Is evil nurtured, or natural?

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

This here is a very fascinating subject in my opinion. Mankind has always been fascinated with evil, with taboo. But where does it originate from? Is it taught to us by our siblings and family? Or is it something innate and genetic. Or is there really some reason that is quite beyond conventional explanation?

This isn't like a normal discussion where a million opinions may float and come to no avail. Rather, lets argue several points concerning the concept that I will provide here.

Point one: Evil is nurtured. We have ample knowledge that experiencing violence in childhood is bound to make one more violent. We have cases such as that of Adolf Hitler, whose father constantly beat him when he was young, and Joseph Stalin, whom too his father beat. We have ratial violence. Louis Rodriguez depicts violence as being taught to youth from peers and social atmosphere in his book, Always Running.

Point two: Evil is innate. Yes, many people are beat and treated with contempt whilst growing up, but many of those people don't turn out bad. How many beaten children grow up to be Hitlers? Looking back to literature, I find a direct example in Lord of the flies by William Golding. In this book, children stranded on an island eventually succumb to corruption and nearly destroy each other, and the island.

To further support your claims, please feel free to project evidence, either scientific or literature related.

[donjuan]

Beliefs, values, and ethics (that would also include what you consider "evil,").  This makes up culture, which is learned.  No one disputes this; it is a key part of sociology.

[debussy symbolism]

Beliefs, values, and ethics (that would also include what you consider "evil,").  This makes up culture, which is learned.  No one disputes this; it is a key part of sociology.

Yes, that is true, but where does it all start from. Surely a culture cannot always be relying on a parental figure. The first generations must have had their own ways of thinking.

[le_poete_mourant]

First we must define what entails evil.  That is, does someone who is generally viewed as "evil" view him or herself as evil?  Did Hitler believe himself to be evil?  I think perhaps, more likely, he thought himself a positive force to the world, for doing it the favor of eliminating the undesirable elements of the human gene pool. 

Perspective, therefore, makes evil just as impossible to identify as good.  We may throw the word evil around, but what does it really mean?  Who are we to judge this?  If you believe in some sort of religion, you would leave it up to your primary deity. 

For the sake of the argument, though, let's look at a small act of evil.  Say someone has done something that has really hurt me.  Let's say, for example, that you're dating someone and this person, while still involved with you, sleeps with someone else.  You discover this.  Now, how do you react?  Let's say that you act very spitefully towards your former partner: yelling, berating him/her, damaging property, even acts of physical violence.  Is this qualified as evil?  Perhaps, on a small scale, it is.  Is this your natural reaction?  Yes, I believe it is.  However, there is also the nurtured part of the human psyche that allows most rational human beings to decide what is correct and proper, and allows them to avoid acts of evil on a large scale. 

Therefore, evil at its purest, such as Hitler or Stalin levels, is neither natural nor nurtured, but caused by some irrational mental disorder.  Sadism amplified to a horrible magnitude. 

"Evil" is not how it is painted in the movies.  Even if you point to traumatic events in childhood, evil is not justified.  It is caused by insanity and the loss of the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. 

What about larger scale acts of evil?  Terrorism, for instance.  Osama bin Laden, you may argue, is evil because he has lost his ability to recognize the horror of his acts in relation to humanity.  But what about the underling terrorists?  Are they, too, evil, because they carry out his orders?  Or are they simply pawns, brainwashed, unwilling to admit that they are doing something "evil," but aware of it at the same time?  The Nuremburg Laws would say that, yes, they are accountable.  But are they beyond correction, to the point of Hitler? 

The question of nature vs. nurture has also been applied to the subject of homosexuality, and I don't think there has been any resolution there.  Psychologists & philosophers will debate into eternity. 

[prometheus]

Evil does not exist.

[chopiabin]

"Evil" is just a delusion that Western culture has inherited from Christianity. It's a silly notion that originates from weakness - those who are weak must designate things that threaten them as "evil" - rather than understand the threat, they have to paint it black, they "satanize" it for their own peace of mind.

It's much easier to call an enemy "evil" than it is to understand it.

[ahinton]

"Evil" is just a delusion that Western culture has inherited from Christianity. It's a silly notion that originates from weakness - those who are weak must designate things that threaten them as "evil" - rather than understand the threat, they have to paint it black, they "satanize" it for their own piece of mind.

