I have been involved in deep thoughts....
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Michael Gammill
Jun 5, 2010, 12:52:25 PM6/5/10
to witches-and-wic...@googlegroups.com
The current ones are:
The nature of evil- is evil allowed to go about unchecked bad for all- Yes I think
here was my answer to some-
>Evil defined-adjective
1.morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2.harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3.characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5.marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
To say there is no evil is IMO 1)tantamount to saying there is no good or morality,. 2) Evil as injurious or harmful- to some this is the only definition that matters-if it harms me it is bad, 3)accompanied by misfortune, ehh.... perhaps someone having a bad luck streak follow them, difficult to pin down here, 4) bad rep = evil applies definitely to those who cause harm if the 2nd definition is accepted, 5) irritability as evil I believe is an exaggeration unless that irritable person also intends harm to someone.
As for the suggestion that an evil allow causes harm to us all, I believe it absolutely. First, I hear the words of Stewart Farrar echoing that as each action we take impacts our environment, and that if we choose to not defy an evil, it allows it to gain strength through our inaction the same way as if we sponsor it. Second, as an American, I hear the words of John Locke, John Donne among others which inspired our forefathers and Ernest Hemingway in that "...which lessens a fellow man lessens all mankind..""...ask not for whom the bell tolls for it tolls
for thee."
1.morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2.harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3.characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5.marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
To say there is no evil is IMO 1)tantamount to saying there is no good or morality,. 2) Evil as injurious or harmful- to some this is the only definition that matters-if it harms me it is bad, 3)accompanied by misfortune, ehh.... perhaps someone having a bad luck streak follow them, difficult to pin down here, 4) bad rep = evil applies definitely to those who cause harm if the 2nd definition is accepted, 5) irritability as evil I believe is an exaggeration unless that irritable person also intends harm to someone.
As for the suggestion that an evil allow causes harm to us all, I believe it absolutely. First, I hear the words of Stewart Farrar echoing that as each action we take impacts our environment, and that if we choose to not defy an evil, it allows it to gain strength through our inaction the same way as if we sponsor it. Second, as an American, I hear the words of John Locke, John Donne among others which inspired our forefathers and Ernest Hemingway in that "...which lessens a fellow man lessens all mankind..""...ask not for whom the bell tolls for it tolls
for thee."
The letting it happen part (which was the original Question I believe- would you allow a person to be stabbed before you if you only had to hold up your hand. Or have a child dismembered while you watched if all you had to do was say "quit it"? an old lady pushed to the sidewalk...rape... you get the idea
WARNING!! citation alert-!
from <a href="http://www.historymania.com/american_history/Evil" target="_blank">http://www.historymania.com/american_history/Evil</a> < {A similar term, malice (from the Latin malus meaning "bad") describes the deliberate human intent to harm and be harmful. "Evil," by contrast, tends to represent a more elemental concept; a disembodied spirit that is natural and yet abominable. Whereas "malice" belongs to the specific, "evil" is the foundation for malice.}{Bernard Gert} believes evil is that which all rational creatures seek to avoid, namely, death and suffering. He maintains that the worst evils are far more important in terms of their effects than the greatest goods, and that it is therefore appropriate for morality to emphasize the avoidance of evil.}
Morality also exists in man and does vary from culture to culture (lookup moral relativism) but there are some things that are considered immoral or unethical across all cultures, i.e- taking the life of another without provocation(murder), rape, stealing etc... I have been reading lots of Plato (the Republic, Symposium, Meno dialectics and lots of others, and he discusses virtue, justice, good/evil and law among other philosphical topics. Plato he says "there are relatively few ways to do good, but there are countless ways to do evil which can therefore have a much greater impact on our lives, and the lives of other beings capable of suffering."
As to the repetition of the word - thats from the <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil" target="_blank">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil</a> entry on the word and used as examples- as to not knowing what I am talking about that I agree to, but I am not simply parroting. When you use someones example it is called citing and is considered appropriate if attempting to validate your opinion with comparison to others. Regarding the founding fathers rebellion: violent response to oppression is not considered immoral in my opinion, nor would it be to many. As to the definition of suffering I think it is a seperate concept. I believe suffering is bad but in most cases not evil (see above definition). I too have been studying Wicca, for 23 years now, and in most of that time have had to use lots of noodle power. But many of those noodle sessions can be aided by referring to those who have pndered the same questions throughout history. The fact that the questions still come up is a vfairly strong argument that they are worth considering still.
Blessed Be
Blessed Be,WARNING!! citation alert-!
from <a href="http://www.historymania.com/american_history/Evil" target="_blank">http://www.historymania.com/american_history/Evil</a> < {A similar term, malice (from the Latin malus meaning "bad") describes the deliberate human intent to harm and be harmful. "Evil," by contrast, tends to represent a more elemental concept; a disembodied spirit that is natural and yet abominable. Whereas "malice" belongs to the specific, "evil" is the foundation for malice.}{Bernard Gert} believes evil is that which all rational creatures seek to avoid, namely, death and suffering. He maintains that the worst evils are far more important in terms of their effects than the greatest goods, and that it is therefore appropriate for morality to emphasize the avoidance of evil.}
Morality also exists in man and does vary from culture to culture (lookup moral relativism) but there are some things that are considered immoral or unethical across all cultures, i.e- taking the life of another without provocation(murder), rape, stealing etc... I have been reading lots of Plato (the Republic, Symposium, Meno dialectics and lots of others, and he discusses virtue, justice, good/evil and law among other philosphical topics. Plato he says "there are relatively few ways to do good, but there are countless ways to do evil which can therefore have a much greater impact on our lives, and the lives of other beings capable of suffering."
As to the repetition of the word - thats from the <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil" target="_blank">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil</a> entry on the word and used as examples- as to not knowing what I am talking about that I agree to, but I am not simply parroting. When you use someones example it is called citing and is considered appropriate if attempting to validate your opinion with comparison to others. Regarding the founding fathers rebellion: violent response to oppression is not considered immoral in my opinion, nor would it be to many. As to the definition of suffering I think it is a seperate concept. I believe suffering is bad but in most cases not evil (see above definition). I too have been studying Wicca, for 23 years now, and in most of that time have had to use lots of noodle power. But many of those noodle sessions can be aided by referring to those who have pndered the same questions throughout history. The fact that the questions still come up is a vfairly strong argument that they are worth considering still.
Blessed Be
Storm
Check out the current issue Shamans Rune Ezine- www.shamansrune.com/ezine.htm
Need Pagan Jewelry, Accessories- www.shamansrune.com/viewcart
Remember the Shaman's Rune Forum for community building, idea swapping, venting at www.shamansrune.com/forum
spike q
Jun 8, 2010, 11:46:30 AM6/8/10
to witches-and-wic...@googlegroups.com
I must have missed the question-- very detailed answer.
The letting it happen part (which was the original Question I believe- would you allow a person to be stabbed before you if you only had to hold up your hand. Or have a child dismembered while you watched if all you had to do was say "quit it"? an old lady pushed to the sidewalk...rape... you get the idea
From my own perspective,
this allowance of evil acts sounds like a charge against the christian deity (and perhaps others?)
who indeed does allow this stuff to happen (if one were to posit any in-charge-of-all deity/ies in the first place).
To take it a bit further, if we truly have
a free will then one can argue that it is the acts of humans that causes
these evils to go unchecked.
I will not repeat the arguments about there being "lessons in everything" and the misrepresented notion of karma that most westerners have-- those arguments in particular rang hollow to me throughout my life at various times of hardship.
It may be alright for an adult to "claim a lesson" in war or rape or fire etc,
but what will you tell a child who is sexually raped by a relative??? So for me, no there is no
lessons and no karma in the way that most westerners understand it.
The more sophisticated version of this is that any god cannot be all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
To acknowledge any god to have this triad of traits fails-- a god can have two of the three but the third becomes an inherent contradiction to the other two.
Wars/revolutions/rebellions-- anything with politics is bloody and murky far as I can tell.
The oppressive dictatorship in Myanmar (formerly Burma) is supported by the Indian government as well as the Chinese and the Russian governments-- all for their own reasons.
When we get right down to it, we are indeed all centered on what is good for ourselves. Some can call it selfishness, I call it survival of the species.
And some folks are better at hiding our innate human selfishness and others choose not to hide it but rather to embrace it in true evolutionary fashion.
spike
The letting it happen part (which was the original Question I believe- would you allow a person to be stabbed before you if you only had to hold up your hand. Or have a child dismembered while you watched if all you had to do was say "quit it"? an old lady pushed to the sidewalk...rape... you get the idea
this allowance of evil acts sounds like a charge against the christian deity (and perhaps others?)
who indeed does allow this stuff to happen (if one were to posit any in-charge-of-all deity/ies in the first place).
To take it a bit further, if we truly have
a free will then one can argue that it is the acts of humans that causes
these evils to go unchecked.
I will not repeat the arguments about there being "lessons in everything" and the misrepresented notion of karma that most westerners have-- those arguments in particular rang hollow to me throughout my life at various times of hardship.
It may be alright for an adult to "claim a lesson" in war or rape or fire etc,
but what will you tell a child who is sexually raped by a relative??? So for me, no there is no
lessons and no karma in the way that most westerners understand it.
The more sophisticated version of this is that any god cannot be all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
To acknowledge any god to have this triad of traits fails-- a god can have two of the three but the third becomes an inherent contradiction to the other two.
Wars/revolutions/rebellions-- anything with politics is bloody and murky far as I can tell.
The oppressive dictatorship in Myanmar (formerly Burma) is supported by the Indian government as well as the Chinese and the Russian governments-- all for their own reasons.
When we get right down to it, we are indeed all centered on what is good for ourselves. Some can call it selfishness, I call it survival of the species.
And some folks are better at hiding our innate human selfishness and others choose not to hide it but rather to embrace it in true evolutionary fashion.
spike
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Michael Gammill <shama...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The current ones are:The nature of evil- is evil allowed to go about unchecked bad for all- Yes I think
here was my answer to some-...
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages