evil

If in panendeism, god is the universe, and both may be evolving at the same time; and given that the universe contains evil.

How does panendeism account for the existence of evil in the universe.

If God and the universe are one and the same, why does evil happen. God is a gorgeous sunset, the changing leaves, Michael P Smith songs, our families.

But surely God can't be the evil part. Or if it is, then it must be a cancer in God?

How does the panendeistic paradigm account or justify evil?

Of course, I guess your panendeistic model allows free will. And whenever there's free will there has to be the possibility of evil.

Of course, you say evil is relative don't you? Evil may not exist.

Evil acts too numerous too mention I could outline, probably just in last week's newspapers.

But it's relative to you. Ephemeral. Not real?

Helium wrote:

If in panendeism, god is the universe, and both may be evolving at the same time; and given that the universe contains evil.

First, Panendeism isn't the view that god and the universe are identical. That's Pandeism and Pantheism. Panendeism is the view that the universe is contained within "god's"being. Not spatially, but existentially.

So the universe and manifest existence are a part of god but god is not exhausted by manifest existence. God also includes unmanifest possibility.

Helium wrote:

How does panendeism account for the existence of evil in the universe.

Well like you said, evil is a relative/subjective phenomena, but of course that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. IMO, Evil (and good) is a byproduct of free-will and humanity's ability to moralize. It's also a byproduct of the dynamic and ever evolving nature of the universe and how we humans relate to it.

Helium wrote:

If God and the universe are one and the same, why does evil happen. God is a gorgeous sunset, the changing leaves, Michael P Smith songs, our families. But surely God can't be the evil part. Or if it is, then it must be a cancer in God?

Like I said, god and the universe are not one and the same. God transcends but includes the universe just as god transcends but includes evil. For example, you referred to a gorgeous sunset and the changing leaves as good things. But is that always the case for everyone and/or everything at every time in the universe? Could there be a time or place where those things could be considered evil or perhaps just neutral events?

I think when looked at from the big picture those things are neither good nor evil and yet they can also be both at the same time. In other words from god's eye view the good/evil dichotomy is transcended. They are "nondual" aspects of the totality existence.

In a sense nothing could exist without them though. Existence would loose it's flavor if it weren't for them.

Quote :

First, Panendeism isn't the view that god and the universe are identical. That's Pandeism and Pantheism. Panendeism is the view that the universe is contained within "god's"being. Not spatially, but existentially.

Yes I understand that.
The universe is part of god. But God is more than the univers.
I don't think it affects my observations.
For as part of God we still have to account for how evil can be part of God.

Helium wrote:

Quote :

How does panendeism account for the existence of evil in the universe.

It's the same as I pointed out about lies and falsehoods in the Truth thread, evil is a construct of the human mind and is only the absence of Truth.

Quote :

If God and the universe are one and the same, why does evil happen.

Because we must have the free will to choose between following Truth and doing good or combating it and adhering to those evil constructs. Any divine intervention would interfere with free will.

The Paineful Truth writes:

"....evil is only the absence of Truth."

The simplicity of this is so elegant. It gives an entirely different "flavor" to "evil", far less judgmental.

Thank you.

Karen

How are we defining "evil"? Here's something from my book:

We tend to think that some people are good while others are evil. In this crowded, homogenized world we live in, it is easy to distrust those who seem different from us. “We” are always the good guys, while people of a different nationality or skin color or religion – “they” – are evil. Whenever things don’t go the way we would like, it must be “their” fault!

Imagine, for a moment, that you lived in a simpler time.

You and the people in your village have never known anyone else. For all you know, there are no other people in the world. And for as long as anyone can remember, people have survived by catching fish as they whoosh by in the fast-flowing river that runs by your village. Catching fish, or even gathering water to drink, requires great skill and agility. Everyone must learn this skill, or the tribe would perish. Many people have been swept away and crushed on the rocks in an effort to master the most important task life requires of your people.
Now, seemingly from nowhere, you have an idea – an inspiration – that could change all that. If you could build something to block the flow of the river and force the water to run over the riverbank into the valley, the water would be calm. Everyone would be able to wade into the water, catch fish, fill buckets - even bathe - without risking life and limb!
After many attempts, you accomplish your goal. Everyone thinks you are a hero. You have done more for your people than anyone in known history has ever done!

Are you a good person? Did you perform a good deed?

If any of your people had followed the river around the bend and through the trees, they would have discovered another village, with other people who also struggled all their lives, trying to catch fish and gather water from the mighty river. And in this village, the people are suddenly confused and scared. The river, which had taunted them and sustained them for as long as anyone could remember, has stopped flowing!
They have no idea why. Certainly, since the only people in their known world live in this village, no men made this happen. So, the cause must not be a man, but a god.

And the gods must be angry.
Of course, if they knew that your people existed, they would certainly blame you.

I ask again, are you a good person?
Did you perform a good deed?

The act is neither good nor evil, but the real difference is in the consequences. Someone once said, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”. The greatest “sins” may be failing to think what the consequences of your actions might be, and not taking responsibility for them when things don’t turn out as you intended.
Now, in your defense, you did not know of the existence of these other people. You could not conceive of the ill effects of your actions.
You’re intentions were “good” even though you may have killed off an entire race of people!

How many times in our lives have we acted without considering all the possible consequences of our actions? Is ignorance a suitable defense for doing “evil”?

What if you did know of the other village and its need for that river? Would the survival of your village – your people – outweigh the needs of strangers? And would that make you “evil”? Maybe not to your own people, but certainly in the eyes of the people who will be forever affected by your “good deed”, evil is as evil does.

Every action has consequences. Before you can control your world - your life - you have to take responsibility for what happens. To do that, you have to acknowledge that you created the situation.

*****************

Also, realize that what you create may be viewed as "evil" by others!

Paul Anthony wrote:

How many times in our lives have we acted without considering all the possible consequences of our actions? Is ignorance a suitable defense for doing “evil”?

We can't always keep ignorance at bay, and we may cause something bad to happen by our actions, but that's not evil, it's an accident.

And sometimes we're faced with dilemmas with two or more bad choices. If you choose one and it favors you or your (family, community, country etc.), is it evil? Say your family is on the roof of your house in a flood, and there's another family on the roof of their house just downstream. You see an empty boat drifting by. Do you take it and fill it with your family, or let it pass on the the neighbors? Is it any different if the choice is between just you and one other person? I don't call that evil, it's just the luck of the draw.

Morality is honoring the rights of others to their life, liberty and property equally with your own. Evil is intentionally dishonoring those rights and placing the value of yours above the rights of others. When you do so, you use irrational justifications for the superiority of the worth of your rights, thereby bypassing Truth, and the need for a single moral standard instead of an immoral (evil) double standard.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

We can't always keep ignorance at bay, and we may cause something bad to happen by our actions, but that's not evil, it's an accident.

There is no allowance for "accidents" in my philosophy. If we accept that we are creators, we must accept the responsibility for all of our creations, not just the ones that turn out the way we wanted.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Morality is honoring the rights of others to their life, liberty and property equally with your own. Evil is intentionally dishonoring those rights and placing the value of yours above the rights of others. When you do so, you use irrational justifications for the superiority of the worth of your rights, thereby bypassing Truth, and the need for a single moral standard instead of an immoral (evil) double standard.

That's better. In fact, that is a very good definition!

Quote :

If we accept that we are creators, we must accept the responsibility for all of our creations, not just the ones that turn out the way we wanted.

We are all, in different proportions but inescapably, creators and reactors. You react to avoid a head-on in traffic, and the guy behind you gets creamed. Are you really responsible? A pebble from our shoe can sometimes cause an avalanche.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Quote :

If we accept that we are creators, we must accept the responsibility for all of our creations, not just the ones that turn out the way we wanted.

We are all, in different proportions but inescapably, creators and reactors. You react to avoid a head-on in traffic, and the guy behind you gets creamed. Are you really responsible? A pebble from our shoe can sometimes cause an avalanche.

In keeping with the automobile analogy, I would argue that the person who avoids an accident is actively creating his environment, while the poor sap who doesn't see it coming is merely reacting to a world he does not realize he created. There is a big difference between driving and merely going along for the ride.

But it looks like you're saying that I'm responsible for the death of the guy behind me.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

But it looks like you're saying that I'm responsible for the death of the guy behind me.

Unless I misunderstood your example, I don't see how you caused his accident. You avoided one, he didn't.