It's much easier to call an enemy "evil" than it is to understand it.

As in "axis of...", for example?...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

Which axis?

[counterpoint]

This question is very interesting to me too.

How is it possible, that people can torture and kill other people, that they can  throw bombs on other people's houses? That's only possible, because they think, these people are evil and it's good to annihilate evil.

But as a consequence of this thinking, evil is not decimated but multiplied...

[pianistimo]

it is true that evil can exist in people's minds - but where does the inspiration come from.  we know that hitler was very interested in the occult and one of his closest people was a satanist.  people laugh - but why else would he have had THAT much power over people?

the one world government system being brought to the fore today also has lucent, or lucifer written all over it.  symbols, everything!  the illuminati and various world state organizations that circle the one world idea - are in and through leaders of organizations and companies (higher ups) today.  God mentions babylon being intertwined with the world banking community.  perhaps they will control 'the mark' that is prophecied that people will need to buy or sell in the coming breakdown and rebuilding (already built) of the world economic system (which would be satan's plot to destroy mankind).

why does satan hate us?  because he knows our potential to be like God.  He was once a covering archangel for the very throne of God.  he knows what awaits us- good things.

[pianistimo]

rev 18:2-3 'and he cried out with a loud voice, saying 'fallen, fallen is babylon the great!  and she has become a dwelling place of demons and a prison of every unclean spirit, and a prison of every unclean and hateful bird... for all the nations have drunk of the wine of the passion of her immorality, and the kings of the earth have committed acts of immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich by the wealth of her sensuality.'

how do they become 'infected' with demons and evil?  by meeting in places and talking about this one world order.  it is prophecied in the bible.  and, can be found to be true of the bildiberger foundation which many presidents of many countries have attended. 

[le_poete_mourant]

This question is very interesting to me too.

How is it possible, that people can torture and kill other people, that they can  throw bombs on other people's houses? That's only possible, because they think, these people are evil and it's good to annihilate evil.

But as a consequence of this thinking, evil is not decimated but multiplied...

However, from a psychological perspective, these people most likely do not consider these evil actions.  Take an instance between Palestine and Israel: a suicide bomber from one bombs a group of the other.  Why?  Because he believes that his religion is justified in doing so, and he is martyring himself for that cause.  Then, in revenge, the other group sends a suicide bomber.  He is justified in believing he is avenging his dead family.  Therefore, neither of them thinks they are doing evil, because they are justified. 

Or, imagine that torture is applied to a detainee in a secret CIA prison in Europe.  (Just hypothetically).  The government ordering this torture does not believe it is evil because they are doing it to get information that will save the people of their country. 

Does the ends justify the means? 

[pianistimo]

power is not always evil.  God will decimate evil - but it is power used for a good cause.  if evil flourishes - will there ever be peace?  take the president of iran right now.  he is calling , as we speak, for the destruction of one of the smallest nations on earth - israel.  when the arabs unite there will be the king of the south and the king of the north.  the arabic world and the european nations.  what is left for prophecy to fulfill?  war! 

people celebrate 'baby' Jesus now - but they will be evidently shocked when He returns as a warrior to the earth and destroys evil.  completely.  for good.  He is just.  and brings judgement.

[thalbergmad]

people celebrate 'baby' Jesus now - but they will be evidently shocked when He returns as a warrior to the earth and destroys evil.  completely.  for good.  He is just.  and brings judgement.

This was a sensible thread until you posted this rubbish.

You just can't stop can you.

[prometheus]

Warrior? You mean Jesus will need violence to defeat 'evil'.

How silly and human. That's so 1000 BCE.

[thalbergmad]

people celebrate 'baby' Jesus now - but they will be evidently shocked when He returns as a warrior to the earth and destroys evil.  completely.  for good.  He is just.  and brings judgement.

And what evil is there for him to destroy?

Is he going to kill thousands as the Church has done over the centruies?

I believe that evil can be both nurtured or natural. But for some peope it comes more naturally.

Thal

[preludium]

There are different kinds of evil. Most things that were mentioned so far come from egoism. Evil people of that kind force their will upon others to gain some sort of benefit for themselves. This is an animal kind of evil, and it's not the most severe that can be observed, even though it's most evident. It rules the world. Hitler, Stalin, and suicide bombers represent this sort of evil, the latter because they were brainwashed. Similar behavior has been observed with chimps.

