[gromitt82]

Good and evil, goodness and malice, coexist in this world and do it fully mixed, in the same place, in the same family and even in the heart and actions of one person. Yet, we tend to create a certain image of each one, and to establish a very simple division of people between good and bad ones.
But, in fact, the reality is very ambiguous and is not so easy to form a right judgment about the quality of people.
We see only the external appearances and, therefore, our criteria are too superficial and partial.
Jesus invites us through the Gospels not to judge, and especially, not to condemn anyone before time. His advice is that we look at ourselves before criticizing the flaws of others
In addition, there is another constant in Jesus’ message. He does not reject those who do evil. On the contrary, He approaches them, He listens to them, He loves them, He forgives them. Quite often Jesus repeats that he has not come to condemn but to save.
We Christians who want to follow and imitate Jesus, should work with all our energies for a better society, where there is no injustice or evil.
But this objective must be achieved neither condemning nor eliminating those who do evil, but by seeking, with all our strength, the conversion of all and defeating evil with good, while remembering always that the final judgment lies in the hands of God.
It is not easy, but Jesus never said that following His footsteps was an easy thing to do.
Gromitt82

[NeedKarma]

Sorry, what's the question exactly?

[Wondergirl]

He does not reject those who do evil.

What do you consider "evil"?

[joypulv]

As with most such speeches, it isn't reaching who you want it to reach. Plus it's nothing new, sorry. And I tend to bristle when I read 'we should.'

Then there's the old argument about who gets to decide what is good and evil and who decides who needs converting from evil to good and so on and so on etc etc.

[Wondergirl]

And I tend to bristle when I read 'we should.'

Me too. Psychologist Albert Ellis always said, "Don't 'should' on yourself."

[Fr_Chuck]

But Jesus also tells those who he forgives to go and sin no more.

Also the "do not judge" is one of the most misquoted verses since. It is not judging to tell them what is sin, we merely need to show them the scripture and they can see that themselves. And in forgiving them, he accepts the fact that they were doing wrong and they came to know they did wrong. So it is not wrong to tell a thief that stealing is wrong and that they should repent.

In others we are told that we are to go and help correct our neighbor and he they will not, we take them before the church.

We can not assume to "judge" them, as to their heart but we are to correct our brothers who are not living properly

[gromitt82]

Sorry, what's the question exactly?

There is no specific question. It is just a reflection on the tendency we humans display to judge others before judging ourselves. And an allusion to what Jesus said in this regard.:):)
Gromitt82

[gromitt82]

What do you consider "evil"?

By and large, Evil is the violation of some moral code. Evil is usually seen as the opposite of good. This is what I think.

The root meaning is of obscure origin though it seems to be akin to modern English "over" and modern German über with the basic idea of "transgressing".

At any rate, it seems Evil is the equivalent in English used by translators of the Hebrow word “ra” which was employed to state that which is “bad” or opposed to “good”

Quoting what other more valuable people (like D.R. Dungan) have written on the subject I can say:

“Moral Evil: By this term we refer to wrongs done to our fellowman, where the actor is responsible for the action. The immorality may be present when the action is not possible. The last six commandments of the Decalogue apply here (Ex 20:12-17). To dishonor one's parents, to kill, to commit adultery, to steal, to bear false witness and to covet are moral evils.

The spiritual import of these commandments will be found in Mt 5:21,22,27,28. "But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness" (6:23) Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well" (Isa 1:16 f).

Evil begins in the least objectionable things. When men become evil in themselves, they necessarily become evil in thought and deed toward others.

“Physical Evil: Many times the bad (evil) is also physical; it may have been occasioned by the sins for which the people of the nation were responsible. Very many times the evil is a corrective, to cause men to forsake the wrong and accept the right.

The flood was sent upon the earth because "all flesh had corrupted their way" (Gen 6:12). This evil was to serve as a warning to those who were to live after. The ground had already been cursed for the good of Cain (Gen 4:12).

Two purposes seemed to direct the treatment: (1) to leave in the minds of Cain and his descendants the knowledge that sin brings punishment, and (2) to increase the toil that would make them a better people. God overthrew Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboim, cities of the plain, making them "an example unto those that should live ungodly" (2 Pet 2:6)”.

On the other hand, let me tell that the problem of evil is a touchstone of any religion.

The problem of good and evil is handled by religion, philosophy, psychology and social sciences. In a very generic way, good can be defined as everything that attracts us, inducing exalted emotions, what we wish to imitate or make remembered. Evil is everything opposed to the good, receiving negative evaluation, and what in our opinion should not exist. Evil includes suffering, diseases, destruction, injustice, oppression, death.

We accept good as a natural thing, and evil as unnatural. Evil is a problem, which people have been trying to apprehend since the earliest ages. The elusiveness of this problem for a human mind can be illustrated by the fact that different judgments about evil are as numerous as world’s religions and philosophic schools.

I hope these “good vibes” will satisfy your natural curiosity re. the meaning of Evil.
Gromitt82
.

[joypulv]

'Evil includes suffering, diseases, destruction, injustice, oppression, death.'

Diseases and death are evil? Now there's a concept. Just wait until the ravages of the world are loosed when we have too many people living far too long. We have CHILDREN to replace us. Trying to live forever, that's selfish and scary and destructive.

And be careful about all your studious references, or you might get caught up in how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and think it's philosophy.

[gromitt82]

As with most such speeches, it isn't reaching who you want it to reach. Plus it's nothing new, sorry. And I tend to bristle when I read 'we should.'

Then there's the old argument about who gets to decide what is good and evil and who decides who needs converting from evil to good and so on and so on etc etc.

Normally, when we read “we should” it is because someone more learned than us is trying to lead us the right way or to “walk the line”, as some also say.

Legislators all over the world keep on telling us what “we should do” and what “we cannot do”.

Basically, most people abide by these “should” and “should not”. Those who do not, enter the group of the so called nonconformists.

Then there are those who “bristle” at the “we should” when this commandment refers to Religion.

The explanation is possibly that not abiding by the “we should” legislated by our Laws generally implies some sort of punishment, whereas not complying by the religious “we should” (in our case legislated by Jesus, Himself) only implies an “abstract punishment”, many do not see quite clear…

In our case, He who decides what is good and evil (no matter how old the argument may be) is no one but Jesus himself… Unfortunately, we are free to follow or not His wise advice and even to believe He has no authority whatsoever to impose upon us His Commandments.. .
Gromitt82

[gromitt82]

Me too. Psychologist Albert Ellis always said, "Don't 'should' on yourself."

I very much doubt that in his REBT Dr. Ellis had in mind either the Gospels or the Commandments.

At any rate, in my very humble opinion, and no matter the unquestionable prestige Dr. Albert Ellis enjoyed in life, I still believe that Jesus was a much better psychologist than him or anyone else, for what matters.

Gromitt82:):)

[gromitt82]

But Jesus also tells those who he forgives to go and sin no more.

Also the "do not judge" is one of the most misquoted verses since. It is not judging to tell them what is sin, we merely need to show them the scripture and they can see that their self. And in forgiving them, he accepts the fact that they were doing wrong and they came to know they did wrong. So it is not wrong to tell a thief that stealing is wrong and that they should repent.

In others we are told that we are to go and help correct our neighbor and he they will not, we take them before the church.

We can not assume to "judge" them, as to their heart but we are to correct our brothers who are not living properly

The “do not judge” maybe one of the most misquoted verses, as you say. But, in any case, it is not my own “crop”. The author is, as you know quite well, the very Jesus.

However, we all tend to judge others. When we say what others should do or should not we are already establishing that we are in possession of the truth and the others are not.

In my thread, where I only quote Jesus, I think is quite clear that instead of “judging” those who do wrong we have to try our best to correct them, as you say!
Gromitt82

[Wondergirl]

I very much doubt that in his REBT Dr. Ellis had in mind either the Gospels or the Commandments.

At any rate, in my very humble opinion, and no matter the unquestionable prestige Dr. Albert Ellis enjoyed in life, I still believe that Jesus was a much better psychologist than him or anyone else, for what matters.

God very purposefully did not use the word "should" in the Commandments.

And yes, Dr. Ellis did, in fact, have Christianity in mind when he said that. He knew Christians tend to "should" on each other.

[Wondergirl]

I hope these “good vibes” will satisfy your natural curiosity re. the meaning of Evil.
Gromitt82.

So where does mental illness fit into all of this?

[Wondergirl]

In my thread, where I only quote Jesus, I think is quite clear that instead of “judging” those who do wrong we have to try our best to correct them, as you say!
Gromitt82

"Judge not and ye shall not be judged." I don't think it is our place to judge. We don't take the beam out of our own eye before we look for the mote in the other fellow's eye.

