Bastardization of Faith

[Davidu]

In your example the guy was taking money out of a building. That is the absolute truth.

The function of the building, the function of the people catching him, his function in their view, etc, is relative to some extent.

This way of viewing things comes from the belief that the only thing real and stable in the world is yourself. Galileo said: "Give me a still point and I'll turn the universe around" (more or less the translation). For me the only still point is me.

For you as a believer, you stable point is God. And maybe yourself too. As you have a stable point except yourself, I can understand why you don't see the need for a relative perspective on situations, as you compare things to an absolute value that is God.

I can compare things only to me, and I might be wrong in the same degree as I might be right. In some situations I might be more right than in other because of my experience in that domain. But the way I see the world is relative.

For example: I see a building designed by Gehry ( the architect that designed the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao). And I don't like it. I feel like I'm having a strike. But I still can say that he is a valuable architect and that his works are good, and that specific building has desing quality even if I personnaly loathe it. I mean nothing is perfectly god or bad.

That is why I say truth is relative to the point of view.

Without laws and law enforcement there will be chaos. I agree. And a guy robing a bank is a guy robing a bank. But no situation is that simple.

[Davidu]

Have you never done something regarded as wrong in order to do something good?

[Davidu]

I see your point, and you're right.

I meant that haven't you ever broken any rules to help someone?

Helping yourself is a waste, IMO, as it doesen't make anyone feel better. But this is just a very extreme point of view.

[The Spac]

Breaking the rules to help someone maybe wrong by law but it isn't bad. The laws are there to protect the people. He is after all taking someone else's property, which isn't goodly. However if a wealthy man stands by while this man say, asks for help and does nothing that is also not goodly, but doing one evil thing against an evil man does not make the task less bad.

Whats bad is that the man has no other avenue then to rob to feed his family. Sad rather. He performs a nessassary evil in order to do good by his family being their provider.

--

There doesn't have to be evil in the world for there to be good, but we do have to know of evil as a concept in order to do good.

When I use to hit my sister when I was a little boy I just did it because I had no concept or right or wrong, same thing applies here. I don't have to hit my sister now to know it's wrong. :)

[GUNWOUNDS]

There doesn't have to be evil in the world for there to be good, but we do have to know of evil as a concept in order to do good.

Actually spac, Good is the original item.  You must know good before you can know evil.  Your parents taught you how to speak the truth before you ever learned to lie.  Your parents taught you how to eat before you ever learned to be an obese glutton.  You learned what normal sex was before you ever tried to rape someone.  You learned how people should treat you before you ever learned how they could wrong you.  You above statement is backwards.

[The Spac]

GW you love to gun down everything I say in all the threads huh ;) LOL It's good though.

Mate I write this stuff so late at night when I wake up it barely makes sense to me half the time.

Someone was saying how good can't exist without evil or something before, I think I was trying to say that there doesn't have to be evil, but we do have to know of it, in order to avoid it. Otherwise one can do bad without knowing it?

[Acriku]

Actually spac, Good is the original item.  You must know good before you can know evil.  Your parents taught you how to speak the truth before you ever learned to lie.  Your parents taught you how to eat before you ever learned to be an obese glutton.  You learned what normal sex was before you ever tried to rape someone.  You learned how people should treat you before you ever learned how they could wrong you.  You above statement is backwards.

If good is first, what is neither good nor bad? Surely, this must have come first - otherwise we would not know it was good, and not just "normal." Good is one side of the spectrum, evil is on the other, and neutral is the original and occupies the middle.

[nemafakei]

Gunwounds, you learn these things first because the point of society is to teach you the good things.

You learn language, which gives you the ability to make statements. You may make true ones, you may make false ones - to begin with, you make no value judgement.

You learnt to eat, and you would eat whatever was set in front of you as you felt like it - you didn't eat a 'good' amount before learning to eat 'badly' Sit a baby on a beach and it is just as likely to eat the sand as do the 'good' thing (I've seen it happen)

"You must know good before you can know evil."

Why? Analogies are of little use when they depend so much on context.