Does Harold Camping remind you of 1844?

[cardw]

It doesn't make your point at all!!!! The "ridiculous question" here is whether or not Hitler was evil. The answer is,

DUH!

Martin Luther is an entirely different circumstance,,,, DUH!!!

Paul helped stone Steven, was he evil? I mean really, some questions can be debated, but some questions are just ridiculous and barely worthy of any response.

The question I am asking is WHY is Hitler considered evil.

You may think it's simple. The problem is once you set up a criteria for Hitler, we then have to apply this same criteria to everyone else.

I am not talking about what Hitler ordered or did. Those things that he ordered and did clearly caused a lot of human suffering. And remember he could not have carried out all of the destruction he did without the co-operation of over 20 million Germans. Are we then going to say that all German people are evil?

Why is Hitler considered evil?

It seems rather selective to me.

[cardw]

Whether Hitler is evil exposes this lack of moral reality.

[ClubV12]

Does forgiveness mean the consequences of your actions are also removed? So, if you rob a bank and say, "I'm sorry" and really really mean it, then no prison time?

David was forgiven for slaying Bathsheba's husband taking her for his wife. Forgiven, but he still paid the consequences for his "evil crimes".

Forgive Hitler? OK, but he still goes on trial, he still faces the world for his crimes of war, he still must pay the penalty. Just like the bank robber or anyone else who violates the civil, moral and legal laws of society and of God. On THIS earth and the earth to come.

One doesn't need to judge Hitler by understanding his "heart", by looking into his "soul". By his works, he has revealed himself, as we all do.

I'm left scratching my head just how "evil" a mans works have to be before we can call it what is OBVIOUSLY is, "evil". What kind of political or moral twist can you possibly put on the actions of Hitler so as NOT to consider it "evil", by ANY standard?

[phkrause]

GP, there was a mention in a post about the reason for the flood. Read chapter 6, of Spiritual gifts "Crime before the Flood." This should answer that question. As far as Canaan, I'm gonna look for something on that. I do recall way back, early to med '60s, Pastor J.M. Hoffman, used to talk about the reasons that God allowed the Hebrew Nation to take over this area and call it the Promised Land.

[Tom Wetmore]

Moderator note #2:

Another ad hominem post has been removed. Stick to the topic and address the issues. Stop the personal attacking.

Do not tempt your fate further...

Tom

(As moderator pro tem in John317's absence)

[cardw]

Does forgiveness mean the consequences of your actions are also removed? So, if you rob a bank and say, "I'm sorry" and really really mean it, then no prison time?

[Sonny]

David was forgiven for slaying Bathsheba's husband taking her for his wife. Forgiven, but he still paid the consequences for his "evil crimes".

But the unborn infant didn't do these things, David did.....

[ClubV12]

"The question I am asking is WHY is Hitler considered evil."

The answer is obvious. The question is not.

[cardw]

Since you make no difference between wrong doing and evil, then under those definitions Hitler was evil.

I classify evil under motivation. I have no way of knowing Hitler's motivation.

So I'm not avoiding the question. I am answering as honestly as I can. I'm not going to tell you that I know something I have no way of knowing.

You seem to be under the illusion that value systems can't be based on reasoning. We actually have some very advanced system and game theory that shows the superior quality of life that comes from ethical societies that co-operate on a level where everyone is looked out for.

When Jesus says to do unto others as you would have them do unto you indicates a confidence in humanity's ability to empathize. Notice the ethical reference is not to a law, but to the self of a person. There is also no mention of evil.

An interesting side is that there is no word for evil in aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke. The word is immature. Try substituting the word immature for the word evil and notice how the tone changes to a far less judgmental voice.

In many non-theistic religions this is expressed in the recognition that we are all one. To love another is to love one's self. To harm another is to harm one's self.

These are all rational bases for ethical behavior that seem far superior to the "because we have to or else god is going to kill us threat" given forth by Christianity.

[cardw]

"The question I am asking is WHY is Hitler considered evil."