There also is some kind of evil where the person doen't get any benefit from causing suffering to others and is even willing to accept harm to themselves if damage can be done to the opponent. This is more of a diabolic kind of evil. Envy is a source of that. The most striking display of this kind of evil is abuse and torture of children. The assumption that the actor sees some sort of evil in the opponent due to cultural or other differences doesn't hold in that case. There seems to be no rational reason that could explain such crimes.

As for William Golding's "The Lord of the Flies", this is a great book. It tries to show that civilisation is only a thin layer over ancient instincts. But there is more. The leaders are the first that lose contact to a civilized behavoir and try to introduce a religion by worshipping the head of a dead pig - the lord of the flies. The one child that manages to maintain some order for a while is just the one that was bullied by all others because of his overweight and his thick glasses. He is the most mature among the children, because he suffered the most.

[debussy symbolism]

Evil does not exist.

By itself it doesn't, but it does exist via assumption. Something can be claimed as "evil" when a vast majority claims it as such.

There are different kinds of evil. Most things that were mentioned so far come from egoism. Evil people of that kind force their will upon others to gain some sort of benefit for themselves. This is an animal kind of evil, and it's not the most severe that can be observed, even though it's most evident. It rules the world. Hitler, Stalin, and suicide bombers represent this sort of evil, the latter because they were brainwashed. Similar behavior has been observed with chimps.

There also is some kind of evil where the person doen't get any benefit from causing suffering to others and is even willing to accept harm to themselves if damage can be done to the opponent. This is more of a diabolic kind of evil. Envy is a source of that. The most striking display of this kind of evil is abuse and torture of children. The assumption that the actor sees some sort of evil in the opponent due to cultural or other differences doesn't hold in that case. There seems to be no rational reason that could explain such crimes.

Well, egotism is essentially an expression of power, so naturally, those that try to possess or change the world to their will would be labeled as egotistical. That may prove to be an essential point in arguing that "evil" is innate, because such display of power hunger isn't normally taught to youth.

Mental disorders that can cause others to do inhumane things to others may not necessarily denote the origin of evil, as many things can drive a man to do harm onto others without experiencing any sort of reward.

However, from a psychological perspective, these people most likely do not consider these evil actions. Take an instance between Palestine and Israel: a suicide bomber from one bombs a group of the other. Why? Because he believes that his religion is justified in doing so, and he is martyring himself for that cause. Then, in revenge, the other group sends a suicide bomber. He is justified in believing he is avenging his dead family. Therefore, neither of them thinks they are doing evil, because they are justified.

Or, imagine that torture is applied to a detainee in a secret CIA prison in Europe. (Just hypothetically). The government ordering this torture does not believe it is evil because they are doing it to get information that will save the people of their country.

Does the ends justify the means?

I think that that is a valid observation. According to that, there really is no evil, and no good for that matter. Only preferance and assumption of morals. That supports that "evil" is merely an expression of dislike and intrusion upon personal favours.

[debussy symbolism]

Given the argument and points presented so far, I think it is safe to assume for now that evil is indeed very much innate, and is a potent expression of personal quandary or a need for power. I don't think that the need for power is necessarily a conscious thing, as it is more subconscious.

This leads me to my next point. According to Sigmund Freud, children go through the "Oedipus Complex" at around the age of 5. At that age, the child's desires to become intimate with a parent of opposite sex are suppressed by a father figure. So, wouldn't this suppression of libido, which in this case might be the originator of evil, be indeed a potent reagent for such activities such as domination and causing harm onto others and other such things that include having the power that was once suppressed? Perhaps the need for power arises from the libido, or the "Id," to use a Freudian term.

[chopiabin]

This question is very interesting to me too.

How is it possible, that people can torture and kill other people, that they can  throw bombs on other people's houses? That's only possible, because they think, these people are evil and it's good to annihilate evil.

But as a consequence of this thinking, evil is not decimated but multiplied...

But you're assuming that torture is always evil - and that's not the case.
Just look at punishment in medieval Europe! The church (not just in the inquisitions) administered absolutely torturous punishments that served as both education and entertainment for the wider public. Those punishments were used to ingrain the people with the church's brand of morality - the morality of pity. The church was not considered evil by the people - they actually believed that such punishments were cathartic and that the church was doing the service of "God". Without that period in Western history, the world and its morality would be quite different today.

My point is that moral values change and evolve - what we consider "moral" today would be viewed quite differently by the Puritans, the Renaissance, or Imperial Rome.
Bush just basically gave himself the ability to define the word "torture," and no one called him "evil" - values are changing, but most people are too blinded by moral bias to recognize it.

[prometheus]

The US senate allows torture as well.


Torture is wrong, yes. But evil is so strange a concept. You need absolute right and wrong for there to be evil. And then one needs be aware and 'enjoy' being absolutely wrong.

Good and evil is just a primitive idea.

[chopiabin]

But who says torture is absolutely "wrong"? Doesn't it depend on your values (and I mean values in a paradigmatic way)?

[preludium]

Well, egotism is essentially an expression of power

This is putting things upside down. Striving for power is an expression of egoism, which again comes from the will of a person. The stronger the will the more difference a person sees between themselves and others. You miss the whole point if you only look at people in leading positions. Consider people in your nearest environment and you will see that those who strive for influence must force their will upon others to reach their goals. This already starts with babies crying until someone takes care of them, which is not evil but only comes from the same source as evil actions. Your conclusion that evil is innate is wrong, because the will to life is what is innate, and only its increase beyond some degree makes a person accept the harm of others for their own purpose.

Mental disorders that can cause others to do inhumane things to others may not necessarily denote the origin of evil, as many things can drive a man to do harm onto others without experiencing any sort of reward.

I don't understand this sentence. Where was I talking of mental disorders? This is just labeling some kind of behavior and assuming this would explain something. It does not. A description is no explanation. Many people take scientific descriptions for explanations and miss the point that nothing is explained. If your want to explain mental disorders you have to show how they are caused. Just describing the effects is not enough.

[musik_man]

"Evil" is just a delusion that Western culture has inherited from Christianity. It's a silly notion that originates from weakness - those who are weak must designate things that threaten them as "evil" - rather than understand the threat, they have to paint it black, they "satanize" it for their own peace of mind.

It's much easier to call an enemy "evil" than it is to understand it.

Evil is much too universal a notion to ascribe to Christianity.  I really see two ways upon which the idea of evil takes meaning, a theistic view and an atheistic view.  Obviously in the theist view evil can be equated with immorality.  It involves a moral order created by God.  The atheist view is more subjective.  Evil must be an evolutionary construct.  Organisms that cooperated had advantage over those who did not.  So organisms that felt that certain behaviors, behaviors that hurt the group, were 'bad', were more likely too survive.  If one takes the second view,  evil is somewhat meaningless, and certainly completely relative.  The notion of evil requires that life has meaning.  Evil needs something to oppose.  If life is only a byproduct of the process of natural selection, and there is no higher power, there's no good for evil to negate.

You say that moral values change, but if one rejects God there can be no moral values.  That implies that there is a correct answer, good values.  Morality would only be the product of ones genes and only exist because one's ancestors reproduced where those with other 'beliefs'(I guess one would classify them as inferior beliefs) did not.  In a sense you'd be right, morals change and are relative, but you'd be wrong on the scale.  There would be no true morality on any scale other than that of the individual.  All manifestations of a higher morality(such as law and philosophy) would only be compromises between equally valid belief systems.  We value laws against murder not because there is anything inherently wrong with murder,  but because most of the population's morality(derived from a combination of nature and nurture) believes it to be bad.  Indeed the whole notion of something having inherent meaning in a Godless and therefore meaningless world, is silly.

Of course I can't see how anyone can believe that sort of thing about morals even though it does logically proceed from the notion that God and evil do not exist.  The obvious response to my objection, however, would be that my distaste at the idea of subjective morality stems only from my moral sense, which in turn is only formed by my particular nature/nurture combination.  This is a bit of a shutdown of the debate.  The only truly interesting argument left is whose underlying assumptions about life and any possible meaning thereof are correct.

