Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to Is it good or evil?
shawn
Yes, that is one point I have been trying to get across time and time again.
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 24, 2004 at 7:05 AM
| link to this | reply
amdg
NO. All acts are Neutral, because the acts themselves and not where the 'good' or 'evil' come from. The quality f the act are determined by those who are doing the acts, their motivation and their desired outcome are the main aspect that give the act its quality.
You have a man with guns shooting up a store with hundreds of innocents in it. You take one shot and kill him. That killing is not evil. Lives were saved. The taking of the life itself was not a good thing, such an act never really is, but a needed thing and therefore was not evil either. It was however a good thing to save those lives. At no point was the killing of shooter evil though. Every act was neutral, but the motivation behind the act is what give it its quality.
We can also look at this the other way. Doing something which is good for an negative reason. Lets say a man sees an elderly person needing help to carry her bags in to the house. He goes over and helps her get everything in the house. She of course will fix him a drink to thank him for being so kind. The man however is staking out the house with plans to rob it later, so he was more than happy o be invited in and have the chance to really get the lay of the land. The act itself looks good on the surface, but is very evil in its motives and the desired outcome. This man is NOT doing good by helping the lady out.
We wish to put tags of 'good' and 'evil' on all actions because it seems to make it easier for us. It is almost impossible to take a basic action and say that one is 'good' and that one is 'evil' because there will always be times when the motivation behind the actions do not fit with the preconceived ideas. Now you can say something like 'The majority of killings are acts of evil' and that could work, but you have to leave room for the times when the motivation behind the actions are positive and for the best.
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 24, 2004 at 7:04 AM
| link to this | reply
Kooka
I think we both agree that established doctrine can often create discord and that the best source for defining “right action” is the good conscious within.
posted by
telemachus
on April 24, 2004 at 5:19 AM
| link to this | reply
The good ends don't justify the evil means
All acts are neutral? What does that mean? Killing someone is a neutral act if it benefits me or maybe even a million people. Can't imagine any society would last more than a generation or two if everyone subcribed to that moral code. Could it be possible that there actually is such a thing as absolute right and wrong? Hmmm...
posted by
AnCatubh
on April 24, 2004 at 1:41 AM
| link to this | reply
oh and shawn
I never said there was a time when it is right to do evil. I said that there are actions that some may claim to be evil, but are not due to the motivation behind them. I said we need to break away form the idea that all stealing is evil or that all killing is evil, because there are times when the motivation and the outcome are for the good. There are not acts of evil, but acts of good. All actions are neutral. It is the motivation and the outcome which determine when they are good and when they are evil.
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 23, 2004 at 10:07 PM
| link to this | reply
shawn
As always you miss the point and seem to want this to say something it does not.
I am saying it should not be preset as to what is and what is not a sin. it should depend of the motive behind the actions and the outcome. According to the Bible it is a sin to steal, but you yourself just said there are times when it is not, if the motive is good.
Yet you are unable to apply that to me. My motive for not believe in God is not evil. I JUST CAN NOT BELIEVE. I have to stay true to myself and my beliefs. I can not just decided ot believe and truly believe. I WOULD BE LIVING A LIE TO SAY I BELIEVED IN GOD. And I have too much self respect for that. There is nothing selfish or evil in my beliefs. I still do and good and I spread the idea of good. I just do not believe in God. Yet that is one thing that you can only see as being evil.
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 23, 2004 at 9:44 PM
| link to this | reply
moonwind
I DO NOT BELIEVE IN PROPHESIES. It is easy to find proof of prophesies if you look for it. People have been doing it for centuries and yet the final part of it all has yet to come. The same prophesies ar getting proved time and time again, which makes very little sense.
Except for the part of believing in God, I do follow the basic principles of the Bible. I am a good person all around. I live a clean moral life. yet according ot some, mostly Christians, I am evil and will be going to hell all because I CAN NOT BELIEVE IN GOd. This has nothing to do with a desire to not believe, I JUST CANNOT BELIEVE IN GOD. MY motives are not evil in that. I am not worried about my eternal soul or anything like that. I JUST CAN NOT BELIEVE. It is a message I have been trying to get across here, but most do not want to listen to it. I find it hard to consider it a sin for me to be true to myself and not take the easy and safe path when it would imply not staying true to who I am.
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 23, 2004 at 9:38 PM
| link to this | reply
Headache Medicine
Is it possible to say straight out that something is good and something is evil? Why yes, it clearly is.
Consider Kooka’s example of stealing food to avoid starvation. That’s only stealing if the food is taken with an evil intent of trying to gain something unfairly. Certainly, it is not stealing to eat in an attempt to regain ones strength to the point of avoiding death. Why would one not eat in that circumstance with the good intention of repaying the provider tenfold when his strength is increased? The same applies for providing food to others who are near death. The evil in this circumstance would clearly be exhibited by the one with the provisions, who refused them to the dying. That is clearly an example of an evil sin.
So what about Kooka’s other example about killing? The best example for this situation is that of non-violence as practiced by Mahatma Gandhi in India.
To promote “right action” Gandhi and his follower moved directly toward their adversaries, knowing good and well they were about to be injured or killed. After injuring and killing numerous Indians the British just stopped. How could they continue to kill people who were not resisting? Through death, the greater good was promoted. But the evil that Kooka is looking for is not attributable to the good person expressing non-violence. It is attributable to the person creating the discord. Certainly we might contemplate killing someone like Hitler, but that does not mean it is a “right action”. A person might sacrifice their life by standing firm in their conviction of what is right, but not outright kill themselves.
And lastly, forget about rules and doctrine. Right action is innate to your very being. Through meditation and prayer you can easily discern the correct course. Contrary to what Kooka is preaching in this post, there will never be times when evil is justified. There will always be the inner conscious, telling you the correct way to go. The big factor is whether or not you are spiritually mature enough to willfully walk the path along which you are directed by the inner conscious. That will occur by continuous spiritual preparation.
posted by
telemachus
on April 23, 2004 at 6:50 PM
| link to this | reply
I understand where you are coming from Kooka, and its true, it can bring
harm if its used in a way to maintain control or someone is very unbalanced in their thinking. The bible however, even though it was written numerous years ago by many writers has prophesies that are fullfilled right down to our day. Even though the old testiment doesnt apply so much, it relates alot of examples that can be used to help us understand the severe impact that people in those days endured because of their lack in faith in God and if we read the new testiment and apply it into our lives today, we certainly benefit in many ways. If you follow bible principle or live your life in a way that God approves, not only do you benefit with a clear conscience of knowing you are living a righteous life, but you benefit from the promises made to us by God. What have you got to loose? How can one not choose to live a life that brings so much contentment and happiness? Only one that doesnt have accurate knowledge and a full understanding of the kind of God that God is and who doesnt realize his purpose and how we fall into that purpose. And that speaks nothing of the facts and science that has backed up many of the bible prophesies. Just something for you to concider. Its not just a book that was written by man, but it also a book of historian facts.
posted by
Moonwind
on April 23, 2004 at 6:38 PM
| link to this | reply
GheeGhee - Really? You've seen the tablets Moses supposedly brought down from the mountain? Were they in God's handwriting or Moses? Before the "original writings" you're referring to, it was passed down for ages via word of mouth - including many with an agenda.
posted by
Tamara99
on April 23, 2004 at 3:55 PM
| link to this | reply
Well
I do not know if respect is the right word there. At some level the Bible does have some basic teachings that are good. But so do most well know works of literature. Most to the time when some one writes a book there is some kind of lesson or idea that the writer is trying to get across, but that does not mean the whole of book should be followed as if it were fact. I see the Bible as an attempt done a long time ago to try and get mankind under control. At the time it was written there was a level of need for it. Over time the need for the teaching has vanished, and now those same teaching are more likely used to control when there is no need. So I have respect for the potential of the Bible and some of its impact on our world today, but it is a flawed source of knowledge and it does do more harm than good now days.
It is a very hard thing to explain to those who believe in the divine connection of the Bible and God because they can not see it as flawed, but over look the flaws or find their own logic to get around them. they have put so much faith into that one book that the idea that it might be wrong is unimaginable to them.
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 23, 2004 at 2:59 PM
| link to this | reply
It was a compliment, and Im glad you took it that way. I does however
interest me in how you come to some of the conclusions you do when it comes to bible understanding. I dont believe I have met too many people that view the bible so negitively. However, I must say, my husband has no confidence in the bible what so ever and I was born and raised believing the bible was inspired by God who created man and when man wrote it, it was for the purpose of coming to a better understanding of God and his purpose and how we fit into that purpose. When I read your posts, and please dont take this wrong, but I feel you have little respect for the bible. Is this true?
posted by
Moonwind
on April 23, 2004 at 11:18 AM
| link to this | reply
moonwind
I am guessing that was a compliment, so thank you.
And I don't know why I am not in the top ten, but I can live with that.
i don't do it just to get clicks, I do try to write my titles to get clicks, but the posts themselves are how I see thing. And I like to debate so I try to make sure the topics draw attention.
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 23, 2004 at 11:10 AM
| link to this | reply
Why arent you on the top ten? With your controvercial issues, it amazes me
that you havent made it there yet. I dont always agree with your posts and sometimes wonder where you get such a warped sense of understanding of Gods word, but I do believe you do it to get clicks and to invite people to get into controvercial wars with you. So, why arent you on the top ten?
posted by
Moonwind
on April 23, 2004 at 11:02 AM
| link to this | reply
BrWiSk
Well said
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 23, 2004 at 10:55 AM
| link to this | reply
Eric-Charles
Wow, there is a good chance we have run into each then.
But Robin Hood would be one where is he evil for stealing? Or good for helping those in need? At what level is it okay to break the rules? The Bible says only when God tells you too, in which case for us never. Which I have always felt was part of the materialistic ideas of the Bible. You read through and normally God backs up those who are wealthy, but helps the poor out a little. But it would be horrible for a starving child to steal bread from a rich follower of God, who had more than enough to survive on.
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 23, 2004 at 10:54 AM
| link to this | reply
shawn
WHy do you keep coming back to give me a headache? You never get the message I am trying to get across.
I guess you would put the actions of a starving child as evil if he broke a commandment to keep him and his family alive then. To you it is the act itself that matters and not the reasoning behind it or the outcome.
The only way for you to see people doing good is to follow the Bible 100%, or they are evil. I do not justify evil, I just do not see thing as black and white as you do. most things fall into a very gray area.
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 23, 2004 at 10:49 AM
| link to this | reply
Those with the most money
...and who enjoy official legitimacy get to define things. Who is stealing? Those who make it so difficult for someone merely to live, or those who find it so difficult merely to live who then "steal" something they need in a desperate attempt to survive?
I think the answer is clear. It is the rich person who has committed the sin.
posted by
BrWiSk
on April 23, 2004 at 7:59 AM
| link to this | reply
Gheeghee
try this:
No person should be put to death.
no "thou shalt not" in the original
posted by
Xeno-x
on April 23, 2004 at 6:58 AM
| link to this | reply
Actually, tamara, you're wrong. The original Hebrew translates to: "You shall not kill."
posted by
Gheeghee
on April 23, 2004 at 5:24 AM
| link to this | reply
Kooka
We have a couple of things in common. First I live in Colorado too -- in Denver.
More important, it's interesting that made an example of stealing; because I used to argue with my father abiut that ery subject all the time. One of running debates, never settled, was whether Robin Hood was a hero or just another thief.
posted by
Eric-Charles
on April 23, 2004 at 1:13 AM
| link to this | reply
Kooka
You cannot find the time to contemplate the good, because you are too busy trying to justify the bad. That, my friend, is clearly negativism.
posted by
telemachus
on April 22, 2004 at 7:58 PM
| link to this | reply
budmannomore
Thank you
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 22, 2004 at 6:00 PM
| link to this | reply
tamara
It would not surprise me learn such things had happened over time. An earlier translation of the commandments did translate to say 'Thou should not' as if they were just recommendations instead of rules. ANd I agree it would end up being better is God (And shawn, this does not mean I believe in God, this is just figure of speech) had had enough sense to make them come off more positive and less controlling, btu that is not the way of religion. Control is a hugh factor in religion and giving rules give more control over just telling people to be nice.
Also, I was just using the commandments as an example. The point is at which level do we follow the rule? When does not following the rules count as evil? And when is it not? To sit back and just say 'killing is evil' does not work on all levels. Or 'To steal is evil'. There are times when a person must do wrong in order to do right and I would not call that evil. Part of religion is to try to preset the ideas of 'good' and 'evil' or 'right' and 'wrong' ahead of time, but make no exceptions for it. When it all comes down to it, most people should be able to see that there are times when you need to break the rules for the greater good and not think of your actions as 'evil' or 'wrong'. It is not a 'sin' to do something bad for the greater good.
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 22, 2004 at 5:59 PM
| link to this | reply
I do not believe the ten commandments are in their original form. God is positive, not negative, and only the ones that are positively phrased are more likely to be followed. The human brain weeds out unnecessary words and focuses on the concept.
Example:
Thou shalt not kill. The brain translates: Kill!
This is why affirmations focus on positive events (abundance) rather than negative ones (eliminating poverty), because the negative phrasing just brings MORE of what you were trying to eliminate. Because of this, I believe the phrasing was edited by mankind and it has lost something in the translation.
I believe the original phrasing was "Respect life", but this confused people about how someone could respect a life and still take a life.
posted by
Tamara99
on April 22, 2004 at 5:43 PM
| link to this | reply
I appreciate this blog for one reason.
I just realized it today. It is helping me to understand how others who believe as you do think. You do get your points across well and there is truth in some of what you say.
posted by
Budmannomore
on April 22, 2004 at 5:24 PM
| link to this | reply
The Ten Precepts
I
I, the source of all Existence; I, all Existence; I am your God. I am the one who has broken you out of Egypt, the Land of Limitations, and have taken you away, apart from the Family of Servants.
I am not placed below other gods.
II
No image of anything on the ground, in the air or in the sea can be fashioned for the purpose of worship; for finite cannot contain infinite.
I, who am all Existence, your God, am deeply possessive of you. I watch over the wrong-doings and inequities of those that hate me even to the children of the third and fourth generations. I am patient with the thousands who love me and regard my precepts with respect.
III
The nature and character of The One Who Is Existence, who is your God, cannot be arrived at easily. Be careful, therefore, if you would declare that the god that you perceive to be God is The All-Existent One. The One Who Is Existence cannot consider cleaned of carnal perceptions one who does not recognize the full nature of God.
IV
Mark that which is a period of rest. Hold it as a special time to be considered more important and dear than any other. You labor for six days. Let the seventh equate to the Rest of The All-Existent, your God. This time's purpose is not to concentrate on your accomplishments; rather, it is for contemplation of where you really are in the nature of things. Neither should you let your household nor anyone having dealings with you do so.
Since, for six seasons, All Existence was devoted to the accomplishment and maintenanance of what can perceived; then, during the seventh, there was an abstention from this; by that token, The All-Existent considers such a Rest a good thing and a source of cleansing.
V
Hold your parents in high regard, and remember your ancestry, so that you can prolong the time you stay in the land to which The All-Existent allows you to come.
VI
No person should be put to death.
VII
When you have agreed to enter into a relationship, whether with God or another person, whether in business or in intimate relationships, and have promised or contracted certain elements of that relationship, do not violate the promise, contract or other facets of the relationship. Keep your word. Do not scorn your partner and take up another relationship in violation of your contract or promise.
VIII
Taking another's possessions without that person's permission is not to be done.
IX
You should not tell lies about your friends or others with whom you associate that would do damage to them in some way
X
Be careful in your consideration of your friend or associate's property -- the house or wife or husband or any possession of that person. Do not want to get it so badly that, in getting it, you would harm that person.
posted by
Xeno-x
on April 22, 2004 at 4:00 PM
| link to this | reply