What is Evil? And does evil exist?

[mastermech]

Ive nearly completed a discourse on the topic of evil and will have it published in the next six to eight months. So I wanted to post a couple questions, and give my answers as well as hear the opinion of others.

What is Evil?

The lack of Good.

And does evil exist?

Absolutely not but, in explanation you can never have good without lacking good at some point-So therefore the appearance of evil is real but its identity is truly false and falsely true.

[StreetHazard]

Any sense of "evil" or "good" depends upon your perception. The same as "right" or "wrong" depends on how you choose to define your morality. These ideals can vary depending upon your society or culture, so how one would define them is left up to the individual to explore.

So I believe the short answer is no

[bu villain]

Good and Evil, Light and Dark, Pleasure and Pain, Yin and Yang. It's called duality. The pair of concepts define each other, they make no sense without their partner. Their usage is all relative as StreetHazard said.

[StreetHazard]

in before

"WELL IN THE BIBLE IT SAYS..........."

[StreetHazard]

Ive nearly completed a discourse on the topic of evil and will have it published in the next six to eight months. So I wanted to post a couple questions, and give my answers as well as hear the opinion of others.

What is Evil?

The lack of Good.

And does evil exist?

Absolutely not but, in explanation you can never have good without lacking good at some point-So therefore the appearance of evil is real but its identity is truly false and falsely true.

I would like to read this "nearly completed a discourse on the topic of evil"

let's see what you came up with, copy and paste it here. or link it to a .pdf

[ShooterMcGavin]

does evil exist? rhetorical question of the yr, thus far.

[Gorilla Eg!]

does evil exist? rhetorical question of the yr, thus far.

x2 its as plain as day and its like asking....if a tree falls in the woods and you arent there, does it make a sound?.....answer is obvious

[geoff]

One does not need to go into the Bible to see what it says about good and evil. Human life is a beautiful thing, the birth of a baby is a beautiful thing, so then, would it be evil or right ( without using your morals ) to go after a newborn child is brought into the world, to go and snatch that child and kill it? The answer is quite simply yes. One does not need to read any book or the Word of God to see this. Evil does exist without good. Evil could simply be defined as any selfish act without concern for the effects it may have on others or the consequenes. Good on the other hand can be defined as any selfless act of charity ( love ) without the expectation of reward. Therefore evil does not need good nor does good need evil for either of these to be present.

I ask you this, if not God, then who or what or how do we as a society know what is good or evil, right or wrong, selfish or selfless? If not because of God, why are we not a selfish society that puts ourselves and our needs first? Where did good and evil come from then if not from God and sin?

[StreetHazard]

One does not need to go into the Bible to see what it says about good and evil. Human life is a beautiful thing, the birth of a baby is a beautiful thing, so then, would it be evil or right ( without using your morals ) to go after a newborn child is brought into the world, to go and snatch that child and kill it? The answer is quite simply yes. One does not need to read any book or the Word of God to see this. Evil does exist without good. Evil could simply be defined as any selfish act without concern for the effects it may have on others or the consequenes. Good on the other hand can be defined as any selfless act of charity ( love ) without the expectation of reward. Therefore evil does not need good nor does good need evil for either of these to be present.

I ask you this, if not God, then who or what or how do we as a society know what is good or evil, right or wrong, selfish or selfless? If not because of God, why are we not a selfish society that puts ourselves and our needs first? Where did good and evil come from then if not from God and sin?

in before

"WELL IN THE BIBLE IT SAYS..........."

You hush and go back to church. "GOD" does not invent these definitions...MAN does, exactly like how man invented your god, gods or goddesses to help (or force) structure his/her societal ideals.

I can give you an example where "baby killing" was never frowned upon but was actually encouraged for societal growth, unity and strength, and to the apparent benefit of the nation for many generations. If they considered it "puny and deformed", the baby was thrown into a chasm on Mount Taygetos also known as the Apothetae or the "Deposits".

"THIS IS SPAAAAAARRRRTA"

Also it seems homosexual pedophilia was a main stay in the Spartan societal structure as well. At the age of twelve, the Spartan state obliged Spartan boys to take an older male mentor, usually an unmarried young man. The older man was expected to function as a kind of substitute father and role model to his junior partner, and teach him the duties of being a spartan man and school him in warfare. However, it is also reasonably certain that they had sexual relations due to "Greek pederasty" being almost cultural in that era.

^ this relationship echoes many in the christian priesthoods still going on today.

The term pederasty derives from the combination of pais (Greek for 'boy') with erastēs (Greek for 'lover'; or eros). Pederasty is closely associated with the customs of athletic and artistic nudity in the gymnasia, delayed marriage for upper-class men (gentlemen), symposia and social seclusion of women. It was also integral to Greek military training, and at times a factor in the deployment of troops.

[StreetHazard]

Evil could simply be defined as any selfish act without concern for the effects it may have on others or the consequenes. Good on the other hand can be defined as any selfless act of charity ( love ) without the expectation of reward. Therefore evil does not need good nor does good need evil for either of these to be present.

I believe in survival and success, however I feel is necessary and within my moral parameters to achieve it. That is "good" in my definition not "evil". Your concept of "good" sounds like weakness and false piety, I do not help anyone that refuses to help themselves or lavish kindness on ingrates, they would sooner be under the heel of my boot. Your definition of "good" leans more closely to what I would define as "evil".

[ISAtlanta300]

, would it be evil or right ( without using your morals ) to go after a newborn child is brought into the world, to go and snatch that child and kill it? The answer is quite simply yes.

Not quite simple. What if you knew that child will be the anti-christ? Or had the premonition to see the child will be the second "Hitler". Will killing it still be 'evil'?

[bu villain]

One does not need to go into the Bible to see what it says about good and evil. Human life is a beautiful thing, the birth of a baby is a beautiful thing, so then, would it be evil or right ( without using your morals ) to go after a newborn child is brought into the world, to go and snatch that child and kill it? The answer is quite simply yes. One does not need to read any book or the Word of God to see this. Evil does exist without good. Evil could simply be defined as any selfish act without concern for the effects it may have on others or the consequenes. Good on the other hand can be defined as any selfless act of charity ( love ) without the expectation of reward. Therefore evil does not need good nor does good need evil for either of these to be present.

For anything you consider to be evil I can give you an example of a society from sometime in history where it was not considered evil. Killing a newborn? StreetHazard answered that one.

I ask you this, if not God, then who or what or how do we as a society know what is good or evil, right or wrong, selfish or selfless? If not because of God, why are we not a selfish society that puts ourselves and our needs first? Where did good and evil come from then if not from God and sin?

We know what right and wrong by thinking about the effects and seeing the consequences of a particular rule. Let's say there were no morals to start with, you may try stealing from a neighbor because hey, you want what he has. The next day he steals something from you. Eventually you both may figure out that just agreeing not to steal from eachother would be a lot easier for both of you and thus a moral rule is born. Of course these things take time. Think of how long it took us to agree that slavery was wrong.

[geoff]

You still did not answer my questions but instead gave me a bunch of information on homosexual activities..... are you trying to come out of the closet or something? lol jk man. Seriously though, think about the things I said. Just because the Spartans only kept babies born with six-packs and killed off the rest, was it right? Who has the authority to decide who lives or dies?

[StreetHazard]

You still did not answer my questions but instead gave me a bunch of information on homosexual activities..... are you trying to come out of the closet or something? lol jk man. Seriously though, think about the things I said. Just because the Spartans only kept babies born with six-packs and killed off the rest, was it right? Who has the authority to decide who lives or dies?

I did answer your question, and gave examples, you just lack comprehension. And what if I do take a couple of loads of man batter right to the chin? Or take a veiny cock right up the pooper? ( I ) would have chosen to define my own morality NOT according to a societies ideals or according to a religious dogma. And as we have been seeing lately in our own "culture", homosexuality is losing it's stigma that it used to carry almost on a banner. it is not being considered "evil" but as an accepted lifestyle choice.

Again "MAN" defines his own morality. not god, and the Spartans left it to themselves to decide what was best for their society, what worked for them is now considered blasphemous and "evil". They invented their religion to back up and give an authority to their societal ideals. Like the human sacrifice engaged by ancient Mayans, and fast forward to our modern Abrahamic religion as well. And all of those gods are just as mythological as the one you have chosen to crawl on your knees for.

"For tonight we dine in hell!"

And If I was gay, there would never have been a closet for me to "come out" of. Because I would have smashed it to splinters and burned it for kindling by the time I was 12 years old, I also know that there is nothing wrong with it if that is something a sexually matured adult chooses to pursue. You can call me a "faggot" or a "queer" all you want, all it will do is make you look more like a fucking retard.

And i'm not even gay.

Maybe you should watch this to help feed your paranoia.

[geoff]

steethazard- Don't get so offended bro lol. It was a simple joke, you sure can throw em out there but can't take them. I too am not up for helping the lazy, even the bible says " those who don't work don't eat". But someone like a widowed mother of 4 or 5 and can't make it on her own, that is someone I would be obligated to help, because of my beliefs and because it is the " right " thing to do.

isatlanta300- Very good question, but once again who is the judge to say when is it right to take someone's life from them? Would it be right to sacrifice one inocent child to save 100 people? What about the child that will never have a chance to live a full life? Our concepts of " good, evil, right, wrong " are all a part of our genetic make up. It is instilled deep inside of us, from whom? I believe Jesus Christ, the One I call my God, for you it may be someone or something else.

[geoff]

Buvillian- You make some pretty good points. But these morals are born in us, maybe not to steal or whatnot but what about murder? Where do we get a conscience if not from God? Where does are fear come from if not from God? How about the feeling of love? Or answer me this scenario, for a moment imagine that you are walking on a dirt path in Africa. You come across a young African boy. He is malnurished, thin as bones, scarred, bruised and beaten and crying. What is it in you that makes you feel compassion on this young boy? Why is it that when you walk by him you stop and something in your heart aches. You can not simply walk by and ignore him. You almost come to tears just seeing the pain in this boy's eyes. Did you learn to feel these things or were you told to feel them? The logical answer is no. These emotions you experience are natural, they are as much a part of you as your central nervous system. So then, was this an evolution or some mutation in a gene that caused you to have these feelings? Once again no. So then how did we get these feelings, someone made us with them, thats how.