The title of this thread precludes the correct debate about evil.  Once one buys into the notion that nature and nurture are the only inputs, one enters the realm of scientific fact.  One would merely need to somehow quantize evil and see how it varies in response to different cultures and to different genes.  There's no subjectivity there and perhaps that's what some people like.  But I can't begin to answer the question about the source of evil without dealing with the notion of free will.  People have been endowed by their creator with the ability to make choices.  In the end that's where evil comes from.

This quote from GK Chesterton sums up some of my feelings on this debate.
"Examples are scarcely needed of this total levity on the subject of cosmic philosophy.  Examples are scarcely needed to show that, whatever else we think of as affecting practical affairs, we do not think it matters whether a man is a pessimist or an optimist, a Cartesian or a Hegelian, a materialist or a spiritualist.  Let me, however, take a random instance.  At any innocent tea-table we may easily hear a man say, "Life is not worth living." We regard it as we regard the statement that it is a fine day; nobody thinks that it can possibly have any serious effect on the man or on the world.  And yet if that utterance were really believed, the world would stand on its head.  Murderers would be given medals for saving men from life; firemen would be denounced for keeping men from death; poisons would be used as medicines; doctors would be called in when people were well; the Royal Humane Society would be rooted out like a horde of assassins.  Yet we never speculate as to whether the conversational pessimist will strengthen or disorganize society; for we are convinced that theories do not matter."

Many of the posters here reject the idea of evil, but none of them acts in a manner consistent with their belief.  (though believe me, I'm grateful for that)

[prometheus]

But who says torture is absolutely "wrong"? Doesn't it depend on your values (and I mean values in a paradigmatic way)?

You can make a very strong case against it using arguments.

As for 'absolutely wrong', those things do not exist. Because then it would be 'evil'.

Many of the posters here reject the idea of evil, but none of them acts in a manner consistent with their belief.  (though believe me, I'm grateful for that)

Huh, what do you mean by this?

[chopiabin]

This is putting things upside down. Striving for power is an expression of egoism, which again comes from the will of a person. The stronger the will the more difference a person sees between themselves and others. You miss the whole point if you only look at people in leading positions. Consider people in your nearest environment and you will see that those who strive for influence must force their will upon others to reach their goals. This already starts with babies crying until someone takes care of them, which is not evil but only comes from the same source as evil actions. Your conclusion that evil is innate is wrong, because the will to life is what is innate, and only its increase beyond some degree makes a person accept the harm of others for their own purpose.
I don't understand this sentence. Where was I talking of mental disorders? This is just labeling some kind of behavior and assuming this would explain something. It does not. A description is no explanation. Many people take scientific descriptions for explanations and miss the point that nothing is explained. If your want to explain mental disorders you have to show how they are caused. Just describing the effects is not enough.

I can see you've read your Nietzsche   

[counterpoint]

But you're assuming that torture is always evil - and that's not the case.
Just look at punishment in medieval Europe! The church (not just in the inquisitions) administered absolutely torturous punishments that served as both education and entertainment for the wider public.

I don't understand, what you want to say. The Middle Ages were NOT a christian age in the sense of what Jesus preached, but completely the opposite!

TORTURE IS EVIL

If you cannot agree with this, a discussion about religion and morality isn't possible.

The person who tortures another person does evil, theres no difference, how the name or the religion of the person is.

[chopiabin]

You're blinded by moral bias - how can you prove that torture is evil? Most people, even non-religious people, would agree with you, but that doesn't make it true.

Torture is considered evil because it deliberately causes suffering - but my point about the Middle Ages is that when tortures were administered virtually no one saw them as evil - in fact, they felt that witnessing torture brought them closer to God. "Evil" is culturally defined - we may call the Nazis "evil", but that's just an easy way of satanizing something we don't understand, and they certainly didn't feel themselves as evil. Which is not to say that I don't detest them, but I do not call them "evil".

Do you think 9/11 was an act of "evil"? Those who hijacked the planes felt they were attacking evil.

 

The notions of "good" and "evil" have meant very different things throughout history and will always have the potential to change. Much more changeable are the less extreme notions of "right" and "wrong".

[counterpoint]

I'm very sorry, but I have to say that:

pianistimo and chopiabin - you sound very cruel to me

[prometheus]

Now, you are either being unfair or you don't understand his point.

He isn't saying that torture isn't wrong. What he is saying is that it isn't evil.

And if you don't agree you just can't say: "TORTURE IS EVIL If you cannot agree with this, a discussion [...] isn't possible."

Why can't you give arguments showing us why torture is evil? If you cannot do that...

[counterpoint]

He isn't saying that torture isn't wrong. What he is saying is that it isn't evil.

But that's the same, isn't it?

[pion]

The Middle Ages were NOT a christian age in the sense of what Jesus preached, but completely the opposite!

This is not exactly correct. Jesus preached, by example, that torture and mass killing is ok, at least as long as it is done for a good cause, and that it is done to living beings that one considers "lowly".

In Jesus' time the good cause was ridding a man of evil spirits, and the lowly beings that were worthy of torture and killing was an entire herd of 2000 pigs. I happen to love pigs - they are one of my favourite creatures - but I'm a product of recent times. So the Middle Ages use of torture can be justified by direct reference to Jesus himself.

Mark 5 (New Living Translation):

When Jesus was still some distance away, the man saw him, ran to meet him, and bowed low before him. With a shriek, he screamed, “Why are you interfering with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In the name of God, I beg you, don’t TORTURE me!” For Jesus had already said to the spirit, “Come out of the man, you evil spirit.”

Then Jesus demanded, “What is your name?”

And he replied, “My name is Legion, because there are many of us inside this man.” Then the evil spirits begged him again and again not to send them to some distant place.

There happened to be a large herd of pigs feeding on the hillside nearby. “Send us into those pigs,” the spirits begged. “Let us enter them.”

So Jesus gave them permission. The evil spirits came out of the man and entered the pigs, and the entire herd of 2,000 pigs plunged down the steep hillside into the lake and drowned in the water.

[counterpoint]

This is not exactly correct. Jesus preached, by example, that torture and mass killing is ok, at least as long as it is done for a good cause, and that it is done to living beings that one considers "lowly".

In Jesus' time the good cause was ridding a man of evil spirits, and the lowly beings that were worthy of torture and killing was an entire herd of 2000 pigs. I happen to love pigs - they are one of my favourite creatures - but I'm a product of recent times. So the Middle Ages use of torture can be justified by direct reference to Jesus himself.

pion, you have a funny type of humour, but I can't see, how Jesus did agree in "torture" and "mass murder" in this story.

[prometheus]

But that's the same, isn't it?

No, that's the whole point of this discussion.

[chopiabin]

I'm not saying I advocate torture. I'm saying that I do not feel a "moral" obligation not to do so. What is evil? No one can define it.

What is an innately "wrong" action? Nothing  has value in itself - all values are defined by man, and more broadly society.

[counterpoint]

But that's the same, isn't it?

No, that's the whole point of this discussion.

Could you please explain the difference?
For me "evil" is just an other word for "wrong" or "immoral"

[prometheus]

But evil is an absolute. If you do something that is evil and I tell you: "Don't do that its evil." and you don't listen then I am justified to kill you because you are evil.

If someone tortures and I tell them they shouldn't and I give arguments to why I think it is morally superiour not to torture then I may succeed or not. But if I don't then from my point of view that person is just primitive.

And then maybe over time those people will become more civilised, at least by my standards.

Just look at history. You will see a general trend towards higher ethical standards. Leaders with armies were once able to kill whole peoples. No one cared.
But now if just a few people are killed there is public outcry.

[counterpoint]

But evil is an absolute. If you do something that is evil and I tell you: "Don't do that its evil." and you don't listen then I am justified to kill you because you are evil.

You are not "justified" to kill anybody in any case.
You are not even "justified" to kill a murderer.
That's the base of civilisation!
It's a scandal, that in the USA death penalty exists even in the 21st century.

[prometheus]

Then you should not use the word 'evil'. Of course meanings of words change over time. But the word 'evil' in contrast with the word 'bad' has this nuance. I did put it kind of extreme but that is the point.

[pion]

pion, you have a funny type of humour, but I can't see, how Jesus did agree in "torture" and "mass murder" in this story.

Jesus was directly responsible for the torture and death of 2000 innocent pigs that just happened to be at the same place and time as the man possessed by evil spirits. What I was trying to say is that in Jesus' time it was completely acceptable behaviour to do such a thing to pigs, even by a person as Holy as He. But values change with time. In our time, society at large would be horrified by such a needless and immoral act as perpetrated by Jesus on these poor animals.

