Enthusiastic sh.it.head

  • 0 Posts
  • 6 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 9th, 2023

help-circle

  • I’d ask how you define evil in this case. To me, an act is evil when the net detriment to the planet and its contents (including humans) is greater than the net benefit it creates, and the actor pursues said act knowing this. I’d argue it scales with the nature and context of the act. It’s hard to say this isn’t real. But yes, we all have the capacity for evil, and also can be complicit in other evils by dint of normalized behaviours (without necessarily being ‘evil’ ourselves)

    I do agree that an absolute Evil doesn’t exist, the same way an absolute Good doesn’t exist. But we’re a pile of writhing meat puppets on a moist, moldy rock - we don’t exist on that level in the first place.



  • Man - I know most folks feel the best thing to do is get rid of religion all together - but at this stage I’d settle for and support a new, loud, and active Christian sect denouncing xtian radicals and the churches that support them as Satanic corruptions.

    Believe Old Testament and its edicts mean a damn practical thing in today’s world? Satan.

    Insisting on not rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s? Satan.

    Treating your fellow humans as lesser for anything whatsoever? Satan.

    Corrupting Bible verses to justify creating suffering and not rendering aid to anyone who needs it? 100% Satan.

    Forcing means to reduce anyone’s capacity to exercise free will, the one key thing their creator deity granted all humans? Sounds like Satan to me.

    And so on. I realize this is deeply naive. But part of the reason I like The Louvin Brother’s song Satan is Real is whenever I hear the guy’s testimony on Satan, I think about about people in the offending churches:

    I grew selfish, and un-neighbourly
    My friends turned against me
    And finally, my home was broken apart

    The Louvin Brothers themselves would likely vehemently disagree, but - does this sound like anyone you know?

    /end of vaguely spiritualist rant.


  • I’m not who you were talking to, but I think you and I can agree that war is primarily a means to increase the power of the aggressor. Money is one form of this, perhaps the main one - though I’d argue things like direct control over other territories and their populace is another (connected to money re: control of resources, sure, but that’s just one aspect).

    That said, the American WWII dead buried at Arlington, or the Canadians and Brits buried in Dieppe for that matter, or heck, even the Soviets buried in Warsaw (regardless of how you may feel about the former USSR in general) - would you say that their lives were given, primarily, in the name of money/power? Or in defence of that being stripped from others by force?

    I’m not going to pretend there isn’t an argument to be made for the former, but I am legitimately curious about your thoughts here. Is it ever just to take up arms?