Watched porn when i was trying to watch religious video

Here's the answer.

 

Thanks for the video. It's rather interesting that he goes on and on about the problem of "evil" but then equates evil as being woven in the fabric of our universe, in nature, etc. I never knew morallity could be applied toward natural disasters or actions which occure in beings which do not posses the consciousness capable of rendering them culpable for such actions. For example when a tiger eats it's young we do not call that tiger evil. We do not accuse that tiger of infanticide. We do not accuse the tiger of these things because the tiger lacks the level of consciousness needed to render it guilty of the intent to commit infanticide. Likewise we do not call earth quakes, landslides, tornados, and any other natural disaster as being "evil" either because it lacks the consciousness to form the intent, so if there are no moral evils attached to these things, then their existence is a good thing since their results build and form our world and ecosystems, despite it being a hardship to us at times.

This then leaves us understanding that the evils of murder, rape, genocide, etc are all morally evil only because there exists the intent to do them and that this intent only can be found in a being with the level of concsiconess capable of forming such an intent, i.e. humans/spirits. What does this mean? It means if we remove the intent then the actions themselves cannot be said to be "morally evil" in and of themselves. So, because the actions in and of themselves are not evil, since evil is a moral construct, we can conclude that their existence is not evil and that when God permits these actions to be carried out, He is still not evil since He is not the source of the intent which are behind them.

This then returns us back to mankind/spirits as being the source of the intent and therefor being the source of moral evil. This then leads us back to free will and the creation of man & spirits. Which we can discuss further. Right now, I'm off to a friends.

 

Just because a 'being' lacks consciousness does NOT make it exempt from committing, possessing and being liable for evil actions. Psychopaths, psociopaths, mentally retarded criminals with an IQ of 60 are all forms of beings that do NOT have a consciousness. One may argue that they possess one, but they simply don't have the same consciousness we think of. It could be a different form of consciousness but not the one most people identify with. To them, it's more than fine opening the skull of a little boy with a hammer.

You can extrapolate this to tigers, lions etc..but our judicial laws simply don't extend to the wild so tigers and lions are exempt from our laws which we only apply to humans. Most things which we think of as evil are considered crime and criminals are punished irrespective of their level of consciousness. We have no laws against the wild, but in our societies we hold such people who lack consciousness accountable for their actions and indeed do consider them evil and place them in the worst corners of the worst prisons. We just don't have a way to punish nature, but we acknowledge the evils 'it' possesses and guard ourselves with all sorts of technologies. Look around you.

 

Lmao, um, yes it does!

Hence the insanity plea for those who qualify for the above categories. Most of the time such people are sent to mental facilities not prisons. Obviously the judicial system is not without its flaws but you get the idea. They're not prosecuted in the same manner as someone who does not meet the crieteria for the insanity plea.

The reason for why our laws only extend to us is because we cannot extrapolate a sense of morality to an animal's actions. They lack the capacity for morality. Evil is a moral construct and cannot exist outsite of morality.

We hold other humans accountable but not to the same degree. Again the judicial system isn't perfect, but using that as "proof" of evil even when someone is mentally incapable of evil, is just you grasping at straws. You wouldn't view a mentally retarded offender as being evil. If you did then something is wrong with you. For example think of the character Lennie from "Of Mice and Men". Lennie killed rabbits from holding them too tightly. Then he kills the wife when he panicks. Were his motives evil/malicious for either of these actions? The answer is no, because Lennie lacked the mental capacity to be culpable for evil intent. In the end a mob is chasing George and Lennie and George shoots Lennie because he looks at it as an act of mercy. The mob wouldn't bother to care about Lennies condition, so they won't bother to see it as an accident and not a murder. And Lennie because of his condition could never fully comprehend the severity of his actions and therefore would also not understand why the mob would be hurting him over an accident. Yet the take away is that we would never view Lennie as evil for what he did. In fact I don't know anyone who's read that book and thought, boy that Lennie was an evil person.

We don't have a way to punish nature because nature cannot be culpable for evil. You're incorrectly calling things which hold no morality as being "evils". If there is no morality then there is no evil.

 

LMAO. The insanity plea is for the mentally insane. Psychopaths/sociopaths are not insane. Thousands of psychopaths are in prison.
Again, mentally retarded criminals are put in prison on a daily basis. Some of them are have profound mental retardation. You can argue that they don't have a moral sense to know what's right and wrong. Either way they are capable of doing 'evil acts' and that's the purpose of this argument. Whether they have a moral sense or not is irrelevant here.

 

This is the last response I'm gonna give sense we've gone completely off topic. Whether they have a moral sense is 100% the point. There is no evil in nature. No murders, rapes, thefts, etc and why? It's because they lack the moral sense to make them culpable of being accused of such things. You have not shown how evil can exist outside of a being with moral sense! Evil cannot exist outside of beings which are not subject to a moral law. To say otherwise is to be insane! You might as well go around accusing dogs that hump other dogs as being sex offenders. Seem like a stupid thing to do? Well that's because it is but if we're to follow your reasoning then actions are "evil" regardless of intent and regardless of a beings lack of moral sense. You sir, if you live by that reasoning, lack common sense.

 

Great post but why does our body seemingly punish us if you are a man, through prostate cancer, if you are celibate your whole life?

 

I haven't seen any studies linking celibacy with prostate cancer. If this were true, protestate cancer would be the leading cause of death for priests, other religious, Buddhist monks, and etc. Prostate cancer is most likely linked to diet and genetics.

 

Well you know the rumour going around that if you are celibate, your chances of developing prostate cancer are hogh. Your post makes a TON of sense though. Thanks.

 

I've shown that you are wrong in many different ways and that's enough for me. Take care.