What is your personal definition of evil?

by fedorE 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  jgnat

  I'll reserve my definition to the end, but I'll post something I just read. I found it interesting, maybe you will too.

  WIE:And what kinds of things impede evolution?
  
  MC: Well, I think the great religions were all pretty good at pointing this out, whether we're talking about the five precepts of Buddhism or the capital sins of Christianity. You find that those are pretty much on target, in the sense that they all have to do with things like greed—whether it's gluttony or envy—with wanting things for yourself, trying to get things for free from others by stealing, robbing, cheating, or depriving others of their opportunity to lead a good life. So all these things psychologically go against the development of the soul or the development of complexity because they reduce the person back to his or her biological needs or the conventions of the culture, and they don't allow growth.

  http://www.wie.org/j21/csiksz.asp?page=1

  By the way, the speaker is no friend of religion. He sees them as largely impeding human growth.

  Also, I think for it to be evil there has to be deliberate intent. That is, they WANT to hurt someone else. You know, foolish mistake, weakness, or accident, they account for most bad things that happen. But there are a select few individuals who actually ENJOY inflicting pain on others. They are evil.
• 

  JK666

  A cross between Ted Jaracz and my ex-wife. JK
• 

  LtCmd.Lore

  Evil: Anything that intentionally causes more harm to humans than good.
• 

  Uzzah

  socks with sandals

  fat men in speedos (or in fact any man... it's just wrong)

  oh and what everyone else said.
• 

  fedorE

  So many here are saying the governing body IS EVIL incarnate.. Im not so sure. In fact i would argue against the fact that individuals on the GB are evil. Once u start to call someone like Gerrit Loach evil you can easily conclude they know themselves that they are ruining ppls lives and are taking delight in it. If some on the GB are or have been destructive, fosted crime, are hate filled, have a desire to kill, all culminating in the death of people as the opposite to for example weak willed, manipulative, unpleasant, and annoying,
  THEN i would agree.Why? Don't we normally view evil as evil because of the harm it does? The harm the GB has done IS they have done harm resulting from ppl's unswerving obedience to a belief system. Yes, what comes to mind is death from lack of blood transfusions, BUT IF THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE GOVERNING BODY WAS TO KILL then i would agree THEY ARE EVIL but thats not the case and we know it. For how ever much they are deluded and refuse to acknowledge the harm they have caused it DOES turn into CHOICE. PPL can make a choice to obey a belief which takes away individual freedom and can even trust the GB OR they can chose to disobey it when faced with death from a blood transfusion. AND this is why we have EX JWS because we disagree with the beliefs that can lead to our suffering the loss of a loved one from death due to no blood. Collectively the governing body upholds the blood policy.CONSIDER however that indvidually some members of the governing body may be totally against the policy. The catholic church isnt considered EVIL any longer, but certainly some of its members are and they have caused evil and the church itself killed ppl in the past. BUT of course Within the church ARE good leaders, leaders who would never harm. Conversly those on the GB who desire to seize the free will of believers and abuse and kill ARE EVIL to be sure.But even Ray Franz has had good things to say about members of the governing body he knew...even though they were weak-willed.
  Evil Results From the Lack of Free Will but it isnt EVIL when one CHOOSES to follow the GB It becomes evil if the GB scheme to kill, and destroy those that Choose to follow them. Most of the Governing Body are seen as GOD subconsciously by ppl in the religion. When faced with a crisis of conscious to chose between obedience to the GB or saving the life of your child needing a blood transfusion I would argue that there is still enough free will on the part of the person to say "The GB can F**K off im not obeying THAT ...give my child blood!" Resulting in one more EXJW.

  In summary I would say that the religion tends to be destructive but the leaders on th GB themselves are not necessarily evil. Just my opinion.

  I agree that Evil is the exercise of power, the imposing of one's will upon others by overt or covert coercion but it would be COLLECTIVELY as a religion NOT individually. I believe individual members of the GB are always in a subconscious state of confusion. They know they arent GOD .In their subconscious is that VOICE THAT EVERY PERSON HEARS. IE: TO DO NO HARM.
• 

  Mary

  I agree that Evil is the exercise of power, the imposing of one's will upon others by overt or covert coercion but it would be COLLECTIVELY as a religion NOT individually.

  So are you saying that evil does not exist in any one particular 'individual' but only as a 'collective'? Sorry, I disagree.

  BUT IF THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE GOVERNING BODY WAS TO KILL then i would agree THEY ARE EVIL but thats not the case and we know it. For how ever much they are deluded and refuse to acknowledge the harm they have caused it DOES turn into CHOICE.

  Sorry, again I disagree. George Bush has sent tens of thousands of troops into Iraq, into a war he knew was based upon a lie from day one. Did George WANT or INTEND to kill American troops for the fun of it? No, of course not. However, he would have known that statistically speaking, American troops were going to die in the process. And it was a sacrifice he was willing to make, even though it was all based on a lie. That, is 'evil'.

  The Governing Body members, whether individually, or as a 'collective' are no different. Their blood doctrine is based on a lie and they know it. Do they WANT or INTEND that Witnesses die as a result of their policy? No, of course not. But like the example above, they know full well that there ARE going to be Witnesses that die from THEIR policy, but it's a sacrifice the GB are willing to make, just to try and keep the status quo and delay costly lawsuits. The same thing goes for their child abuse policy. Disfellowshipping faithful followers who suffered not once, but twice. First, over being molested by men they thought they could trust, and second, by being cut off from their family, friends and their faith, for no other reason than they reported the molestation to the authorities.

  If that's not the definition of 'evil', I don't know what is.
• 

  fedorE

  So are you saying that evil does not exist in any one particular 'individual' but only as a 'collective'? Sorry, I disagree

  
  No im not saying that..
  As far as the governing body is concerned as a GROUP making decisions for their followers they make EVIL decsions to be sure but individually i have to believe that there must be some who are not evil within that group...(as can be seen imo with R Franz) simple enough no? I dont think RF was evil while he was a GB member do you?
  

  But like the example above, they know full well that there ARE going to be Witnesses that die from THEIR policy, but it's a sacrifice the GB are willing to make, just to try and keep the status quo and delay costly lawsuits.

  Sure but again the point I am making is that to make the broad generalization that THE FDS or THE GB or for that matter Jehovah's Witnesses ARE EVIL is not accurate because there exist those within who aren't malicious or wish to do any harm and are willing to change themselves. However, when you think of that relgion there no hope for change. There is seemingly NO possibility for change within that structure. But there IS hope with individuals to leave and to change. Perhaps a distinction without much of a difference, but still a fine line in there some where.

  (BTW the majority of Americans I bet would say Bush is a Failure or the Worst President in History but i doubt the majority of Americans would equate Bush eg: Hitler)