"Try our best to correct them" really rankles at me, but I can't put it into words why. Let me think about that for a while.

[joypulv]

Wondergirl, perhaps it rankles because isn't one judging people by the very act of going about correcting them?
Gromitt82, I just can't imagine going around correcting evil with quotes. I see evil in the world, and it's not in a form I feel I can walk up to and spout the teachings of Jesus. It's despots and drug lords and child traffikers and blood mining and toxic waste and that's just a few. There are people out there doing their best to help the victims and to stop the injustices, and they aren't carrying Bibles in one hand, because both hands are full of ways to help.

[TUT317]

Normally, when we read “we should” it is because someone more learned than us is trying to lead us the right way or to “walk the line”, as some also say.

Legislators all over the world keep on telling us what “we should do” and what “we cannot do”.

Basically, most people abide by these “should” and “should not”. Those who do not, enter in the group of the so called nonconformists.

Then there are those who “bristle” at the “we should” when this commandment refers to Religion.

The explanation is possibly that not abiding by the “we should” legislated by our Laws generally implies some sort of punishment, whereas not complying by the religious “we should” (in our case legislated by Jesus, Himself) only implies an “abstract punishment”, many do not see quite clear…

In our case, He who decides what is good and evil (no matter how old the argument may be) is no one but Jesus himself… Unfortunately, we are free to follow or not His wise advice and even to believe He has no authority whatsoever to impose upon us His Commandments. ..
Gromitt82

This may help.

What you are working towards is pretty much know as the IS-OUGHT problem. It is an age old problem.It is also related to religion, but doesn't have to be.

If something IS the case then I OUGHT to do it. For example, "If it is raining then I should take an umbrella" There are problems when we try to deduce what one ought to do from what is the case. Should or ought is the advice one gets or tells oneself what to do in order to achieve a goal.

"If you don't want to get wet then I should take an umbrella". "Why?" " So you don't get the flu". "Why?" "So you don't end up very sick". "Why?" "So you don't end up in hospital".

It becomes obvious that this casual line of conversation could go on almost forever. In order to prevent this we are forced to say," Some higher authority demands that we do this". End of discussion on the matter.

One choice available is to believe the authority and accept their advice. There is no actual solution to this problem.

Tut

[Wondergirl]

"If it is raining then I should take an umbrella"

You're complicating a simple concept.

If I don't take my umbrella and it rains, I feel guilty and kick myself ("should on myself").

should = guilt

[TUT317]

You're complicating a simple concept.

If I don't take my umbrella and it rains, I feel guilty and kick myself ("should on myself").

should = guilt

Hi Wondergirl,

I think you are right, it is a simple concept. But does it provide an explanation most people would be happy with?

I haven't actually looked up anything about Dr. Albert Ellis but the "should=guilt" seems to put forward an 'emotivist' position.

This theory claims that moral judgments are neither true nor false, but are just expressions of individual feelings that invoke a response from those who hear them.

It seems to follow that if moral judgments are just expressions of feelings then they can not be reduced to scientific explanations. Seems to be an unusual position for a psychologist to adopt.

In the end the emotivist would say the statement, "It is evil to steal from a child" is really saying, "Boo to stealing from children"

Yes, I know. I am complicating it, but I thought I would try and tie it in with the concept of evil.

Tut

[gromitt82]

God very purposefully did not use the word "should" in the Commandments.

And yes, Dr. Ellis did, in fact, have Christianity in mind when he said that. He knew Christians tend to "should" on each other.

As you probably know English is not my mother language, which is Spanish.
However, to the best of my knowledge I still think that “should”, in English, is used, among other usages, for giving advice. This is, at least, one of the possibilities in many other languages, like German, Dutch, French, Spanish, Italian, etc.

“You should speak to him”, for instance, is less mandatory than “you shall speak to him”

I say so, because I still think Dr. Ellis did not actually had Christians in mind when he spoke about “should”. For it is true that God did not use that tense in the Commandments, because, as I said, “should” is rather used as an advice.

And in the Ten Commandments, God is not advising us to follow them. God is ORDERING us to abide by them. And consequently, God uses “shall” instead of “should”.You shall have no other Gods; you shall not make…; you shall not make wrongful…; you shall labor…; you shall not do any work…; etc. etc.

Gromitt82