|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
 Posted - 08/18/2001 : 23:08:40 [Permalink]
|
Might i ask you, can a distinction between ethics and morals be drawn in your own mind?
"No, not really. Ethics only refers to a system of morals."
Fair enough, although my dictionary lists,
"ethics 1. a. A set of principles of right conduct,"
as a primary meaning.
"It might just be my natural suspiciousness, but the definition of "Ethics" Morals sounds less " a "regional" convention of the term, and more like the manipulation of the language by some minister."
*Sigh* At the risk of distracting ridicule, will confide, that the region was within the heart of "the Bible Belt." Though my curiosity of how, all this came to be, did lead to ministers, preachers, and the like, my search for answers was throughout the entire community, which did have a very small minority of atheists, as well as other sects. All used the same convention, as i have described. Am down to one last possible source of validation, a busy linguist, who is a bit difficult to reach.
The supernatural link with evil, while a bit tenuous, is more easily made, i think.
"I would have though so too. What with the word Devil being only a corruption of the word evil and all. But again, going back to the dictionaries, it would seem that we are both mistaken. No supernatural sources are claimed."
evil Morally bad or wrong; wicked. :: wicked 1. Evil by nature and in practice. Middle English alteration of wicca ultimately from Old Englesh wicca sorcerer; See witch. :: witch 1. A woman popularily believed to have supernatural powers and practice sorcery,...
All of this, is a search for the meaning of the words, not the question of their existence in reality, of course.
"You realize, of course, that there is no such thing as "the supernatural." It is only fantasy."
No, am not as certain, although will concede a surplus of fantasy is employed by some, who proclaim a belief in god, as well as by some, who profess a reliance upon science.
And i, as the lowest of brigands with company, raid and plunder your town, steal your book, and return to the land of Nye, where me publishes it as the Muses of NubiWan, would the contents be transformed into lies?
"Have you met Snake yet? The two of you should get along quite well."
Will look forward to it, but you do evade the question.
Slightly different version, uh, more condensed, and its still wrong. I do, and i have, to me, as said, it is a private, personal experience, mine anyway. Prove it to You? *L* Doultful, you insist on looking with inappropriate methods.
"So are you saying that the reason I am not finding proof of any gods is that there is something wrong with me, and my methods? That's certainly easy enough to believe, and easy enough to fix. After all that's what working science is about--finding where you have gone wrong and correcting it. (Agreed)
So tell me, what are the appropriate methods?
I will reproduce them and then we shall see what we shall see."
Am not an evangelist, nor would i be qualified to offer you guidance in your own search. We don't even know each other, except by our posts here. To be completely honest, i don't really care all that much, if you find a relationship with your god, or anyone else for that matter, or not. Will say, that i do know it to have unexpected rewards. My sole aim, has been an attempt to crack open a door to "possiblity." Albeit a poor one.
Were i to take you at your word, an assume your request to be an honest one, frankly a foolish proposition on the face of it, i could only offer advice as to what has worked for me. Which would entail my revealing my inner self, publicly, while you would risk nothing. In speaking to you earnestly, would have only assumptions of your character and integrity, as you have revealed them to be, here. Some of what i would assume of you to be, intelligent, pragmatic, obstinate, with no basis in fact other than your posts.
Eh! Me has endulged foolishness on more than one occasion, having been married twice. Meditation is a good way to prepare for such an experience. Re-establish contact with the more uh, intuitive side of your nature, again allow emotions, their full range of feelings, to wash through your being. Like it, or not, they are an important part of what and who, we are. Place, that part of our nature, that may be made obsolete by a Pentium 14 and a humongous hard drive, on "record data only" mode. Pick a location conducive to a personal extra-ordinary event, for me the mountains, the desert, the forests, a beach, works and be alone. Turn your senses on high, and stand as though naked before the world/universe, seeing it as for the first time. Remove all expectations from your mind, listen within, and for god's sake, SIC!, allow the shrouds of dogma to be dropped from around your own conceptions of god. If it does happen for you, it will be a "first hand" experience, and it may take several excursions to recognize. If it doesn't, the least i've experienced, is feeling truly alive, not bad actually, kind'a like sex, you know. That is my advice, no sure thing promised.
OK, have at it, rip and tear away...
Saw a post where you dismiss "Love" as a mere emotion, and it is an emotion. But it is also an experience, a very personal one, and if you don't know that, perhaps you should get out more.
"Oh please, not this Theistic ad hominem bullshit about Xians being the only ones who love again."
Never even been to China, nor know a single soul from the mentioned town, and know i never used the word "only." But you do have me out, am a theistic. Do me travel a worn path, then the refute should come easily enough, endulge me sans the bullshit.
And i believe, untill one experiences, that most human of ones, their search for god, will be a long one.
"So god is again reduced to a human emotion? Why is it always love that is the emotion Xians claim? Why not Angst or Dread?
Why not reduce god to a gastro-intestineal disorder or some other bodily function.
Emotions are produced by your brain as bile is produced by your spleen. There is nothing more supernatural about one than the other."
Back to China, again? No, didn't reduce god to an emotion, although it is an emotional experience in knowing him within yourself. If you would try to refrain yourself from putting words into my mouth, we might know each other's thoughts a bit better. Here you show only your own value of emotions as "mental bile." Bullshit! If you chose to cut yourself off from a major part of the total experience of life, that's your right, and loss. But don't try to peddle it, as some sort of scientific truth of enlightened existence. Even though Darwin never addressed the social behavior of animals, as you have sited, assume the minnows swims up stream for the reasons, you say. In my time, they were called intincts, and it was a survial scheme provided by nature. If emotions come from the same source as you imply, why should they then be ignored as invalid?
*L*
Have you met the "Borg?" I think you would get along just fine.
Think I demonstrated, that they overlap, there can be an author, who is also a christian, and a scientist. Which i am not, obiviously.
"That's okay, I am."
Well, your powers of deception are to be commended, sir, and i presumed, that i was clever in concealing me own bias... So you are actually a christian author, who happens to also be a scientist, then. Or was this yet another sloppy misstatement on your part?
"It was you who originally divided them up into exclusionary categories. Making the scientists the goats of the lot. My point is |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2001 : 23:54:37 [Permalink]
|
I was watching a documentary on Stalin the other night and had this idea about what evil is. And this goes along with what I said earlier about how moral behavior is behavior that, when adhered to, increases the chances of a population's survival.
Stalin was evil because he murdered tens of millions of people. These people he murdered may have at one point had children but sadly many did not and many of those that did saw their children taken away to be killed before them. Sure, killing anyone is bad but there are many ways that society rationalizes it and condones it such as in times of war or if a policeman needs to shoot an armed robber etc. You could even argue that the robber is not evl because they were stealing to feed their family(to help insure his family survives to pass on its genes). It's all a matter of perspective.
But Stalin was different. His killing served no end. He killed because he was insane. He killed his friends and his enemies and anyone that knew are saw or had even heard about his friends or enemies. He was an equal opportunity murderer and with him around everyone was less likely to breed.
So, to summarize, perhaps evil is an indescriminate act that hinders reproduction of of individuals. The level of evil is directly proportionate to the number of units that are not allowed to reproduce.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2001 : 13:56:39 [Permalink]
|
No, am not as certain, although will concede a surplus of fantasy is employed by some, who proclaim a belief in god, as well as by some, who profess a reliance upon science.
A reliance upon science that contains a surplus of fantasy? That's a nasty claim of hypocrisy, but you just throw it out there with no who, what, or why attached. What are you talking about?
So tell me, what are the appropriate methods?
I will reproduce them and then we shall see what we shall see."
Am not an evangelist, nor would i be qualified to offer you … i don't really care all that much, if you find a relationship with your god, or anyone else for that matter, or not… My sole aim, has been an attempt to crack open a door to "possiblity." Albeit a poor one.
Now see, I would never have know that that was your aim from what you have written.
Were i to take you at your word, an assume your request to be an honest one, frankly a foolish proposition on the face of it, i could only offer advice as to what has worked for me.