[StreetHazard]

Buvillian- You make some pretty good points. But these morals are born in us, maybe not to steal or whatnot but what about murder? Where do we get a conscience if not from God? Where does are fear come from if not from God? How about the feeling of love? Or answer me this scenario, for a moment imagine that you are walking on a dirt path in Africa. You come across a young African boy. He is malnurished, thin as bones, scarred, bruised and beaten and crying. What is it in you that makes you feel compassion on this young boy? Why is it that when you walk by him you stop and something in your heart aches. You can not simply walk by and ignore him. You almost come to tears just seeing the pain in this boy's eyes. Did you learn to feel these things or were you told to feel them? The logical answer is no. These emotions you experience are natural, they are as much a part of you as your central nervous system. So then, was this an evolution or some mutation in a gene that caused you to have these feelings? Once again no. So then how did we get these feelings, someone made us with them, thats how.

ummm.....heh! "compassion" is either a weakness or an asset depending upon your perspective.

for example if I only had a small amount of food and water left from my own travels and I passed that small boy in the road? Would I give everything I have to him, at the possible consequence of my own life in the future? And that desire would be there only as an instinct to protect my own species, like many animals try to do in the wild by sharing and traveling in packs and herds.

tough call....tough call.

"sorry little fella, but your on your own"

But since you so eagerly want to shoehorn this thread into your beliefs, what about (Genesis 22:1-18), the story of Abraham being motivated by "GAWD" to kill his only child.

"Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you." and held a knife to his throat with a full intention of gutting him like a fish.

Where does that fit into your theory about the kindness and benevolence of your sacred deity? Since you are so obviously choosing to feign your altruism by the very nature of your belief.

[BallerDave04]

But since you so eagerly want to shoehorn this thread into your beliefs, what about (Genesis 22:1-18), the story of Abraham being motivated by "GAWD" to kill his only child.

"Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you." and held a knife to his throat with a full intention of gutting him like a fish.

Where does that fit into your theory about the kindness and benevolence of your sacred deity? Since you are so obviously choosing to feign your altruism by the very nature of your belief.

When God told Abraham to sacrifice his son Abraham was willing to do it but knew that God would provide a sacrifice in Isaac's place. Before Abraham even took Isaac up on the mountain he told his servants, "WE shall return." He knew that God was not going to take the promise that He gave to Abraham. There is a lesson built into this story...God ALWAYS fulfills His promises.

You should really know what you are talking about before using Bible references.

KTHAXBI.

[StreetHazard]

When God told Abraham to sacrifice his son Abraham was willing to do it but knew that God would provide a sacrifice in Isaac's place. Before Abraham even took Isaac up on the mountain he told his servants, "WE shall return." He knew that God was not going to take the promise that He gave to Abraham. There is a lesson built into this story...God ALWAYS fulfills His promises.

You should really know what you are talking about before using Bible references.

KTHAXBI.

ohhh so your interpretation actually validates the moral of this story does it? So god told him to kill his own son as some divine hilarious fucking joke according to you?

...It reeks of bullshit that you are obviously used to and cannot smell. Save your preaching for bible study to convince yourself.

[BallerDave04]

ohhh so your interpretation actually validates the moral of this story does it? So god told him to kill his own son as some divine hilarious fucking joke according to you?

...It reeks of bullshit that you are obviously used to and cannot smell. Save your preaching for bible study to convince yourself.

Sorry, but that's what it's about. You are wrong, end of story.

[bu villain]

Buvillian- You make some pretty good points. But these morals are born in us, maybe not to steal or whatnot but what about murder? Where do we get a conscience if not from God? Where does are fear come from if not from God? How about the feeling of love? Or answer me this scenario, for a moment imagine that you are walking on a dirt path in Africa. You come across a young African boy. He is malnurished, thin as bones, scarred, bruised and beaten and crying. What is it in you that makes you feel compassion on this young boy? Why is it that when you walk by him you stop and something in your heart aches. You can not simply walk by and ignore him. You almost come to tears just seeing the pain in this boy's eyes. Did you learn to feel these things or were you told to feel them? The logical answer is no. These emotions you experience are natural, they are as much a part of you as your central nervous system. So then, was this an evolution or some mutation in a gene that caused you to have these feelings? Once again no. So then how did we get these feelings, someone made us with them, thats how.

Interesting scenario because I have lived it myself when I went to Africa a few years ago. I don't think everyone feels that way when they see such a scenario. Just because something feels wrong to you does not mean it feels wrong to everyone. If we all had the same morals, we would not allow things like genocide to occur. Even within a society morals can vary greatly.

I'm not going to try to answer every question about emotion because I don't know all the answers. That's why my answer is "I don't know" where as your answer is "I know".

[EJ25RUN]

Evil is ignorance and hatred toward others.

[geoff]

What you described as weakness because of your own surivival is just sick. If it were me i would give all i had to the little boy, knowing that i am grown and can fend for myself whereas this child could not. As far as your question about the story of Abraham, God did not want Abraham to kill Issac. If He did then God would not have told him to stop. It was a test of faith, God is supposed to be the most important thing in a believer's life. He is to come first before mother,father,siblings, wife/husband, and yes even children. We are supposed to love Him so much that we would leave and forsake all for Him if He asked us to. The wonderful thing about God is that He does not ask us to do it because He knows we couldn't.

[StreetHazard]

Abraham did not hesitate, whether or not "gawd" made him do it or not is irrelevant because he was prepared to do it just on "belief" alone, or on whatever voices I can only imagine were in his head. So he just sacrificed a ram instead which I also thought was cute.

But Jesus did, he gave his own life for your masochistic god, and god gave the lives of others in his name. which I am sure you would not hesitate as well should "the call" ever arise. It would be like a Muslim espousing these same altruistic virtues.

sorry, but I am not buying your phony misguided humanitarian ideals at all. If you were not a christian you might have more credibility.

[Evil Goat]

yes i exist

/thread

[geoff]

buvillian- My faith leads me to an explanation whereas no other theory/scientific explanation does. Its my belief in God that answers these questions for me.

