Does a good deed done by what we call an evil person does that mean the deed is now evil? When an evil deed is done by what we call a good person, does that mean that the deed is now good?
If we only see evil when we see some people, or only see good when we see some people, no matter what it is they are doing, are we viewing things properly, or have our eyes become dull in seeing so that we are driven by our love or hate for some people, not reality as it is? To look at people properly, a level playing field is required; love and righteousness are necessary. Anyone filled with hate will have a warped view, no matter what; hate requires justification to see their flaws, overlooking our own. One who loves, as long as it isn't warped by unrighteousness, will care, even if they see something evil, and will still want what is best, which would include stopping the evil for their sake and others. If we can no longer look at what people are doing but only see who we like and dislike, good and evil will be defined by the people, not by what they are doing.
@KellyJay saidIs a lie told by an honest person true? It’s a no brainer.
Does a good deed done by what we call an evil person does that mean the deed is now evil? When an evil deed is done by what we call a good person, does that mean that the deed is now good?
If we only see evil when we see some people, or only see good when we see some people, no matter what it is they are doing, are we viewing things properly, or have our eyes become dull ...[text shortened]... ee who we like and dislike, good and evil will be defined by the people, not by what they are doing.
@KellyJay saidStates of character, such as honesty and responsibility, are made of many small actions. It’s a moot point how many actions would be required to unmake a bad state of character or to break a bad habit. One must just make a start and keep at it.
You’d think so, and I agree, but when all it takes is seeing someone to find faults, is it about what they do or the person?
@moonbus saidI believe you know my views on that. I have to take it as scripture defines our goodness or righteousness from God’s perspective. We do as you say, move along, trying to improve over time, but that is totally different from God’s perspective. For example, I’ve gone over this before. We live in the moment now; we have the past and the future, while God transcends time, so each and every thought, deed, or inaction is all real time to God, as if, for us, they were happening right now! What we end up actually doing is compiling all our wicked deeds each time we do one, so even if we improve, we will still be coming up short. From our perspective, we improve and think one of us is better than another; we are weighing things on the wrong scale.
States of character, such as honesty and responsibility, are made of many small actions. It’s a moot point how many actions would be required to unmake a bad state of character or to break a bad habit. One must just make a start and keep at it.
@KellyJay saidYou would find your spiritual home in Calvinism. I would not.
I believe you know my views on that. I have to take it as scripture defines our goodness or righteousness from God’s perspective. We do as you say, move along, trying to improve over time, but that is totally different from God’s perspective. For example, I’ve gone over this before. We live in the moment now; we have the past and the future, while God transcends time, so ...[text shortened]... e, we improve and think one of us is better than another; we are weighing things on the wrong scale.
@moonbus saidNo, I’m not a Calvinist. For us to have a choice, there needs to be a choice, one we make freely when the offer is made. Since we will never seek that choice out on our own, God has to offer it to us. So it is offered to all: God seeks us out; we either run away or run towards Him, because it is what we want.
You would find your spiritual home in Calvinism. I would not.
@KellyJay saidYou speak like a Calvinist.
No, I’m not a Calvinist. For us to have a choice, there needs to be a choice, one we make freely when the offer is made. Since we will never seek that choice out on our own, God has to offer it to us. So it is offered to all: God seeks us out; we either run away or run towards Him, because it is what we want.
Religion is not (or shouldn't be) about punishment.
It is about the Good News (each religion has their own version of this) and the way to a better, more abundant life in the here and now. It is NOT about judging and punishing those who you feel do not conform. That is the way of evil.
@Suzianne saidRighteousness requires that each wrong be properly dealt with, without exception, to the fullest degree, or every victim is left without justice. Love’s part in this is to satisfy justice and mercy, so that each wrong is fully atoned for. Consequences rightly done are what are called for when evil is done; you’d have that ignored?
You speak like a Calvinist.
Religion is not (or shouldn't be) about punishment.
It is about the Good News (each religion has their own version of this) and the way to a better, more abundant life in the here and now. It is NOT about judging and punishing those who you feel do not conform. That is the way of evil.
You’re framing this as an all views fit all circumstances, which ignores Jesus Christ. If you’re going to do that, then there is a lot we disagree on, including the most important one above all.
@KellyJay saidIf virtue is its own reward, is not vice its own punishment? The threat of eternal consequences is a psychological device to induce morally immature people to conform to rules they don’t like. Morally advanced people do right because it is right, not because they were promised rewards, and avoid wrong behavior because it is wrong, not because they fear punishment.
Righteousness requires that each wrong be properly dealt with, without exception, to the fullest degree, or every victim is left without justice. Love’s part in this is to satisfy justice and mercy, so that each wrong is fully atoned for. Consequences rightly done are what are called for when evil is done; you’d have that ignored?
You’re framing this as an all views fit ...[text shortened]... re going to do that, then there is a lot we disagree on, including the most important one above all.
@moonbus saidNo concern should bother anyone about a non-existent threat. Morally advanced people are an oxymoron. What do you see in today’s generation’s behavior that makes you think they are any better than those in the past? The fact that they think they can do whatever they want without consequence, simply by denying that anyone can do anything to them, or should do to them? Maybe it is the medical advancements we rely on that let us do many things we couldn’t do in the past without consequences, from curing some versions of V.D. to abortion. Perhaps it is our ability to rewrite dictionaries to alter language, making the meaning of some words good or bad, or maybe rewrite history successfully by turning good things to bad, or bad to good. Rewriting the past changes the culture today; it’s a lot easier to do today with a single source of news than when word of mouth and different newspapers told the news. If you have no moral compass that everyone agrees with, then everyone will do what is right in their own eyes. What could go wrong if advanced people do that? If they do not value the same things, what is important to one will not be to the other.
If virtue is its own reward, is not vice its own punishment? The threat of eternal consequences is a psychological device to induce morally immature people to conform to rules they don’t like. Morally advanced people do right because it is right, not because they were promised rewards, and avoid wrong behavior because it is wrong, not because they fear punishment.
@KellyJay saidThis thread clearly belongs in the "Spirituality Forum;" seeing that your question to others is a spiritual question, is it not? The rest is nothing but you mis-guided spiritual opinions.
Does a good deed done by what we call an evil person does that mean the deed is now evil? When an evil deed is done by what we call a good person, does that mean that the deed is now good?
If we only see evil when we see some people, or only see good when we see some people, no matter what it is they are doing, are we viewing things properly, or have our eyes become dull ...[text shortened]... ee who we like and dislike, good and evil will be defined by the people, not by what they are doing.
@KingDavid403 saidWell, go to the Spiritual form and stay out of this thread; your problem is solved.
This thread clearly belongs in the "Spirituality Forum;" seeing that your question to others is a spiritual question, is it not? The rest is nothing but you mis-guided spiritual opinions.
@KellyJay saidThis was in danger of becoming an interesting talking point, until you (inevitably) introduced your god into the discussion. Any judgement upon any action should not be based upon love or hatred of anything or anybody, but from a position of neutrality.
Does a good deed done by what we call an evil person does that mean the deed is now evil? When an evil deed is done by what we call a good person, does that mean that the deed is now good?
If we only see evil when we see some people, or only see good when we see some people, no matter what it is they are doing, are we viewing things properly, or have our eyes become dull ...[text shortened]... ee who we like and dislike, good and evil will be defined by the people, not by what they are doing.