Evil Is Good And God Doesn't Exist???

[Aedes]

Didn't notice -- that's all I've been responding to. I agree with you that armed states are more likely to be aggressors.

[Didymos Thomas]

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't as clear as I should have been.

[OntheWindowStand]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

That's so flawed. Funny.
Thats's like saying girls = time and money. Time = money therefore girls = money squared. And money = the root of all evil. Girls = evil. It is wrong because of wrong assumptions. It was wrong to assume that girls only = time and money. Try putting it into your equation.
Evil is a necessary component of good but not the only one. In order to figure out a variable in an equation, one must know them all (that exist in the equation of course)
Sidenote: Girls are not evil.

I think Girls are only time and money and are evil

[Didymos Thomas]

I think Girls are only time and money and are evil

Nah - Women are the catalysts that allow men to grow. In times of ease and comfort we are stagnant - adversity and complication force us to react, change and grow.

[boagie]

Hi Y'all!!

Nah, they are evil alright, you can tell by the small beady eyes, and the way they shift around whenever they might have to take responsiablity for something. Pretty soon they are going to want to vote, and move all the furniture in the house around until the male is utterly uncomfortable in his own home--------------Hillary and the new world order!! Your better half! Don't you believe it, they are evil temptresses!! Look to the good book, they should be seen and not heard. Theirs is a natural secondary position in relation to man himself. As Didymos Thomas above indicates, they detest peace and harmony, they are what grit is to the oyster, irritation!! They sure are soft though, and smell pretty good too, I've got one myself, your only allowed one at a time in this country. I hope this is of some aid in understanding the full complexity of the situtation, glad to be of help!!


Q-How do you know when you are in a feminist book shop?

A- There is no humor section

[Didymos Thomas]

I'm not being pessimistic about women - I prefer the feminist interpretation of Pandora to Hesiod's misogynistic take.

We men seem to have a similar role in the lives of women (catalysts for growth). Except that we are more pathetic than they are.

[Holiday20310401]

Should I be listening to you guys, seriously. I meant the analogy as a joke, not a subject starter.

[Didymos Thomas]

My statements carried the joke - but, yeah, I was pretty serious.

I'm not saying a man cannot grow without a woman or that woman cannot without a man - it's that the sort of close relationship men and women often have, and the complications involved - after all, love is a seriously silly emotion, not easy to control - are universally recognized as being big time character builders.

Most of us can, or eventually will, be able to relate to the joys and difficulties of relationships involving something akin to romantic love. These experiences leave immense marks on who we are, and the way we view ourselves.

Beatrice and Dante - what the world would have lost had Dante never fallen so deeply and honestly in love with her. He makes her divine in his Divine Comedy. Up there with God; you might say a representation of Sophia, even. And in the process gifts the world with one of the greatest allegory and epic poem ever written down.

[Doobah47]

Hope nobody minds if I respond to the original question.

Is language good or bad or evil or belonging to a different category or not at all?

If language were entirely good, interpretations should not be cause of arguments. Neither could a good language allow the user to engage with bad or evil concepts; the engaging with evil constitutes an evil act, or does it not? It seemed to me that one battles evil with good, so one does not ever make contact with evil - of course if language allows one to investigate evil symbolism then does evil language constitute contact with evil? I think not, there is no contact between an individual and language - language is entirely metaphysical. So language could be construed as a good tool. However, in being an entirely metaphysical collection of concepts surely language is a form of deception - the replication of reality with words is deception, deceiving the audience by presenting a symbol relevant somehow to reality. Is deception evil? I'm pretty sure that religious theories would have one believe that deception or lies are evil tools - so language must be evil.

So, even if language were entirely evil, a fundamental nature of evil, it is possible to manifest the word 'good' with language - hence 'good' requires evil and belongs to evil.

But this is just language, the truth - the definition of 'good' - is ineffable, so in reality the 'good' in existence belongs as a free notion capable of being and being recognized.

[one-philosophy]

I heard ona a movie (southpark believe it or not)
without goog there can be no evil so it must be good to be evil some time.

What about Aquinases theory that their is no evil, but rather what we consider to be evil is just falling short of what is good?

Aquinas had a theory called natural law and I think involved with it is that everyone does things because it seems good to them. Eg, Hitler only killed many innocent people as he thought it was good to kill off the disabled and homosexuals to benefit the human race.
This principle implies that people who do bad things only do them because they are apparent goods (because they appear good to the one who does it) althought they do not comply with the true nature of good so they fall short.
According to Aquinas, everyone was good and noone was totally evil.
If there was a scale of Good from 1-10, Jesus might be 10, Iraneus (a saint) might be 9, Hitler perhaps 3, and the devil 1. Noone would be completely evil as it does not exist.