However, as far as a casual reader of the Bible is concerned, Jesus' behavior demonstrates that, for a good cause, it is ok to torture and kill creatures that are considered "lowly". My point is that what is considered "lowly" changes with time. In the Middle Ages certain people were considered "lowly" and treated like the pigs in the Mark 5 story.

As Bernard Shaw said, "We have established what you are, madam. We are now merely haggling over the price." In the present context he would perhaps say, "We have established that it is ok to torture and kill lowly creatures. We are now merely haggling over what is considered a lowly creature".

[counterpoint]

Jesus was directly responsible for the torture and death of 2000 innocent pigs

Yeah, the 2000 innocent pigs 

What did Jesus do to them... nothing!

Do you know the story of the wolf and the 7 little goats?

If you take the bible not only true word by word, but also you take true, what is not written in it in a word (Jesus killed the pigs?) , then you will get extreme strange results.

[pion]

Yeah, the 2000 innocent pigs 

What did Jesus do to them... nothing!

Do you know the story of the wolf and the 7 little goats?

If you take the bible not only true word by word, but also you take true, what is not written in it in a word (Jesus killed the pigs?) , then you will get extreme strange results.

If you want to argue that Hitler isn't directly responsible for killing 6 million Jews because, in fact, he never personally killed  even a single Jew, then I guess we're not on the same wavelength.

[preludium]

I can see you've read your Nietzsche   

I have indeed, and I'm glad I've finished with it. What I wrote above is more Schopenhauer than Nietzsche. "Will to life" is S., N. would be "will to power". S. is a lot more scientific than N. and he doesn't contradict himself all the time. And he also shows that do don't loose the foundation of morality if you don't believe in a personal god. As much as I like Dostoevsky's novels, but with his phrase "If there is no god, then everything is allowed." he is just wrong. There are absolute values, and everyone who denies this is playing tricks on themselves. Just consider someone more primitive if he tortures? If there are no absolute values then you can consider someone more primitive who doesn't.

[counterpoint]

If you want to argue that Hitler isn't directly responsible for killing 6 million Jews because, in fact, he never personally killed  even a single Jew, then I guess we're not on the same wavelength.

I hope you see the difference between a fairy tale (Jesus and the "evil ghosts") and the historical, cruel reality (Hitler and his murderous system)

[pianistimo]

if demons are not real - then why evil in the first place.  who convinces people to commit heinous crimes they otherwise would not commit.  the first way to 'lose' your mind is to start taking drugs.  it alters the way you think.  satan is not unaware of his own strategies.  they are different than God's.  God does not possess us with the Holy Spirit.  it is a gift when we ASK for it.  satan, on the otherhand, deceives --and when a person is fully possessed they are not in their right mind.  they are being controlled by another being to do evil.  the Holy Spirit reminds your conscience of what is good.  you make the choice.

why was charles manson, hitler, many people in the death camps of various countries genocides and tortured by people who were possessed -- can you say that occultish beliefs and even drinking blood in some instances is not from satan.  who would think of doing evil by hurting, killing, and maiming?  is this a normal state for humans to be in? insane.  insane is a real thing.  otherwise there would be no asylums.

if there is no evil -there is no satan.  if there is good - we know there is God. 

has anyone ever been in a prison?  we used to live near a state prison in lancaster and now live near one in the outskirts of philly.  many people work at the prisons and tell stories of what happens.  usually people do randomly evil things if given the chance.  some of it is because of the prison system itself - but some is because 1/2 the inmates never were taught the gospel.  they allow themselves the full range of satan's domain.  including music that has lyrics which encourage violence to others, to women, to minorities - who thinks of these lyrics.  people?  we'd think so. 

satan was created perfect and beautiful in all his ways until evil was discovered in him. it is said in the bible that music was one of his gifts.  i have to find the verse - but it was an influence that he had over people.  just as drugs, addictions, etc. are the other ways he can manipulate us.  if you don't believe in evil - you don't see truth either.

[pion]

I hope you see the difference between a fairy tale (Jesus and the "evil ghosts") and the historical, cruel reality (Hitler and his murderous system)

I see you're being true to your name  . Whether Mark 5 is an account of a historically true story is a separate issue. Also, whether I personally consider Mark 5 true or a fairly tale is not important. The fact that millions now and throughout history have taken all stories in the Bible as reality IS important. I maintain that readers of the Bible, especially in the Middle Ages, read Mark 5 and got out of it just what I have been saying.

Pretty much the same thing seems to be happening these days with people finding parts of the Koran that justifies torture and killing .... in special circumstances - doh!

[counterpoint]

who convinces people to commit heinous crimes they otherwise would not commit. 

That are cheap excuses like "I did not want to kill him, but a voice did force me to do so" etc.

"Crimes they otherwise wouldn't commit" don't exist.
If they commit a crime, they do it because they themselves want to do it.
But they don't want to be responsible for what they have done afterwards.

Believe me, there are no demons!

Oh, I forgot, satan does speak out of me 

[nicco]

Evil cannot exist without good. Wrong cannot exist without right. The only thing you can really choose in life is to either be good or evil.

Daniel Jackson - SG1

[pianistimo]

are you saying that millions of murdered people were murdered by a sane person? i think hitler was into the occult and was possessed.

and, if Christ cast out 'unclean spirits' -what difference is that than curing someone who is insane?  clearly some people who are sane can 'go' insane.  what causes this.  yes. some brain chemicals.  but what causes the chemicals to go haywire?  noone knows!  the bible tells us.  God can cast out evil.  demons. 

pigs represent mud and dirt.  we sometimes use them for meat today - but in old testament times - they were considered unclean meat - and also unclean to touch.  if you've ever been near wild pigs - i wouldn't say that you'd want them in your neighborhood anyways.  wild pigs can be dangerous.  Christ can do anything he well pleases - but it proves a point - the demons GO ELSEWHERE.  they can be in animals as well as humans.  i don't know much about how it can be - but if God cast them out and they went into the pigs - it wasn't God who sent them over the cliff - it was the demons.  that's what they could have influenced the human to do.

did you also know that the demons begged Christ to permit them to enter the swine?  why?  well, this is where 'limbo' comes in.  hahahahah.  limbo isn't a catholic doctrine per se (and isn't anymore anyways) it is that state where demons are not in anyone.  if we were supposed to be in limbo - the bible would mention this state.  there is no word 'limbo' in the bible.  but, demons experience it...because they have to ask God for permission to enter anyone!  God is power.  if God allows someone to be possessed (as pharoah and saul) he watches them and allows them to see what it means when you seek the advice of the occult.  the person asks for 'divine' assistance from someone other than the true God.  the demons enter.  and, they are possessed.

ps we don't know if it was 6000 pigs do we.  in my bible it just says a 'herd.'  and also, noone mentions the miracle of what happened to this man.  he was tortured by this evil spirit for years.  'it had siezed him many times; and he was bound with chains and shackles and kept under guard; and yet he would burst his fetters and be driven by the demons into the desert.' 

when Jesus asked him his name - he said 'legion.'  that means a person can actually be possessed by many demons.  they begged to enter the swine because luke 8:31 says they were SCARED and entreating Christ not to enter the abyss.  the ocean.  limbo.  God can cast them right back down where He sent them when they descended from his throne.  that is where Jesus also went right after the ressurrection.  he actually preached (told the demons) that He had overcome them and the world and that they did not have power over the population anymore. 

this demon possessed man was cured!  'and the people went out to see what had happened; and they came to Jesus, and found the man from whom the demons had gone out, sitting down at the feet of Jesus, clothed (apparently he was naked before) and in his right mind (obviously he wasn't in his right mind before); and they became frightened.'  that shows that no matter how nice Jesus was - his power astonished people and they were more curious about the power than the actions.  they feared him because of the power - not for curing the man.  but, the disciples of Christ were different. 

[prometheus]

are you saying that millions of murdered people were murdered by a sane person? i think hitler was into the occult and was possessed.

Yes! And as long as you and everyone else doesn't realise that then there is a danger of it happening again.

The germans were the most civilised people of Europe. Yet they elected Hitler and launched mankind into the two most destructive wars ever.


If Hitler was possessed it was with the same delusion you have. That God willed it for the jews to be killed. That's what he believed himself.