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

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will 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 our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability as the author and creator of human nature.

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

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

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree with Christians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that can only be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has been forcibly withheld.

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

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.
In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act.

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

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there 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 to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

These links speak to theistic evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXOvYn1OAL0&list=UUDXjzOeZRqLxhYaaEhWLb_A&index=9"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXOvYn1OAL0&list=UUDXjzOeZRqLxhYaaEhWLb_A&index=9

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

If the above is not convincing enough for you then show me where in this baby evil lives or is a part of it’s nature and instincts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Regards
DL

 

So, I was starting to read along thinking just "why does he spend so much time worrying or wondering about something that he does not believe in anyways?" and then... I get to the part where you clearly say that's not what you believe anyways and get to your point. And yes, good points. All I wanna know is, have you ever considered going into preaching....writing sermons... for some sort of Gnostic Christianity church or the like? (You'd actually be pretty good at it, asking in all seriousness.)

 

If there were Gnostic Christian churches about I would be in one but I would need a ghost writer to clean up what I wright. I do get the odd praise but do not think I have the eloquence to write sermons. But thanks. Nice to know I am not as incompetent as I sometimes feel when trying to put words together. Being French does not help.

Regards
DL

 

Is the wrong in recognizing right and wrong (like little kids or for example even dogs can) really the same as evil? I think not. Evil is a subjective verdict. Not a permanent or concrete state of being. Well, concluding something is wrong is often too a subjective definition of course but I'm sure you understand the subtile difference I'm trying to point out

 

Answer the O.P. and I will return to answer your post.

Can you help but do evil.

Regards
DL

 

Everyone is naturally devoted to their own good depending on what that model looks like. Even in the case of apparent intent to do harm it seems like a good idea to the chooser. As far as I can see there is no profound immorality,or evil, but a single profound motivator called the instinct to protect and extend our own images of good.

I think it is impossible to exceed the measures of our own thinking and for those who believe in moral competition they have the dubious chore of defending the existence of things that everyone would rather not have and that is the presence of evil. This is in a nutshell, the reason you cannot see as in, you cannot see how, you can help but do evil.

You can avoid doing evil through correct identification as our protections extend naturally to those things we call our own. The truth, correct identification of authority, sets us free.

 

How does identification of authority set you free from evolving?
There is no such thing as free when you have to eat.

If you do not compete for resources, and do evil to the loser of those competitions, as you have surely done, how can you survive?

Regards
DL

 

What kind of evil do you mean here? And if you think about it is it really evil? Isn't it mammal's nature to take from the weak(er) when necessary/the easy option is available.
How would doing such kind of evil obstruct the 'evil-doer' in surviving exactly?

 

We in the developed world are used to ignoring the evils our competitions bring to the losers of those competitions because of our safety nets catching them.

Put yourself in an African country that has no safety net. Remember that about 10 million children under 10 years of age die of starvation and other preventable causes yearly.

Those there who lose at competitions have no safety nets and if they are subjected to a string of loses, they will die. See it?

Quite harsh compare to us here who just make people poorer but able to eat.

Regards
DL

 

So you're talking partly about corporate evils. I have to add to that particular situation that certain african countries have less kids dying than some decades ago. Partly because (if I may use your terminology) the winners in this competition have been and still are aiding and stimulating development in african countries. Without any of that help from the 'winners' they would still be victim to sickness and famine to the same degree they have roughly always been in the last couple of centuries.
Now is that pure good by definition? Is our safety net pure good by definition? Are we all evil by default because we take advantage of the situation our society is in while we are trying to do a lot of good work over there as well? I don't think so by the way. You?

 

I would say that things are as they must be. We as a species are fairly benevolent and generous. We are doing quite well in slowly bringing all out of poverty and useless death. We still kill a lot needlessly because we do not look more closely at who we hurt when we compete.

Can you help but do evil as you evolve. No you cannot.

Regards
DL

 

We can (if we consider evil a real thing) on an individual and local basis. What happens on the other side of the world through the consequences of us buying the most convenient stuff for instance is not strictly our evildoing. Ignorance IS bliss. It may also be one of the things that comes closest to actual evil (other than it being an abstract concept).

If we are seriously concerned about dying kids in Africa we should maybe not think too much about the concept of evil and the religious tendency to interprete it literally. Doesn't seem the most helpful and constructive way.

 

I don't get it. I think of evil as really bad behavior, or a tendency toward that. Can I help but do really bad behavior? Of course I can and I do--usually. And if I couldn't, why would God punish me? As a special deterrent from doing it again, or a general deterrent to discourage somebody else from doing it, or an act to justice to make sure that I don't get away with my wrongdoing. Maybe a person of delicate conscience might want to tighten the concept of evil to include any human imperfection or frailty. In that case, of course no one could avoid doing evil, and probably futile even for God to punish it. But then we'd find it useful to make some distinctions between the venial and mortal sins. Otherwise, we get into the trap suggested by your hypothetical: If we're all sinners and one sin is as bad as another, we might as well give into sin and accept it. That's just stupid.

The notion of "our fall" is a metaphor, describing our inherent tendency toward bad behavior--i.e., the conflict between id and superego. The conflict is real--reflecting the clash between the survival needs of us as individuals and as members of society. "God's culpability" is an effort to pass the buck to God and obscure the metaphor. But the reality behind the metaphor is still a problem for us.

Here again, you use the "all or nothing" strategy to eliminate degrees of evil, and the fact that most of us can avoid the more socially destructive kinds most of the time, or society wouldn't work.

Although you describe yourself as a "Gnostic Christian", you also tend to use the word "Christian" for those you oppose, and seem to equate with Paulist fundamentalists. Very confusing. BTW "Gnostic Christian naturalist" is an oxymoron. Gnostics came in many varieties, but all of them had in common the notion that "nature" is inherently evil--a prison in which our true spiritual selves is entrapped. To be sure, you can use terms as you like, but it causes confusion to use them in ways that are opposite to their historic meaning.

Evil isn't just another name for competition. The central fallacy of your argument is that there are no meaningful degrees of behavior that produce adverse consequences. I agree that competition per se is natural and desirable, but there is fair competition and unfair competition. It's the latter kind I'd call "evil". What you've written could be taken as a rationalization for the latter kind.

Abracadabra. Gnosticism is transmuted to Social Darwinism by the power of Sophism.

 

You have me confused.

You say we should consider evil a real thing and in your last you say we should not think of evil literally.

You are both for and against seeing evil as literal is what I am reading.

Bring it to the individual. level to make more sense. How do you not do evil to the loser when you beat him when you compete?

Regards
DL

 

Perhaps if you try to see accumulated loses in competitions as little evils adding up to a big one, if the loser continues to lose, then you will see that he will die.

If you can, then we can proceed.

Can you help doing that little evil to those you beat when competing for resources or jobs?

Regards
DL

P. S. Fair or unfair, competitions do evil to the loser.

 

No, I said IF we consider it a real thing we can avoid doing evil. I don't consider evil a real thing and certainly not take it literally in daily life and practices myself. As Okie I do consider really bad behaviour and wrong actions real things but I judge them as I see them, not by some abstract concept on itself.

I don't hit people. For people who do, it depends on the exact situation if the action is evil (bad, wrong) or not. It's not evil to hit a loser by default.

 

So you kind of hit below the belt, humbly wishing the church could come and save you.

 

Not at all.

 

I did not mean beat as in physical assault but am not surprised at the misunderstanding. As I said, I don't think we will get anywhere. We are not on the same page and I do not think you can get there from your mind set.

Regards
DL

 

That's typical for you to assume But didn't I start this by asking questions how you mean those words exactly? When you do not elaborate I can only take it as I read it. But even in the non physical sense I am not that competitive. I rarely am busy with the concept of losers and beating them.
And I am just like you not communicating in my first language. So why conclude we won't get anywhere because of our different mindsets so fast? Almost seems you are eager to dismiss my words as quickly as you can Or do you want this convo only to go in one specific direction perhaps?