Experiments, in basic science, must be reproducible. If it honestly worked for you then it will work for anybody who repeats your methods.
Which would entail my revealing my inner self, publicly, while you would risk nothing.
Risk? What the hell are you talking about? You are only trying to show me that something exists, there are no risks for either of us.
We are talking about god, not your inner self. Unless you are claiming that you are the god, then there is no need to deal with your personal issues. Either it exists or not are the only possibilities. In either case one of us will have to change their opinion. Speaking for myself I a completely prepared to do so if presented with compelling evidence.
In speaking to you earnestly, would have only assumptions of your character and integrity, as you have revealed them to be, here. Some of what i would assume of you to be, intelligent, pragmatic, obstinate, with no basis in fact other than your posts.
Yeah, so? What you read is what you get. All that exists of me at SFN is what I write. That's how I keep from getting my nose punched by the followers of the god of love.
Meditation is a good way to prepare for such an experience. Re-establish contact with the more uh, intuitive side of your nature, again allow emotions, their full range of feelings, to wash through your being. Like it, or not, they are an important part of what and who, we are.
I never said that I didn't like it. Nor did I ever say that they were not an important part of what we are. What I said was that emotions have their origins in the human brain. It was you who implied that they were not part of us but from some "beyond."
Place, that part of our nature, that may be made obsolete by a Pentium 14 and a humongous hard drive, on "record data only" mode. Pick a location conducive to a personal extra-ordinary event, for me the mountains, the desert, the forests, a beach, works and be alone.
You are telling me to cease thinking analytically? That's a funny thing to ask when looking for an answer to a question.
Turn your senses on high, and stand as though naked before the world/universe, seeing it as for the first time.
Okay, but I did warn you that I'm old. I have an old man's naked body, so you might want to switch some of your senses down a notch or two.
Remove all expectations from your mind, listen within, and for god's sake, SIC!, allow the shrouds of dogma to be dropped from around your own
conceptions of god. If it does happen for you, it will be a "first hand" experience, and it may take several excursions to recognize.
Well that is astonishing that I should ask for proof and you pull side- show bumble jumbo on me.
If you asked me for proof of something, say that the City of Honolulu exists, you would probably accept all sorts of mundane evidence. Photos, reports from people who had been there. You could even reproduce their experiments by hopping on a plane and heading off to Oahu yourself. But never in a million years would you accept something like you just tried to pull on me as evidence that Honolulu is real. I might be able to talk you into a mental state where you could imagine the trade winds and almost hear the splash of the waves on Waikiki. But that is proof of nothing other than you are in some sort of "mental state."
The existence or non-existence of Honolulu is completely independent of your emotions.
Same goes for god. Unless, as someone has adroitly point out, you are changing the definition of what god is.
Again.
Cause this isn't any Christian/Jewish/Moslem god that you are talking about.
If it doesn't, the least i've experienced, is feeling truly alive, not bad actually, kind'a like sex, you know. That is my advice, no sure thing promised.
I would say, unless you can present evidence otherwise, that all you have experienced is a feeling.
As nice as that feeling might be it isn't a deity, it's a feeling.
Never even been to China, nor know a single soul from the mentioned town,
Xian is computer shorthand for Christian. But you knew that already. Admittedly I am jumping to conclusions as you have never said that you were a Xian. And this meditation thing you just proposed is as non-Christian as you can get, so I apologize for thinking that you were one.
What religion are you?
No, didn't reduce god to an emotion, although it is an emotional
experience in knowing him within yourself.
Not only did you, but you just did it again.
Here you show only your own value of emotions as "mental bile." Bullshit! If you chose to cut yourself off from a major part of the total experience of life, that's your right, and loss. But don't try to peddle it,
as some sort of scientific truth of enlightened existence.
See how long you can live without bile. (I don't leave home without it)
Do you think that your emotions are independent of you physical body? That's quite a claim, you'll have to prove it.
It is you who cut yourself off from a total experience of life by blinding yourself with baloney.
Even though Darwin never addressed the social behavior of animals,
You know there are other famous scientists than Darwin who have worked in the field of evolution. Darwin was in the middle of the nineteenth century and a lot of stuff has been learned in the years since he wrote the Origin of the Species. You might try looking at the work of Konrad Lorenz on the evolutionary effects on social behavior.
In my time, they were called intincts, and it was a survial scheme provided by nature. If emotions come from the same source as you imply, why should they then be ignored as invalid?
I never said that they should be ignored or that they were invalid. You seem to be having as much trouble understanding me as I have understanding you. I say one thing and you claim that I have said something different.
I said that emotions are only proof of emotions and not of physical reality.
Have you met the "Borg?" I think you would get along just fine.
All this and a "Treky" too.
What bliss.
So you are actually a christian author, who happens to also be
a scientist, then. Or was this yet another sloppy misstatement on your part?
??????? You didn't get stuck in that meditative trance state did you?
If god can be experienced by authors then he can be experienced by scientists. If he is experiential then he is provable. If he is not experiential by scientists then neither is he by authors. If authors are writing about something that they have not experienced then what they are writing is by necessity a work of fiction.
Another fiction, you |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2001 : 17:49:16 [Permalink]
|
No, am not as certain, although will concede a surplus of fantasy is employed by some, who proclaim a belief in god, as well as by some, who profess a reliance upon science.
"A reliance upon science that contains a surplus of fantasy? That's a nasty claim of hypocrisy, but you just throw it out there with no who, what, or why attached. What are you talking about?"
Making no effort to remember nonsense, can't supply you with names or examples off the top of me head, but would have assumed you, being a good christian author scientist, would have endulged your innate curiosity by exploring some other web sites. No? Hypocrisy, yes, a good term, for claims of scientific proof for obvious rubbish, will try to find an example and supply a link. Just so many to chose from...
"Unless, as someone has adroitly point out, you are changing the definition of what god is. Cause this isn't any Christian/Jewish/Moslem god that you are talking about."
True enough, is this the limit of choices, then? Perhaps we should define terms, how would you define "God," then.
"Xian is computer shorthand for Christian. But you knew that already."
Mmmm.. OK. No, actually didn't, this is my first foray into the topic online. Thank you. Doult, that Christendom would have me. *L*
"You know there are other famous scientists than Darwin who have worked in the field of evolution. Darwin was in the middle of the nineteenth century and a lot of stuff has been learned in the years since he wrote the Origin of the Species. You might try looking at the work of Konrad Lorenz on the evolutionary effects on social behavior."
Well true enough, and i don't claim to be scientist, nor have yet to site one as source. Agree your point would have been better served, had you used Lorenz, instead of Darwin.
In my time, they were called intincts, and it was a survial scheme provided by nature. If emotions come from the same source as you imply, why should they then be ignored as invalid?
"I never said that they should be ignored or that they were invalid. You seem to be having as much trouble understanding me as I have understanding you. I say one thing and you claim that I have said something different."
As i see you doing to me? *LOL* That does seem to be the case, indeed.
"I said that emotions are only proof of emotions and not of physical reality."
Only a quibble with the second part of your statement, sure can't bust the logic of the first. God is proof of God. Agreed! In fact there are changes in physical reality associated with emotions, to point, brain chemical composition does change with emotional changes.
Perhaps me has suffered from a misunderstanding of your position as to the value of "emotions." If so, i apologize. It sure seemed to me as though your assertion of an experience as being one of emotional consenquence, was grounds for its validity to be dismissed.
Can we agree, then, that there is a causal relationship between emotions and physical reality, in many instances?
So you are actually a christian author, who happens to also be
a scientist, then. Or was this yet another sloppy misstatement on your part?
??????? You didn't get stuck in that meditative trance state did you?
Hardly. *L* As me knows all too well, memory can play its tricks on us, as we age. Fear not, your claim is conveniently preserved, however, back in the thread.
"Well that is astonishing that I should ask for proof and you pull side- show bumble jumbo on me.
If you asked me for proof of something, say that the City of Honolulu exists, you would probably accept all sorts of mundane evidence. Photos, reports from people who had been there. You could even reproduce their experiments by hopping on a plane and heading off to Oahu yourself. But never in a million years would you accept something like you just tried to pull on me as evidence that Honolulu is real. I might be able to talk you into a mental state where you could imagine the trade winds and almost hear the splash of the waves on Waikiki. But that is proof of nothing other than you are in some sort of "mental state."
The existence or non-existence of Honolulu is completely independent of your emotions.
Same goes for god. Unless, as someone has adroitly point out, you are changing the definition of what god is."
Tsk! This another example of what gives rise to my skepticism of your honesty, and, what did you say, your integrity. You asked for a method to arrive at your own experience, and now you would claim, that you asked for proof. To err is human, as i know all too well know, to make a mistake, and not even acknowledge it to ones self, is just arrogant, self indulgent, stupidity IMHO.
Have tried to pull nothing on you, except to try to honestly respond to your request, as admittedly, foolish on my part. While you dodge direct questions with absolutely no attempt to respond, i am pulling crap and mubo jumbo, just laughable. I am disgusted, can't prove it to you, but it is reality.
Look, you want things to be black and white, the universe doesn't care what you, or i, want, it is. It is up to us to discover it, as it is. You say a thing is, or a thing is not. Me tells you, there are other things, and they are unknown, and science or not, may never be known.
You say you would like to meet god, on your terms, in the framework of an experiment. You would presume to control god, what is your definition of god!?! Can't happen! You want to analyze an event, before it has happened. That sir, is magic.
Am too PO'd to continue. BTW me predates JarJar Binks by too many years, and me writes as me do, cause me can, and it pleases me.
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2001 : 19:59:46 [Permalink]
|
God told me to take deep breaths...
Here is a gem of the scientific approach, or so they say:
Had enough of this for one day, even with god's help...
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire
Edited by - NubiWan on 08/19/2001 20:03:25 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2001 : 20:03:33 [Permalink]
|
Hey! I posted a link to that in another thread just a few days ago!
I couldn't believe that no one here had anything to say (other than comradebillyboy). 
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2001 : 00:53:49 [Permalink]
|
I would like to point out that this thread has changed drastically from Espritch's question: "does evil exist?" NubiWan, I continue to have trouble decoding your text. While I have no objection to stylistic differences, I would appreciate it if you wrote a little more clearly so I don't draw the wrong conclusion from your posts. I have couple of questions regarding content.
quote:
"Xian is computer shorthand for Christian. But you knew that already."
Mmmm.. OK. No, actually didn't, this is my first foray into the topic online. Thank you. Doult, that Christendom would have me. *L*
What does "doult" mean? I could not find it in my dictionary. What meaning does "*L*" have?
quote:
Here is a gem of the scientific approach, or so they say:
Are you being sarcastic here? I do not understand your intent.
Espritch: I believe the inflicting of pain or suffering is very bad, but not evil. If someone wantonly inflicts pain or suffering, that is evil. It is a terrible thing to torture another creature. It becomes evil when you enjoy torturing that creature. So in response to your question: yes, I believe evil does exist.
I am afraid I'm not clever enough to come up with a good signature, eh? |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2001 : 01:25:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"Xian is computer shorthand for Christian. But you knew that already."
Mmmm.. OK. No, actually didn't, this is my first foray into the topic online. Thank you. Doult, that Christendom would have me. *L*
What does "doult" mean? I could not find it in my dictionary. What meaning does "*L*" have?
1. It is "doubt" misspelled.
2. My meaning for *L* is, laugh.
quote:
Here is a gem of the scientific approach, or so they say:
Provided an example of those, who profess a reliance upon science and use a "surplus of fantasy" IMO.
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2001 : 02:24:49 [Permalink]
|
The bit about Carl Sagan was written in a way that's meant to be demeaning in an inaccurate way.
quote:
Dr. Carl Sagan is the noted astronomer and science popularizer who spent a good part of his life trying to contact aliens and had a special fondness for the possibility of time travel. It's a pity Dr. Sagan passed away because I liked him, crackpot or not.
What the hell does this mean? I don't recall Sagan spending much time at all trying to contact aliens. Does placing a gold disk in a spaceprobe take most of one's life? Oh sure if someone had a lifespan of a year or so. If this person is talking about SETI, then they are definately being misleading since SETI isn't for contacting aliens, it's for picking up transmissions. And how does a fondness for timetravel make one a crackpot. I found this page to be very unfair. it came across more like a smear than anything.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2001 : 08:22:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And how does a fondness for timetravel make one a crackpot.
The statement was actually "a fondness for the possibility of time travel", which the author argues is impossible, therefore one is a "crackpot" for believing in it.
I wasn't too impressed with the author's writing style in some spots either, but the underlying argument is fascinating to me.
------------
Ma gavte la nata!
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 08/20/2001 08:22:41 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2001 : 08:37:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I was watching a documentary on Stalin the other night and had this idea about what evil is. And this goes along with what I said earlier about how moral behavior is behavior that, when adhered to, increases the chances of a population's survival.
Stalin was evil because he murdered tens of millions of people. These people he murdered may have at one point had children but sadly many did not and many of those that did saw their children taken away to be killed before them. Sure, killing anyone is bad but there are many ways that society rationalizes it and condones it such as in times of war or if a policeman needs to shoot an armed robber etc. You could even argue that the robber is not evl because they were stealing to feed their family(to help insure his family survives to pass on its genes). It's all a matter of perspective.
But Stalin was different. His killing served no end. He killed because he was insane. He killed his friends and his enemies and anyone that knew are saw or had even heard about his friends or enemies. He was an equal opportunity murderer and with him around everyone was less likely to breed.
So, to summarize, perhaps evil is an indescriminate act that hinders reproduction of of individuals. The level of evil is directly proportionate to the number of units that are not allowed to reproduce.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Is there evil? Yup.
The way Wicca defines evil is as energies.
There is one creative force in the universe.
There are two destructive forces in the universe.
One is destruction in order to build something better. This is good.
One is destruction for the sake of destruction. This is evil.
Stalin counts as evil. He destroyed people and things because he could.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2001 : 08:44:25 [Permalink]
|
I don't believe there is a universal, supernatural source for "evil".
Humans define certain actions as evil. We make the rules, it doesn't exist independently of us.
Take the lady in Texas who drowned her five kids. A lot of people are saying she is "evil". I say she's insane, not evil.
The determining factor here is motive. If she is found to have a huge life insurance policy on her kids, for instance, then I would classify her actions as "evil".
Rational, reasoning harm of others for the purpose of personal pleasure or gain. This is how I define evil.
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2001 : 09:10:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Take the lady in Texas who drowned her five kids. A lot of people are saying she is "evil". I say she's insane, not evil.
Hmmm, that is a good point and it's hard to disagree. I think Stalin was also insane. perhaps he was not evil either in the end and it's only the amount of suffering he caused that makes one want to label him as being evil.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2001 : 10:12:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Take the lady in Texas who drowned her five kids. A lot of people are saying she is "evil". I say she's insane, not evil.
Hmmm, that is a good point and it's hard to disagree. I think Stalin was also insane. perhaps he was not evil either in the end and it's only the amount of suffering he caused that makes one want to label him as being evil.
I'd think that Stalin was insane and evil, for surely he was motivated by personal gain to some extent, if not totally. I don't think they are necessarily mutually exclusive.
But I wouldn't have a problem labelling actions as evil, i.e. what the lady in Texas did was "evil", but I don't know if she herself is "evil". Of course, evil in this sense would have a different definition than what I gave above.
quote:
Rational, reasoning harm of others for the purpose of personal pleasure or gain. This is how I define evil.
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2001 : 10:27:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The way Wicca defines evil is as energies.
Here in San Francisco I get to hear a lot of talk about "energies." Usually in context with some Asian alternative something or other.
I have always wondered just what short of energy is being talked about. It's not kinetic or potential. Not electrical or heat nor anything that I have heard of.
What are these "energies," and how do you measure them?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
