, though, should she change? Does she have flaws? Not that I know of. It kind of comes with a territory of being a deity..

Apparently she is about on the level of ordinary people, in the area of morality. She should change. And thus she is not, I think, worthy of such devotion. the point I was trying to say is that she is a free moral enetitiy, That if she wanted to she could change things about herself (She was reported to be a shape changer, so changing would not be an issue for her if it were necessary.)



Indeed, I do not think she meets the qualifications for being worthy of worship, she seems not to even be a good example. She just is. Well, I just am, too, you are, and the plant next to my computer… Noone is asking YOU to worshipper, Noone said you should and Noone said that you have to pray to her, My point is that YHWH is not all that either.



I can point to a cross, has Morrigan suffered ... for you? Why should she have to? From what I gathered the only reason Jesus died on the cross was because YHWH wanted to punish him to settle his feud with Humanity. as always with this deity, the innocent suffer while the guilty go free with nothing more than a half hour grovelling session. Morrigan has no need to suffer for humanity because She does not need to hurt an innocent person to deal with guilty individuals.



There is a reward for that, and I see good fruit from suffering even now, in God removing faults in me that way. Does war remove human faults? Sex? Does this make them better persons? War settles disputes that peaceful negotiations cannot. And sex is just sex, it has nothing to do with making people better persons. Both sex and war are tools Just as chastity and peace are tools the issue is are you free to make up your own mind without some old man with a black book? And what is the reward in suffering? Nothing, You talk about your god being ABLE to heal but He does not heal, you talk about your god being able to ease troubled minds yet many of his people still walk around insane and vexed.
What greater purpose is there to be laying on a bed of suffering, or being so poor that you cannot pay your own bills let alone give money to people who desperately need it.


Can you be jealous in a good way too, though? No you cannot. you are allowing your Possessive nature over rule your emotions and then work towards limiting the freedom of the person you are obsessed over, that's not love.



I would like to hear a comment on this…[quote]Nature is what nature is. again everything with nature is about balance.



[quote]Yes, I understand that you choose. But I think my point has not been addressed by replying that you are free in this way. Are you not making judgments, based on your standards? But you seem to be worshipping war and pleasure, while speaking against those who war for their pleasure.
there is no contradiction, As far as I am concerned it is all about being able to choose my own path without some old fart meddling and whining about it. You are free to belive what ever you want, My point is that while you may wish to surrender your free will to a pastor and his little black book, I choose not to.


No, I meant that you may have all you wish of these. You set your own moral standards, do you not? And you worship a war and sex goddess, do you not? I think I may then make my conclusion here, you may have all you wish of war and pleasure, it is allowed, though it may not actually be possible to do this, in any given instance.Yes and no, Morrigan may give me instructions or make requests but I am free to obey or disobey them.
This past Halloween I had wanted to make a sacrifice to commemorate the holy day. I had thought about it and decided to give up gluttony. However she interjected and asked me to give up smoking. (Something I love doing) It was still my choice to obey her or not...She even told me as much. but I honored her with the sacrifice and aside from one time I have kept that vow ever since. It is a relationship of "Equals" (Granted She is a goddess and I am a "Mortal" and Nothing will change that at this time)where we work together, Not because she subjugates my will but She treates me like her Student, and allows me to make my own choices. I usually just find it goes alot better when I obey her.



Glad to hear you're Hispanic, but you have to love people, and God, that is required, as well. And a God more worthy of that love, than Morrigan. you are talking about YHWH the same god who demanded the deaths of Innocent children in Canaan, destroyed entire cities just because He was upset about something and essentially hates anything that doesnt fit into his narrow view, a god so vain and egotistical that He killed his OWN SON for taking on Human form..some how that doesnt quite strike me as Loveable.



If you are protesting my conclusion here, then I think you are indeed saying people do not have a right to set their own standards, and allow the boundary to be war and pleasure, as much as they are able to do.
But that's my conclusion here, this is indeed wanting various benefits of having a moral code, without the drawback ... of having to keep it yourself. Christians have RARELY kept their own moral code, Have you ever taken more change from the cashier than you are supposed to? Have you ever taken something without asking permission? Have you ever Not declared soemthign on your taxes that you were supposed to? Congratulations you are a thief.
Have you ever hated your brother in your heart? Congratulations you just committed murder.
Ever looked at a woman/man wanting to have sex with her/him? congratulations you are a fornicator.
the point is you reqally have no right to lecture ME about morality and ethics unless you yourself are "Without sin." tell you what Make a list, on one side list all the good things you did, and on the other side list all the bad things you did. If you can HONESTLY list all good things on your list and no bad things, then you can tell me about havign morals.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

thanks Duthorin I was having trouble getting that across.

[Durthorin]

thanks Duthorin I was having trouble getting that across.

Not a problem. Are you following Morrigan exclusivly currently?

Brighid Bless, Dur

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Not a problem. Are you following Morrigan exclusivly currently?

Brighid Bless, Dur
For the most part though I am mostly in a coven now that follows Hecate. but they are cool with me.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Dur: We do not hold our Gods to be paragons of even our virtues in most cases but as elders.

Cu: thanks Duthorin I was having trouble getting that across.

Well, then there is no guarantee that they will always have your best interest at heart, that's all I was trying to ask about here. And then they have room for improvement. How much room, I would wonder?

Lee: … should she change? Does she have flaws?

Cu: Not that I know of. It kind of comes with a territory of being a deity.

But Morrigan can't be flawless morally, and also "break moral codes on many occasions."

Lee: She should change. And thus she is not, I think, worthy of such devotion.

Cu: if she wanted to she could change things about herself

Yes, but still not worthy of worship! Not if she's not better than the mortals, only older and with some supernatural abilities.

Cu: From what I gathered the only reason Jesus died on the cross was because YHWH wanted to punish him to settle his feud with Humanity.

Jesus is part of God, though, people do say God required this of Jesus, but Jesus and God are not so divisible. Jesus offered himself, being one with God, God did this, for me, and for you, to atone for sins.

Cu: And what is the reward in suffering? Nothing, You talk about your god being ABLE to heal but He does not heal…

I did mention some benefit I have had from troubles, though, in dealing with various faults I had (have! But progress is being made, that I can see). And I have been healed, three times. Or more! I don't count the times where I prayed and got well and it could have been just normal recovery.

Cu: you talk about your god being able to ease troubled minds yet many of his people still walk around insane and vexed.

I can't speak for everyone who claims the name of Christian, but I have been kept in God's peace, as he promised.

Cu: you are allowing your Possessive nature over rule your emotions and then work towards limiting the freedom of the person you are obsessed over, that's not love.

It is love if love involves a commitment though, is it not?

Cu: Nature is what nature is. again everything with nature is about balance.

Well, that's just the danger sign I see here, following "balance," not good per se, not rejecting evil, per se, because that's the way Nature is, making balance primary. So this allows anything to be done, if it is only done to restore (what I think of?) balance.

Now that was my point with me (hypothetically, I hope) deciding to be the predator and eat the needy people. What is balance for you may not be what is balance for me, what is balance for Nature may upset my life completely.

Now is there a judge for some predators? If so, on what basis? Surely it can't be just because they aren't meeting our own personal standard, that we chose to live by.

Lee: You set your own moral standards, do you not? And you worship a war and sex goddess, do you not? I think I may then make my conclusion here, you may have all you wish of war and pleasure…

Cu: Morrigan may give me instructions or make requests but I am free to obey or disobey them.

Just my point, though! You set the standard, all you allow for yourself is fine, you may have (it is allowed) all you wish of war and pleasure.

Lee: … to love people, and God, that is required, as well. And a God more worthy of that love, than Morrigan.

Cu: … you are talking about YHWH the same god who demanded the deaths of Innocent children in Canaan, destroyed entire cities…

Maybe this could disqualify the God I worship, too, we can discuss this over in Apologetics if you wish. I only mean that Morrigan is not meeting the standard, and that is what I came here to discuss.

Lee: But that's my conclusion here, this is indeed wanting various benefits of having a moral code, without the drawback ... of having to keep it yourself.

Cu: Christians have RARELY kept their own moral code, Have you ever taken more change from the cashier…

I haven't actually done that one, but I have done some of the other sins that you mention. Now the point here is that you seem to be condemning those who prey in a bad way on others, yet the standard you hold to, you may choose that, presumably these bad predators may choose their own standard, too?

Then we cannot have the benefit of calling a given deed real evil, and punishable, if anyone can pick just any standard they choose.

Blessings,
Lee

[Durthorin]

Well, then there is no guarantee that they will always have your best interest at heart, that's all I was trying to ask about here. And then they have room for improvement. How much room, I would wonder?

