It is currently Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:51 am


Announcement: Registrations are currently disabled. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Is doing evil a necessity of life?

Theological and spiritual discussions within the context of a religious framework.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

Gnostic Bishop

Registered User

2 stars

  • Posts: 683
  • Joined: 04 August 2014
  • Thanks Received: 114

Is doing evil a necessity of life?

PostMon Mar 27, 2017 8:40 pm

Is doing evil a necessity of life?

Did the ancients know this and Is that why we are all named as sinners?

I think nature created the potential for evil in each of us because without that potential we would not have the ability to make a free choice between good and evil or evolve to find the fittest human.

Consider. Evolution has two major components that we must do to survive; compete or cooperate, as required. Cooperation we would see as good because it does not create a victim or loser. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim and loser.

From this view, we must do evil and to survive as that process produces the fittest. To not compete would produce the least fit and we would likely go extinct.

Do you see this conundrum of us having to do evil? If you do, should God punish us for doing what we must do so as not to go extinct?

I do not see God as justified in punishing us and that is why Gnostic Christians like me are Universalists.

I see us all as not requiring salvation. God would not do evil by punishing us for doing what we must do to survive and thrive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exsultet
“O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam”.
“in the light of paradise, even the sin of Adam may be regarded as truly necessary and a happy fault.”

If sin and doing evil is good and necessary for Adam, who represents all of mankind, then the church and I are suggesting that it is good that we all do evil.

Regards
DL
Offline
User avatar

Loki

Trickster God

Administrator

4 stars

  • Posts: 2204
  • Joined: 28 February 2013
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks Received: 875

Re: Is doing evil a necessity of life?

PostMon Mar 27, 2017 8:58 pm

Most religions seem to have a built in repentance system for when we must do "evil" things, or things considered evil or sinful by those religions, so it seems rather clear that the humans who wrote them (or God I guess) understood that sometimes we have to commit acts that would be identified by their holy books as evil, so we must also all have a chance of clearing that evil from our souls so that we can make it into the utopia we are promised by said-books. Otherwise, after doing something "sinful" we may just give up on the teachings of the holy books because we can never make it into paradise. There had to be hope for us, and they also understood we couldn't possibly avoid being sinful.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Christianity the only religion that doesn't allow pure repentance to absolve you and allow you to get to that paradise? They are the only ones that have an extra caveat; that being accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior?
This message brought to you by My Brain, courtesy of My Fingers.

"We all are to some extent [agnostic]... So yes, I'm an 'agnostic', in as much as I don't actually know what happens when I die. I choose to operate under the assumption that God does not exist. I have no need for God in my life, the concept of a 'God' feels incredibly made up to me. It is not requisite for my every day living. For some people it is. They are 'theistic agnostics,' I am an 'atheistic agnostic.'" - Cara Santa Maria
Offline
User avatar

Gnostic Bishop

Registered User

2 stars

  • Posts: 683
  • Joined: 04 August 2014
  • Thanks Received: 114

Re: Is doing evil a necessity of life?

PostMon Mar 27, 2017 9:33 pm

Loki wrote:Most religions seem to have a built in repentance system for when we must do "evil" things, or things considered evil or sinful by those religions, so it seems rather clear that the humans who wrote them (or God I guess) understood that sometimes we have to commit acts that would be identified by their holy books as evil, so we must also all have a chance of clearing that evil from our souls so that we can make it into the utopia we are promised by said-books. Otherwise, after doing something "sinful" we may just give up on the teachings of the holy books because we can never make it into paradise. There had to be hope for us, and they also understood we couldn't possibly avoid being sinful.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Christianity the only religion that doesn't allow pure repentance to absolve you and allow you to get to that paradise? They are the only ones that have an extra caveat; that being accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior?


First.
Repentance is usually seen to carry responsibilities to first feel the shame of having sinned, which would not apply when we are forced to compete to survive. No shame should be associated with acts that must be done. Further, the victim created by our winning at a competition should recognize that no forgiveness is required as the other competitors have no choice but to try to win and create victims or losers.

Christianity does have clauses to do as you suggest that do allow pure repentance to absolve you and allow you to get to that paradise.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

That truth to me is that we have no need of a savior as God would not condemn us for doing as we must to survive and thrive.

Note that they do not include having to do the immoral thing and use the caveat of Jesus as a scapegoat.

Christians tend to just look for their get out of hell free card and ignore that having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs they have done, --- so that they might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Sure, Christians try to justify their using a scapegoat but cannot argue their position well at all.

Regards
DL
Offline
User avatar

Karlysymon

Registered User

1.5 stars

  • Posts: 339
  • Joined: 09 January 2017
  • Thanks Received: 282

Re: Is doing evil a necessity of life?

PostSat Apr 01, 2017 10:31 pm

I dug up a couple of pieces from over the years and i re-read them, for GB's sake (and i guess for my sake too). I thought i would post this at his other thread but i think its best to post here. GB said that he is a gnostic christian naturalist so iam going to post a few quotes.........
"Gnosticism has experienced a cultural revival in the West. Is the rise of Gnostic thinking simply a fleeting trend? Perhaps. Yet, it is interesting to note that the popularization of Darwinian
evolution preceded Gnosticism’s ascendancy in the West. The significance of this fact becomes evident when one reads the words of Dr. Wolfgang Smith":
“As a scientific theory,
Darwinism would have been jettisoned long ago. The point, however, is that the doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is in essence a
metaphysical claim… Thus,
in the final analysis,
evolutionism is in truth a
metaphysical doctrine
decked out in scientific garb. In other words, it is a
scientistic myth. And the
myth is Gnostic, because it
implicitly denies the
transcendent origin of
being; for indeed, only after the living creature has been speculatively reduced to an aggregate of particles does Darwinist transformism become conceivable. Darwinism, therefore, continues the ancient Gnostic practice of depreciating ‘God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth.’ It
perpetuates, if you will, the venerable Gnostic tradition of ‘Jehovah bashing.’ And while this in itself may gladden Gnostic hearts, one should not fail to observe that the doctrine plays a vital role
in the economy of Neo-
Gnostic thought, for only
under the auspices of
Darwinist ‘self-creation’
does the Good News of ‘self-salvation’ acquire a semblance of sense.”


GB said we don't need salvation and a 'scapegoat'. Indeed, self-creation demands self-salvation. Man is a spiritual being, so i don't know how Darwinism accounts for that part of man, and why he would have it in the first place. Anyway, Since man acquires physical scars; mental and emotional scars, it would stand to reason that his spiritual self cannot escape scathes. Because we live in an imperfect world. And if that is the case, then i would argue that since a physical or emotional deficiency demands a physical/emotional remedy, certainly a spiritual deficiency demands a spiritual remedy. And that is something he cannot provide himself just as food doesn't grow in his body. He has to reach out to the Source of that remedy to attain healing for his spiritual self. If man can faint from want of food, then it is possible for him to spiritually faint from want of spiritual food. And i believe that Adam and Eve's decision in the garden was more like pulling the plug from the Source. Indeed, God had said they will surely die. Not in the sense that He will mercilessly kill them but that all creation cannot self-create/self-sustain. A decay of sorts was set into motion and it encompassed all man's aspects, which naturally was passed onto posterity. To choose independence from the source of life means only one thing.....death. Everyone who will perish in the end will die because they choose/chose to defy reality, in essence, demanding an existence apart from the Creator. And God will be merely answering their wishes. He will let them 'exist independently' of Him.


St Gregory of Sinai clearly states that forgetfulness of God is a disease of the soul and of the faculty of reason. It has a direct impact on human memory,which ends up divided, diffused and fragmented, a prey to
tempting thoughts. If I forget God, my memory will crumble into pieces, resulting in scattered, wayward thinking:
“Dia-logismos”. That explains our deep anguish: What shall
we do here? What shall we do
there? What is to be done?”

The prophet Amos foresaw a spiritual famine pervading the land at the end of time: 8:8-14
vs 11-12
‘The days are coming,’ declares the Sovereign Lord,
‘when I will send a famine
through the land –
not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the
words of the Lord. People will stagger from sea to
sea and wander from north to east, searching for the word of the Lord, but they will not find it.


