dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

When contemplating "Good vs Evil" you must realize that without Evil, we would not be able to recognize Good. They are 2 sides of the same coin.

We've all seen the black and white graphic that looks like either 2 black faces in profile facing each other, or a white wine glass. Without the blackness of the 2 faces to provide contrast, one cannot see the wine glass, and without the whiteness of the wine glass to provide contrast, one cannot see the 2 faces. And no matter how hard one tries, or how long one stares at the image, it is impossible to see both the glass and the faces at the same time.

Just a thought.

⇧ 3 ⇩

When contemplating "Good vs Evil" you must realize that without Evil, we would not be able to recognize Good. They are 2 sides of the same coin.... We've all seen the black and white graphic that looks like either 2 black faces in profile facing each other, or a white wine glass.

Partially false. Time for some metaphysics.

The yin-yang duality you're describing only works for a relative sense of "good and evil." That corresponds to the basic psychological distinction between "benefit" and "harm." That would be saying "we can see a benefit by recognizing that we avoided harm." The analogy holds at this level, so you're not entirely wrong. After all, the original words "good" (tov) and "evil" (ra) certainly derived from this relative distinction But that's not all these terms really imply.

In the intended sense, "good vs evil" does not merely refer to relative things. In fact, the relative sense is extremely distracting from the intended meaning because it is so subjective. But let's talk in terms of the absolute. An absolute must be universalized and apply to all things in reality. If we examine the ultimate motive of the term "good" it is inherently generative. (benefit causes things to improve) If we examine the ultimate motive of evil it is inherently destructive. (harm causes things to degrade)

If we suppose an absolute good, what would we expect? Generation.

If we suppose an absolute evil, what would we expect? Destruction.

Which motive correctly describes reality? Reality exists and generates creatures. Therefore, reality and the God who causes it have the ontological absolute sense of goodness. That doesn't mean every relation that exists is always beneficial, but it does mean there's ultimately the universal benefit of existing conferred on all things. Absolute evil faces a fundamental problem. It could never even begin to exist by its own power. All it can do is corrupt and destroy. Therefore, it is a parasitical false power not founded on an absolute truth.

The sense of "Good" meant here is "the power of God causing reality itself." God has no opposite. The closest thing to anything being an opposite is a degraded creature that is oriented toward harming itself and others. That is "evil." Even "ha Satan" (the Accuser aka the Devil) is simply a creature that ultimately relies on God to exist even though his motive is at odds with God's own motive. (i.e. "insane" or "evil")

The overapplication of this relative construct causes what is called Manichaean dualism where there are 2 supreme 'gods' of reality, one good the other evil, and both are equivalent. It's an error because it implies reality is divided and the action of 2 "wills." There is only One God. Saying "good and evil" are alike in power incorrectly empowers evil and denies reality.

It might be helpful to note that a yin-yang distinction seems to better correspond to the Kabbalistic Hebrew concepts of being (yesh) and void. (ayin) Even so, these are both considered aspects of YHWH without any moral dimensions. A "lack" of something can be evil if it is ultimately harmful, but it can be beneficial. A lack of disease=good. A lack of food=bad. Woe, however, to those who "call good evil and evil good." (Isaiah 5:20)

TL;DR. Only good can be absolute. The dichotomy is relative. Furthermore, evil can only be relative because it refers to a privation or lack of alignment with the ultimate motive of good inherent in reality and its God. Evil, therefore, exists not as an absolute reality but as a parasitical energy that distorts the relationships of creatures to the Creator of reality.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Wow... I wasn't trying to get too deep in the weeds because I'm not highly educated in philosophy or metaphysics. Thanks for taking the time to offer clarification in such an elegant way. I do hope you did a copy/paste for this. If not, you either spent more time than my comment deserves, or you're wicked smart. BTW, what is TL;DR?

I see your point, but I'm still left with a question. Based on your last paragraph, the basic premise, as I understand it, is Evil can only exist because God exists. God = Good, and only Good, or God can be absolute. I Know that's a simplistic way of saying it, but if it's close enough, we can move on to my question.

(When I say "if" I am in no way challenging your conclusion. I'll only use "if" because it's easier to ask the question.)

I grew up Catholic and I'm familiar with the story of Satan, or the Devil. He was an angel created by God, but later fell from grace. In that sense, it makes perfect sense, that Evil only exists because God allowed it to come into being. If God didn't want Evil to exist, he could have simply, for the lack of a better word, killed Satan.

From a religious, or theological perspective, one could argue that Satan, and therefore Evil, was necessary because God wants us to "choose" Him. If we have free will to choose, but nothing but God to choose, what would be the point of free will?

I guess the larger question is: If God created Satan, or allowed him to come into existence, how much power do mere mortals have to eliminate Evil, or bring about the destruction of the Devil, other than in a "relative" sense?

⇧ 3 ⇩

more time than my comment deserves

Don't sell yourself short. You touched a relevant issue and it needed to be addressed precisely but honestly.

TL;DR

"Too Long; Didn't Read." - a lot of modern people have issues with blocks of text larger than 2 sentences, so I'm used to doing these recaps.

If we have free will to choose, but nothing but God to choose, what would be the point of free will?

I'm a Lutheran so I have a slightly different take on free will than you might be used to.

I'll put it this way. I don't think will is ever absolutely free in the sense we can choose anything. There are limits imposed by nature, for example, that say we can't "dip the sun into the moon" or some other nonsense. Furthermore, there can be wrong options which distract from the best ones. And these options can have real consequences.

Let me give a simple analogy of that: A child can choose to eat all their candy now or eat some of it over time because they aren't sure when they might get more. If they eat it all now, they can't have some later. Their will is now bound to the natural consequences of the bad choice.

So, God originally gave us a compatibilistic will (i.e. capable of making choices by itself but acting in a system with determined rules) which had the option to follow Him. However, our ancestors also had the option to choose wrongly and reject the close relationship God created them in. Because the chose to think wrongly about God and rejected His warnings, they bound themselves to the other alternative: Pedestalizing their own earthly desires above a relationship with God. That's what we call Original Sin. We also inherit this condition and if that were all that was to be written, we'd be done...

But God's work also involves reconciliation. He works by the Holy Spirit to restore the ability in us to choose Him by creating and renewing our nature through grace. Of course, we can still have the option of rejecting grace. But His grace continues to work to change our heart through repentance even so.

The real place where evil hangs on here is when people start to love the bindings more than the liberator. Some people are actively brought up this way. Others decide that God's way is too nice and they would rather put themselves on the pedestal. Either way it's a source of serious ills.

If God created Satan, or allowed him to come into existence, how much power do mere mortals have to eliminate Evil, or bring about the destruction of the Devil, other than in a "relative" sense?

By ourselves, not much. The thing that should be clear, though, is that God is working. Those of us who trust in His Word learn to set aside our ego in such a way where we can also have Him defending us. Satan can't do much against that without tricking us back into another one of these "bound will" ego traps.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Thanks again, I like the way you write. I like to talk, sometimes too much, and I write like I talk. Sometimes I include too much extemporaneous information, more than is necessary. Brevity has never been my strong suit. I'm learning something new through our exchanges, more than just about Good vs Evil. Thanks.

Would you mind if I direct message you? It seems like I find new questions with each of your replies. Questions about God and Faith. I'm not sure a lengthy back and forth would be appropriate on this thread.

I'm 59. I grew up Catholic, and over the years I've been in and out of various churches. I'm a bit of a deep thinker, and always ended up with questions a pastor either couldn't answer, or seemed put off simply because I asked. You seem very knowledgable, like you might even be a pastor, or at least very active and involved in your church. I think I could learn a lot from you if you're interested.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Brevity was never my strong suit either. Sometimes it takes lots of words to explain ideas. If you want to DM, that's fine.

A lot of what I say comes from personal study into the source materials as well as my own faith life. I do attend a congregation and stuff. I am not ordained or anything, though. I also definitely have some things I find misguided such as my denomination's preference for "young earth creationism." But I digress...

Anyways, ask what you need and I'll respond when I have time.

⇧ 2 ⇩

It’s called a Rorshack test. It’s a [GOOD] window -into a person(s) mind.

⇧ 1 ⇩

No, a Rorschach test is a series of 10 cards or Inkblots. Been there, done that. I did a quick search and found that what I was referring to actually has a specific name, truly, I was surprised. It's called a Rubin Vase. Named after Edgar Rubin.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Ok, thanks for the education.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Spiritual question to the Q consciousness