Lee I can guarantee that neither your God nor mine always have our best interest at heart. They have their own agenda. If that agenda allows them or requires a benefit to us. Well we can be happy. But if like Job your God requires you to suffer, lose those you love and even die a death by torture. That hardly counts as having your best interest at heart.

As for the moralty of the Gods, some are more moral than others.. and their examples we find the lessons we as Pagan's need. But Gods by their nature, yours as well as ours are amoral. They stand outside of mortal codes of morality. For example God slaying every first born male child in Egypt to make a point. Killing children to get their parents to do what you wish is not considered by most people as a "moral" act. But you as a Christian consider what God did as "proper" and moral.. Correct?

Brighid Bless, Dur

[lee_merrill]

Hi Dur,

Lee I can guarantee that neither your God nor mine always have our best interest at heart. They have their own agenda.
Well it's possible, but is it provable? And a God who dies on a cross has some good evidence for being committed to loving others, and for being at least extraordinarily unselfish. Especially given that that's exceptional, among all other possible deities.

If that agenda allows them or requires a benefit to us. Well we can be happy. But if like Job your God requires you to suffer, lose those you love and even die a death by torture. That hardly counts as having your best interest at heart.
Unless there is a good outcome! (Job didn't die, by the way.)

James 5:11 As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.

But Gods by their nature, yours as well as ours are amoral. They stand outside of mortal codes of morality.
But this is not Christianity. Certainly if Wicca/paganism is true, we can make this statement, but not if the Bible is true.

For example God slaying every first born male child in Egypt to make a point. Killing children to get their parents to do what you wish is not considered by most people as a "moral" act. But you as a Christian consider what God did as "proper" and moral.. Correct?
I agree that if this was the justification for slaying every first born child, it was wrong.

But let's say you are correct! Now a similar problem in my view does not remove this same difficulty in yours. Maybe every ship is a sinking ship, and we just have to make the best of it. But that only means we have no good choices, not that some specific sinking ship is somehow better now that we see there are others.

But what can be said about this judgment? I think it would help to see that God bears pain and suffering, that this is not God, standing far off, sending plagues and the angel of death, as is usually depicted. We have an indication that God was more involved in this than it would seem on the surface:

Numbers 3:13 "For all the first-born are mine; on the day that I struck down all the first-born in the land of Egypt, I sanctified to myself all the first-born in Israel, from man to beast. They shall be mine; I am the Lord."

All the first-born, maybe even these Egyptian first-born? It could have brought good to them, good we cannot see, for we do not see beyond death, but God does, and thus he can bring about judgments that we cannot do ourselves, for we cannot see all results.

Blessings,
Lee

[Durthorin]

Hi Dur,
Well it's possible, but is it provable? And a God who dies on a cross has some good evidence for being committed to loving others, and for being at least extraordinarily unselfish. Especially given that that's exceptional, among all other possible deities.


Its a logical requirement. Lets take this example and see if you agree. If a man is called to serve God and obeys, going to a place where death for spreading the word happens all the time. That man is captured, tortured to renounce his faith and does not. He goes to his very public and ugly death. Now, how close is this story to many Biblical and Christian faith stories you have heard? Now assuming your God is acting for the motive of bringing "others" to salvation is acting in others best interests and the person being tortured/killed is being used as a tool. Correct?



Unless there is a good outcome! (Job didn't die, by the way.)

James 5:11 As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.


Book of Martyrs? While Job had everything returned and increased. Many did not? Correct?


But Gods by their nature, yours as well as ours are amoral. They stand outside of mortal codes of morality.



But this is not Christianity. Certainly if Wicca/paganism is true, we can make this statement, but not if the Bible is true.


Amoral means outside of normal moral codes. God of the Bible is constantly doing things that are outside of standard moral codes? Is he not? You can expalin why he's allowed to do so.. but you can't deny he has done so. If the Bible is true it proves your God is amoral.




Numbers 3:13 "For all the first-born are mine; on the day that I struck down all the first-born in the land of Egypt, I sanctified to myself all the first-born in Israel, from man to beast. They shall be mine; I am the Lord."

All the first-born, maybe even these Egyptian first-born? It could have brought good to them, good we cannot see, for we do not see beyond death, but God does, and thus he can bring about judgments that we cannot do ourselves, for we cannot see all results.

Blessings,
Lee

An having not accepted Christ.. or God.. where does the Bible say they will go?


As to it being a choice of sinking ships, I accept the Gods are not mortals and are not bound to my codes of ethics in the same way my son accepts that the rules I set for how he lives are not binding on me. But I also note that when my Gods break such codes.. they pay a price. I note when your God gives such commands to his faithful, he does not.

Brighid Bless, Dur

[lee_merrill]

Hi Dur,

Lee: And a God who dies on a cross has some good evidence for being committed to loving others…

Dur: Now assuming your God is acting for the motive of bringing "others" to salvation is acting in others best interests and the person being tortured/killed is being used as a tool. Correct?
No, not in the sense of God using him with no regard for this man's own best interest. I don't believe people's best interests need to conflict! Not their ultimate best interest, since that involves people acting out of loving self-sacrifice. That's what's best for a person, not getting more, but giving more.

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

And that is in the best interest of the person who does this, as well as the person they give to.

Acts 20:35 I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'

More blessed! Not just more commendable…

Dur: Amoral means outside of normal moral codes.
That would be a different word, would it not? As I understand "amoral," it means without morals, such as a rock is amoral, or a fishing expedition. So that's a bit different! And Christianity holds that God is moral in the sense we understand it.

Daniel 9:7 "Lord, you are righteous, but this day we are covered with shame."

I think this implies that we have not met the moral standards we hold to, but God has, and what God is, in moral purity, is required of us:

1 Peter 1:16 for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy."

Lee: All the first-born, maybe even these Egyptian first-born?

Dur: having not accepted Christ.. or God.. where does the Bible say they will go?
I believe God can save infants, without their knowing information about God in the form of propositions, yet knowing him:

Psalm 22:10 From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God.

Dur: I also note that when my Gods break such codes.. they pay a price.
Then the Gods are accountable? Does that imply a higher authority above them? Must there not be a Creator of all, who set this in place?

Dur: I note when your God gives such commands to his faithful, he does not.
But if his commands are righteous, then he does not deserve punishment. We can discuss instances of what seem to be unrighteous commands, to see what could be said about them, maybe over in Apologetics…

Blessings,
Lee

[Richbee]

Amoral means outside of normal moral codes. God of the Bible is constantly doing things that are outside of standard moral codes? Is he not?

Dur

Are you projecting human feelings and emotions into God?

Or, just failing to see God's justice?

Now, if you are going to cite tribal wars, or civil wars as the Israelites wander the wilderness, shouldn't we also discuss the pagan on pagan genocides, in say, England, or Britian?

I am warned in adavance, that many of the classic examples cited by Wiccan Apologists require lenghtly discussions, and not really solved with a quick post or two.

If I may, could we cover live human sacrifice, or infraticide?

Should a just God work through his people, and even through the Sword to bring his righteousness on Earth as it is in Heaven?

Or, should that evil god Mollech consume the babies, and be appeased by the innocent blood?

Look, let's be real, Sex cults have many unwanted babies, and require much child sacrifice.

What would Jesus do?

[Durthorin]

Hi Dur,
No, not in the sense of God using him with no regard for this man's own best interest. I don't believe people's best interests need to conflict! Not their ultimate best interest, since that involves people acting out of loving self-sacrifice. That's what's best for a person, not getting more, but giving more.


Its an interesting belief but reality shows that peoples best interests often are in conflict.


John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.


If you choose to lay down your life for me, yes. But if God chooses to lay your life down for me.. that would be a no. Wouldn't it. Its not your love, now is it?


And that is in the best interest of the person who does this, as well as the person they give to.


You have one salvation. You have it or you don't. Correct? If you are saved dieing for somone else is not going to make you more saved is it? Unless what your espousing is that their is a caste system in Heavan. Where those that have done more for God, get more? An if its self 'sacrefice" by the definition your doing something -not- to your benifit for someone else... else its not a sacrefice, now is it?



Acts 20:35 I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'

More blessed! Not just more commendable…


So in essence you believe the harder you work for Christ the more you get?


That would be a different word, would it not? As I understand "amoral," it means without morals, such as a rock is amoral, or a fishing expedition. So that's a bit different! And Christianity holds that God is moral in the sense we understand it.


immoral adj 1: violating principles of right and wrong [ant: moral (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moral), amoral (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=amoral)] 2: not adhering to ethical or moral principles; "base and unpatriotic motives"; "a base, degrading way of life"; "cheating is dishonorable"; "they considered colonialism immoral"; "unethical practices in handling public funds" [syn: base (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=base), dishonorable (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dishonorable), dishonourable (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dishonourable), unethical (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unethical)] 3: morally unprincipled; "immoral behavior" 4: characterized by wickedness or immorality; "led a very bad life" [syn: bad (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bad)] 5: marked by immorality; deviating from what is considered right or proper or good; "depraved criminals"; "a perverted sense of loyalty"; "the reprobate conduct of a gambling aristocrat" [syn: depraved (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=depraved), perverse (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perverse), perverted (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perverted), reprobate (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reprobate)]


a·mor·al
adj.
Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.
Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.

