Evil

[Alan Burns]

Just wanted to share this quote from Dwight Longenecker - an apt observation on our increasingly secular society:

First we overlook evil. Then we permit evil. Then we legalize evil. Then we promote evil. Then we celebrate evil. Then we persecute those who still call it evil.

[Nearly Sane]

Just wanted to share this quote from Dwight Longenecker - an apt observation on our increasingly secular society:

First we overlook evil. Then we permit evil. Then we legalize evil. Then we promote evil. Then we celebrate evil. Then we persecute those who still call it evil.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/europe/590544-investigators-say-pope-benedict-knew-about-abused-children-while

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://thehill.com/policy/international/europe/590544-investigators-say-pope-benedict-knew-about-abused-children-while

You seem to be proceeding from the assumption that
when he talks about "we" he excludes the pope. Surely we is everyone. Unless you think there are groups who are "evil free".

[Nearly Sane]

You seem to be proceeding from the assumption that
when he talks about "we" he excludes the pope. Surely we is everyone. Unless you think there are groups who are "evil free".

I'll await Alan to tell me that he thinks Ratzinger is part of what he sees as evil.

[Gordon]

Just wanted to share this quote from Dwight Longenecker - an apt observation on our increasingly secular society:

First we overlook evil. Then we permit evil. Then we legalize evil. Then we promote evil. Then we celebrate evil. Then we persecute those who still call it evil.

This reads like a deepity to me: aside from the subjective assessment of what constitutes 'evil', and ignoring natural disasters, the term 'we' is ambiguous. The current situation in America where some of 'we' see abortion as 'evil' to the extent that they are trying to use legal means to effectively ban it, whereas others of 'we' see these attempts to effectively ban abortion as being 'evil'.

So it seems to me your quote can have more than one interpretation - which is classic deepity territory.

[Aruntraveller]

Agree with Gordon on this.

Before I can come to any conclusion on this I'd like to see what Alan thinks is "evil".

I'll then compare it against my idea of evil and see if it fits.

It all sounds like a bit of mewl from somebody who is not allowed to follow their particular form of persecution.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Agree with Gordon on this.

Before I can come to any conclusion on this I'd like to see what Alan thinks is "evil".

I'll then compare it against my idea of evil and see if it fits.

It all sounds like a bit of mewl from somebody who is not allowed to follow their particular form of persecution.

Matthew 7:11

[Aruntraveller]

Matthew 7:11

Thank you for that. Nice to read.

I was asking for what Alan thought was evil. As he was quoting a Catholic priest rather than the Bible I'll wait for his reply.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Just wanted to share this quote from Dwight Longenecker - an apt observation on our increasingly secular society:

First we overlook evil. Then we permit evil. Then we legalize evil. Then we promote evil. Then we celebrate evil. Then we persecute those who still call it evil.

As you seem to have linked evil with an "our increasingly secular society" are you trying to say the same thing would not apply to an increasingly religious society, despite all the evidence of evil done in the name of religious practices? When we see religion practised in society I would say the same apt observation applies.

Based on what we have seen throughout history, an apt observation on an increasingly religious society would be: 

First we overlook evil. Then we permit evil. Then we legalize evil. Then we promote evil. Then we celebrate evil. Then we persecute those who still call it evil.

[Sebastian Toe]

Just wanted to share this quote from Dwight Longenecker - an apt observation on our increasingly secular society:

Society?
Are you referring to the UK or something else?

[Alan Burns]

It all depends on whether you see the world through God's eyes or though the Devil's eyes.

The great deceiver is convincing people that:
Killing babies in their own mother's womb is a matter of choice
It is OK to permanently mutilate a young person in the cause of gender ideology
There is no such thing as evil
Human free will is an illusion
The human soul does not exist
There is no God
There is no heaven

One day the veils of deception will be removed and we will see the truth, but will it be too late?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As you seem to have linked evil with an "our increasingly secular society" are you trying to say the same thing would not apply to an increasingly religious society, despite all the evidence of evil done in the name of religious practices? When we see religion practised in society I would say the same apt observation applies.

Based on what we have seen throughout history, an apt observation on an increasingly religious society would be: 

First we overlook evil. Then we permit evil. Then we legalize evil. Then we promote evil. Then we celebrate evil. Then we persecute those who still call it evil.

I possibly agree with Alan in the sense that we have cumulatively been led to believe that evil is phased out in an increasingly secular environment as religion is erased and that this secular delusion has been demonstrated by what has transpired.

[Nearly Sane]

It all depends on whether you see the world through God's eyes or though the Devil's eyes.

