2009-2-25 18:09:00
Larry K., [LWK] quoting JJ wrote:
"In my whole life I do not recall ever calling anyone 'evil' or even 'bad.'"
LWK then wrote:
"Even Jesus is quoted as -- in essence -- calling some people evil (or son's of the Devil, which certainly seems to be the reasonably equivalent to me):
"'Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.' John 8:44 (KJV)"
JJ:
But he did not call them "evil." Jesus used the word evil many times, just as I do but not once did he apply it to any specific person. To call someone a liar when they lie is not a judgement condemning the whole of the person's character, but a black-and-white fact that condemns a specific part of their character.
He also predicted they would commit murder, which they did do when they crucified him. That was a specific fact.
Even with their faults they had good aspects to their character so Jesus did not pronounce them 100% evil by calling them that. On the cross he said, "they know not what they do."
Quoting JJ, LWK wrote:
"The reason for this is everyone is trying to do the best for themselves in their own eyes. Even when most people lie they think it is the best thing to do at the time."
LWK:
"Are you teaching a principle here superior then to Jesus' clear example of denouncing real evil when he saw it?"
JJ:
And I denounce real evil when I see it. To be effective, however, it is much better to point out the error rather than to point blank condemn the whole of the person as evil. Doing this makes the condemner come across like a lunatic to be ignored.
The principle involved here is judgement. It is a negative use of judgment to condemn thousands of points of one's character under the blanket of evil. It is a positive use to specifically point out the evil and explain the error.
LWK:
"Are you teaching some New Age principle of tolerance where people who do evil just think they are decent guys so we shouldn't "call a spade a spade" even when we see it?"
JJ:
To call the thousands of points of one's character as all evil is not calling a spade a spade, but is a mistake. Even Hitler did some good things. He started the Autobahn, the Volkswagen, got manufacturing going again, etc. No matter how bad the guy is it is always more accurate and productive to point out what it is that is evil.
I have never taught that we should tolerate or embrace evil. You cannot find any example of this in my millions of words posted.
LWK:
"Previously you have taught:
"'Good is that which takes us forward on the path of Spiritual evolution toward greater freedom, livingness, intelligence, light and love. Evil is that which takes us back into the past to lesser freedom, lesser livingness, lesser intelligence, light and love.' (Source: http://www.freeread.com/archives/6.php
"I agree with the above principle. If we identify a person as being evil we are in fact identifying their principle direction. We are saying that the want to go back to a 'past [of] lesser freedom.'"
JJ:
I think we agree on this but you are seeing disagreement. I would have no problem in identifying a person as pulling us more in an evil direction than a good one, but even so no one is 100% evil in his thoughts or actions. Even a dark brother will generally treat his dogs and kids well and want to get the trains to run on time.
Again, quoting JJ, LWK wrote:
"In this respect I treat others the way I myself like to be treated."
LWK:
"So if Hitler just popped up in reincarnation and you recognized him, and recognized he hadn't changed much from his previous life, and if he was looking to succeed again in seizing power, you wouldn't label his as evil, because you don't like people labeling you as evil?"
JJ:
No. I wouldn't label him as evil but would look at his words and works and fight against the error in them. Just calling him evil would communicate little light to anyone and make the accuser look like Jimmy Sawggart.
LWK:
"No, I don't believe you. I don't see much sense or any good principle here other than to be careful whom you label. Going around labeling everyone who disagrees with you, or has some slight fault as 'evil' is obviously stupid and counterproductive. However when major evil surfaces -- evil that wants to take humanity back to the past and has the power to do so - then to not identify it as evil is evil itself, the evil of omission, the evil of a lack of courage to identify that which is a danger to humanity."
JJ:
It is more effective to pinpoint where the error (evil) is and attack that.
LWK:
"What if Winston Churchill had been afraid to label Hitler as a madman early on?"
JJ:
Churchill pointed out where Hitler was in error and how he was dangerous. That is just what I would have done in that situation.
LWK:
"What needs to be fought is both the bad person, and the bad ideas."
JJ:
Why you would think I do not agree with this is amazing. Are you that mislead about my thinking?
How did Churchill fight the bad person? First he attacked his bad philosophy. Then when appropriate he used physical force.
LWK:
"In World War Two we didn't just fight Hitler's bad ideas. We fought Hitler."
JJ:
No disagreement here.
I think you're making a tempest out of a teapot by concentrating on definitions of words. I do not see any disagreement if we define our terms properly. If one concentrates on semantics then one can argue all day long when there is no disagreement.
In most of my arguments with you I am not disagreeing with you but just spend tons of time defending or explaining myself so you can see that there was nothing to argue about.
Copyright © 2009 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved