Is Jesus Good? Is Satan Evil?

[Simon_Peter]

Here are some facts:

We as humans are imperfect
We have limited perception
We have limited knowledge

What I don’t know is this:

Is Satan, Evil?
Is Jesus, Good?

I need to understand the meaning of ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’. So when I talk about Good and Evil, I understand what it is. Until I know these two things, I will not know if Jesus is Good, or if Satan is bad.

[Sjoerd]

Ok I'm pretty sure I understand what you all are saying. And I agree to some extent. Nobody should force their own morals on someone else. So the real issue here then, to keep up the debate, is why it is bad in your opinion that God has set up moral standards that he wants to be kept. I define good as what God says good is, and the same with evil.

From here the debate seems to focus on the exceptional position of God regarding the enforcement of morals on someone else. IMHO, this is moot.
Everyone should force their own morals on someone else. I, too, believe that murder is bad (with the exceptions provided by Confused), but not only murder committed by myself, also murder committed by others. I will condemn and try to stop murder if I can. While I realize that my morals are arbitrary and to some extent different from someone else's, I will nevertheless do my best to enforce them on others. Religious/moral tolerance is one of my morals, and that one I will try to enforce, too.

[Beto]

Everyone should force their own morals on someone else. I, too, believe that murder is bad (with the exceptions provided by Confused), but not only murder committed by myself, also murder committed by others. I will condemn and try to stop murder if I can. While I realize that my morals are arbitrary and to some extent different from someone else's, I will nevertheless do my best to enforce them on others. Religious/moral tolerance is one of my morals, and that one I will try to enforce, too.

Are you familiar with "Islamic fundamentalist morals"? Without being hypocritical you can't very well oppose their forcing their morals on you, now can you? Don't you have a double standard in your approach to your "religious/moral tolerance"?

[Sjoerd]

Everyone should force their own morals on someone else. I, too, believe that murder is bad (with the exceptions provided by Confused), but not only murder committed by myself, also murder committed by others. I will condemn and try to stop murder if I can. While I realize that my morals are arbitrary and to some extent different from someone else's, I will nevertheless do my best to enforce them on others. Religious/moral tolerance is one of my morals, and that one I will try to enforce, too.

Are you familiar with "Islamic fundamentalist morals"? Without being hypocritical you can't very well oppose their forcing their morals on you, now can you? Don't you have a double standard in your approach to your "religious/moral tolerance"?

Ahh, the good old "tolerant but intolerant of intolerance" paradox...
I am not opposing their forcing of morals in general, but I am opposing the particular morals themselves, so I can oppose their actions without being hypocritical.
If it were less serious, you could compare it with a sports game: you don't object that the other team is trying to beat you, in fact you expect them to, but you are opposing them and trying to beat them nonetheless.

[JoeyKnothead]

Everyone should force their own morals on someone else. I, too, believe that murder is bad (with the exceptions provided by Confused), but not only murder committed by myself, also murder committed by others. I will condemn and try to stop murder if I can. While I realize that my morals are arbitrary and to some extent different from someone else's, I will nevertheless do my best to enforce them on others. Religious/moral tolerance is one of my morals, and that one I will try to enforce, too.

Are you familiar with "Islamic fundamentalist morals"? Without being hypocritical you can't very well oppose their forcing their morals on you, now can you? Don't you have a double standard in your approach to your "religious/moral tolerance"?

Ahh, the good old "tolerant but intolerant of intolerance" paradox...
I am not opposing their forcing of morals in general, but I am opposing the particular morals themselves, so I can oppose their actions without being hypocritical.
If it were less serious, you could compare it with a sports game: you don't object that the other team is trying to beat you, in fact you expect them to, but you are opposing them and trying to beat them nonetheless.

Are you advocating the physical enforcement of morals on another? It would hardly seem a noble endeavor to use threat, coercion, or other nefarious means to make others accept particular moral standards. Wouldn't it be much better to allow one to live their lives with the morals they choose, and not nose into their business? Who is so morally outstanding that they would deserve to force others to accept their moral system? Some folks consider me morally repugnant because I choose to drink alcohol. Should I then be held to the moral standard of someone else? I would never accept someone trying to get me to conform to their version of what they think is moral. Of course our morals may intersect, but to try to force me to accept anything as subjective as morals is a bit much.

One man's morals is another's night with the hot twins.

[Sjoerd]

Are you advocating the physical enforcement of morals on another? It would hardly seem a noble endeavor to use threat, coercion, or other nefarious means to make others accept particular moral standards. Wouldn't it be much better to allow one to live their lives with the morals they choose, and not nose into their business? Who is so morally outstanding that they would deserve to force others to accept their moral system? Some folks consider me morally repugnant because I choose to drink alcohol. Should I then be held to the moral standard of someone else? I would never accept someone trying to get me to conform to their version of what they think is moral. Of course our morals may intersect, but to try to force me to accept anything as subjective as morals is a bit much.

One man's morals is another's night with the hot twins.

I have no problem with coercion or physical enforcement against those who preach violence, who sell drugs or abuse others in another way. I have no problem with you drinking a few beers a day, but if you would drink forty a day, I would do anything to change that, including coercion if I thought it would help. If you don't care for other people, yeah why not let them rot and drink themselves to death if they like, or abuse other people if they like. But if you care for people you got to fight for them sometimes. If this is a subjective thing, I don't care.

[JoeyKnothead]

I have no problem with coercion or physical enforcement against those who preach violence, who sell drugs or abuse others in another way. I have no problem with you drinking a few beers a day, but if you would drink forty a day, I would do anything to change that, including coercion if I thought it would help. If you don't care for other people, yeah why not let them rot and drink themselves to death if they like, or abuse other people if they like. But if you care for people you got to fight for them sometimes. If this is a subjective thing, I don't care.

I find it hard to debate this with you, because I find you otherwise reasonable. I do see a bit of a conundrum though.

Firstly, I would like to take off the table any action that causes harm to others. That's clearly a different issue. Agreed?

You set forth some good examples, but let's expound. The law in my area is that you can't sell alcohol on Sunday. Now this is clearly an issue where something is legal some days, and illegal others. It is couched in terms such as, "People need a day off from drinking...It teaches time management (that last gem by the Governor!)...etc." While this is clearly a religious/moral edict, religious folks seem to be either embarrassed by it, or they don't want to be seen as oppressors. Clearly it is a moralistic law designed to keep folks from drinking on the sabbath.
By force of law, if someone is found selling alcohol on Sunday, they can and have been arrested. Should the moral ideals of one bunch of folks outweigh the moral ideals of another? I say not, because morals are relative, and subject to personal whim. How could it possibly be fair for a group of people to oppress others in the name of moral law?

[Sjoerd]

I have no problem with coercion or physical enforcement against those who preach violence, who sell drugs or abuse others in another way. I have no problem with you drinking a few beers a day, but if you would drink forty a day, I would do anything to change that, including coercion if I thought it would help. If you don't care for other people, yeah why not let them rot and drink themselves to death if they like, or abuse other people if they like. But if you care for people you got to fight for them sometimes. If this is a subjective thing, I don't care.

I find it hard to debate this with you, because I find you otherwise reasonable. I do see a bit of a conundrum though.

Firstly, I would like to take off the table any action that causes harm to others. That's clearly a different issue. Agreed?

You set forth some good examples, but let's expound. The law in my area is that you can't sell alcohol on Sunday.

Yeah, it's really hard to debate on this. I am completely with you on that ridiculous no drinking on Sunday bill. It's good to regulate shop opening times a bit, small shopkeepers would have to work 24/7 otherwise, but then you should close all shops, not just the booze store. Doing it for moralistic reasons is just ridiculous.

So, we agree that morals can be forced upon people if it is to stop them from doing harm to others. We also agree that they can't be forced if it's harmless but some moralists just disapprove of it.
But there's a gray area between these: when people have a picnic in the park on Sunday afternoon with their kids, they will become very upset by someone walking naked and pissing into the duck's pond. They will claim that this harms their quality of life. They may claim the same if it's just loud music, while others will say that everyone has the right to play music in the park. Who is right?

Then there is the question: how much morals can be forced upon people to stop them from harming themselves? If people sniff cocaine they are destroying only their own brains, but cocaine is outlawed, and for a good reason too. Is this moralistic? In my country, if there is someone next to you trying to commit suicide, you have to stop him, you can't just let him jump and do nothing. Is this moralistic, too, or just a law to show that society cares for you? There is a big gray area between the extremes of outlawing Harry Potter books to protect children and outlawing hard drugs to protect children.

In any case, my original point was that you can't blame God for forcing morals upon us, nor can you claim that God is the only one who has the right to do so, because we are forcing morals upon others all the time. I think that the point has been made now.

[Beto]

In any case, my original point was that you can't blame God for forcing morals upon us, nor can you claim that God is the only one who has the right to do so, because we are forcing morals upon others all the time. I think that the point has been made now.

Not quite.

I dispute that we "force" morals on other people all the time. Personally, I aim to protect my physical integrity from someone else's "morals". That isn't the same thing. Communities establishing a common ground on what constitutes "good" or "evil", to safeguard the integrity of every individual, is NOT the same as one entity whimsically deciding that for everyone else.

Also, "God" doesn't just "force" morals. "God" creates morals by his will, by what he deems is "good" or "evil". If "God" doesn't exist, "moral" is defined differently. To a non-theist, "morality" is a product of evolution, and some morals are more "fit" than others.

[Sjoerd]

In any case, my original point was that you can't blame God for forcing morals upon us, nor can you claim that God is the only one who has the right to do so, because we are forcing morals upon others all the time. I think that the point has been made now.

Not quite.

I dispute that we "force" morals on other people all the time. Personally, I aim to protect my physical integrity from someone else's "morals". That isn't the same thing. Communities establishing a common ground on what constitutes "good" or "evil", to safeguard the integrity of every individual, is NOT the same as one entity whimsically deciding that for everyone else.

It seems that we have some ground to debate then
You can't claim that whenever you influence others with your morals that this is under the aegis of society's morals. You would try to prevent a suicide bomber from killing people no matter what the laws of your country are. You would try to stop your friend from drinking 40 beers a day even while this is not illegal. You may even go straightly against the laws of your country in acting upon your own morality, including influencing others, for example participating in a demonstration forbidden by the police. People follow their internal moral compass, for themselves and also for dealing with others.

Also, "God" doesn't just "force" morals. "God" creates morals by his will, by what he deems is "good" or "evil". If "God" doesn't exist, "moral" is defined differently. To a non-theist, "morality" is a product of evolution, and some morals are more "fit" than others.

In my case, I have been atheist and I am now religious, but I have always believed that morals are subjective and personal and rather arbitrary, and not from divine or evolutionary origin. Religion, culture and evolution are good reasons why morals are similar between humans, but morals can't be explained away by this.

[Beto]

You can't claim that whenever you influence others with your morals that this is under the aegis of society's morals. You would try to prevent a suicide bomber from killing people no matter what the laws of your country are. You would try to stop your friend from drinking 40 beers a day even while this is not illegal. You may even go straightly against the laws of your country in acting upon your own morality, including influencing others, for example participating in a demonstration forbidden by the police. People follow their internal moral compass, for themselves and also for dealing with others.

Are these concerns, really "moral" concerns? Elephants protect their young. Some animals protect other members of the community from perceivable threats. They don't have suicide bombers or alcoholism yet. Why is this behavior on animals, other than humans, not categorized as an "internal moral compass"?

In my case, I have been atheist and I am now religious, but I have always believed that morals are subjective and personal and rather arbitrary, and not from divine or evolutionary origin. Religion, culture and evolution are good reasons why morals are similar between humans, but morals can't be explained away by this.

Bundling evolution with religion and culture like that doesn't make much sense to me, since there's every indication both religion and culture are a product of evolution. Yours could be an argumentum ad ignorantiam unless you're knowledgeable of applied evolutionary theory on the issue of "morality". I know there's theories to go around, but I'm not versed on them myself.