The great deceiver is convincing people that:
Killing babies in their own mother's womb is a matter of choice
It is OK to permanently mutilate a young person in the cause of gender ideology
There is no such thing as evil
Human free will is an illusion
The human soul does not exist
There is no God
There is no heaven

One day the veils of deception will be removed and we will see the truth, but will it be too late?

So what about Ratzinger?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It all depends on whether you see the world through God's eyes or though the Devil's eyes.

Ok and given, you could be seeing the world through the Devil's eyes but you just don't realise it, it makes sense not to take your interpretation as correct. 

The great deceiver is convincing people that:
Killing babies in their own mother's womb is a matter of choice
It is OK to permanently mutilate a young person in the cause of gender ideology
There is no such thing as evil
Human free will is an illusion
The human soul does not exist
There is no God
There is no heaven

Fair enough - you have a personal preference for different values but your values could also be that of the great deceiver (as you put it). I guess we'll never know but it's good to have the discussions. I think it's safer to have diversity of thought so people can act as a check on each other to stop one way of thinking becoming too comfortable or go unchallenged.

One day the veils of deception will be removed and we will see the truth, but will it be too late?

As I said your words could be the words of the great deceiver...

[Sebastian Toe]

The great deceiver is convincing people that:

I don't recall seeing evidence of how exactly he is doing that.

So...how exactly is he doing it?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I possibly agree with Alan in the sense that we have cumulatively been led to believe that evil is phased out in an increasingly secular environment as religion is erased and that this secular delusion has been demonstrated by what has transpired.

It doesn't have to be either or. It is possible to see the flaws in both situations. I don't agree with Alan nor do I think that evil is phased out in an increasingly secular society.

I think religion can serve a purpose but has its flaws and as religious influence in society decreases, something else equally flawed takes its place. So I can see why some people have a preference for retaining religion but changing it from within rather than dispensing with it to take on some new flawed concept. Individuals decide the concepts they revere and want to treat as sacred and sometimes these concepts don't involve gods at all.

Some people treat nothing as sacred.

I think it's useful to have people arguing that religion should not be automatically privileged in a society, rather than everyone being cheerleaders for religious privileges.

[Aruntraveller]

Alan's list is revealing as it just shows his particular hobby horses.

I personally would have liked to have seen the accumulation of wealth (my hobby horse) on that list, although I realise that is problematic for the Catholic Church.

But surely while ever there is vast wealth inequality around the world the door is open for all sorts of terrible things (evil) to be done.

We are a vicious race. Greed and corruption that are so often connected with the accumulation of wealth will inevitably lead to a response that could be considered "evil".

For reference, this graphic is in its truest sense sickening and a display of the "evil" at the heart of humankind.

I don't subscribe to this false dichotomy presented of religion v. secularism. It's us. Poor pathetic, benighted us.

Odd word humankind, we are so very often not human or kind.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It doesn't have to be either or. It is possible to see the flaws in both situations. I don't agree with Alan nor do I think that evil is phased out in an increasingly secular society.

I think religion can serve a purpose but has its flaws and as religious influence in society decreases, something else equally flawed takes its place. So I can see why some people have a preference for retaining religion but changing it from within rather than dispensing with it to take on some new flawed concept. Individuals decide the concepts they revere and want to treat as sacred and sometimes these concepts don't involve gods at all.

Some people treat nothing as sacred.

I think it's useful to have people arguing that religion should not be automatically privileged in a society, rather than everyone being cheerleaders for religious privileges.

I think that we have to wait until "The day of Judgment" or the period before depending on your eschatology before humans and societies begin to eradicate evil as a category. Until then we are left with tackling evils in a kind of firefighting way.
We have a record of how true enforced secular societies have done that and how true theocratic have achieved and how combined secular and theocratic societies have performed in that task.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think that we have to wait until "The day of Judgment" or the period before depending on your eschatology before humans and societies begin to eradicate evil as a category. Until then we are left with tackling evils in a kind of firefighting way.
We have a record of how true enforced secular societies have done that and how true theocratic have achieved and how combined secular and theocratic societies have performed in that task.

Clearly there have been lots of flaws in all of the above attempts and approaches, based on the misery caused to people and the planet. Catholics are conflicted amongst themselves about solutions - they have no evidence that believing in gods makes anything better or anyone less arrogant, or self-deceiving, or less abusive. The same for other theists.

Atheists also disagree with each other about whether atheism offers any solutions to the problems people are looking for answers to.

