Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

[Gnostic Bishop]

Can you help but do evil? I do not seehow. Do you?
And if you cannot, why wouldGod punish you?

Christians are always tryingto absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their freewill argument and placing all the blame on mankind.
That usually sounds like----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused ourfall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God'sculpability as the author and creator of human nature.

Free will is only the abilityto choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose"A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Evewould even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed bya serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie inthe nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable fordeliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "freewill" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all do evil/sin by naturethen, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some whowould not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

Having said the above for theGod that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tellyou that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree withChristians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’sresponsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that canonly be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has beenforcibly withheld.

Much has been written toexplain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate whatsome see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and areneither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims arecreated. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.
In secular courts, this iscalled mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court willnot find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of theact.

Evil then is only human tohuman when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.
As evolving creatures, all weever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see asgood as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as itcreates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing,doing evil, at all times.

Without us doing some ofboth, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains whythere is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature,evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something toblame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanksfor being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, withoutevolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.

There is no conflict betweennature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all mustdo what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to thiscompetition.

This link speak to theisticevolution.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ProfMTH#g/c/6F8036F680C1DBEB

If theistic evolution istrue, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not reallyany original sin.

Doing evil then is actuallyforced on us by evolution and the need to survive. Our default position is tocooperate or to do good. I offer this clip as proof of this. You will note thatwe default to good as it is better for survival.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

Can you help but do evil? Ido not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why wouldGod punish you?

Regards
DL

 

[Abject]

First up, you haven't defined evil nor sin.

I don't really understand morality, but if you look in nature you will see plenty of things humans deem "cruel" or "bad" which humans have no part in whatsoever.
Deforestation? Now there's a human evil imo.

Intent does not make an action. If I accidentally run over my pet I'm not going to think "oh it's alright I wasn't aware" I'm going to think "this is a really shit thing that's just happened"
Go a step further, plenty of people get shot accidentally, if it were lethal and you accidentally killed your buddy, you'd feel responsible because you are.
A little to the left? Take someone who doesn't realise what they're doing is harmful, they have good intentions, or at least are completely innocent in terms of being aware of the damage.. their thinking does not excuse them.

Natural disasters are neither good nor evil? If evil is synonymous with bad, they're most certainly bad.
Your whole idea about evil needing malevolent intent is wrong. Someone brought up with different standards can be doing something you find horrific without thinking/feeling they're doing anything wrong.
Intent does not make an action. It certainly contributes to it, but your thinking is far too black and white.

Cooperation with evil does create victims what in the fuck
It's also far from good it's just as bad as actively creating it

Your example of fighting back from evil is pretty much the oppressed rebelling against the oppressors. There is nothing evil about this at all.
You have a very messed up sense of morality.. let me get one of my slaves to tutor u a bit


Without evolution we will go extinct? That's an oxymoron, buddy. When we go extinct, there will be no evolution. We're always evolving, no matter the morale.

Now you're saying you need malevolent intentions to survive?
I'm not clicking those links.
I'm sure there is something more logical underneath the way you've expressed yourself, but the OP reads quite badly iirc

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Let's see if you can expand and correct your thinking a bit.

"their thinking does not excuse them."

The courts of most lands disagree with you.

I would link you up but you seem not to like that so just look up mens rea and you will see why the courts would not agree with you.

If you can acknowledge that then you might be worth educating on the rest of the O.P. which you did not get.

Regards
DL

 

[Abject]

I'm aware of mens rea and addressed why you're insane. You seem to completely ignore "actus reus"
Please look up murder/homocide/manslaughter for further clarification.
Even if a crime were an accident, the culprit is still responsible and guilty.

I don't like crazy youtube videos, not links. I didn't think that would be hard to understand. Since you're asking me to study up I'll do the same
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#Ignorance_of_the_law_and_mens_rea


Legal discussion is against the rules, also. Feel free to peep the archives as well as the BLUA.
PS I think you should go get caught doing something illegal without bad intentions and see what the judge has to say re mens rea... in any court of any land.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I'm aware of mens rea and addressed why you're insane. You seem to completely ignore "actus reus"
Please look up murder/homocide/manslaughter for further clarification.
Even if a crime were an accident, the culprit is still responsible and guilty.

I don't like crazy youtube videos, not links. I didn't think that would be hard to understand. Since you're asking me to study up I'll do the same
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#Ignorance_of_the_law_and_mens_rea


.

Responsible, yes, but if there is no evil intent or evil mind, there is no guilt assigned.

If an insane or really young person, for instance, launched a nuclear missile, he would certainly be responsible but if he had no evil intent or knowledge of what was to happen, no court would find them guilty.

Regards
DL