[geoff]

i am curious as to where the op is?

[Aethir X]

Evil is the deprivation of a due good. That is the purest definition, thousands of years old, tried and true. Basically a metaphysical good that should be there which is not, because of the ability and potentiality in the will to choose a lesser good over the higher good, which in turn evil is achieved. But evil has no substance per se, it is not a thing, it has no essence, meaning THAT it is or WHAT it is, it is not something I can touch or pick up or see, it is always a deprivation in an act that should be a higher good. I can touch the dagger which stabs the man who is committing murder, but the dagger itself is not evil, nor is the body of the man evil, but it is the act itself of the man which is deprived of respecting another's life which is the root of the evil, hence the deprivation of him respecting that man's right to live.

The Cartesian understanding of evil, Kant, Hume, Locke, Descartes, is all very new, this whole idea that if I believe something is true, it is true, if I believe it is evil, it is evil, cogito ergo sum if you will. This is an entirely false view of reality. It goes against the law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction is that something cannot both be and not be in the same repsect and in the same manner at the same time in its essence. 2+2 cannot ever equal 3 or 5 the same time it equals 4, if you say it does, you are giving 2 a different value than what it is in its essence, in its very being, the grouping of one and one, if you say it is something else you are living a false reality of warped reasoning. Same goes with let's say a red rose, the rose is always red, but if you say it's black that doesn't mean it's black, it is just that you have labeled it as such and tried to apply your own false perception of the essence of the thing to its essence, when in reality its essence is in the thing itself and cannot change, so even though you call it black, it will always be red. This is the problem with people who say whatever they believe is true is true, that is never the case unless their belief is TRULY in line with the truth. And you cannot know the truth unless you embrace the truth, which is an entire discussion on its own.

Most people don't know these simple philosophical arguments because they have never studied scholastic philosophy or ancient philosophy which is based on knowledge through the senses and metaphysical immaterial realities dealing with the forms, essences, phantasms, goodness, being, oneness, true and their correlations which each other. The "enlightenment" philosophers failed to make these fundamental principles apparent, which is why their systems are so thoroughly entrenched in our society, it caters to the ego instead of what is really the truth in reality.

I hope this helps some people understand just a little why most people's view of reality is wrong. This whole dichotomy of moral relativism all started with the Protestant revolt and the Enlightenment philosophers. I am a traditional Catholic, and have studied master's level philosophy and theology in seminaries, monasteries and universities across the U.S., and I don't need to use scripture to prove what evil is, which is kinda cool, it is not the job of scripture to tell us what evil is per se, although it does, but it is philosophy which is best in order to understand it in a reasonable debate.

[StreetHazard]

now we are getting somewhere

repped for me liking the word "moral relativism" and someone else on here knowing what it means

[sport_122]

Evil is the deprivation of a due good. That is the purest definition, thousands of years old, tried and true. Basically a metaphysical good that should be there which is not, because of the ability and potentiality in the will to choose a lesser good over the higher good, which in turn evil is achieved. But evil has no substance per se, it is not a thing, it has no essence, meaning THAT it is or WHAT it is, it is not something I can touch or pick up or see, it is always a deprivation in an act that should be a higher good. I can touch the dagger which stabs the man who is committing murder, but the dagger itself is not evil, nor is the body of the man evil, but it is the act itself of the man which is deprived of respecting another's life which is the root of the evil, hence the deprivation of him respecting that man's right to live.

The Cartesian understanding of evil, Kant, Hume, Locke, Descartes, is all very new, this whole idea that if I believe something is true, it is true, if I believe it is evil, it is evil, cogito ergo sum if you will. This is an entirely false view of reality. It goes against the law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction is that something cannot both be and not be in the same repsect and in the same manner at the same time in its essence. 2+2 cannot ever equal 3 or 5 the same time it equals 4, if you say it does, you are giving 2 a different value than what it is in its essence, in its very being, the grouping of one and one, if you say it is something else you are living a false reality of warped reasoning. Same goes with let's say a red rose, the rose is always red, but if you say it's black that doesn't mean it's black, it is just that you have labeled it as such and tried to apply your own false perception of the essence of the thing to its essence, when in reality its essence is in the thing itself and cannot change, so even though you call it black, it will always be red. This is the problem with people who say whatever they believe is true is true, that is never the case unless their belief is TRULY in line with the truth. And you cannot know the truth unless you embrace the truth, which is an entire discussion on its own.

Most people don't know these simple philosophical arguments because they have never studied scholastic philosophy or ancient philosophy which is based on knowledge through the senses and metaphysical immaterial realities dealing with the forms, essences, phantasms, goodness, being, oneness, true and their correlations which each other. The "enlightenment" philosophers failed to make these fundamental principles apparent, which is why their systems are so thoroughly entrenched in our society, it caters to the ego instead of what is really the truth in reality.

I hope this helps some people understand just a little why most people's view of reality is wrong. This whole dichotomy of moral relativism all started with the Protestant revolt and the Enlightenment philosophers. I am a traditional Catholic, and have studied master's level philosophy and theology in seminaries, monasteries and universities across the U.S., and I don't need to use scripture to prove what evil is, which is kinda cool, it is not the job of scripture to tell us what evil is per se, although it does, but it is philosophy which is best in order to understand it in a reasonable debate.

I am so happy that you wrote this. I mostly agree with you.

