Does Evil Exist?

[beags]

I have never met an intelligent drunk.

hmm, I don't think you can compare animals to humans. Animals do what comes naturally to them. sure they can be trained for different things. . but they can't reason, plan, or think is this right or wrong? Humans can do that.

[Reckless Roselia]

Dec 28, 2012 9:32:42 GMT -5 @shooby said:

Dec 28, 2012 7:36:43 GMT -5 Reckless Roselia said:

I find a female spider gobbling up her mate after their love-making quite 'evil'. Well, it's not something that you'd expect right?

Humans are animals too.

Humans are animals, but MORE than animals. So while an animal doing that is their natural behavior we do not say that of human beings. Human beings have the capacity for "evil" whereas animals can cause natural destruction and natural evils in a sense they are not capable of moral evils.

Yeh, I'm with you on that.

However I wonder if human do possess the 'killer' gene.

beforeitsnews.com/health/2012/08/serial-killers-have-peculiar-brain-scans-2445430.html

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9218532

So is killing natural then?

[Deleted]

Well, i would killing and murder are 2 different things. Animals kill. However, people can kill or it can rise to something morally malicious and evil. I believe that is because man is created in "God's image" so we have the capacity to make a moral choice of good or evil.

[beags]

I'm afraid, Shoobs, morality is dead. Too many people out there with no empathy for each other.

(modified on shooby's request, but I still feel no differently lol)

[beags]

I think you can have morals without religion.

I'm sure at one point that morals came from what some would call religion. Here's my take on it . . if we all started with Adam and Eve, and we are all decendants of them in one way or another, than did we not all start the same way? Were we all not taught morals from our parents?

I think evil exists when your moral compass gets lost or dies. I honestly do not think it has anything to do with religion . . rather lack of compassion.

When the first thing you want to do is silence people, blame an entire nation for evil, or allow the like to exist . . . then you are promoting evil.

[Deleted]

Dec 27, 2012 22:28:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mr. "God magic'd it all with His word…" ;D

Yeah, but we call it "faith". Openly. We admit that.

"Evolution magic'd morality out of the primordial ooze." putatively doesn't require a heapin' helpin' of faith.

Ok, so in terms of reasonable explanations, it appears y'all are tied nil-nil... which of course gets me, a non-partisan observer, no further forward in the matter of whether animals can be evil.

I note it is common for the practitioners of certain religions to assert that there is some qualitative difference to be drawn between humans and animals in regards to the faculties of spirituality, morality and reason et al, whereas the other view, as noted, concerns more a quantitative difference, i.e. if such faculties are the product of evolution, perhaps other animals might too be at least capable of evolving something comparable, in time.

For the record, I side with Lao Tzu on this matter and I think he has done well to light the way that we might transcend concepts such as good and evil, so I'm really just enquiring out of curiosity.

In that vein, I wonder how you interpret the infamous serpent of Eden, Virgil, who appears to be an evil animal -promoting, as he does, as good what God forbade.

[Deleted]

Dec 28, 2012 7:18:43 GMT -5 mrsdutt said:

Would you consider it disgusting if it were your only food source?

Yeh, well that's certainly one problem, ID. For many of the actions commonly regarded as wrong one can invent sceneries, of varying plausibility, that would see them become right.

[beags]

I wonder how you interpret the infamous serpent of Eden, Virgil, who appears to be an evil animal -promoting, as he does, as good what God forbade.

sorry not following this.

btw, have I mentioned how much I LOVE your avatar?

[Deleted]

Dec 28, 2012 11:01:22 GMT -5 beags said:

sorry not following this

There's not much to follow. It seems that the snake, Sidney we will call him, was an evil animal.

And a talking one at that.

btw, have I mentioned how much I LOVE your avatar?

No, you haven't.

It's pretty smokin' eh?

[cranberry49]

Dec 28, 2012 11:14:45 GMT -5 @devianity said:

Dec 28, 2012 11:01:22 GMT -5 beags said:

sorry not following this

There's not much to follow. It seems that the snake, Sidney we will call him, was an evil animal.

And a talking one at that.

btw, have I mentioned how much I LOVE your avatar?

No, you haven't.

It's pretty smokin' eh?

The 'serpent' was actually Satan disguised as a snake. All the way through the bible Satan is referred to as the 'serpent.' Therefore, it still stands that animals are not capable of being evil.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Dec 28, 2012 10:40:45 GMT -5 @devianity said:

I note it is common for the practitioners of certain religions to assert that there is some qualitative difference to be drawn between humans and animals in regards to the faculties of spirituality, morality and reason et al, whereas the other view, as noted, concerns more a quantitative difference, i.e. if such faculties are the product of evolution, perhaps other animals might too be at least capable of evolving something comparable, in time.

...

In that vein, I wonder how you interpret the infamous serpent of Eden, Virgil, who appears to be an evil animal -promoting, as he does, as good what God forbade.

...the former is understandable since, as followers of a belief system, they would follow its teachings... and the Bible is clear that man was created separately from the animals... wouldn't you agree?

...the latter is the story of an animal being used by Satan for his purposes... the snake was a tool, if you will... although yes, the snake was also arguably a talking snake, among other talking garden animals, with which Eve was comfortable to communicate freely... and, imo, the word talking and communicating might be used interchangeably here, based upon the limitations of English once translated from the Greek...

[cranberry49]

...the former is understandable since, as followers of a belief system, they would follow its teachings... and the Bible is clear that man was created separately from the animals... wouldn't you agree?

I do agree with this.

[Deleted]

I disagree, chimpanzees have been known to plan attacks on other groups of chimpanzees, kill and eat their babies which look identical to their own.
Cannibalism for fun is pretty evil in my books.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...at the risk of sounding gross, who interviewed the surviving monkeys to ascertain that this incident was for entertainment purposes only?

[Deleted]

Dec 28, 2012 12:39:19 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...at the risk of sounding gross, who interviewed the surviving monkeys to ascertain that this incident was for entertainment purposes only?

Its a deduction perhaps. Either way the Chimps had no reason to do this other than pure evil intent.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...interesting... but that's all I'll comment so as not to hijack the thread...

[Deleted]

Dec 28, 2012 12:24:49 GMT -5 cranberry49 said:

The 'serpent' was actually Satan disguised as a snake. All the way through the bible Satan is referred to as the 'serpent.' Therefore, it still stands that animals are not capable of being evil.

Well, for one thing, Cranberry, it was never established to have stood in the first place - we simply have a religious account that has been brought into uncertainty by the offering of a different opinion, near as uncertain - so to assert that it still stands is rather curious.

That aside, I appreciate you giving your interpretation of the matter. My understanding, from second-hand accounts, is that nowhere in Genesis does it say that Sidney the snake is actually Satan dressed up. On the contrary there is rather obvious debate, firstly, over whether the snake should be viewed literally or figuratively and, secondly, as to what it might represent.

[Deleted]

Dec 28, 2012 12:25:33 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...the former is understandable since, as followers of a belief system, they would follow its teachings... and the Bible is clear that man was created separately from the animals... wouldn't you agree?

Yes, of course BTDT, in that respect they are no different to the followers of the scientific belief system, for want of a better term, which states something quite different. What relevance these observations have I'm not sure.

...the latter is the story of an animal being used by Satan for his purposes... the snake was a tool, if you will...

Thank you. A different interpretation to Cranberry's. For clarity's sake - 1) the snake wasn't a snake, it was Satan in fancy dress; 2) it was a snake, but it was a tool of Satan.

Variety is the spice of life, perhaps another commentator will add to this list.

I wonder how these apply to the modern world, too. In the case of somebody who 'commits evil', are they Satan in disguise?… are they a tool of Satan?… Good and Evil require a back story -something to account for their existence, something to explain their operation. I find it interesting.

[Deleted]

Don't be silly, a snake can't wear a dress.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Dec 28, 2012 13:00:54 GMT -5 @devianity said:

My understanding, from second-hand accounts, is that nowhere in Genesis does it say that Sidney the snake is actually Satan dressed up. On the contrary there is rather obvious debate, firstly, over whether the snake should be viewed literally or figuratively and, secondly, as to what it might represent.

....it is true that it's not explicit, but the context of Genesis 3 shows Satan's presence... and when you add in passages from Ezekiel, John, Revelation, and others, it's a pretty sound interpretation to say Satan used the snake as his tool in the garden... imo...



...and I added the imo just for effect...

[Deleted]

Good isn't exclusive to religion so why would evil be?

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Dec 28, 2012 13:04:38 GMT -5 @devianity said:

Dec 28, 2012 12:25:33 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...the former is understandable since, as followers of a belief system, they would follow its teachings... and the Bible is clear that man was created separately from the animals... wouldn't you agree?

Yes, of course BTDT, in that respect they are no different to the followers of the scientific belief system, for want of a better term, which states something quite different. What relevance these observations have I'm not sure.

...the latter is the story of an animal being used by Satan for his purposes... the snake was a tool, if you will...

Thank you. A different interpretation to Cranberry's. For clarity's sake - 1) the snake wasn't a snake, it was Satan in fancy dress; 2) it was a snake, but it was a tool of Satan.

Variety is the spice of life, perhaps another commentator will add to this list.

I wonder how these apply to the modern world, too. In the case of somebody who 'commits evil', are they Satan in disguise?… are they a tool of Satan?… Good and Evil require a back story -something to account for their existence, something to explain their operation. I find it interesting.

...hmm... where to start?



...the snake was a snake... was crafty and all that jazz... and was used by Satan, like a dress, at that point in time...

...and yes, for those who do not want to give credence to this teaching, they'd want a different explanation... but we're then forced to impose one system's rules upon another... which isn't easily done... kinda like with the monkey story...

[Deleted]

Dec 28, 2012 13:19:07 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

....it is true that it's not explicit, but the context of Genesis 3 shows Satan's presence... and when you add in passages from Ezekiel, John, Revelation, and others, it's a pretty sound interpretation to say Satan used the snake as his tool in the garden... imo...



...and I added the imo just for effect...

Ok. Obviously the soundness of the interpretation is brought into question by the fact that the only other person to comment on it thus far has come up with a different interpretation. No worries, truth is in the eye of the beholder etc.

[cranberry49]

Dec 28, 2012 13:00:54 GMT -5 @devianity said:

Dec 28, 2012 12:24:49 GMT -5 cranberry49 said:

The 'serpent' was actually Satan disguised as a snake. All the way through the bible Satan is referred to as the 'serpent.' Therefore, it still stands that animals are not capable of being evil.

Well, for one thing, Cranberry, it was never established to have stood in the first place - we simply have a religious account that has been brought into uncertainty by the offering of a different opinion, near as uncertain - so to assert that it still stands is rather curious.

That aside, I appreciate you giving your interpretation of the matter. My understanding, from second-hand accounts, is that nowhere in Genesis does it say that Sidney the snake is actually Satan dressed up. On the contrary there is rather obvious debate, firstly, over whether the snake should be viewed literally or figuratively and, secondly, as to what it might represent.

Here are some verses to consider:

Revelation 12:9 (NKJV)

9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Revelation 12:15 (NKJV)
15 So the serpent spewed water out of his mouth like a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood.

Revelation 20:2 (NKJV)
2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

2 Corinthians 11:3 (NKJV)
3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ

Revelation 20:2–3 (NKJV)
2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years

Finally, in Genesis 3:14-15 we read of God’s curse upon the serpent and the promise of a Savior from the seed of the woman.

So the LORD God said to the serpent: “Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”

The prediction of enmity (hatred and warfare) between the seeds (in some sense offspring or descendant) of the woman and of the serpent makes no sense if the serpent was merely a physical animal. The seed of the woman is a future male child. If only serpents and natural human descendants are in view here, then that means that snakes are doomed to go around biting men in the heels and then getting their heads crushed. Given the verses in Revelation and 2 Corinthians, this obviously is not the intent of the prophecy

www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/09/05/feedback-satan-lucifer-serpent

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Dec 28, 2012 14:08:07 GMT -5 @devianity said:

Ok. Obviously the soundness of the interpretation is brought into question by the fact that the only other person to comment on it thus far has come up with a different interpretation. No worries, truth is in the eye of the beholder etc.

...yeah, but the soundness of your interpretation about the soundness of my interpretation being validated by others' agreement with it requires the imposition of your daily schedule rules upon others' daily schedule rules... and since it's practically a holiday weekend, the fact that my post has had only one taker shouldn't be held against me... jmho...

[cranberry49]

Dec 28, 2012 12:37:12 GMT -5 @joey said:

I disagree, chimpanzees have been known to plan attacks on other groups of chimpanzees, kill and eat their babies which look identical to their own.
Cannibalism for fun is pretty evil in my books.

Sorry, Apple, this does NOT prove that the intentions of the chimpanzees are evil. Why they do this? We don't really know. But to be evil, one has to have an intent to do harm with malice included. We cannot interpret what is in the mind of an animal.

[Deleted]

Dec 28, 2012 14:18:29 GMT -5 cranberry49 said:

Dec 28, 2012 12:37:12 GMT -5 @joey said:

I disagree, chimpanzees have been known to plan attacks on other groups of chimpanzees, kill and eat their babies which look identical to their own.
Cannibalism for fun is pretty evil in my books.

Sorry, Apple, this does NOT prove that the intentions of the chimpanzees are evil. Why they do this? We don't really know. But to be evil, one has to have an intent to do harm with malice included. We cannot interpret what is in the mind of an animal.

Actions speak louder than words.
The monkeys raid the camp and eat the babies that are identical to their own. Evil I say, deliberate malicious cannibalism.

[Reckless Roselia]

But to be evil, one has to have an intent to do harm with malice included.

Intentions are very important. Actions should be based upon intention.

[cranberry49]

Dec 28, 2012 14:25:09 GMT -5 @joey said:

Dec 28, 2012 14:18:29 GMT -5 cranberry49 said:

Sorry, Apple, this does NOT prove that the intentions of the chimpanzees are evil. Why they do this? We don't really know. But to be evil, one has to have an intent to do harm with malice included. We cannot interpret what is in the mind of an animal.

Actions speak louder than words.
The monkeys raid the camp and eat the babies that are identical to their own. Evil I say, deliberate malicious cannibalism.

Well, I don't particularly think it 'nice.' But, to go as far as calling it evil? Nah, I don't see that since it can't be proven.

[Deleted]

Evil defined is not exclusive to humans. The definition contains a set of characteristics. Animals exhibit those characteristics, thus animals can be evil. Some people are attempting to define evil in such a way that no animal fits the bill, but what use is that?
Considering the characteristics defined as evil there are animals that exhibit those characteristics.