1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYes you are correct. Satan did not ask God to do the things he did. The author of this post missed that point?
As I understand it, Satan did not ask permission to attack Job. He was more cunning than that. He challenged God's understanding of why Job was righteous and loyal. This caused God to accept the challenge by lifting some of His protection over Job to prove Job's loyalty and righteousness.
You can't just have 'good' without 'bad'. As with all other polarities.
If everything was just fine and everything was just easy and happy 'n' such in life, we would not have made all the efforts that are required to better ourselves , the human race , all life and the planet. These efforts are requirement for evolution (physical and spiritual).
We would still be amoebas .
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelYes, but you're talking about a different kind of 'good' and 'bad' here - more natural than moral. Am I right?
You can't just have 'good' without 'bad'. As with all other polarities.
If everything was just fine and everything was just easy and happy 'n' such in life, we would not have made all the efforts that are required to better ourselves , the human race , all life and the planet. These efforts are requirement for evolution (physical and spiritual).
We would still be amoebas .
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by karoly aczelActually... why not?
You can't just have 'good' without 'bad'. As with all other polarities.
If everything was just fine and everything was just easy and happy 'n' such in life, we would not have made all the efforts that are required to better ourselves , the human race , all life and the planet. These efforts are requirement for evolution (physical and spiritual).
We would still be amoebas .
Say you put human experience of good and bad on a scale of...
-10 [ultimate pain] through 0 [neutral] to +10 [orgasm?]
It can be argued that there has to be a range of experience, that
'ultimate happiness' for ever would loose meaning, and specialness
because there was no contrast.
However there is plenty enough contrast between 0 and +10 without
needing the range of unpleasantness from 0 to -10.
Do we really need 'bad' to contrast good?
Don't we just need degrees of good, from neutral to awesome?
As for motivation... Life doesn't need to be unpleasant to be motivating.
We can act to prevent suffering that might occur without needing to
actually suffer it.
Originally posted by SwissGambitI did mention 'all other polarities' as well as putting inverted commas around "good" and "bad". But yes, my wording may have been a bit dodgy for some there.
Yes, but you're talking about a different kind of 'good' and 'bad' here - more natural than moral. Am I right?
Originally posted by googlefudgeAs you mentioned with "neutral to awesome", there needs to be something relative and "bad" could easily be used as a term to describe "neutral" in the future, as is evidenced by the quickly changing meanings of some words. (Remember When Michael Jackson made "bad" into a "tough" word, like something one should desire? )
Actually... why not?
Say you put human experience of good and bad on a scale of...
-10 [ultimate pain] through 0 [neutral] to +10 [orgasm?]
It can be argued that there has to be a range of experience, that
'ultimate happiness' for ever would loose meaning, and specialness
because there was no contrast.
However there is plenty enough cont ...[text shortened]... ng.
We can act to prevent suffering that might occur without needing to
actually suffer it.