You elaborate evil within a religious context but how can you actually define evil when the notion of evil varies in many world religions? You say within religion evil comes in two forms natural and moral, but this isn’t really true for every world religion- is it?

Also, as I understand the notion of “evil” as force isn’t exclusive to religion or theologians per se. Ideological leaders and followers throughout history regardless of being secular or spiritual have named many things to be evil. I agree with you let’s condemn Christian theologians who believe New Orleans to be Divine retribution but let’s be consistent and say that evil within a moral definition isn’t solely believed by religious people.

The subtle point I was alluding to in my article is that ‘Evil’, as a force, is the creation of twisted (wicked) minds. Evil no more exists as a force than does ‘Goodness’, from a theological perception. My article states at the beginning that what I’m talking about is ‘Evil’ from a religious perspective.

Now, this is not to say that there’s no such thing as moral wrongs, like the killing of an innocent child or the slaughter of millions of people. The point I’m making is that ‘Evil’ is a loaded term with a whole lot of prejudice attached to it.
What separates me from the Bishop is that I do not make a judgement on how some people go about in their personal lives. What I take issue with is that the Bishop has attributed a ‘Godly’ punishment to those who he believes are acting in an immoral way.

All philosophers that I know of have come from the same planet as you and me. Well, it’s reasonable to assume, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence to the contrary!

How can anyone atheist or not, possibly imagine that the perverted killing of innocent children for the sexual gratification of someone (a very situation to the case of a lion acting by instinct to farward his genes pool) can be anything but morally evil. Or the extermination of 6 million Jews, because of the race (and countless similar atrocites) can be excused as of zero moral value?

On what planet do some philosophers live?

cheers
Mike

Morality, it seems, is relative. As I wrote, what is good for one man may be bad for another.

Let me quote an ancient Greek philosopher: “Man is the measure of all things” – Protagoras (490-420 bce). This means that there are no objective truths (absolutes) only subject human beliefs. With this, we cannot help but have a tiny bit of prejudice in everything we do, given that we are bound by our own subjective viewpoint.

Perhaps there aren’t any objective moral truths. Well, actually…maybe I can think of one with the human condition in mind. All that we know is that we are humans. We are all humans BEING. Perhaps from here we can build a moral framework with the justified idea that the one thing we all have in common is that we are of the same kind. So, we might reasonably argue that we all have a right to life. However, I can see potential problems here… when is a life worth living? Or, in the case of abortion, when does a foetus become even become a human? These are very difficult questions and not ones that I could possibly answer without some reflection time.

Consider the new male lion that takes over a pride on the plains of Africa. The first thing he does is murder all the young cubs. Then the females go into heat, breed with him, and raise his offspring. He murders the youngsters and is rewarded with sex and offspring.

Why does god make that okay for lions but not people?

What about when male chimpanzees get together and hunt down and beat to death other chimpanzees. Why does god make that okay for chimps, but not us?

Why have we never seen god punish anyone for their “evil” behavior. Never.

There is no evil or good, just what we have decided to accept and not accept as a society.
Society as we humans have created it cannot function without rules to go by and rely on. But who is to say what is evil and what is not? And how do you justify that position?