evil

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by reggie_jax, Jan 3, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    In response to the last part. Nope.
    Verily, verily, (strong emphesis)I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

    We are able to meet and beat anything Jesus did in his short time here.

    The books of the canon were chosen based on wether the person in question did known miracles. And if their book is there and its not known wether they did they haf to be cosigned by someone that did. Ie timothy.

    This is why healing, exorsism, signs and wonders are possible and promised to evrey believer. The only prerequisite is mustard seed like faith.

    K first part. If more were possible wouldnt we see more being created. No one stopped evolution from continuing, assuming evolution were true. And that was a process God created.
    test
  2. IgotsThis

    IgotsThis New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    118
    It is free will,if there wasnt free whats the point of life?we know good cause of bad,we know good people cause of evil people,God gave free will to see who indeed would follow him,and God could have created evil he knows all doesnt he?he knows what evil is,doesnt mean hes evil but he knows what it is,besides this world is temporary is it not?its not permanent,he created it temporary to see who is worthy of His kingdom he will indeed create another one with all the good souls.
    test
  3. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Cute.
    test
  4. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    who said there wasnt freewill.

    God did not create evil. There is no darkness in him. To be a holy God, he cant be around sin, or darkness or evil. The reason he cast out evil before it had a chance to become it. He saw the seeds of it with pride in lucifer.

    He knows what evil is yes. Which is why he took steps to extinguish the seeds of it from the kingdom of heaven.

    Yes it says all things work together for those that are in christ jesus. So he even uses the bad events/situation/people and turn it into a benefit to the greater purpose to glorify him.

    Even the tribulation period is used to glorify him by fullfilling is word. There is nothing lost unto him.
    test
  5. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    with or without the poseable thumb thing, i can dig it.
    test
  6. IgotsThis

    IgotsThis New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    118
    Um the guy who wrote the topic said it,mmm i see,but he punishes does he not?he killed Paul when he didnt impregnate his brothers wife,babies were killed as well
    test
  7. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    do you think you have an answer 4 the question i ask at the end
    test
  8. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    He doesnt punish persay. U punish yourself. He gives u what u want. If you desire to have nothing to do with God, he gives u what u want. Hell is eternal seperation from God. Is that evil?
    I garauntee u everyone in hell understands why they are there and understand they deserve what they get.

    Say what?
    test
  9. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    i believe that this means nature starts out w thanatos; yet thanatos trends outwardly in varying ways and becomes different things. if you look at a mouse and then look at a cat, you are going to see that they have extremely similar bodies. thus, you must conclude that they must have branched off from a single evolutionary point at some time not very long ago in the history of this universe. was the cat simply, at one point, a mouse that was gripped by the forces of thanatos? the cat eats the mouse, so is the mouse wrong to not have been gripped by the forces of thanatos too? was the cat right to choose thanatos so long ago?

    No i dont know wether a cat was ever a mouse. My guess would be no.

    Does everyone start out with a fearful reactionary view towards threats.
    Maybe. Post fall, everyone is born into a sin nature so the things men do are warped to begin with. Even babies are selfish.
    test
  10. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    it didn't sound mysterious to me. i assumed what you meant was that the natural struggle for survival has its own rules to which man abides by while creating his own rules on top of that natural order (in many cases as an indirect tool for survival, however obscure that fact may seem) which can sometimes seem to override or contradict some of the aforementioned natural laws, though only on a superficial level. i'd agree with that assessment for the most part, if that is indeed what you meant.

    i think that freud's general narrative highlighted in the wiki quote has some truth to it in terms of the natural antagonism between society and the individual, but i still disagree with the distinction between the eros and thanatos. i'll start off by admitting my ignorance: i haven't read any freud and am entirely ignorant to his theories and philosophies. however, this distinction seems to me like selective categories into which 'pleasant' and 'unpleasant' aspects of human instinct are deposited. i don't think there's any real justification for this distinction.

    aggression, for example, can be either beneficial or destructive feature for a member of a society. so can tenderness, and protection, and so on and so on. the distinction being made lies in the details of the scenarios in which these instincts are applied, and not in the instincts themselves. a blood lust is a good thing for society on the battlefield, but a bad thing in the local bar. the devil is in the details, and the distinction made on the basis of these details lies in the effects which the action has on fellow members of society, rather than on any fundamental instinctual difference.
    test
  11. Alias3000

    Alias3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,181
    Reggie Jax = Evil
    test
  12. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    once again i believe you're on the right track. however, i think the faulty distinction which is in use here creates a distorted image of the dynamics at play.

    we can rest assured that whether evolutionary developments were spurred by the need to war with other men or by the need to hunt (im guessing both, with more emphasis on the latter during the earlier stages), they simultaneously encouraged both outward aggression and the ability of men to work together. in fact these two traits likely spurred each other on since once primates became hunters they developed an increased need for cooperation.

    the gang scenario you speak of is essentially tribalism, which has played a rather large role in shaping human evolution. the interesting thing about this example is that tribalism inspires both cooperation and nuture as well as aggression and aversion towards outsiders - i..e both 'eros' and 'thanatos.' tribalism also leads to its fair share of problems in a complex post-tribal society (racism and ethnic disputes being the most obvious examples) whereby instincts that were formerly beneficial to the tribe become a detriment to the larger society which has absorbed it (i.e. eros converts to thanatos).

    my point, simply put, is that thanatos is not the trait of tyranny or the instinct of death. this is a rather harsh and sweeping condemnation of our own instincts which in fact have landed us at the top of the food chain with the bizarre opportunity to not only understand the world around us but to venture into alien lands both here on our home planet and possibly on planets abroad.



    theoretically speaking, prey must come prior to pedator. the predator is an adaption to the appearance of prey. perhaps the problem is that you are still thinking in emotional terms. neither the predator nor prey is wrong in their choice so long as survival is maintained. to put ur question into perspective, is plant life wrong to have adopted photosynthesis, since herbivores eat it?

    to use a well known example, look at the dynamic between lion vs wildebeest in the plains of the serengeti. the wildebeest can smell wet dirt from miles away, and travels in a large, migratory heard which makes a large, annual circle around african plains in northen tanzania and southern kenya, all the while under constant attack from the local predators, in this example lions. lions are territorial in nature. they can travel in search of prey but only within the territory they have earned. ventures into new territory mean altercations with other lions. whenever the rainy season hits their particular locality, and the heard passes through to graze, the lions have the pick of the heard and are able to live like the kings they are rumored to be. whenever the heard moves on to the next location, the lions are left to find other, much less plentiful prey and in some cases are driven to starvation.

    the heard suffers constant attacks from the predators, yet dwarfs them in sheer numbers due to a more steady supply of food and the ability to migrate. yet each time they visit a predator's particular habitat they are reminded of the dynamic in which they are entrenched, where they face the prospect of becoming another creature's meal. and each time they leave, the predator is reminded of its own dependance on its prey. so which of them is wrong?
    test
  13. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    this might be a ridiculous question, radium. but i have to ask. is the location you have listed accurate?
    test
  14. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,097
    reason being is sorta like the chinese philosphy ying and yang.. there has to be that formula.. it's how god created the universe to work
    test
  15. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    when we look at primate groups in nature, we see that they generally form into some kind of a dominance hierarchy, where males fight over things like rank, territory, and mates. langurs even kill the children of their defeated opponents, basically wiping out their genetic legacy.

    the creation of a dominance hierarchy is necessitated by resource scarcity. when not everyone can access the resources that they need, agents in that group have to adapt in increasingly resource ensuring ways to make sure that they do. early man was probably very similar to any chimpanzee dominance hierarchy, where males fight males to create access to different types of resources. just imagine the different ways this may have affected our evolutionary history - and dont you think it would have been really revolutionary for men to stop fighting for resources like most primates and start cooperating for resources

    i think generally in nature we see resource scarcity leading many times to thanatos - as many animals are ultimately transformed into agents of thanatos as a reaction to that resource scarcity and its effects. this sides w your point about prey coming b4 predator. that is, nobody was ever a predator at first - and nobody would ever even be a predator if it wasnt just so incredibly necessitated to do it.

    so i think you're right. thanatos is really just a strategy, among many different types of strategy that exist in nature.

    i dont really like freud but i think he was very right about thanatos being sort of a base layer in humanity, and eros being built sort of over it. i think he was right about the way there is a constant push and pull between the two in humans and how we are sort of constantly at war w ourselves. he probably downplayed the power of eros tho vs thanatos I.E. eros is probably very base to us too even tho its likely that this would have came way later on in our evolutionary history

    humans that lacked a good amount of eros would have been less likely to do things like nurture and protect. thus human groups that were more likely to be gripped by the forces of thanatos than eros were probably pretty ineffective in the long run. i even considered that human aging may have been an evolutionary adaptation to try to curb thanatos; as human aging represents a departure from youth and its sexual relevance, ultimately prompting less fighting and aggression (less thanatos) from aged humans and increasing an ability for them to take care of the youth that remind them of the sexually relevant traits of their own past. human aging may actually promote eros. psychologist erik erikson talks about the crisis that humans encounter as they age where they must confront the choice to become generative (eros) or risk facing stagnation because of the way aging stops the ability for humans to express their thanatos

    ha but thats just a guess by me

    um

    but yeah so thanatos and eros (or predator and prey) are not wrong so far in this context. they are just unique kinds of strategy that have been created by nature as a reaction to resource scarcity. but is this the only context. i have to ask

    what is the natural struggle for survival and what are its rules? i need you to try to define this.
    test
  16. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    in retrospect that might have been a misleading use of words on my part, since there quite obviously aren't any rules other than the one supreme rule which is to stay alive and reproduce.

    more like there are common traits and behaviors which tend to pop up time and time again across many different species. herbivores traveling in herds or flocks, for one example, to take advantage of the power in numbers. the predators which prey on these herds also show common behaviors and tactics, such as steering the group in a particular direction or picking off the weaker/slower members. of course these are very specific examples.

    your point about scarcity of resources goes a long way here: these are essentially similar scenarios which play out in innumerable examples due to that scarcity which has always driven competition. similar roles leads to similar players, which of course leads to similar behaviors. even a pack of dolphins hunting a school of fish bares some resemblance to a pride of lions working together on a herd of water buffalo, despite the vastly different environments and players involved.

    there is of course plenty of room for variation, yet any divergence from the commonest type of behavior must provide some sort of unique benefit if it is to be maintained. if that variation/benefit is applicable in other scenarios then it might be imitated perhaps even become commonplace. if it is unique to that particular scenario then it might instead remain a relatively individualistic quality.

    so i suppose when i say the struggle for survival i am referring specifically to the competition driven by the scarcity you mentioned, and when i mentioned its rules i was thinking instead of common behaviors, or more precisely the traits (instincts) which fuel this behavior. if we take this a step further we can deduce these common instincts are driven by the one supreme rule, which is to win. the variety in the behaviors and instincts which have manifested are a result of this one rule having been applied in a variety of different scenarios.

    this brings me back to your question as to whether scarcity is the only context, to which i'd reply that in our world it is. without it, the game which has just been described has no stakes, and its players no reason to compete.
    test
  17. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    do they know when the sun is going to burn out
    test
  18. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    estimates are generally about 4-5 billion years until it runs out of hydrogen fuel and begins to expand into a red giant.
    test
  19. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    sure. that's reasonable enough. but that also means he can't actually be opposed to it.
    test
  20. Alias3000

    Alias3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,181
    Evil is as Evil does.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)