If god is everything, doesn't that make him evil as well as good?

[G L Wilson]

St Augustine struggled over this. He came to the conclusion that there is only good and what perceive as bad is really good corrupted; and it is sin that acts as the corrupting agent.

I think personally that we are pained by evil not because evil is so powerful, but because because good is so powerful that seeing it corrupted damages us tremendously, even if only on sub conscious level.

I have no belief in sin, only a belief in wrongdoing.

Well, you can always justify that by another of the limitations of language, which is the negative language paradox in which by saying no, you're seem to make things bigger instead of shrinking them. The definition is actually a form of exclusion, so talking about God more or less limits what God is, instead of actually helping their case, any people talking about God -again, assuming Its a real concept-, would be minimizing the divinity.

Arguing God holds its water when you discuss against God, if you're actually trying to defend divinity you're better off not using explicit language.

I see what you are saying, Arrowni, but how does one minimalise God in the eyes of a believer? As far as I'm concerned, it can't be done.

[ZTay]

Don't get hung up on nomenclature Mr Wilson. Wrong doing has a degenerative effect. Take your finest china and use it as a hammer, or your hammer as a spoon. Suddenly they are ruined, all because of wrong doing. And when that wrong doing is upon the soul or body, it is called sin.

[mazHur]

Don't get hung up on nomenclature Mr Wilson. Wrong doing has a degenerative effect. Take your finest china and use it as a hammer, or your hammer as a spoon. Suddenly they are ruined, all because of wrong doing. And when that wrong doing is upon the soul or body, it is called sin.

so true!!

[G L Wilson]

so true!!

I may wish to use a person as a means to my own ends, would that be a sin or wrongdoing? It seems very hard to believe that it would be sinful as the abuse would not be willingly made against my body or soul.

[ZTay]

Abusing, and I assume it's abusive as you admit wrong doing, another person is in violation to what is natural in the soul. What is natural in the soul is all that is good.

[ShoutGrace]

Who speaks authoritatively on what is natural to the soul? Also, how do you distinguish between "natural to the soul" and simple desire?

Also, what about people who find it comforting and right to inflict grave harm on others? Is there some interpersonal principle at work here? I personally think that a statement like "What is natural to the soul is all that is good" is more than a little simplistic.

[ZTay]

You are right, it is simplistic; but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Insofar as the soul proceeds from God, and God is all good, the soul is all good. And there is a God insofar as there is an orderly universe created within some kind of system. And that God is good insofar as the universe is orderly. And that God is the highest good insofar as God is the source of all good, the first good. So, the soul proceeds from the highest good.

Now, how can it be considered good to inflict grave harm on another soul? Injuring what is good, can never be good.

And who can speak authoritatively on the soul? Any man owning a soul... That is, any man who owns his soul.

[G L Wilson]

You are right, it is simplistic; but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Insofar as the soul proceeds from God, and God is all good, the soul is all good. And there is a God insofar as there is an orderly universe created within some kind of system. And that God is good insofar as the universe is orderly. And that God is the highest good insofar as God is the source of all good, the first good. So, the soul proceeds from the highest good.

Now, how can it be considered good to inflict grave harm on another soul? Injuring what is good, can never be good.

And who can speak authoritatively on the soul? Any man owning a soul... That is, any man who owns his soul.

For a man to own a soul, he must have a will. As it is impossible to own both, the soul must go.

[ZTay]

A man can will to own his soul the same as a man can will to tell it to go.

[G L Wilson]

A man can will to own his soul the same as a man can will to tell it to go.

Will is the soul of man.

[ZTay]

I think the soul runs deeper than what we actively will. I think we are unexposed to the greater part of our soul, our potential and our true nature. This is why we must will to understand our soul, and through knowledge of it, take ownership.

[G L Wilson]

I think the soul runs deeper than what we actively will. I think we are unexposed to the greater part of our soul, our potential and our true nature. This is why we must will to understand our soul, and through knowledge of it, take ownership.

You can't will to know something that you don't have.

[ZTay]

No, you can't. But you do have a soul. Or at least, essence and pre-disposition. Call it what you will.

[G L Wilson]

No, you can't. But you do have a soul. Or at least, essence and pre-disposition. Call it what you will.

I have nothing that I have not willed.

[Arrowni]

I see what you are saying, Arrowni, but how does one minimalise God in the eyes of a believer? As far as I'm concerned, it can't be done.

To be honest, I can imagine many functions in the conception of God that would indicate minimalization, both conscient and unconscious, but I cannot say there is one way that will happen for everyone, such thing is built in the messure of subjectivity. Many people with conceive divinity as a lived experience, in face of which speech has not any real power, the word of those who practice scepticism are dismissed without consideration, as they're treated simply as mere words.

In the internal logic of the discussion about faith it makes sense, and in the general balance of things, at least it works as an admission of the limits of argumentation and abstractions to make life choices. But I think the speech of faith is intrinsically an impaired speech, not necessarily in a negative connotation, but words themselves are not capable of leading to truth, because reality is only admitted by revelation.

Anyhow, the conception of divinity for the believer isn't a consistent concept which last through time, it's actually a notion that shifts with the experience and knowledge of the believer; in the same way that theology incorporates new realities in their view of the words despite the fact they never move the core realities of their practice.