We may laugh at the bible-thumping street-corner evangelist (okay, sometimes their antics give one a good laugh), scriptures may gather dust in bookstores and we may act and feel as though prayer and scripture-reading aren't of any importance to our lives but that day of reckoning will dawn and there'll be Bedlams everywhere. Will they offer the 'patients' Soma? Who knows? If people commit suicide over emotional distress, shouldn't we expect the same from spiritual distress? God will permit the withdrawal of the gifts we've deemed unnecessary or unworthy of our time and appreciation. And our overlords aren't sleeping either. They are hard at work:
In fact, a good friend of mine
worked for a few years
digitizing mass medical records,
and while most are aware of
Google’s attempts to digitize all books, most do not know why. I’ve warned for several years now the end goal of all this digitization is not for
“efficiency” and trendy techy
cool iWatches to monitor heart rates and location. The ultimate goal is total mind control, loss of
free will and the complete
rewrite of all past reality. Consider, for example, the
power the system will wield
with the ability to “delete” all
past versions of literature –
religious texts, Shakespeare,
1984, nothing will be sacred and unable to be “revised.”
Remember that in 2009 Amazon erased Orwell’s 1984.
https://jaysanalysis.com/2015/03/15/min ... -now-here/

Ray Bradbury's 1953 dystopian novel-Fahrenheit 451 is about a future where books are outlawed and burned wherever they are found. Denzel Washington's movie; the book of Eli hints at a scarcity of sacred literature. Then there's today's war on 'offensive' literature. If the classics are banned, shouldn't we anticipate the banning of sacred books because they are 'offensive' to women, gays, religious-nones etc?
Radical leftists and globalists
don’t merely want to silence
opposing websites and
monopolize the news; they also want to eliminate “offensive” books and literature from society. This effort, of course,
involves all sorts of book
burning initiatives disguised as
“inclusiveness” or “tolerance.” Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn book has already been targeted for elimination from human history due to its historically authentic use of racial terminology. For similar reasons, the Harper Lee
book To Kill a Mockingbird has also been targeted for removal from libraries . The justification, as always, is
that the book contains
“offensive” content — a wishy-washy accusation rooted in astonishing ignorance… yet
strongly upheld by the intolerant left as justification for burning whatever books they currently find “offensive.” (A slippery slope of totalitarian revisionist history if there ever was one…)

Claims are made all the time that religious books aren't necessary and that any can suffice and that none is really the 'word of God' but i think in that day (for those who will be alive anyway) we will be hit with a reality check in regard to what was/is God word. Personally, i've really grown tired of reading everything online. I prefer good-old fashioned books, my bible or my study guide.
Offline
User avatar

Karlysymon

Registered User

1.5 stars

  • Posts: 339
  • Joined: 09 January 2017
  • Thanks Received: 282

Re: Is doing evil a necessity of life?

PostSat Apr 01, 2017 10:37 pm

@GB
Is evil necessary for our existance? No. You are vehemently against 'killing of muslim apostates'. What if, to a few, its a necessity. How do you reconcile that with your views/stance? In your threads, you literally play Devil's advocate. Your patron saint, Lucifer- the father of lies, who has been sinning from the beginning (John 8:43-44): who prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour (1 Pet 5:8) : who gets a kick out out destroying man and his habitation. It would then stand to reason that his human 'defense team' and adherents would see things the way he does.
Darwin did not invent the
Machiavellian image that
the world is the playground of the lion and the fox, but thousands discovered that he had transformed political
science . . . War became the
symbol, the image, the
inducement, the reason,
and the language of all
human beings on the planet. No one who has not waded through some sizable part of the literature of the period
1870-1914 has any
conception of the extent to which it is ONE LONG CALL FOR BLOOD . . .
Jacques Barzun


Wikipedia entry on Immanentizing the Eschaton:
In political theory and theology, to immanentize the eschaton means trying to bring about the eschaton (the final, heaven-like stage of history) in the immanent world. It has been used by conservative critics as a pejorative reference to certain projects such as Nazism, socialism, communism, and transhumanism. In all these contexts it means "trying to
make that which belongs to the afterlife happen here and now (on Earth)". Theologically the belief is akin to Postmillennialism as reflected in the Social Gospel of the 1880-1930 era, as well as Protestant reform movements during the Second Great Awakening in the 1830s and 1840s such as abolitionism. Modern usage of the phrase started with Eric Voegelin in The New Science of Politics in 1952....... Voegelin identified a number of similarities between ancient Gnosticism and the beliefs held by a number of modern political theories, particularly Communism and Nazism. He identified the root of the Gnostic impulse as belief in a lack of concord within society as a result of an inherent disorder,
or even evil, of the world. He
described this as having two
effects: The belief that the disorder of the world can be
transcended by
extraordinary insight,
learning, or knowledge,
called a Gnostic Speculation by Voegelin (the Gnostics
themselves referred to this
as gnosis). The desire to implement a policy to actualize the speculation, or as Voegelin said, to Immanentize the
Eschaton, to create a sort of
heaven on earth within history.

http://conspiracyarchive.com/2014/01/16 ... darwinism/

I hope these spice up your weekend.
*Raping Nature: Wells’ Island of Dr. Moreau and Ritual Bio-
engineering.
https://jaysanalysis.com/2016/01/11/rap ... gineering/
*From Manhattan Project to A.I.:
The Coming Synthetic Rewrite
of Nature
https://jaysanalysis.com/2015/02/18/fro ... of-nature/
Offline
User avatar

Karlysymon

Registered User

1.5 stars

  • Posts: 339
  • Joined: 09 January 2017
  • Thanks Received: 282

Re: Is doing evil a necessity of life?

PostSat Apr 01, 2017 10:41 pm

Image
.......Yet, Spielberg’s bowdlerization of Christian theology is anything but new or innovative. E.T. merely continues a tradition
embodied by Michelangelo’s
Sistine Chapel painting. The portrait departs from the
traditional Christian paradigm concerning the Genesis account and humanity’s relationship
with its Creator. Ian Taylor
explains how Michelangelo’s painting deviates from the
traditional Genesis account:
“Unlikely as this may seem,
it is, nevertheless, a
remarkable fact that when
painted in 1508
Michelangelo took the bold
step of departing from the biblical account of the
creation of man to depict
what is today seen to be a
theistically evolved version. Prior to this time, artists had stuck to the Genesis description of a non-living being made from the dust of the ground becoming a ‘living soul’ by the infusion of God’s breath (Genesis 2:7).
Michelangelo’s now
famous painting of the
creation of Adam shows a
human form quite
evidently alive with a
raised arm and in fingertip union with God. The question this painting raises is that since the creature is alive, what kind of pre-Adamic being does it represent? Enterprising Jesuit teachers have seized upon this as historical vindication of the truth of theistic evolution, so that the creature depicted must then be some kind of advanced anthropoid.
There can be absolute
certainty that nothing could have been further from Michelangelo’s mind,
yet the Greek influence and tendency to rationalize
revelation is represented
symbolically throughout
the entire painting, not in
style, but by the insertion
of Greek sibyls between the Old Testament prophets.”
Offline
User avatar

Gnostic Bishop

Registered User

2 stars

  • Posts: 683
  • Joined: 04 August 2014
  • Thanks Received: 114

Re: Is doing evil a necessity of life?

PostSun Apr 09, 2017 7:19 pm

Karlysymon wrote:
Because we live in an imperfect world.

.


You are way off the mark because you are looking for a God without when God is within.

Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

When you can see the evolving perfection in the world, then you will be rich.

Regards
DL

P.S.
As to the rest. Check your meds.
Offline

Creeper

Registered User

1.5 stars

  • Posts: 204
  • Joined: 08 January 2017
  • Thanks Received: 282

Re: Is doing evil a necessity of life?

PostTue Apr 11, 2017 8:29 am

With regards to the OP.

In a nutshell, yes, but only to a degree.

Life has to consume other life and compete over resources, this much is evident. There are limits however, and once they are crossed, the hubris, greed and selfishness are only destructive to the world and the soul of the perpetrator of evil. Cooperation is always better, hence the existence of social structures in nature, the relationship between plants and insects or we could even talk about mitochondria.

It goes both ways really, you shouldn't be a complete dick to everything around you who only cares about yourself, but you can't trust anything 100% even if we are all souls trapped in the same crazy boat we call life (maybe even especially because of that). The ancient ideas regarding being moral and attempting to live in peace with all our neighbours still exist (and always will) for some very good reasons, even if we all want to kill each other over the details. :roll:

I'm just curious...

What exactly are you advocating here?

Sounds like that "war is peace" doublespeak, or that you are condoning immoral behaviour because that's just life. It's a slippery slope my friend...

Regardless of people's stance on evolution, it's the creature that can adapt that will survive, not the "survival of the fittest (richest)".

Also...

Gnostic Bishop wrote:As to the rest. Check your meds.


Are ad-hominem insults the only way you know how to debate?

That's pretty weak dude...
A fool thinks himself to be wise,
a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Everything is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
Offline

Creeper

Registered User

1.5 stars

  • Posts: 204
  • Joined: 08 January 2017
  • Thanks Received: 282

Re: Is doing evil a necessity of life?

PostTue Apr 11, 2017 4:02 pm

I had to address this as well.