I do think as believers our world view on this has to go back to God. We walk a fine line if we try to define evil apart from good and we open the door for the relativism. Nowhere else, except through the accounts written in scripture do we get a definitive understanding of all parts our nature. We don't get the truths like proverbs, denouncing our most righteous acts or Christ stating that there is none who is good save for one. These are very important grounds to be laid in the definition as they put everything in our current world into perspective as we can understand evil ONLY in light of God who is good. I would say this is what is demonstrated in the Eden account. Only in the presence and under the law of God were men able to understand evil.

Also, moral relativism was big before the Reformation. I can't give Luther that much credit because all he did was set the stage for a greater understanding of grace as taught in scripture. In fact the reformation was started by people who wanted to remove the hierarchical relativism and simply say "hey, we are ALL evil and must have grace in order to commune with God". I would argue that the reason you didn't see more of it was that the church was so dominant. The evidence is in how quickly the reformation took hold demonstrates something that was there under the surface for a long time. The Pope ran the show and nobody would want to threaten his authority because you could be excommunicated and this had drastic results in most agrarian societies. It was a living death sentence (case in point, Luther).

The greek and roman pantheon was a demonstration of this relativism. A god who would punish you for this act, and another god who would encourage you toward this act, therefore in some societies god A was more popular than god B. Its dichotomy is even demonstrated in the bible from the first century. In studying the relationships between Paul and Peter and the orthodox Jewish Christians and the gentile Christians this was one of the issues they had. The orthodox jewish christians wanted the gentiles to conform to their traditions yet the Pauline churches did not need to and this caused some strife. The jewish tradition was completely different from what would form itself into the Catholic church (by catholic, i mean christian). So even in that since, we still have the same separation today. This is all budding from the difference in morality between the Jews and the Gentiles who would both become followers in Christ.

Now I would have to agree that the age of Enlightenment did increase the inward focus on good vs evil, only aiding in turning ridiculous people into even more ridiculous people. but I think we could look at this as a compiled theory structure and see that its mostly the same thing that happens on this forum. The people who said something that seemed popular at the time, became the foundation for the next generations of thought, no matter how wrong they were. And much like the scientific, religious, and government communities of our world today, changing from the popular thought is met with much grief. It is much simpler for people to just jump on the bandwagon.

[geoff]

Aether X- So what then is your idea of truth? Do you believe in a higher power? Is that higher power to you the God of the bible?

[Aethir X]

Like I said, I am a traditional Catholic, so absolutely, if I didn't believe that I would be a pagan vagabond pursuing only my flesh instead of contemplating the truths of eternity and the realities and mysteries of the Trinity. Truth is inseparable from God, because He is truth itself, all that is in creation is a participation in his act of being, the only way we could even exist is if God allowed us to participate in His eternal being.

If you read back to what I said I mentioned something called the transcendentals, there are four in scholastic philosophy which are basically God in his essence to a certain degree, and those four are these: Good, Being, One, True. All those cannot exist without the other, and nothing in reality could exist without the transcendentals, you can look at ANYTHING in reality and apply those four principles and they will have them, that is, except evil, which lacks a due good, hence making it evil, but like I said before, evil has no substance per se, no tangible, sensible being, it is only a deprivation of something that should be there but God has allowed not to be, which is an incredible mystery unto itself.

My idea of truth is not my own, so I would never claim it to be from myself. Truth is that which is Good, that has oneness, that is, that is beautiful. I would never call murder any of those things, and if anyone called murder beautiful would be a liar. Truth is also revealed by God through revelation, but also through nature, namely what I am somewhat explaining to you here, what we call Natural Philosophy, or the Philosophy of Nature, that is, whatever can be contemplated without the aid of revelation from God. Natural Philosophy is what was achieved by certain philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato to name a couple. Although they had a few things wrong, thankfully Our Lord revealed what those errors were through the Church and saints who contemplated these truths and questions on nature and reality, but Aristotle and Plato were right about an enormous amount of things in reality. But they are scoffed at these days in academia because they are not moral relativists and do not support the liberal agenda. In their time to say that one person decided what was true or what was good and evil was complete and utter lunacy, as it still is to this day, but unfortunately it is just widely accepted in academia these days, that is the only reason, you can thank the "enlightenment" and Protestant reformation for a lot of the moral relativism we have today. It was their erroneous philosophy that seeped into the minds of professors and academics. Such public denial of the truths of sin and evil never existed on a scale in previous centuries as they do today, and if people were debaucherous in earlier centuries before the reformation and "enlightenment" it was because they just didn't care, not because they thought they were right about everything, they just didn't care because you find no sort of moral relativism as we have today in any writings from anyone before the mid 1500's.

It would take awhile to explain more in depth the nature of truth because I would have to use a lot of philosophical terms you may or may not be familiar with because academically it is a complex subject if you went into it in detail, but simply, in its very nature, God is truth and God is good, one and is. That is why He called Himself: I am Who am. Perfect. True. Beautiful.

[geoff]

I can agree with you brother. One has to look no further than nature itself to see beauty and good. You seem like an intelligent person, so why then do you claim to be part of organized religion? The Church is not a building or an idea or even a place, but it is in fact those that are baptized into the body of Christ. You believe in Oneness yet you listed the Trinity? What are your personal views on the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? As a believer I would assume it is safe to say you believe in recieving salvation from the Lord, how do you personally believe one recieves it? Just trying to see the different ideologies and theological beliefs amongst the believers here.

[Aethir X]

Very interesting you ask me why I am part of an organized religion, well because it is the only religion truly revealed by God, that is, the Catholic faith, any other religion is either a pagan religion, a heresy of the Catholic religion, or a religion that is monotheistic but contains errors in its teaching. Everyone has their own religion whether they think they do or not, it is natural for man to exalt thing outside himself and put them on a pedestal and worship it because he was made to love and serve God, but when he deviates from God he must worship something else, even atheists worship their own false reasoning above God, that is their religion. Another example is why was God angered with those who worshiped the golden calf? simply because it is not the true God and is not due worship because it is a creature. This is all pretty obvious 1st commandment stuff.

If you believe Our Lord Jesus Christ was truly God and truly man then he cannot speak a lie. He founded the church on St. Peter and the apostles and their successors. The traditions of the faith, and scripture, the writings of the saints are all part of the true faith. If God established a church on earth, which He did, through the apostles and St. Peter, then that Church cannot speak error on matters of faith and morals, it is simply impossible, and if one of its members did, they would not be speaking in the name of the true Church.

The Church is not a building or an idea or even a place, but it is in fact those that are baptized into the body of Christ. You believe in Oneness yet you listed the Trinity

The Church is not a building or an idea or a place per se, but it has a visible structure and hierarchy, which is necessary in order that man understand the power of authority and to participate in the sacramental life given to it by God. You can be baptized and not be in the Church, a latae sententiae excommunicatio, because you hold to false ideas which are against the deposit of faith which Christ reveals through the true faithful, that is whenever the successor of St. Peter speaks in union with all the bishops of the church and solemnly proclaims something to be held by the faithful, this has been going on since the 1st century of the church, and anyone who denies the traditions of the early church in union with the Catholic faith is putting their salvation at risk. Christianity is not a cafeteria, one does not get to pick and choose what they do and do not like, it is all or nothing, embrace Christ and the traditions which were taught by him and the apostles, or put your eternal salvation at risk, and these traditions are only found in the Catholic faith, we can trace every priest and every bishop back to St. Peter and the apostles.

Of course I believe in oneness and the Trinity they are not separate. You have a mother, father and child of a family, and call them a family. You have mind, spirit, and will, those are three yet one in soul. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three persons, one God. I cannot ever claim to understand the eternal depths of the Most Blessed Trinity. Our Lord Jesus Christ once appeared to St. Augustine because Augustine was laboring extremely hard with trying to understand the Trinity and Our Lord brought him to a beach and had him dig a hole in the sand then walk over to the ocean and fill up the bucket then go back to the hole and put water in it over and over, even after the hole he dug was overflowing. St. Augustine then asked Our Lord what was the meaning of this. Our Lord told him that the sea was like the Trinity and the hole was our capacity to understand as creatures, we can only fill ourselves with so much knowledge of God at one time because we are not eternal as God is, only God can know Himself as he knows Himself. We can know God, but only according to our nature and what God allows us to know about Him. So, I hope that helps. This is why holding the true faith is so important.

What are your personal views on the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

I do not have any, I believe what the Catholic faith has said about the Trinity throughout the ages. I usually refer to St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, St. John of the Cross, St. Gregory the Great, St. Bernard, St. Anselm, All the Council documents of each ecumenical council that defined dogma and condemned error, St. Pius X, St. Pius V, Patrologiae Latinae, Patrologiae Graeca, there are so many resources on this that it would take 10 lifetimes to begin to make a dent in studying it, but to put it simply, I believe what the Catholic faith has taught for 2,000 years. The Nicene Creed is good in understanding what the Trinity is in a very simple manner, so I would start from there. Also the Last Gospel is good, namely, the first chapter of the Gospel of John.

As a believer I would assume it is safe to say you believe in recieving salvation from the Lord, how do you personally believe one recieves it?

I believe one receives it through Jesus Christ in the Catholic faith by means of grace and works. Faith without works is dead. I believe in keeping the precepts of the church in order to attain salvation because without the support of the church, the true church, her traditions, her saints, her teachings, I am like a blind man and cannot see where I am going. How anyone can claim to interpret scripture and Christianity on a personal basis is beyond me and to be honest, very scary. Without the indefectability of the true faith promised to us by God in Jesus Christ, we are like lambs being led to the slaughter because we open ourselves up to way, WAY to much error, especially since we are sinful because of original sin, we obviously have this tendency to want to do things our way instead of conforming ourselves to the cross of Jesus Christ in the faith He has revealed to us. Just look at how many different Protestant Churches there are 35,000+ and growing every day in the U.S., truly all that division is not what God intended, God is one. One Lord, One Faith (not 35,000), One Baptism.

I would like also to say one last thing, the Catholic Church put the bible together, you can look that up anywhere, so if you read it, you are accepting that the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret and determine which books of scripture went into the bible.

I hope that helps, feel free to PM me if you have any personal questions.

[StreetHazard]

[geoff]

I may be confused as to some things the catholic church practices, but how is it that one can go a confess their sins to a priest and he blesses them and gives them absolution? what about being infilled with the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues, laying on of hands, healing, ect...do you believe in any of that? I guess i could consider myself penocostal/apostolic. I attend a church where we teach biblical truth and nothing else, we follow closely the practices of Christ and the apostles, we believe in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues, we believe the name of God is Jesus. what are your thoughts on this? am i going to hell because im not catholic?

[Aethir X]

Well, the apostles were bishops and they ordained priests, that's what bishops do, they ordain priests, the visible hierarchy of the true Church. Christ instituted the sacrament of confession so that man can renew the grace he received in baptism in case he has committed a mortal sin, that is, a sin which brings death to the soul, like lust or willful murder. Confession is an amazing, incredible, beautiful gift. When I go to confession, I have the absolute certitude that my sins are forgiven by God because I have made a good confession, and the priest will affirm that by either denying or giving me absolution. The priest is another persona Christi if you will, given the power to bind and loose as Christ gave to the bishops and priests of the Church in the gospel of Matthew 16:18, and again I think in chapter 18, I would have to look it up, but even quoting scripture doesn't matter because the church always had this sacrament before scripture was codified in the early 5th century. What I honestly don't understand is why people think they can just ask God to forgive them and claim he does, you have no absolute way of knowing whether or not God has forgiven you, that is why God gave the church the sacrament of Confession, so that we have moral certitude we are in a state of grace, as Catholics call it. The state of grace is that you have the supernatural life of grace in your soul, the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in your soul, when you commit a mortal sin, such as lust, murder, worshiping false gods, you drive out the indwelling of the Trinity and God cannot reside anywhere supernaturally that is openly living in a sin which is entirely opposed to Him, that is why if we repent for our sins and go to confession and are given absolution, we can have that supernatural grace once again that we may have lost after baptism or committing a mortal sin.

what about being infilled with the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues, laying on of hands, healing, ect...do you believe in any of that? I guess i could consider myself penocostal/apostolic.

Those are all gifts of the Holy Ghost, but mindless babble that people call tongues these days are not from God. The traditional understanding of tongues is that super natural grace that each hears the preaching of a certain saint in their own language even though that saint may be speaking in a language that is their own and not indigenous to that place, but God supplies a miracle of grace for the listener to understand through that person the words of the saint preaching. All this mindless, silly rolling of tongues and incoherent babbling is not the work of God that occurs in most Protestant sects, and it is very scary that people believe it is from God. Any simple research of the history of speaking in tongues from the saints will entirely debunk that. I believe in the gifts of healing, but healing in the sense that is from God. God does not allow a previous ailment to return once that person has been healed of that ailment, that is a true miracle of healing. These days the devil is deceiving people greatly through Protestant sects with faux gifts of healing by curing someone for a short time then letting the ailment return, that is not true healing, the devil does that for show and hysteria and to deceive people that these false prophets are true ones, which is obviously not the case. True healing is done by saints, living, or in heaven.

I guess i could consider myself penocostal/apostolic. I attend a church where we teach biblical truth and nothing else, we follow closely the practices of Christ and the apostles, we believe in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues, we believe the name of God is Jesus. what are your thoughts on this? am i going to hell because im not catholic?

Well, I will be honest with you, you are in a false religion. Protestantism is exactly that, a protest against the Catholic Church, and was created by Martin Luther in the 1500's and spawned into 35,000 different sects. You say you attend a church that teaches biblical truth, but what is biblical truth? Biblical truth is not anyone's or any pastor's personal interpretation of scripture, you have to ask yourself, why are the Pentecostals right and not the Catholics, Baptists, Church of Christ, Lutherans, etc. ad nauseam. The answer is obvious, they are not right, there is only one true church, it is the church that was founded by Jesus Christ on the rock of St. Peter and his successors (Matt 16:18-19). Christ gave St. Peter and his successors the keys to the kingdom of heaven, not pastor jim or pastor bob, or elder bubba. Unfortunately, your church does not follow closely the practices of Christ and the apostles because it does not have all the sacraments that they practiced or administered, history affirms this, it is very easy to look it up in any non-liberal historical work. It is amazing how quickly people are willing to pick and choose arguments instead of embracing what is obvious, just like I said before, the Catholic Church gave you the canon of scripture, so you are already affirming a Catholic belief by accepting that scripture as from God. Well who decided that the canon of scripture you read is from God? It was the Catholic Church, not the Pentecostals or Baptists or Lutherans.

Ask yourself, are the Pentecostals the true churh of Jesus Christ? Can I study the writings of the early church fathers and saints and will they say that the one true church is the Pentecostal church, absolutely, unequivocally not. You must look at Christianity outside of what you may be used to to understand where I am going with this. Historical context and tradition is vitally important to understand Christianity because tradition points to the Catholic Church and the priesthood, which all the apostles were, priests, who said the mass, heard confessions, did the same thing that Catholics do today, and will continue to do until the end of time. Please do not mistake me to be condescending or rash in my arguments, but I am simply speaking the truth about Protesantism, which is hard to hear for some people because it means embracing the Cross of Christ in a way they are unfamiliar with or uncomfortable with, but Christ Himself said it must be so and that they would persecute you for it.

am i going to hell because im not catholic?

Well, now that you know the Catholic Church is the true church, and I urge you to really, honestly, and prayerfully study all the things I have mentioned, especially those saints I mentioned in my previous post. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (outside the church, there is no salvation). In order to be saved one must profess and believe the true faith, and there is only one. Unam Sanctam Catholicam et Apostolicam Ecclesiam. Or in other words, yes, now that you know.

Gloria Patri Et Filio et Spiritui Sancto, sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,

Malcolm

[StreetHazard]

Yea Geoff, think about it. Hell is a terrible place you should fear, you better sign up to be a choir boy or something, and start making a list for confessional. And you being a Baptist should be #1 on that list.