I think it is interesting that Alan was warning about deception. I think it is trying to deceive people if people pretend there is only a sunny upside or an answer to our problems in any one approach. Different people have different preferences and problems and many have no interest in being coerced or deceived into signing up for any particular brand of theism or atheism by people who have yet to make a convincing case that their particular approach works.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Clearly there have been lots of flaws in all of the above attempts and approaches, based on the misery caused to people and the planet. Catholics are conflicted amongst themselves about solutions - they have no evidence that believing in gods makes anything better or anyone less arrogant, or self-deceiving, or less abusive. The same for other theists.

Atheists also disagree with each other about whether atheism offers any solutions to the problems people are looking for answers to.

I think it is interesting that Alan was warning about deception. I think it is trying to deceive people if people pretend there is only a sunny upside or an answer to our problems in any one approach. Different people have different preferences and problems and many have no interest in being coerced or deceived into signing up for any particular brand of theism or atheism by people who have yet to make a convincing case that their particular approach works.

I think you have misread what a pessimistic post I put up where I said that all we can content ourselves with is as societies is to firefight sins rather than eliminate the category of sin or evil. I would imagine Alan would broadly agree with that.

The trouble is is people see secularisation as the cure for the category whereas an examination of the nearest true secular societies we have, those who have deleted religious heritage, stand as obvious examples of failure in that respect.

[Outrider]

The trouble is is people see secularisation as the cure for the category whereas an examination of the nearest true secular societies we have, those who have deleted religious heritage, stand as obvious examples of failure in that respect.

I don't see many of the generally happier Scandinavian nations as having 'deleted' their religious heritage, and they're if not 'true' secular societies then the closest that we've seen - they're certainly not 'failures'.

I presume you're alluding to the likes of communist-era USSR, or cold war China, where religious observance was explicitly prohibited - this is not secularism, as you should well know by now.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't see many of the generally happier Scandinavian nations as having 'deleted' their religious heritage, and they're if not 'true' secular societies then the closest that we've seen - they're certainly not 'failures'.

I don't think Sweden is comprehensively secular, is it ? Are they happier than, say, a few years ago?

I presume you're alluding to the likes of communist-era USSR, or cold war China, where religious observance was explicitly prohibited - this is not secularism, as you should well know by now.
O.

If it is not secularism, then what is it?........we can't say theocracy so I suppose it has to be an atheocracy.

[Outrider]

I don't think Sweden is comprehensively secular, is it ?

Pretty much, yeah. About 60% of the population claim to be Lutheran, with a further about 10% following either another Christian doctrine or another religion altogether, whilst at the same time upwards of 60% say that religion isn't important to them, and well over 90% say that religion has no place in the laws of the land. That's pretty solidly secular.

Are they happier than, say, a few years ago?

They've been high in the 'happiness' league tables for a while, and high in the secular tables too.

If it is not secularism, then what is it?........we can't say theocracy so I suppose it has to be an atheocracy.

Not atheocracy, that would just be the absence of a theocracy, this is religious repression, which isn't what secularism is about. Secularism doesn't mean banning religion, it means that religious belief is not a justification for imposing religious tenets on the populace as law, it's not giving religion any sort of special place at the table. That's all. As has been repeatedly explained.

O.

[Maeght]

It all depends on whether you see the world through God's eyes or though the Devil's eyes.

The great deceiver is convincing people that:
Killing babies in their own mother's womb is a matter of choice
It is OK to permanently mutilate a young person in the cause of gender ideology
There is no such thing as evil
Human free will is an illusion
The human soul does not exist
There is no God
There is no heaven

One day the veils of deception will be removed and we will see the truth, but will it be too late?

That's what you believe of course. No evidence that it is a fact though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pretty much, yeah. About 60% of the population claim to be Lutheran, with a further about 10% following either another Christian doctrine or another religion altogether, whilst at the same time upwards of 60% say that religion isn't important to them, and well over 90% say that religion has no place in the laws of the land. That's pretty solidly secular.

Given that a crushing, overwhelming victory for secularism is usually about 45% i'm minded to give you that.

They've been high in the 'happiness' league tables for a while, and high in the secular tables too.

Yes, but what about poor souls like yourself. You come across as being angry and dejected.

Not atheocracy, that would just be the absence of a theocracy,

In this case it means government by atheists just as a theocracy is government by theists

this is religious repression, which isn't what secularism is about. Secularism doesn't mean banning religion, it means that religious belief is not a justification for imposing religious tenets on the populace as law, it's not giving religion any sort of special place at the table. That's all. As has been repeatedly explained.
O.

Pious shit? Passing of laws against expression of religion?