I'm using the first definition.




I believe God can save infants, without their knowing information about God in the form of propositions, yet knowing him:

Psalm 22:10 From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God.


A nice song from the psalms but the question remains answered "No one comes to the Father....". There does not seem to be a lot of wiggle room in Christ's words does there? No "buts".. no "somes", no "ifs" just a simple statement "No one." An if you believe that we are born in sin and only Christ can wash that sin away, then that newborn child.. that fetus if you want to go that far back will go to hell if they do not live long enough to accept Christ. Its one reason I have always assumed the fanatic determination against abortion exists among Christians. If that is the belief then abortion doesn't kill a child, it sends a soul to Hell for all eternity.




Then the Gods are accountable? Does that imply a higher authority above them? Must there not be a Creator of all, who set this in place?


In thought that is the naturl law. To borrow a term, Karma. One does things and certain things happen. Drop a ball it falls, do something and there are reprecussions.



But if his commands are righteous, then he does not deserve punishment. We can discuss instances of what seem to be unrighteous commands, to see what could be said about them, maybe over in Apologetics…


But at that point your defending his "right" to make those decisions that kill children, wipe out entire races.. an thus defending that he stands outside of what we consider moral or immoral. An thus you make my point for me.

Brighid Bless, Dur

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Well, then there is no guarantee that they will always have your best interest at heart, that's all I was trying to ask about here. And then they have room for improvement. How much room, I would wonder? No more than she could be entirely certain that I have HER best interests at heart either.
But that is where trust comes in that the more I learn about Morrigan and that She interacts with me then that relationship of trust comes in.


But Morrigan can't be flawless morally, and also "break moral codes on many occasions." I am not asking her to be morally perfect. That is not something that I would expect from anyone. WHat ever flaws morrigan may have, (At this point I am unaware of any and if I were I would certainly not tell you.)



Yes, but still not worthy of worship! Not if she's not better than the mortals, only older and with some supernatural abilities. the same can be said about YHWH.



Jesus is part of God, though, people do say God required this of Jesus, but Jesus and God are not so divisible. Jesus offered himself, being one with God, God did this, for me, and for you, to atone for sins. so jesus and got got involved within a sado masochistic relationship? That sounds kind of twisted dont you think?



I did mention some benefit I have had from troubles, though, in dealing with various faults I had (have! But progress is being made, that I can see). And I have been healed, three times. Or more! I don't count the times where I prayed and got well and it could have been just normal recovery. as have I but that does not excuse the rest of christianity, you are one case out of a small number of people who have benefited from christian magic.



I can't speak for everyone who claims the name of Christian, but I have been kept in God's peace, as he promised.[/quote which beings up another point all we have is your word and quite frankly most people know that alot of things said on the internet cannot always be accurate.



[quote]It is love if love involves a commitment though, is it not? love does involve a commitment, but it must be entered into and kept willingly. Not because one partner threatens the other with violence for breaking the relationship. that is called spousal abuse.



Well, that's just the danger sign I see here, following "balance," not good per se, not rejecting evil, per se, because that's the way Nature is, making balance primary. So this allows anything to be done, if it is only done to restore (what I think of?) balance. The idea of balance is that of the Tao, which basically means that for every action taken there is a RE-Action. If I do something then the universe in some way responds. If I am a nice cheery person I will attract nice cheery people around me, If I am a mass murdering psychopath, then I will attract the police, vengeful relatives and possibly a victim who will be so determined to survive they willl fight me with everything they have and quite possibly kill me. Operating in Balance does not mean that one can do what they want without consequences it just means that one lives with the understanding that one must deal with the consequences of their actions and take responsibility for them.

Now that was my point with me (hypothetically, I hope) deciding to be the predator and eat the needy people. What is balance for you may not be what is balance for me, what is balance for Nature may upset my life completely. The needs of the many out wiegh the needs of the few or the one. It is kind of a principle that comes with balance. you may feel the need to prey upon needy people, the universe will then act acordingly and in how you carry your needs out. You cant hit a pond with your fist and expect not to get wet and scummy.

Now is there a judge for some predators? If so, on what basis? Surely it can't be just because they aren't meeting our own personal standard, that we chose to live by. I refer you to what I said above.



Just my point, though! You set the standard, all you allow for yourself is fine, you may have (it is allowed) all you wish of war and pleasure. I may have it, but that does not mean there wont be consequences though. The point is that If I decide to have all I want of war and pleasure then I best be ready to live with the consequences of my actions.



Maybe this could disqualify the God I worship, too, we can discuss this over in Apologetics if you wish. I only mean that Morrigan is not meeting the standard, and that is what I came here to discuss. and as much as you may say morrigan does not meet your standard of divinity I believe YHWH does not meet mine either. So there is realy nothing to discuss about it.



I haven't actually done that one, but I have done some of the other sins that you mention. Now the point here is that you seem to be condemning those who prey in a bad way on others, yet the standard you hold to, you may choose that, presumably these bad predators may choose their own standard, too? Nope Im just pointing out to you that you dont live up to your own moral standard there for you have no right or reason to assume that I should live up to it either.

Then we cannot have the benefit of calling a given deed real evil, and punishable, if anyone can pick just any standard they choose. the problem is lee you folks throw around the word Evil so much it loses all meaning what so ever. Years ago rock music was considered evil, then christian Rock, now it's rap, before it used to be comic books then cartoons.
You people use the term evil like it was acceptable to just toss around like a blanket so that now, the word evil has none of the meaning it once did, when ever you folks talk about evil it now beocmes:
"Something fun that the Fundementalists dont like because it gives them erections."

[Durthorin]

Are you projecting human feelings and emotions into God?

Or, just failing to see God's justice?


Not really the point is a God's justice, motivation and agenda is not human nor in many cases understandable by humans.. thus outside of our moral dictates. I have no problem with this. Some people seem to treat it like the 500 pound gorrilia and not want to acknowledge that "No. God does not have to folllow your moral code."

Not so?

Brighid Bless, Dur

[lee_merrill]

Hi again, Dur,

Dur: but reality shows that peoples best interests often are in conflict.
People's self-interest! But their best interest, if it is indeed more blessed to give, need not conflict. If people are wrestling, yes, if people are dancing, no.

Dur: But if God chooses to lay your life down for me.. that would be a no. Wouldn't it. Its not your love, now is it?
Exodus 32:32 But now, please forgive their sin-- but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.

I think that's God's love, if he calls one of his people to do that, he will provide the love.

Dur: If you are saved dieing for somone else is not going to make you more saved is it?
More blessed! If the principle Jesus said about this is correct. Not a higher-rank person, but a more blessed one, because they gave more.

Dur: An if its self "sacrifice" by the definition your doing something -not- to your benefit for someone else... else its not a sacrifice, now is it?
I agree that a sacrifice that is due to giving like this is not a loss. But the point is to give more, and that is the blessing, doing good, seeing a good result. That's what love wants, for another.

And it's in our best interest to want other people's best interest, so … everybody dances…

I kind of like this system.

Dur: So in essence you believe the harder you work for Christ the more you get?
No, the blessing is in the giving, that's the blessing, right there!

3 John 1:4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.
Proverbs 12:12 Whoever is wicked covets the spoil of evildoers, but the root of the righteous bears fruit.

Not eats fruit! Bears it, "the root of the righteous gives," more literally here, even…

Dictionary on amoral: "Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral."
Yes, that is what I mean, too, but you do seem to be saying trans-moral or something, not just without morals of any sort.

Dur: An if you believe that we are born in sin and only Christ can wash that sin away, then that newborn child.. that fetus if you want to go that far back will go to hell if they do not live long enough to accept Christ.
Well, we have to fit this verse from the Psalms in, too, we can't just snip it out. So I hold that people can respond to God, even in the womb:

Luke 1:15 … he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth.

So God can save them then, too, the prescribed way to become a Christian has, I think, gotten off track, the essence, I believe, is in submission to God (Mt. 7:21ff), knowing him (Jn. 17:3), obeying him (2 Th. 1:8). Christ died for sins, and made a way for us to come to God through him. To believe God is to obey him, and that, I would say, is the essence of faith. If we are obeying God, we will of course believe truths about him, as soon as we are able to understand them.