The answer is obvious. The question is not.

As far as I can tell you say Hitler is evil because of his actions.

So I guess everyone is evil.

Like I said in my other post I classify evil under motivation.

How can you tell the difference between evil and crazy?

[ClubV12]

"We actually have some very advanced system and game theory that shows the superior quality of life that comes from ethical societies that co-operate on a level where everyone is looked out for."

The French tried something like that in 1798 or there abouts. Reason and logic, no God needed. It was all very fair and straight forward, all worked out mathmatically and such. It didn't work out nearly as well as their pie charts and game theories suggested it would. :)

[miz3]

Good point ClubV12!

[cardw]

"We actually have some very advanced system and game theory that shows the superior quality of life that comes from ethical societies that co-operate on a level where everyone is looked out for."

The French tried something like that in 1798 or there abouts. Reason and logic, no God needed. It was all very fair and straight forward, all worked out mathmatically and such. It didn't work out nearly as well as their pie charts and game theories suggested it would.

These theories didn't exist then. They are recent theories developed by John Forbes Nash, a gifted Nobel Prize winning mathematician who also happened to be a paranoid schizophrenic. He amazingly developed a non medication solution to his paranoia through the use of systematic reasoning and was able to find a functional way to live a productive life.

You obviously don't understand these theories or even know their history. So I'm not going to waste anymore time discussing things you have no ability to comprehend. If you're going to be critical of reason then at least have the decency to do a little reading.

[CoAspen]

Some interesting thoughts on evil and motivation. Would you explain further what you mean by 'classify evil under motivation'.

[cardw]

Some interesting thoughts on evil and motivation. Would you explain further what you mean by 'classify evil under motivation'.

The simplest definition of evil is "the desire to do harm or inflict pain."

In actuality it is difficult to even find a definition of evil that anyone can agree on. So, in a sense it's a useless term because it lacks precision.

You can read the difficulty of using the word in this article on evil at Wikipedia.

EVIL

[cardw]

It is true that Luther, at first, spoke evil of the Jews. But later in life, as light shone upon him more and more, he changed his attitude toward the Jews. This can be found in THE WORKS OF LUTHER.

sky

This is not true at all. It was the other way around. Luther was favorable to Jews until he realized they would not convert. He then proceeded to classify them as of the Devil and began a national movement to exclude them from German society, which included the plan to place them in work camps. This was carried out literally by the Third Reich.

His "95 Theses" was published in 1517. "On the Jews and Their Lies" was published in 1543. This was the last work he published. Luther died in 1546.

Here is a timeline for reference.

Luther's Life Timeline

You are spreading a flagrant historical distortion and could not be farther from the truth.

[ClubV12]

"You obviously don't understand these theories..."

Nor do I care to dicuss them. Whenever you leave God out of the equation, it is doomed to fail, sooner or later. As the French found out, it had nothing to do with their logic, their reason or their math. It had everything to do with their reliance on self and their denial of the power of God.

My career was as high tech as they come. Military applications like the anti missile systems. Raytheon, Siemens, Johnson Control, Honeywell, Motorola, Tokyo. Been there done that, traveled the world. Lectured at Georgetown, to the physics department! I know the math. Concerning the law, a Pharisee, uh, wait,,, I'm getting carried away.

But Paul was right, I consider it all rubbish compared to the knowledge of God.

I may not be a smart man,,, but I know evil when I see it. Don't need a definition.

[cardw]

Nor do I care to dicuss them. Whenever you leave God out of the equation, it is doomed to fail, sooner or later.

[miz3]

The simplest definition of evil is "the desire to do harm or inflict pain."

In actuality it is difficult to even find a definition of evil that anyone can agree on. So, in a sense it's a useless term because it lacks precision.

Again, you prove my point. Agnostic reasoning cannot deal with "evil". It is a "useless term"!

However, God uses the term all the time because He has defined it with great precision.