Gnostic Bishop wrote:
Loki wrote:Most religions seem to have a built in repentance system for when we must do "evil" things, or things considered evil or sinful by those religions, so it seems rather clear that the humans who wrote them (or God I guess) understood that sometimes we have to commit acts that would be identified by their holy books as evil, so we must also all have a chance of clearing that evil from our souls so that we can make it into the utopia we are promised by said-books. Otherwise, after doing something "sinful" we may just give up on the teachings of the holy books because we can never make it into paradise. There had to be hope for us, and they also understood we couldn't possibly avoid being sinful.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Christianity the only religion that doesn't allow pure repentance to absolve you and allow you to get to that paradise? They are the only ones that have an extra caveat; that being accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior?


First.
Repentance is usually seen to carry responsibilities to first feel the shame of having sinned, which would not apply when we are forced to compete to survive. No shame should be associated with acts that must be done. Further, the victim created by our winning at a competition should recognize that no forgiveness is required as the other competitors have no choice but to try to win and create victims or losers.

Christianity does have clauses to do as you suggest that do allow pure repentance to absolve you and allow you to get to that paradise.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

That truth to me is that we have no need of a savior as God would not condemn us for doing as we must to survive and thrive.

First.
Define what you mean by "acts that must be done". I can understand a poor and hungry man stealing bread, but really​ bad sins tend to be excessive and entirely unnecessary. Are you advocating cheating? Usury? Armed robbery? Murder? Rape? Child molestation? Where is the line drawn?

What is a "sin" and what does it mean to "repent".

https://www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of sin
1
a : an offense against religious or moral law
b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible it's a sin to waste food
c : an often serious shortcoming : fault
2
a : transgression of the law of God
b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

Definition of repentance
: the action or process of repenting especially for misdeeds or moral shortcomings

Definition of repent
intransitive verb
1
: to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life
2
a : to feel regret or contrition
b : to change one's mind
transitive verb
1
: to cause to feel regret or contrition
2
: to feel sorrow, regret, or contrition for
repenter noun


Repentance is an active process. You realise that you are in the wrong about something, feel bad about it and make an effort to change your ways for the greater good. To turn away from evil and harmful actions and back to morality, the straight and narrow, The Way, Allah's Sunnah, call it whatever you like.


Note that they do not include having to do the immoral thing and use the caveat of Jesus as a scapegoat.

Christians tend to just look for their get out of hell free card and ignore that having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs they have done, --- so that they might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Sure, Christians try to justify their using a scapegoat but cannot argue their position well at all.

Regards
DL


I actually agree with you on that :Thumbup:

Real repentance is about accepting our mistakes and our failure to live according to the moral guidance given by The God and making an effort to make up for any wrongdoing and change our wicked ways. Nobody is perfect and we all stumble, it's the getting back up that counts.

Jesus (pbuh) gave us great advice and a good example to follow, but he isn't going to suffer for anybody else's sins. He is a righteous servant of The One God.
A fool thinks himself to be wise,
a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Everything is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
Offline
User avatar

Karlysymon

Registered User

1.5 stars

  • Posts: 339
  • Joined: 09 January 2017
  • Thanks Received: 282

Re: Is doing evil a necessity of life?

PostWed Apr 12, 2017 10:15 am

Creeper wrote:
What exactly are you
advocating here? Sounds like that "war is peace"
doublespeak, or that you are
condoning immoral behaviour because that's just life. It's a slippery slope my friend...
Regardless of people's stance on evolution, it's the creature that can adapt that will survive, not the "survival of the fittest (richest)".

There have been and will always be entities that decide whether you are fit to adapt or not. The best example is the Spartans and their infanticidal policy. I guess many of those hurled over the cliff would have gone on to become bright minds except they weren't afforded the opportunity. Was that evil a necessity?
Gnostic Bishop wrote:Note that they do not
include having to do the
immoral thing and use the
caveat of Jesus as a
scapegoat.
Christians tend to just look for their get out of hell free
card and ignore that having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs they have done, ---so that they might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. Sure, Christians try to justify their using a
scapegoat but cannot
argue their position well at all.

If Jesus is a get out of hell free card, why are some professed Christians going to perish? If we could achieve 'pure repentance' on our own, Christ need not have come to die on the cross. The fact that He came proves that mankind was in desperate need of spiritual assistance. Furthermore, it also proves that only He had the capacity to provide that assistance and no one else.
Next

Return to Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron