Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

[Greatest I am]

Can you help but do evil? Ido not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why wouldGod punish you?

Christians are always tryingto absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their freewill argument and placing all the blame on mankind.
That usually sounds like ----Godgave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall.Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability asthe author and creator of human nature.

Free will is only the abilityto choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose"A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Evewould even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed bya serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie inthe nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable fordeliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "freewill" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all do evil/sin by naturethen, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some whowould not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

Having said the above for theGod that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tellyou that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree withChristians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’sresponsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that canonly be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has beenforcibly withheld.

Much has been written to explain evil and sinbut I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate whatsome see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and areneither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims arecreated. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.
In secular courts, this iscalled mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the courtwill not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator ofthe act.

Evil then is only human tohuman when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.
As evolving creatures, all weever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see asgood as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as itcreates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing,doing evil, at all times.

Without us doing some ofboth, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains whythere is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature,evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something toblame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a hugethanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, withoutevolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.

There is no conflict betweennature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all mustdo what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to thiscompetition.

These links speak to theisticevolution.

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=1205

http://www.youtube.com/user/ProfMTH#g/c/6F8036F680C1DBEB

If theistic evolution istrue, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not reallyany original sin.

If the above is notconvincing enough for you then show me where in this baby evil lives or is apart of it’s nature and instincts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

Can you help but do evil? Ido not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why wouldGod punish you?

Regards
DL

 

[Stone]

Can you help but do evil? Ido not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why wouldGod punish you?

Christians are always tryingto absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their freewill argument and placing all the blame on mankind.
That usually sounds like ----Godgave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall.Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability asthe author and creator of human nature.

Free will is only the abilityto choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose"A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Evewould even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed bya serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie inthe nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable fordeliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "freewill" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all do evil/sin by naturethen, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some whowould not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

Having said the above for theGod that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tellyou that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree withChristians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’sresponsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that canonly be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has beenforcibly withheld.

Much has been written to explain evil and sinbut I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate whatsome see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and areneither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims arecreated. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.
In secular courts, this iscalled mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the courtwill not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator ofthe act.

Evil then is only human tohuman when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.
As evolving creatures, all weever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see asgood as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as itcreates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing,doing evil, at all times.

Without us doing some ofboth, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains whythere is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature,evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something toblame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a hugethanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, withoutevolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.

There is no conflict betweennature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all mustdo what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to thiscompetition.

These links speak to theisticevolution.

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=1205

http://www.youtube.com/user/ProfMTH#g/c/6F8036F680C1DBEB

If theistic evolution istrue, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not reallyany original sin.

If the above is notconvincing enough for you then show me where in this baby evil lives or is apart of it’s nature and instincts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

Can you help but do evil? Ido not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why wouldGod punish you?

Regards
DL

Can you help but do evil? Ido not see how.

That qualification probably only works for the mentally insane and those that are mentally deficient to the point of not understanding right versus wrong.
And I suspect any atheist/agnostic in this forum will likely tell you they don't need a belief in God to generate morality and codes of conduct.

Ido not see how

Of course. If you admitted you could, it would instantly destroy your following rant, as illogical as it is

Do you?

Do I what? (rhetorical)
Can I choose to not do evil?
I have the ability as I think most people do.

Christians are always tryingto absolve God of moral culpability in the fall........

You forgot to post that the above statement was your opinion.
Meh........It's merely the same line of crap you've been posting with out success.

by putting forward their freewill argument and placing all the blame on mankind.

Says the proponent advocating a culture of legalized drug abuse and addiction and intentionally placing children in harms way.
That's evil. That's your position. You deny God so, logically, the guilt is on you.
You have freewill and the damage your drug arguments would inflict on society explained many times.
You are ether insane, mentally deficient or freely choosing evil ( or other? )

That usually sounds like ----Godgave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall.Hence God is not blameworthy.

Logically.......if you have a choice and it's made freely, who beyond yourself do you have to blame when things go wrong?

Such statements simply avoid God's culpability asthe author and creator of human nature.

That's called a non sequitur.
Your logic doesn't follow.
The concept of 'freewill' wouldn't invoke the culpability you infer beyond the self.
You really screwed that up, GIA.

Free will is only the abilityto choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose"A" or "B" (bad or good action).

Indeed. But the explanation of that choice would only reside in the person in question.

An explanation for why Evewould even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed bya serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie inthe nature God gave Eve in the first place.

You just argued that humans do not have freewill.

What is your position on freewill?
Do you think we have it or are you of the 'wet robot' mentality?
If you are a 'wet robot', please explain how you attained your 'god-like' status.

Hence God is culpable fordeliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "freewill" means nothing as a response to this problem.

Maybe you ought not read Genesis anymore, imo, it's making you seem ......unstable.

If all do evil/sin by naturethen, the evil/sin nature is dominant.

What's your reasoning for that claim?
Following your logic, if all do good/moral, the nature of good/moral is dominant.
Reality, people do both at different times.
Since our society still functions, it's not a stretch to claim more people do more good than evil.........so good/moral is obviously dominant.
( you really ought to think these thing out before you post )

............................. I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist

Who is god-like with almost infinite wisdom.......yeah, you've posted that before.
I am skeptical

Much has been written to explain evil and sinbut I see as a natural part of evolution.

You see evil and sin as evolutionary progress?
Well, that explains a lot .......LOL!




(continued)

 

[Stone]

Part 2

First, let us eliminate whatsome see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and areneither good nor evil.

Indeed.

There is no intent to do evil even as victims arecreated.

Natural disasters are merely interaction of mass and energy with innocent bystanders being injured.

Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.
In secular courts, this iscalled mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the courtwill not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator ofthe act.

Fallacy....big time.
You just jumped from a frame of reference of matter and energy exchanges ....to the decisions and actions of freewill of humans.

mens rea......
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mens+rea
excerpt>

A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element.

inaddition:

Sometimes a statute creates criminal liability for the commission or omission of a particular act without designating a mens rea. These are called Strict Liability statutes. If such a statute is construed to purposely omit criminal intent, a person who commits the crime may be guilty even though he or she had no knowledge that his or her act was criminal and had no thought of committing a crime. All that is required under such statutes is that the act itself is voluntary, since involuntary acts are not criminal.

Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.

You got it wrong.

Evil then is only human tohuman when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.

See how sophistry fucks up your arguments? Bringing mens rea into your argument was a non sequitur.

Why?
>>>>>" a person who commits the crime may be guilty even though he or she had no knowledge that his or her act was criminal and had no thought of committing a crime. "
You tried to equate crime, guilt and evil.

GIA........your logic in this post is a scrambled mess.

Without us doing some ofboth, we would likely go extinct.

Too much dope and our society would probably go 'extinct'.
And yet you argued for it.

This, to me, explains whythere is evil in the world quite well.

Because you think we'd go extinct with out evil?
I see no logic to that claim.

......................... withoutevolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.

Without evolution, all species would eventually go extinct.
But it does not follow that man must do evil to evolve.
Another logical fallacy.

If theistic evolution istrue, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not reallyany original sin.

Here's a surprise.....I agree but the term 'allegory' is more appropriate, imo.
But that comment doesn't relate to your thread title nor the statements that followed:
Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

rephrased>>>>> I do not see how you can help but do evil? Do you?

I do. A mature and rational mind understands the positives of moral codes. This can come about through teaching ( Church and/or school ) and/or experiences in life.


I suggest you reread your post, GIA.
You've actually made an argument that evil is a productive venture in your rant against God.

 

[Stone]

I overlooked this comment:

Evil then is only human tohuman when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.
As evolving creatures, all weever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see asgood as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as itcreates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing,doing evil, at all times.

We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing,doing evil, at all times.

So how do you rationalize your competition to convert people over to your religion?
You haven't been cooperative in these debates ( IMHO ) and it certainly looks like a competition for new members to your religion.
And it's intentional.

And the forum has been a victim

Dude..........that's pretty damn evil by your standards

 

[Greatest I am]

Thanks for your usual.

Regards
DL

 

[Stone]

Thanks for your usual.

Regards
DL

You're welcome .....I think logic should be consistent