Romans 10:9 If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

And we certainly believe God raised Christ from the dead if we obey him as a living person, and we also confess him as Lord by obedience.

Lee: Must there not be a Creator of all, who set this in place?

Dur: One does things and certain things happen. Drop a ball it falls, do something and there are repercussions.
Yes, but is there not a Creator? Someone who set all of this up?

Dur: But at that point your defending his "right" to make those decisions that kill children, wipe out entire races.. an thus defending that he stands outside of what we consider moral or immoral.
But if there is life after death, then this becomes a question of whether pain can be beneficial, does it not? I believe it can be, and may indeed be so, even in these instances.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Hi Cu,

Can we tone it down here, please, this being a Christian forum? Re your last comment.

Lee: But Morrigan can't be flawless morally, and also "break moral codes on many occasions."

Cu: I am not asking her to be morally perfect.
But maybe you don't have to settle for an imperfect God to worship. Would you not want that, if there was a perfect God?

Lee: Yes, but still not worthy of worship! Not if she's not better than the mortals, only older and with some supernatural abilities.

Cu: the same can be said about YHWH.
Well, if that's true, I'm not going to worship either of them! I might fear them, like a grizzly bear, but I'm not going to try and climb in their lap.

Lee: Jesus offered himself, being one with God, God did this, for me, and for you, to atone for sins.

Cu: so jesus and got got involved within a sado masochistic relationship? That sounds kind of twisted…
Love involves a sacrifice, does it not? Having ease, comfort and pleasure, does not show anyone that you love them, invariably, there has to be a sacrifice to demonstrate that.

Cu: you are one case out of a small number of people who have benefited from christian magic.
Well, no, magic, is "You do this, you get that," but prayer is a relationship, the answer is not always pleasure, but if there's power to heal, and to purify hearts, then there's power to heal, and purify hearts! For me, for others, for you, I believe.

Lee: .. but I have been kept in God's peace, as he promised.

Cu: all we have is your word and quite frankly most people know that alot of things said on the internet cannot always be accurate.
Well, judge for yourself! Does it seem like I have peace? Let's continue to talk, and you can get to know me better.

Lee: making balance primary … allows anything to be done, if it is only done to restore (what I think of?) balance.

Cu: The idea of balance is that of the Tao, which basically means that for every action taken there is a RE-Action.
That's Ying-Yang maybe, but not the Tao. "This is the Tao, I do not know if anyone has ever kept it" (The Analects of Confucius). Now this could not be said, if the Tao was about inevitable balance.

Cu: Operating in Balance does not mean that one can do what they want without consequences it just means that one lives with the understanding that one must deal with the consequences of their actions and take responsibility for them.
Yes, so we can't set the bar just anywhere we want, we have to follow reality outside ourselves for our standard! We reap what we sow, I agree. But that's actually not balanced! The more good you do, the more good you will reap, and vice versa.

Cu: Nope Im just pointing out to you that you dont live up to your own moral standard there for you have no right or reason to assume that I should live up to it either.
But we both have this to deal with, if indeed we all reap what we sow. That means there's a real standard, which applies to you, and to me, and to everyone, whether we make the grade or not.

Regards,
Lee

[Richbee]

Not really the point is a God's justice, motivation and agenda is not human nor in many cases understandable by humans.

But the polar opposite of Evil is not really Good. It is actually, Holiness.

God is Holy.

Now, I can't prove this, or wrap my arms around God, and fully grasp the end of evil, but by faith I do believe that God's Holiness will ultimately triump.

I can't and won't sit in Judgment of God's Justice and I won't want to replace it with my own personal model for justice.

I would fear a World ruled by my inate pagan ways! :nsm:

[Durthorin]

But the polar opposite of Evil is not really Good. It is actually, Holiness.

God is Holy.

Now, I can't prove this, or wrap my arms around God, and fully grasp the end of evil, but by faith I do believe that God's Holiness will ultimately triump.

I can't and won't sit in Judgment of God's Justice and I won't want to replace it with my own personal model for justice.

I would fear a World ruled by my inate pagan ways! :nsm:

As you said Rich, you can not prove this, you just accept it as a matter of faith.

Brighid Bless, Dur

[Iktovian]

:badger::badger::badger::badger::badger::badger::badger::badger::badger::badger::badger::badger::badger::badger::badger::badger::badger:

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Hi Cu,
But maybe you don't have to settle for an imperfect God to worship. Would you not want that, if there was a perfect God? Again Lee you are assuming that your god is perfect just because HE says so. Gods do not have to be perfect just because christians say that the gods have to be perfect, Looking at YHWH's History both in the old and new testament we see YHWH given to Jealousy, Genocidal rage, Preferencial treatment, and the need to dominate others. None of which are traits of a "Perfect Deity". We see Him allowing His followers to lie cheat and steal from His other followers and Us pagans and doing Nothing about it.


Well, if that's true, I'm not going to worship either of them! I might fear them, like a grizzly bear, but I'm not going to try and climb in their lap. Again noone is asking you to climb upon their lap. and I would only do do if Morrigan insturcted me to. The point is Lee that Not all of us want a divine parent to whom we could "Cuddle Up with" and have take away our fears. Morrigan teaches Me to face My fears because it is the necessary thing to do other wise you will always be in subjection to them. YHWH on the other hand allow his ministers to place fear on his followers every chance they get.


Love involves a sacrifice, does it not? Having ease, comfort and pleasure, does not show anyone that you love them, invariably, there has to be a sacrifice to demonstrate that. There is enough sacrificing in the world as it is. (I think that I proved that when I talked about My sacrificing Smoking on Halloween). There is nothing easy or comfortable in serving Morrigan for me. Following a war goddess does involve a bit of sacrifice especially when I am instructed by her to do something. Usually that involves Me going outside of my comfort zone and moving into an area that I am completely uncomfortable in.


Well, no, magic, is "You do this, you get that," but prayer is a relationship, the answer is not always pleasure, but if there's power to heal, and to purify hearts, then there's power to heal, and purify hearts! For me, for others, for you, I believe. Yes but your magic also requires you to DO things Like read and memorize scriptures, Sing songs of praise and worship, and at times do specifically odd or wierd thins during worship (Like chanting, Singing, Dancig in the "Holy Ghost" which are basically methods we witches and shamanic practitioners use to generate the energy to work Magic.


Well, judge for yourself! Does it seem like I have peace? Let's continue to talk, and you can get to know me better. It is one thing Reading what you post it is another thing meeting you in person. Since I cannot see you through the internet (Unless you have a web cam up) I cannot tell anything about you except wheat you write on the message board. And we all know that everyone tells the absolute truth Online :ahem:


That's Ying-Yang maybe, but not the Tao. "This is the Tao, I do not know if anyone has ever kept it" (The Analects of Confucius). Now this could not be said, if the Tao was about inevitable balance.I am going by what I learned about the tao which was to my understanding about the universe balancing itself out.


Yes, so we can't set the bar just anywhere we want, we have to follow reality outside ourselves for our standard! We reap what we sow, I agree. But that's actually not balanced! The more good you do, the more good you will reap, and vice versa.Who says? There is no reason why the reality chrsitianity proposes is any better than the realities set by other religions. If Christians themselves cannot meet their own standard then they cannot go around telling others about how they should follow said standards.
Essentially they are sking US to do what they themselves cannot do. and that is called Hypocracy which was the Sin Jesus accused the pharisees of. See how it works?

But we both have this to deal with, if indeed we all reap what we sow. That means there's a real standard, which applies to you, and to me, and to everyone, whether we make the grade or not.
that is what I have been trying to tell you Lee, the universe is the one that makes the standard. If you look at how Reaping and sowing affect your life then you are going to make the choices that will bring you good things and not bad (Ie: DOING GOOD THINGS).
Since the Universe is truely Impartial, the results work for everyone Not just some "Select" bunch of believers of XYZ religion.

[Richbee]

As you said Rich, you can not prove this, you just accept it as a matter of faith.

Brighid Bless, Dur

Ah - Ha my friend Michael!

Yes we can, because we do know where whence the evil is founded in Wicca!

But, first we must define Good. God is Good and Holy! God loves his children!

Now, consider the famous, or infamous teaching of a 1970's influential Witch:

Light/Dark, or Good/Evil dualism is reflected in the teachings of Starhawk.

For example, though she does not think destruction is necessarily evil, she states:

"The nature of the Goddess is never single...She is light and the darkness, the patroness of love and death, who makes all possibilities. She brings both comfort and pain."

Elsewhere she says,

"As Crone, She is the dark face of life, which demands death and sacrifice...In Witchcraft, the dark, waning aspect of the god/goddess is not evil -- it is a vital part of the natural cycle."

This aspect of the divine manifesting itself in polarities (dualism) is echoed by almost all (if not all) witches.

In Dreaming the Dark Starhawk attempts to grapple with ethical issues and the problem of evil:

"Evil is a concept that cannot be separated from the stories of duality. Power-over, violence, coercion...are not evil in the sense of being part of a
force in direct opposition to good. Instead, we can see them as mistakes, processes born of chance that spread because they have served their purposes....The problem of evil is really a problem of randomness."

[lee_merrill]

Hi Cu,

Lee: But maybe you don't have to settle for an imperfect God to worship. Would you not want that, if there was a perfect God?

Cu: Again Lee you are assuming that your god is perfect just because HE says so.

Actually, I'm only asking here if you would want a perfect God, if there was one…

Lee: I might fear them, like a grizzly bear, but I'm not going to try and climb in their lap.

Cu: Morrigan teaches Me to face My fears because it is the necessary thing to do other wise you will always be in subjection to them.

Then you don't have to be open to Morrigan in any way, to have her for your God?

Lee: Love involves a sacrifice, does it not? Having ease, comfort and pleasure, does not show anyone that you love them…

Cu: Following a war goddess does involve a bit of sacrifice…

No, I was asking, has Morrigan has sacrificed for you? If not, then I don't think you have any good assurance that she has love or concern for you.

Cu: Yes but your magic also requires you to DO things Like read and memorize scriptures…

No, the power of Christ is quite different, it can't be wielded, it's not "do this and get that," I can't do something, put fuel in the furnace, and get energy I can use. It's "obey and we'll see what happens, instead!" And it's always about relationship with God.

Lee: Yes, so we can't set the bar just anywhere we want, we have to follow reality outside ourselves for our standard! We reap what we sow…

Cu: Who says?

Cu says! "Operating in Balance does not mean that one can do what they want without consequences it just means that one lives with the understanding that one must deal with the consequences of their actions and take responsibility for them."

So we reap what we sow!

Cu: the universe is the one that makes the standard. If you look at how Reaping and sowing affect your life then you are going to make the choices that will bring you good things and not bad (Ie: DOING GOOD THINGS).

Since the Universe is truely Impartial, the results work for everyone.
Yes, we reap what we sow, I agree, and thus we can't just pick our own standard…

Blessings,
Lee

[Richbee]

(This sounds too much like Justin)

In the Preface to his book, Human, All Too Human published in 1879, Friedrich Nietzsche offered the following insight. The language is strange and unfamiliar. What is Nietzsche talking about?

Enough, I am still alive; and life has not been devised by morality: it wants deception, it lives on deception -- but wouldn't you know it? Here I am, beginning again, doing what I have always done, the old immoralist and birdcatcher, I am speaking immorally, extra-morally, "beyond good and evil."

This is Wiccan, all is "perception" and experience.

There is no absolute truth, only the company of Witches and "wisdon" teaching the old ways, "beyond good and evil".

[Richbee]

As you said Rich, you can not prove this, you just accept it as a matter of faith.

Brighid Bless, Dur

What kind of Faith? Blind Faith? The Faith of a child?

Childlike Faith

All my life I have heard that in order to come to Jesus one must have a "childlike faith." I had a difficult time with that concept for many years, for it usually meant that one must have the "naiveté," "simplicity," or even the "blind resolve" of a child. This did not reconcile with what I saw in the rest of the Scripture regarding how we are to think of God. Solomon obviously did not hold this view when he wrote,

"How blessed is the man who finds wisdom and the man who gains understanding"

David says to "Taste and see that the Lord is good" (Ps. 34:8).

Furthermore, when I looked up the meaning of "faith" in the original language, I found that it involved having confidence in something that was trustworthy (or faithful). It did not imply anything associated with acting blindly.

I recently received a letter from a lady expressing the tension she was finding in her own life. On one side she wrestled with some of the more difficult doctrines and truths of Scripture. But on the other side she continued to hear she should have a 'childlike faith.' This was an impossible reconciliation for her and left her somewhat spiritually paralyzed.

Slice of Infinity - Click Here (www.gospelcom.net/rzim/noindex/sliceprint.php?sliceid=508)

[tmancour]

Rich,
Regaurding your assertions about Us Celts based on the writtings of A Ceasar, Have you never heard of propaganda before? Ceasar had every reason to try Justifying a costly war against us and He needed every bit of propaganda he could Muster. (Sort of Like George W. Bush and and the Mantra "Weapons of Mass Destruction") Ceasar did not give a whit about the Lives being lost He wanted Territory, so in order for him to get it he had to motivate the soldiers to fight inspite of such fierce enemies.
Yes We did practice Human sacrifice at ONE time, as has the romans, as has the Phillitines and yes even the Jews (Jephthah and His daughter, the extermination of the canaanite peoples,) and the Christians (The witch trials, the inquisitions, constantine's and later "Holy" emperor's persecution of the hellenes, the Slaughter of the native american tribes...etc etc etc.)
I'd like to point out that the human sacrifices made by the druids were usually condemned prisoners or POWs, not random dudes off the street. Is murder somehow worse if it is carried out under the supervision of a priest? Then why do we have preachers present at executions here?

Arion the Blue
High Druid of Durham

[tmancour]

But not always? Then she may not always have your best interest at heart, and your worship must be tinged with some dread, and I would recommend another God, who died for all, so they might live, even those who might be characterized as ... "obscenely stupid".Lee


Had to jump in, here, even though my patroness is Brighid and not the Morrigan.

The Gods do always have your best interests at heart, just like your parents did when you were a child. And, like your parents, punishments that seemed stupid and arbitrary at the time may well prove valuable lessons in the fullness of time and with added perspective. Our worship is NOT tinged with dread (at least mine isn't -- I won't speak for all) because we do not fear the gods -- we fear the predations of the "obscenely stupid".

As far as your other reccomendations for deity, I have yet to meet a Christian who lived one more day beyond his alotted span because of the death of Jesus. And there are some "obscenely stupid" people who should die in order to improve the breed, IMO.

BTW, Although Brighid is my patroness, I have a soft spot for An Morrigan too -- I named my daughter Morrigan!

Blessed Be,
Arion the Blue
High Druid of Durham

[technomage]

Our worship is NOT tinged with dread (at least mine isn't -- I won't speak for all) because we do not fear the gods....

Fear? No, not precisely ... though They are awesome beyond description, and meeting Them can be a terrifying experience for one who is not prepared.

[tmancour]

I'm not asking if she wants to change, though, should she change? Does she have flaws?

Does the wind have flaws? She is not the ultimate standard of divinity -- that's why us pagan types have many gods, to encompass all the realms of nature and thought.

Apparently she is about on the level of ordinary people, in the area of morality. She should change. And thus she is not, I think, worthy of such devotion.

Indeed, I do not think she meets the qualifications for being worthy of worship, she seems not to even be a good example. She just is. Well, I just am, too, you are, and the plant next to my computer…

And JHVH is? The deity who allegedly DESTROYED THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE except for one family because he wasn't happy with how they prayed? The Morrigan is the divine personification of Death in Service to Life, among other things. While Christians fear and loathe death in all of its manifestations (on paper) pagans understand that death and life are essentially connected. And when you or your houseplant can manifest such a divine personification, we can talk about worship.

I can point to a cross, has Morrigan suffered ... for you?
There is a reward for that, and I see good fruit from suffering even now, in God removing faults in me that way. Does war remove human faults? Sex? Does this make them better persons?

How does the suffering of a divinity in any way advance your own spirituality? Odin suffered when he sacrificed himself to himself on Yggdrasil, but that was to learn the wisdom of the runes. Indeed, Wiccans and pagans recognize that you have to suffer in order to learn -- not the Gods, but YOU. Jesus suffered -- and you learned what? Knowlege, perhaps. But not wisdom. Wisdom must be experienced.

Can you be jealous in a good way too, though?

Not in my experience. Jealousy is one of the most hateful, harmful human emotions -- you want a human flaw, that is among the biggest. Show me one good thing that has ever happened because of jealousy. And you see that as a positive trait in your divinity?



Yes, I understand that you choose. But I think my point has not been addressed by replying that you are free in this way. Are you not making judgments, based on your standards? But you seem to be worshipping war and pleasure, while speaking against those who war for their pleasure.

No, I meant that you may have all you wish of these. You set your own moral standards, do you not? And you worship a war and sex goddess, do you not? I think I may then make my conclusion here, you may have all you wish of war and pleasure, it is allowed, though it may not actually be possible to do this, in any given instance.

The worship of An Morrigan is different than worshipping war and pleasure -- she is a goddess of these things, but they do not alone define her, any more than Jesus is a God of Human Sacrifice alone. I worship Brighid (among the other gods) but I do not "worship" fire: it is a tool and force of nature that I use to understand the greater mysteries of the universe and my place therein.

Arion the Blue
High Druid of Durham

[Duder]

Lee asked the following question, and I felt it required a more in-depth answer than the portion of the thread it was in.



Cannibalism I'm a bit iffy on--frankly, when my spirit leaves my body, the carcass is going to feed worms anyway. I don't particularly care for the thought at all, but we've all read about cases of survival cannibalism. :shrug: The Donner party comes to mind ... but frankly, I can't tell you if that's "unqualified evil" or not.

Rape? Definitely evil. Murder--as in killing another person without reason or provocation? Definitely evil. Stealing for greed (as opposed to survival theft)? Definitely evil. But you jump to an unwarranted conclusion: the Creator does not "encompass" these acts--these actions are the results of our free will.

Those portions or aspects of the Creator that some might call "evil" are actually not things I consider evil, even though they involve death and destruction. Hunting, predation, and all the aspects of "nature, red in tooth and claw" are not evil--these are natural processes, as life unavoidably feeds on life. Same thing with natural processes such as earthquakes, storms, famine, disease ... you name it. If it is a natural process that does not involve conscious volition on our part, it was still created by the Creator.

So what is evil? The I tend to believe that defining evil is not within the purview of a "majority vote," or any form of "authoritative statement" from a religious, political, or societal group: such "group definitions" fall under the definition of the word "morals," and that's a whole 'nuther critter. With the possible confusion between the concepts, perhaps it would be better to first define what evil is not.

Illegality does not define evil. Rape is illegal, but so is loitering in many jurisdictions. While both are against the law, the I'm quite sure that most people will agree that while the former is definitely evil, the latter is only questionably so at best.

Immorality does not necessarily define evil. Murder is immoral, but so is polyamory. While both go "against the grain" as to the "mainstream" (Western) group definition of morality, there are other definitions from other cultures where polyamory is acceptable.

Distastefullness does not necessarily define evil, else I would be in the ridiculous position of defining the ethics of spinach and mustard greens.

There are certain attributes that seem to be common in most analyses of the concept of evil. While random chance has been accorded the word, it is my opinion that storm violence, traffic accidents, and natural disasters are random. Just as "Good" requires a decision to act, "Evil" needs volition to exist.

Evil takes -- without giving: The man who steals to feed his children does something that is against the law, but few people could condemn him as truly "evil." The man who takes for his own greed -- whether "real" assets, or intangibles such as innocence and honesty -- could be classed by most as evil.
Evil hurts -- without healing: A doctor must frequently "hurt" patients in order to heal them; a medieval inquisitor had no cares but for the pain he caused.
Evil destroys -- without creating: Arson can destroy a forest, as can lumbering. While some disagree with the practice, lumber cutting does, at least, provide useful and necessary commodities -- arson produces only bare, scorched earth.
Evil chooses: Hitler is a prime example that most Westerners would agree falls under the definition of an "evil" man. He did not passively allow the slaughter of Jews, Poles, Catholics, and others, but actively chose the role.
Even considering the fact that the examples are anecdotal, these definitions can break down. Hitler was, undoubtedly, one of the most evil men in the twentieth century C.E., but he rebuilt German economy, broken by the crushing debts and massive damage of World War I. When defining evil, it seems best to remember that even the most "evil" person may do good things, just as even the most "good" person may do evil things.

Justin


Hello, Justin -

This was a really good post, and I wonder why I didn't see it for so long. I guess it was too buried for me to notice when I came.

What I especially like is the way you are willing to think out loud in difficult and controversial subjects - it makes you susceptible and, to my way of thinking, a brave person.

Plato used to take a concept like justice, love, beauty or whatever and he would try to find the simplest, most irreducible definition he could, so that he could bring to light the very essence of the thing he was investigating. By stripping away particulars and contingencies, he hoped to arrive at a clean and rationally pure Idea of what are love, justice, goodness, etc, .

This is a very hard thing to do with evil, isn't it? It was Plato's determination that evil was [/i]ignorence[/i], because he had already said that knowledge is goodness - so it would stand to reason that evil is a lack of knowledge. Nobody wants to do evil, he said, and nobody does evil on purpose. If he does evil, he does it with the false notion that good will result from his act.

Applying your Hitler example, Plato would say that Hitler could be tutored out of his evil ways. Read Mein Kampf and have lenghty discussions with Hitler to find out all you can about how he thinks. He was a reasonably intelligent person, with a fair command of factual information - so if he was ignorent, it will show up in a few wrong turns that he made early in his chain of thinking - and all that comes later in his thinking rests upon undiscovered logical errors. Identify these, show them to Mr. Hitler, and when he sees the light you will have cured his evil.

The problem here is that Plato didn't know about sociopaths. A sociopath's evil does not seem to originate in ignorence, as many of them seem to be very highly intelligent, well educated and fully cognizent that no good will come from what they do. Maybe the population of Athens in the 5th century BCE just wasn't a large enough sampling to produce a noticable number of seriel killers to show Plato a counterexample to his theory.

When you want to define a thing down to its irreducible essence, things should get simpler as you go. But it looks to me when I try to define evil that things get more complicated as I go. Start off with what looks like a simple idea, evil, and when you analize it to see what it is, things get exponentially more complex. Every hypothesis fails by conterexample. Every cause has any number of preceeding causes, and the whole thing explodes into an impossibly messy and convoluted flow chart - the very opposite of what we wanted to have in a definition.

And I am not certain that it solves the matter to define evil with reference to a transcendental Being whose ways are mysterious to us, saying, "evil is whatever God declares it to be". Because, in this situation one still wants to know why God considers one thing good and another thing evil. If we could follow along with the mind of God as he deliberates good and evil, would we see a complicated flow chart with a chaotic interplay of causes and contingencies, or would we find a simple, basic and irreducible axiom by reference to which God knows good from evil?

My working hypothesis is that evil is messy rather than simple. Evil is a kind of code word that stands for something that shifts this way and that depending upon how a myriad of variables change. If you force me to speculate, I will propose that evil is "things and events that run counter to the will" (and I have no doubt you can tear that to pieces with your shrewd questions). This definition covers Hitler very nicely - The behavior of and the very existence of the Jewish people ran counter to the will of Hitler, and Hitler had the power to convince the Germans that he was correct. Thus, in the German culture of the time, Jewishness was evil.

Of course, what Hitler did ran counter to the will of the allied nations. Outside of the axis nations, it was Hitler's will, and not Jewishness, that was evil.

Evil, I think, is a social convention. Evil is what we ultimately dislike - and what we ultimately dislike is very much the result of our social conditioning. And the precise details of what is evil vary from place to place in very much the same way as what is polite varies from place to place.

I find it very interesting that in the Biblical mythology, the knowledge of good and evil is something that God did not want us to have - as if dividing the world into good things and evil things were a fundamental, ideological error that interfered with our direct communion with Him. It was the appearance of this moral duality among humans that wrecked paradise and made necessary an act of grace to redeem us. God isn't mad because we disobeyed him, God is sad because our human abstractions get between us and Him.

I don't have an absolute faith in what I just said. There's something to it, but it doesn't seem to be the last word. For when I use words like good or justice my mind still reaches up to the heavens to grasp a transcendental Form. Perhaps I was conditioned into that feeling. Or maybe that feeling comes from the fact that there is a near-universal general trend to say that such things as violence, pain, unbridaled greed and the disruption of social cooperation are generally evil. Or maybe there really is in us a God-given, a priori sense of good and evil that comes from a clean and simple moral axiom that only God can apprehend. But for the present, I think evil is a convention, and I hold that belief provisionally, awaiting further light.

[tmancour]

Evil, I think, is a social convention. Evil is what we ultimately dislike - and what we ultimately dislike is very much the result of our social conditioning. And the precise details of what is evil vary from place to place in very much the same way as what is polite varies from place to place.

I find it very interesting that in the Biblical mythology, the knowledge of good and evil is something that God did not want us to have - as if dividing the world into good things and evil things were a fundamental, ideological error that interfered with our direct communion with Him. It was the appearance of this moral duality among humans that wrecked paradise and made necessary an act of grace to redeem us. God isn't mad because we disobeyed him, God is sad because our human abstractions get between us and Him.

I don't have an absolute faith in what I just said. There's something to it, but it doesn't seem to be the last word. For when I use words like good or justice my mind still reaches up to the heavens to grasp a transcendental Form. Perhaps I was conditioned into that feeling. Or maybe that feeling comes from the fact that there is a near-universal general trend to say that such things as violence, pain, unbridaled greed and the disruption of social cooperation are generally evil. Or maybe there really is in us a God-given, a priori sense of good and evil that comes from a clean and simple moral axiom that only God can apprehend. But for the present, I think evil is a convention, and I hold that belief provisionally, awaiting further light.

I tend to agree with your assessment. I've always maintained that suffering was the greatest evil, but there is a lot of wiggle room even there. Some suffering is beneficial, after all, once you have the perspective to appreciate it. So evil goes back to a socially conditioned, culturally programmed and highly subjective concept, not a hard and fast definition.

There are few universal human crimes; for each one we define as "evil" in our culture, you can find a culture somewhere, somewhen that has it as acceptable, good, and even desirable -- even things like incest, cannibalism, and genocide. Evil is entirely subjective, I think. We learn it from our parents and our community, and we eventually form our own opinions that usually (but not always) come into line in our home culture. That doesn't mean that it doesn't really exist, of course, but thinking about it as an Absolute is an easy mistake.

I like the point about the garden and the tree. I've often wondered why God in that mythology forbade Man to eat of the tree, but put it right there knowing full well that he couldn't resist the temptation. Bad parenting, in my opinion.

Arion the Blue
High Druid of Durham

[Keepupthefire]

Myself I like to use the animaniacs skit of "Good Idea/Bad Idea" to explain evil.
I see evil more or less as Stupidity, an unwillingness to look at the obvious consequences of your actions. Or you know the consequences of your actions but do it anyway.

Good Idea: Walking your Dog.
Bad Idea: walking your Dog over a Hot bed of coals.

Good Idea: Feeding the Homeless.
Bad Idea: Feeding the Homeless to Hungry Sharks

Good Idea: Making Love to your significant Other.
Bad Idea: Making love to your significant Other's entire family.

Good Idea: Watching Jerry Springer
Bad Idea: Being ON Jerry springer.

Good Idea: Dancing Naked by a bonfire in the woods.
Bad Idea: Dancing naked by a bonfire on a street corner.

The End

I've seen this understanding of what is good vs evil before in a friend of mine who is a Ex-Wiccan. He would always tell me he didn't believe in good or evil, but rather stupidity as evil. Is this something you learn in your book(forgets name of it sorry)?

My definition of evil I use is short an simple. Perversion of what was good. Like a parasite. If there wasn't such a thing as good there wouldn't be evil, but not necessarly so with evil for it alone does not exist unless it has parasitically hijacked something good.

Yours,

Shawn

[technomage]

I've seen this understanding of what is good vs evil before in a friend of mine who is a Ex-Wiccan. He would always tell me he didn't believe in good or evil, but rather stupidity as evil. Is this something you learn in your book(forgets name of it sorry)?

Though I'm no longer a Wiccan, no, this is not something we learn from our Book of Shadows. Indeed, for most Wiccans, their book of shadows is more likely to be where they write what they learn from life.

[tmancour]

My definition of evil I use is short an simple. Perversion of what was good. Like a parasite. If there wasn't such a thing as good there wouldn't be evil, but not necessarly so with evil for it alone does not exist unless it has parasitically hijacked something good.



But then, how do you define good? Parasites may seem evil on the surface, but they play some valuable roles in the life cycle. This is one reason why I dislike the whole "good" "evil" dichotomy, as it is usually a horrendus oversimplification of a very complex issue.

Arion

[Keepupthefire]

But then, how do you define good? Parasites may seem evil on the surface, but they play some valuable roles in the life cycle. This is one reason why I dislike the whole "good" "evil" dichotomy, as it is usually a horrendus oversimplification of a very complex issue.

Arion

It is hard to define "good" granted, because we have never seen good without the the perverted state(that is evil) in which good resides. Perfection corrupted. Good was original perfection. Good is order.

An analogy would be how to tell countefeit money from the real thing. The only way to tell the bad from the good is to handle the real money, then you shall know the good money from the bad.

Perhaps this qoute will better answer what you mean by a parasite having some valuable role:

"To be greatly and effectively wicked a man needs some virtue. What would Attila have been without his courage, or Shylock without self-denial as regards the flesh?" The Screwtape Letters,Letter XXIX, para. 2, pp.135-136


One person could say that they think that Peter Gabriels song "Big Time" is good but listen to it for a week straight over an over an it becomes old, evil. But it wasn't evil, it was good, until someone ruined it by listening to it too much.

Hansens Disease is the loss of pain, the loss of feeling. These are real evils. In some cases bad relationships can be an example of evil. If I pick up a gun, the gun in itself is good unless it's used inappropiately. Evil is a lack of something that should be there in the relationship between good things.

Now one thing about mankinds desire to understand these things. Communism desires a utopia, which it tried to gain through force. You cannot have real good without free-will. Perfect love must come freely not forced(rape) that is why the evil entered an corrupted this world. Free-will was a chance that God allowed. He allowed the possibility of evil, but he didn't create it. Theres no point in creating something unless you give it the will to love back. Mankind still desires the utopia that communist crave. An one day God will make all things new. Read Isaiah 65. Actually much of the end of Isaiah talks of redemption an renewal. People subconciously crave utopia because the world is not what it once was.

Peace,

Keepupthefire

[tmancour]

It is hard to define "good" granted, because we have never seen good without the the perverted state(that is evil) in which good resides. Perfection corrupted. Good was original perfection. Good is order.


You can't define good. You can't define evil. Yet you insist in seeing the universe through a good/evil filter. Interesting.


An analogy would be how to tell countefeit money from the real thing. The only way to tell the bad from the good is to handle the real money, then you shall know the good money from the bad.


Actually, you have probably handled counterfeit money a thousand times in your life, didn't know it, and spent it. Worked just fine. BADLY counterfeited money, you can tell. WELL counterfeited money, not so much. The "I can't define evil, but I know it when I see it" argument injects a supreme amount of personal interpretation and subjective perspective into the debate. While I don't think that's a bad thing -- I'm a subjectivist myself -- I do think that it undermines the "Objective Truth" argument rather badly.


Perhaps this qoute will better answer what you mean by a parasite having some valuable role:

"To be greatly and effectively wicked a man needs some virtue. What would Attila have been without his courage, or Shylock without self-denial as regards the flesh?" The Screwtape Letters,Letter XXIX, para. 2, pp.135-136



But is "wicked" necessarily "evil"? Atilla brought much suffering, it is true, and I consider unecessary suffering to be a small e "evil". But to his own people he was a hero -- ask any Hungarian. And Shylock, as entertaining a character as he was, was a fictional person. While fiction is a good method to demonstrate complex ideas, you cannot ascribe "his" motivations as those of an independent, free-willed person.


One person could say that they think that Peter Gabriels song "Big Time" is good but listen to it for a week straight over an over an it becomes old, evil. But it wasn't evil, it was good, until someone ruined it by listening to it too much.


Again, subjectivity. I would propose that the song is not evil -- or even old. Neither can I compare having an earworm in your head with a classic definition of Evil. Perhaps if a person was forced to listen to it like that, the suffering caused would be evil -- but what if the event was beyond anyone's ability to control? Like being locked in an elevator during a malfunction and the song continues to play? Still not evil.


Hansens Disease is the loss of pain, the loss of feeling. These are real evils.


I disagree. These are not evils. They are disease, one of the many that mortal flesh is heir to. How is this evil? Unfortunate, yes. Debilitating, yes. Worthy of pity, yes. But Evil? Not so much.


In some cases bad relationships can be an example of evil. If I pick up a gun, the gun in itself is good unless it's used inappropiately.

I think it is silly ascribing the idea of good or evil to objects. There are no good objects. There are no evil objects. There are only intentions, and objects have no intentions.



Evil is a lack of something that should be there in the relationship between good things.


According to whom? For example, if a young man has been dating a young woman, he may have very different ideas about what "should be" involved in the relationship than she does. Does that mean that the lack of these things is evil? Or is it merely a difference of opinion?


Now one thing about mankinds desire to understand these things. Communism desires a utopia, which it tried to gain through force.


As does Christianity and Islam.


You cannot have real good without free-will. Perfect love must come freely not forced(rape) that is why the evil entered an corrupted this world.


You suffer under the illusion that this world was ever without the imposition of one will over another by force. There isn't a single shred of evidence for this kind of "golden age", though it is a common delusion held by most cultures and religions: the idea that the world was once somehow "pure" and it was "corrupted". This is in all likelihood a psychological remnant of our blissful childhood state, before we, as individuals, knew about the "evils" of the world.


Free-will was a chance that God allowed. He allowed the possibility of evil, but he didn't create it. Theres no point in creating something unless you give it the will to love back.


Is Evil devoid of Love? According to even the Christian mythology, Satan so loved God that he disobeyed him; therefore the Prince of Evil was motivated by Love. There are plenty of "evil" occurances that are instigated by profound feelings of love.


Mankind still desires the utopia that communist crave.


. . . and the Christians and the Muslims and the Jews ("Messianic Age" counts, I think)


An one day God will make all things new.


All things are already "new". The Universe is a continuous act of creation.


Read Isaiah 65. Actually much of the end of Isaiah talks of redemption an renewal. People subconciously crave utopia because the world is not what it once was.


I disagree. Firstly, Bible verses carry very little weight here. Secondly, I contend that people crave "utopias" because they are afraid of suffering and death, and are unwilling to work themselves for that kind of meaningful change. What is a utopia? Ask any three people and you'll get five answers. Sure, no one wants evil and suffering -- but one man's utopia is another man's Hell. Huxley's Brave New World showed a Utopia where everyone was happy. Sure, it was chemical, but it was Happy. Yet there were still those who dissented, wanted something else. The Christian's "Kingdom of Heaven" sounds like an oppresive theocratic dictatorship to me . . . but it might be your cup of tea. All is relative.


Blessed Be,

Arion the Blue
High Druid of Durham

[Keepupthefire]

I tend to agree with your assessment. I've always maintained that suffering was the greatest evil, but there is a lot of wiggle room even there. Some suffering is beneficial, after all, once you have the perspective to appreciate it. So evil goes back to a socially conditioned, culturally programmed and highly subjective concept, not a hard and fast definition.

There are few universal human crimes; for each one we define as "evil" in our culture, you can find a culture somewhere, somewhen that has it as acceptable, good, and even desirable -- even things like incest, cannibalism, and genocide. Evil is entirely subjective, I think. We learn it from our parents and our community, and we eventually form our own opinions that usually (but not always) come into line in our home culture. That doesn't mean that it doesn't really exist, of course, but thinking about it as an Absolute is an easy mistake.

I like the point about the garden and the tree. I've often wondered why God in that mythology forbade Man to eat of the tree, but put it right there knowing full well that he couldn't resist the temptation. Bad parenting, in my opinion.

Arion the Blue
High Druid of Durham

This is what is commonly called "Society Does Relativism." Here are some articles about morals and relativism:
www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6023 (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6023)
www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5278 (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5278)

[tmancour]

This is what is commonly called "Society Does Relativism." Here are some articles about morals and relativism:
www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6023 (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6023)
www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5278 (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5278)


What a load.

I read both articles thoroughly. They are the same old crap that moral absolutists always trot out when they want to feel morally superior to relativists.

Both articles are written through so many narrow lenses that they utterly fail to address the wider issue in anything remotely similar to a comprehensive sense.

First, there is the issue of the Western Perspective. Regardless of religion, the author reasons entirely through a Western European perspective, without regard to any of the radically different ways to theologically and morally view the universe that other human cultures have provided. If an arguement cannot be universally applied, it is at the minimum suspect, and in the extreme completely invalid. For example, how has this author taken into account the complex moral codes which guide Buddhists -- who, by the way, reject the concept of a single law-giving god -- yet have enjoyed a civilization that is more peaceful (when viewed as a whole) and with less moral "oversights" than Western culture. He examines the issue of morality in terms of guilt and innosence, when in fact over half the world views them in different terms. Nor has his culture proven themselves morally superior in any meaningful way.

Secondly, there is the Radical Monotheist Perspective. The author has made the intellectually dishonest assertion that he is starting with a blank slate and reasoning to an inescapable conclusion when he has already decided the path before he begins. Does he examine the large body of polytheistic cultures who had strong moral codes, and attempt to determine how they might fit within the wider framework? No. He simply looks at the Radical Monotheistic paradigm as the only legitimate legal and moral authority, postulating that only a single supreme deity could be responsible for a legitimate moral center, when there is a plethora of examples contra.

Thirdly, if his assertion was correct and the existance of a single Lawgiving God is responsible for the only legitimate morality, then it would logically follow that a culture which ostensibly followed such a system would display a superior morality. The fact is that morality has been, throughout history, a relative matter. If Christianity and the other Abrahamic faiths held superior moral ground than the other faiths, then it would not have embarked on a bloody period of brutal slavery and imperial conquest -- neither of which could be seen as truly moral pursuits. Yet the "objective" radical monotheistic culture which he praises so sycophantically is responsible for a longer and more wide-spread reign of terror on its neighboring cultures than any other.

The fact is that for centuries it has been possible for a completely moral man in Western society to own slaves, beat and kill them, beat and rape his wife and servants, abuse his children and distribute pain and suffering on his fellow creatures with gay abandon and still be held up as a paragon of radical monotheistic morality. Would you want this man as your neighbor? To marry your daughter? To preach God's Love :tm: to the natives? Would he be considered "Good" or "Evil"?

Morality is not decreed by God. You can point to a book and claim so, but the simple fact of the matter is that morality is always -- and has always been -- created and regulated by Society. It was immoral to murder before Abraham. It was immoral to rape in Pagan Rome. It was immoral to be a glutton in Hindu India. And it was immoral to steal and pillage in T'ang China. All of these things were immoral because the society mandated it -- Jehovah didn't enter into it. Take away Jehovah/Jesus/Allah and their books and would society de-evolve into an amoral or immoral heap? Certainly not. The societal concensus would assert itself, and a new morality would emerge.

You have yet to demonstrate a cogent or compelling argument for Objective Morality, Radical Monotheist style. When you have one which encompasses all of the world's civilizations, all the world's cultures, and all the world's history I'll be anxious to hear it.

Arion

[Keepupthefire]

What a load.

I read both articles thoroughly. They are the same old crap that moral absolutists always trot out when they want to feel morally superior to relativists.

Both articles are written through so many narrow lenses that they utterly fail to address the wider issue in anything remotely similar to a comprehensive sense.

First, there is the issue of the Western Perspective. Regardless of religion, the author reasons entirely through a Western European perspective, without regard to any of the radically different ways to theologically and morally view the universe that other human cultures have provided. If an arguement cannot be universally applied, it is at the minimum suspect, and in the extreme completely invalid. For example, how has this author taken into account the complex moral codes which guide Buddhists -- who, by the way, reject the concept of a single law-giving god -- yet have enjoyed a civilization that is more peaceful (when viewed as a whole) and with less moral "oversights" than Western culture. He examines the issue of morality in terms of guilt and innosence, when in fact over half the world views them in different terms. Nor has his culture proven themselves morally superior in any meaningful way.

Secondly, there is the Radical Monotheist Perspective. The author has made the intellectually dishonest assertion that he is starting with a blank slate and reasoning to an inescapable conclusion when he has already decided the path before he begins. Does he examine the large body of polytheistic cultures who had strong moral codes, and attempt to determine how they might fit within the wider framework? No. He simply looks at the Radical Monotheistic paradigm as the only legitimate legal and moral authority, postulating that only a single supreme deity could be responsible for a legitimate moral center, when there is a plethora of examples contra.

Thirdly, if his assertion was correct and the existance of a single Lawgiving God is responsible for the only legitimate morality, then it would logically follow that a culture which ostensibly followed such a system would display a superior morality. The fact is that morality has been, throughout history, a relative matter. If Christianity and the other Abrahamic faiths held superior moral ground than the other faiths, then it would not have embarked on a bloody period of brutal slavery and imperial conquest -- neither of which could be seen as truly moral pursuits. Yet the "objective" radical monotheistic culture which he praises so sycophantically is responsible for a longer and more wide-spread reign of terror on its neighboring cultures than any other.

The fact is that for centuries it has been possible for a completely moral man in Western society to own slaves, beat and kill them, beat and rape his wife and servants, abuse his children and distribute pain and suffering on his fellow creatures with gay abandon and still be held up as a paragon of radical monotheistic morality. Would you want this man as your neighbor? To marry your daughter? To preach God's Love :tm: to the natives? Would he be considered "Good" or "Evil"?

Morality is not decreed by God. You can point to a book and claim so, but the simple fact of the matter is that morality is always -- and has always been -- created and regulated by Society. It was immoral to murder before Abraham. It was immoral to rape in Pagan Rome. It was immoral to be a glutton in Hindu India. And it was immoral to steal and pillage in T'ang China. All of these things were immoral because the society mandated it -- Jehovah didn't enter into it. Take away Jehovah/Jesus/Allah and their books and would society de-evolve into an amoral or immoral heap? Certainly not. The societal concensus would assert itself, and a new morality would emerge.

You have yet to demonstrate a cogent or compelling argument for Objective Morality, Radical Monotheist style. When you have one which encompasses all of the world's civilizations, all the world's cultures, and all the world's history I'll be anxious to hear it.

Arion
I have a quick question...do you think we should harm others?

K

[tmancour]

I have a quick question...do you think we should harm others?

K


Quick answer: we cannot help BUT harm others. All life feeds on life.

Should we do this? Only if we want to continue to live.

Arion