"You know why God can't get rid of evil, in the eyes of the church? Because then there's no reason to come to church. Its the same reason why Batman can't defeat the Joker or Superman can't defeat Lex Luthor, because then you have no bad guy, then you have no story, then you have no passing the plate..........Maybe it's the same reason they can't get Osama Bin Laden, because then the whole military complex would be out of business"---Bill Maher & Naomi Klein on Real Time with Bill Maher

What is evil anyway? Without evil, there can be no good. So it must be good to be evil sometimes!

Evil is disobedience to God.

In the beginning, after God created the heavens and the Earth, he said it was "good". This was before evil entered the world. Therefore, it is possible for good to exist without evil. Maybe we wouldn't realize just how good the good is without evil to compare it to, but the good would still exist. If everyone in the world obeyed God, there would only be good, and no evil.

The first sin in Genesis 3 was the first instance of an evil act being committed. God had given Adam and Eve only one rule, and they broke it. Disobedience to God is evil.

I don't agree with the reasoning that no one would have any reason to "come to church" if there's no evil. Whether or not you "come to church" really doesn't matter nearly as much as whether or not you obey God. Going to church is a good thing that I highly recommend, but it won't save anyone. God desires our faith and our obedience (which should naturally stem from our faith), not our church attendance or our participation in any sort of religious rituals (1 Samuel 15:22).

If there was no evil, then that means that everyone would be obeying God, which means that good would exist, everywhere. Whether or not we would need the church is irrelevant. We would BE the church.

The first evil was the rebellion of the angels following Lucifer. Adam and Eve were the second to fall into evil.

This post has been edited by God-Sent: Nov 3 2009, 05:21 PM

St. Augustine defined evil (or anything caused by sin) as a result of man's will being bent away from God and turned in toward themselves, leading to pride and arrogance, giving man the idea that he can live life without the help of God, and leading him to live an ego-centric life, with little or no regard to God's laws.

As long as the will of mankind is turned away from God, there is going to be evil in the world, not because of some conspiracy to keep people in the Church. The role of the Church is to be a body of believers that is there to show the world what following God looks like, and in at least some small way turn that will back to God through faith and obedience through the power that is given to us in the Holy Spirit.

And this is not a binding obedience, it is the chance to live life the way that God intended it to be, and the way that we would ultimately choose for ourselves if we had the ability to know all of the circumstances that brought us to each and every point in our lives. It gives us the ability to depend on something outside of ourselves for guidance, and to trust in Him to meet our every need.

In order to do that though, we need to realize that we do have this will that is bent away from God and that because of that, we are all sinners in need of a saviour, and that unless we repent and put our faith in Christ to save us through the power of His sacrifice on the cross for the salvation of the world, we are condemned to being eternally separated from God and His presence.

If we were perfect then there probably wouldn't be a church...but since we aren't perfect we need one.





That is untrue. Evil only exists because good existed in the first place; actions of beings created evil.

Anything which isn't done in love and faith is sin.

Moved this topic to Christian debates. PM me sinnerman if you think that was a mistake.

As to the topic at hand, I believe evil to be the absence of good, just like cold in the absence of heat or darkness is the absence of light. Evil is just the label we apply to things that are not good. Good does not exist because evil does, evil exists because we have free will and are able to do things that are not Good.

As for questioning the purpose of Church without evil, that's just silly. The purpose of Church is not to reveal how evil anything it. The purpose of Church has nothing to do with evil at all. It is the greatest good. It is the place to come together and praise God. The whole purpose of Church is to praise God. This acitivity is done in heaven, a place where evil does not exist because everything there is good and people only do good there. Church has nothing to do with evil and everything to do with good. If there was no evil, we would still have a God and we would still have Church. Now, basic foundations of our faith would change, but God and Church would still remain.

This brings a good point; If only good did exist and nothing bad ever happened, good intrinsically would not exist. If life was perfect there'd be no perspective to compare qualities such as good or bad to each other, nullifying both essentially. Every negative charge needs a positive charge. Neutrality even on a molecular atomic or sub atomic basis is static but negativity and positivity are always unstable if there is not the opposite charge to balance things out.

Evil is not its own entity. Evil is the lack of good, the absence of it. Do you need to lack the universe to know the universe exists or to what extent it exists?

I dissagree with this. I will agree that say that without sadness, joy would not exist because these are feelings, and need comparision and change in order for us to experence them. Good would still exist without evil though because good is not a perception, nor is it a feeling. It is an absolute. Not everything has to exist in a comparision state, just as Isaiah has said about the universe. You don't need non-universe to understand that universe exists. Just as you don't need evil to know that good exists. Absolutes don't need comparisions in order for us to know that they exist, but things that sway, perceptions and feelings, things that change, they need an opposite in order for us to know they exist.

Evil is the privation of God.

Hence, good necessarily exists; evil possibly exists, but not necessarily.

It's an important distinction.

Good argument. I shall have to think about that one.

I might contribute to this discussion in a more meaningful way later.

How about this as a distinction between good and evil, to show that evil is always a perversion of good, rather than good a perversion of evil?

A person can be unlimitedly good. All virtues complement each other and strengthen each other to form one coherent will. To be fortuitous does not mean I must be less temperate, to be prudent does not mean I must be less just.

On the other hand, vices detract from each other. A person can only be evil to an extent. To be lustful I cannot be slothful; to have pride I cannot have envy; to have greed I cannot have lust. The vices cancel each other's ability to actually get something done. If I remain slothful, it is impossible for me to be greedy. If I become lustful, I can no longer remain gluttonous.

Formula: Positive and positive will always increase; privation and privation will always nullify.

Question: Did you think up this yourself?

In a sense. I had given great thought about how, if you lack one virtue, the other virtues suffer, while if you have one virtue, the other virtues are helped to be gained or fortified. It was some philosopher who flipped this around and pointed out that vices, on the other hand, do not have this symmetry.

I have great admiration for you.
Sometimes I think it would be cool if you were at the same University as me and we could meet up once in a while and discuss stuff.

EDIT: I'm aware that that's weird.

You have never met a fat horny [person]?

"Strong feelings are not decisive for the morality or the holiness of persons; they are simply the inexhaustible reservoir of images and affections in which the moral life is expressed. Passions are morally good when they contribute to a good action, evil in the opposite case.

The upright will orders the movements of the senses it appropriates to the good and to beatitude;
an evil will succumbs to disordered passions and exacerbates them.
Emotions and feelings can be taken up into the virtues or perverted by the vices.-- Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1768

lol. No, it's alright.



Are they still being gluttonous when being lustful?

My point is that you must abandon doing one vice to do another.

This post has been edited by Yoda: Nov 7 2009, 08:34 AM

" Good would still exist without evil though because good is not a perception, nor is it a feeling. It is an absolute."

while this may seem fo be true, it is apriori maxim, an idea believed to be true without objective proof.

You can eat while having sex.

That is quite unlikely. However, I suppose my illustration wasn't perfect.

You can't act on all vices at once. At least one will cancel out another. It would seem sloth is the most likely to be nullified; but other vices could be canceled out by other vices. Virtues do not have this ability.

Well, we're in the Christian debate forum, so I'm assuming that you believe there is a God, and that this God is the source of all good, and because He is the source and measure of this good, it is an absolute because He is an absolute. Just like morality from a Christian standpoint is an absolute, so is what is good and what is lacking good (aka evil).

Whoa, is that a challenge?!

I would be more than glad to take up your challenge, especially if there's a reward of $10,000,000,000 dollars (I am a greedy person, I know) for accomplishing the challenge. I would have a harem feed me and sex me non-stop to take care of the gluttony and the lust part. As for sloth, I will be lying down the whole time this happens which is easily accomplished since they are sexing me, instead of me sexing them. Meanwhile, I would be envious that not every woman in the world is partaking in the glorious act of feeding me and sexing me. All the while I would be proud that I could accomplish all this and get paid handsomely for it.

Oops, did I forget wrath?

Since it's unlikely that you'll be able to pay me that much, no doubt I'll be angry afterward.

This post has been edited by Sinnerman: Nov 6 2009, 08:52 AM

You can't be diligent towards sloth, so you're already disqualified, sorry. That, and you obviously aren't despairing or hating.

Also, envy isn't how you used; maybe angry would be what you want. You could be proud that no one would be getting exactly what you were getting, but this would mean you couldn't be envious; envy can only exist where you lack pride, and pride the lack of envy. Sorry.

You realize that many of the vices we recognize are coextensive? Some might classify gluttony, lust, and greed as the effects of a same root vice, rather than being their own irreducible vices.

This post has been edited by AquinasD: Nov 6 2009, 06:51 PM