(ohhh yea, and remember to keep your pants on and don't bend over)

[geoff]

Well my friend it was nice to see someone else on here that had respect for Christ, BUT and a big one, your ideology on the catholic church being the right one is well, wrong. Christ did not found the church on St. Peter, He founded the church on Himself and the revelation that He was the Christ and Messiah. In fact, before the apostles and others were gathered into the upper room and the Holy Ghost fell on them, there was no church, just a mass of followers. And second, if you read correctly, St. Peter was not the leader of the church. He was one of the elders and the one responsible for bringing truth to the jews. Paul was the one responsible for bringing truth to the gentiles. He could be considered the one that started the Christian movement throughout the known world at the time. He even preached to the romans who eventually believed and started the Catholic church. I am sorry but in no way shape or form is the Catholic church the way to salvation. A PERSONAL relationship is. Third, no one and i mean NO ONE on earth has the power to give absolution. The blood Jesus shed on calvary is the forgiveness of sins, we are to repent and ask forgiveness and turn away from that sin. The Holy Spirit dwelling in the believer allows him to live a clean and righteous life. The Catholic church may have been the first major business function called " church " but the apostolic movenment was the FIRST church and the only body of Christ. There is only ONE true doctrine and that is the one taught by Christ, not some corrupted, scandalizing, false catholic church. The catholic church is set up of corruptness that makes the Lord ashamed that they claim His name. You all pray to the saints and worship the pope as if he were Christ. My friend there is only ONE AUTHORITY to which a believer is to bow down and obey, Jesus Christ, our Lord and our God. Please do not take this offensively, I am just tired of the devil spreading False doctrine. if you wish to have a real talk give me a call, i can pm you my number.

by the way, i invite you to a service at my church, then you can tell me if God is in that place or not.

[Aethir X]

What part of "Upon this rock, Peter, I will build my church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against. And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt 16:18) Do you not understand? Yes, Christ is the Church but he gave the authority to Peter (Our Lord says it right there) and his successors to carry on the truths of the faith after he ascended in heaven, and if you disagree that is not my fault, but your lack of faith in what Christ has said.

You say there was no church before the Holy Ghost fell upon Mary and the Apostles, which is true, because they did not start to publicly go out until after that, but Christ said Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH. What do you not understand about that? It is plain as day. So simple.

St. Peter was not the leader of the church. He was one of the elders and the one responsible for bringing truth to the Jews. Paul was the one responsible for bringing truth to the gentiles. He could be considered the one that started the Christian movement throughout the known world at the time. He even preached to the romans who eventually believed and started the Catholic church. I am sorry but in no way shape or form is the Catholic church the way to salvation.

Upon this rock Peter I will build my church. Sounds like he's the leader to me, seeing as how Christ gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and not the other apostles. If you read early church documents, they all refer to the bishop of Rome as the head of the visible church on earth. Jesus Christ started Christianity not St. Paul. The romans did not eventually start the Catholic Church, you should read the letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a bishop ordained by the apostles, he called the church Catholic before even all the apostles were dead.

I am sorry you choose to ignore my previous arguments about why it is the true faith and just dismiss it as not being the true church, that is the saddest part. If you were humble and studied the truth of the faith and its historical context you would see the truth I am speaking of.

A PERSONAL relationship is. Third, no one and i mean NO ONE on earth has the power to give absolution. The blood Jesus shed on calvary is the forgiveness of sins, we are to repent and ask forgiveness and turn away from that sin. The Holy Spirit dwelling in the believer allows him to live a clean and righteous life. The Catholic church may have been the first major business function called " church " but the apostolic movenment was the FIRST church and the only body of Christ. There is only ONE true doctrine and that is the one taught by Christ, not some corrupted, scandalizing, false catholic church.

This is just sheer ignorance. No where anywhere in scripture does it say that "a personal relationship with Christ is the only means to salvation." Not one place does it say that. Nor does scripture say that scripture is the only authority of Christianity. Priests have the authority to forgive sins, just as the apostles did, if you don't think that is the case then you need to go read some history books because the apostles heard confessions and so did the priests and bishops they ordained, any other position is just a lie, flat out. The teaching of the Catholic Church is not corrupted, so if you can show me where it is, I will be glad to debunk the Satanic lie about it. The Catholic Church is the only true church, there is no other. You have to separate the sins of those in the church from its teaching in order to understand.

The catholic church is set up of corruptness that makes the Lord ashamed that they claim His name. You all pray to the saints and worship the pope as if he were Christ. My friend there is only ONE AUTHORITY to which a believer is to bow down and obey, Jesus Christ, our Lord and our God. Please do not take this offensively, I am just tired of the devil spreading False doctrine. if you wish to have a real talk give me a call, i can pm you my number.

by the way, i invite you to a service at my church, then you can tell me if God is in that place or not.

The Lord is ashamed by some members of the Catholic Church, of course, they are sinful men, no one in their right mind can deny it, but the doctrine of the Catholic faith will stand forever because it is the only true doctrine revealed by Christ through the Church he founded on St. Peter and the apostles. You're right I do pray to the saints that they may intercede at the throne of the Lamb in heaven and pray for me to God that I may attain salvation, no where in scripture or tradition does it say I worship them as God, in fact, scripture affirms that it is a holy thing to ask the saints to pray for us. I also do not worship the pope, but I believe he is the successor of St. Peter, since we can trace every pope back to St. Peter. The pope is a bishop, he is not God. I do not worship him.

You are right there is only one authority, Jesus Christ, whom I obey by obeying his Church which he founded on the rock of St. Peter, who speaks in His name, as Christ told them to do so, whoever hears you hears me, as he told the apostles, and whom the apostles told to their successors.

I would love to talk, but I would never go to a place of heretical worship, that is a mortal sin, and God does not dwell there because the mass is not said there. Please pm me if you would like to talk sometime.