As I said Agnosticism cannot deal with moral issues because to them they are not "precise" enough to be reasoned out. As I said earlier moral issues are "subjective" by nature and the Agnostic reasoning is by definition "objective" by nature.

Thus, in an Agnostic world one persons evil is another persons good. One person's good is another person's evil.

Again, as I said before Christianity suffers from none of these ills. God has clearly outlined to us humans what He defines as right and wrong, good and bad, righteousness and evil, etc.

The Agnostic world does not account for these clearly human experiences of a moral character. Our laws are based on these moral characteristics.

Again, Agnosticism falls woefully short in accounting for the human experience. ClubV12's example of the French Revolution is a brilliant example of Agnostic philosophy and what chaos and evil such a world would bring.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

The simplest definition of evil is "the desire to do harm or inflict pain."

In actuality it is difficult to even find a definition of evil that anyone can agree on. So, in a sense it's a useless term because it lacks precision.

Again, you prove my point. Agnostic reasoning cannot deal with "evil". It is a "useless term"!

[BobRyan]

Romans 3 - "there is none righteous no not one... there is no one that seeks after God" - that is the sinful nature that all are born with - without exception... no not one.

Adam passed on that sinful nature to his children - so that even if they die at birth - they need a Savior to be awarded heaven. A savior who will rid them of their sinful nature... and the good news is that they have one who "is not willing that any should perish but that all come to repentance".

[miz3]

Ok, you have yet to share with us this precision definition.

Your are long on bluster and short on actually saying anything.

Once you pick a definition we can see how comprehensive it really is.

In asking you to decide whether Hitler is evil or not was not to make a precise statement about Christianity but to expose the fact that Agnosticism is found wanting in dealing with moral issues.

It is impossible to have moral values and true accountability without the existence of God.

To just state as one of billions of humans that you believe such and such means nothing because why should your standard be the standard. As a human entity your standard is no better than my standard.

When people state that Hitler was evil demonstrates they have a moral standard. When people will not call Hitler evil even though they don't like what he did means these people do not have a moral standard. (Not a personal attack just a generalization).

To appeal to a moral standard and hold others to accountability to that standard requires an entity greater than the human entity itself.

The use of reason and reason only is not this higher power because reason and reason alone comes from the human and has no authority morally speaking.

When we say Hitler was evil we are appealing to a higher authority. If a person calls Hitler evil but it is not appealing to a higher power it is just empty rhetoric. To not call Hitler evil is to not have a moral standard of accountability (a generalization). I see Agnosticism as being devoid of this moral standard by virtue of its belief that God does not exist.

[ClubV12]

Taco Bell? Well that explains where the new theory came from. :)

[skyblue888]

quote=cardw]

It is true that Luther, at first, spoke evil of the Jews. But later in life, as light shone upon him more and more, he changed his attitude toward the Jews. This can be found in THE WORKS OF LUTHER.

sky

This is not true at all. It was the other way around. Luther was favorable to Jews until he realized they would not convert. He then proceeded to classify them as of the Devil and began a national movement to exclude them from German society, which included the plan to place them in work camps. This was carried out literally by the Third Reich.

His "95 Theses" was published in 1517. "On the Jews and Their Lies" was published in 1543. This was the last work he published. Luther died in 1546.

Here is a timeline for reference.

Luther's Life Timeline

You are spreading a flagrant historical distortion and could not be farther from the truth.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

It is true that Luther, at first, spoke evil of the Jews. But later in life, as light shone upon him more and more, he changed his attitude toward the Jews. This can be found in THE WORKS OF LUTHER.

sky

This is not true at all. It was the other way around. Luther was favorable to Jews until he realized they would not convert. He then proceeded to classify them as of the Devil and began a national movement to exclude them from German society, which included the plan to place them in work camps. This was carried out literally by the Third Reich.

His "95 Theses" was published in 1517. "On the Jews and Their Lies" was published in 1543. This was the last work he published. Luther died in 1546.

Here is a timeline for reference.

Luther's Life Timeline

You are spreading a flagrant historical distortion and could not be farther from the truth.