Evil people, or just evil actions?


Jane_Doe
 Share

Recommended Posts

A subject spurred on by my own thoughts, but also some on here.  I was wanting the hear your guys thoughts on the matter.

 

To what degree is a person a good person whom does evil things, or at what point do does a person become evil?  

 

(I'm talking about one's adult choices to be evil, not whether one is inherently good/evil from the get-go).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of mentioned this in the contraception discussion already, but I do feel I need to start by explaining what I believe to be "good" and what I believe to be "evil."

 

According to Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, all things are good in-so-far as they exist. Evil is simply the lack of some good that a thing ought to have. To use a slightly different example than I did beforehand, consider a leaky roof. Having a roof on your house is a good thing certainly, and a leaky one is better than none at all. That being said, the leak in the room represents a defect in the room. It lacks something it should have, which in this case is being seamless. The roof is good as far as it goes, but the leak is an evil.

 

Applying this principle to people, nobody can ever become completely and entirely evil, since that would require ceasing to exist entirely. That, of course, doesn't preclude a person from having beliefs, thoughts, and actions that are so lacking that they can rightfully be regarded as "evil." 

 

On this Earth, at least, none of us are ever going to be entirely good or entirely evil. The good part about this is that the good in us means we all have the potential to be healed and ultimately saved. The bad part is that we also all have the potential to self-inflict on ourselves, and inflict on others, further injuries that may preclude that salvation. Ultimately we can only hope in the healing power of God, and pray for our own perfection/salvation and that of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, all things are good in-so-far as they exist. Evil is simply the lack of some good that a thing ought to have. To use a slightly different example than I did beforehand, consider a leaky roof. Having a roof on your house is a good thing certainly, and a leaky one is better than none at all. That being said, the leak in the room represents a defect in the room. It lacks something it should have, which in this case is being seamless. The roof is good as far as it goes, but the leak is an evil.

 

Applying this principle to people, nobody can ever become completely and entirely evil, since that would require ceasing to exist entirely. That, of course, doesn't preclude a person from having beliefs, thoughts, and actions that are so lacking that they can rightfully be regarded as "evil." 

 

So Satan is not entirely evil? Or Satan does not exist? Or Satan is somehow in a different category of being able to exist even though he lacks the existential element of good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Satan is not entirely evil? Or Satan does not exist? Or Satan is somehow in a different category of being able to exist even though he lacks the existential element of good?

 

Satan is not evil in-so-far as he exists, no. He is evil in the sense that he is very very very very defective. I wouldn't object to saying that he's 99.9999999999(and so forth)% evil, as he has utterly rejected virtually all the goods proper to an angel, placing himself  beyond any hopes of redemption. That all being said, he is an angelic being created by God, and short of utter annihilation, and probably despite his best efforts, he can't screw that bit up entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

I'm different than most Christians because I do believe a person can fully become evil. In an ironic way, it's usually those that are convinced they are doing good. If you asked a Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler or Stalin if they were committing evil they'd say "No, it's for the greater good." and they'd believe that totally. If that's not pure evil I don't know what it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being evil is a result of character, which is a result of thought (as a man thinketh...), which leads to action.

 

If a person thinks and does evil then that person is evil. What more is there?

 

Satan thinks and does only evil. He will not do good. Even if something seems good, it's for an evil end, and is motivated by evil thought and evil character.

 

A man/woman can certainly get to the point where they think from only an evil perspective, and therefore their character is evil, and therefore what the do is evil, even seemingly good things being driven my evil motivations and evil ends in mind.

 

Anyhow, the title question is odd. Describing actions as evil doesn't work for me as a universal idea. Is killing evil? What about when killing occurs by nature? Still evil. Are beasts that kill for food evil? Is their action evil? Is the winter evil? What about the Sun? Both can harm.

 

Actions are evil by intent. If I turn quickly with a sharp knife in my hand and cut someone by accident it may be stupid, but it wasn't evil. If I do the exact same action intentionally and with malice in my heart, then it's evil. If I do the exact same action with intent to protect a loved one...?  See what I mean. Evil is not about action. It's about intent.

 

I gotta go with evil people as my answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I would argue that Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler and Stalin, while all quite evil, were all still human beings. They were not irredeemable monsters. Until the day they died, they still had the potential to repent and subsequently to be saved. God's mercy is available to everybody (though not everybody accepts it).

 

I'm definitely not an Episcopalian, but their presiding bishop, Katharine Schori, gave a pretty good homily on this subject back when Moammar Qaddafi died. I'll link to it below, but here's and excerpt that pretty well sums it up:

 

"What do we do about the death of Moammar Qaddafi?  Will we pray for him?  Can we commend him to the mercy of God?  The fate of Osama bin Laden brought the same kinds of challenging questions.  We are linked together, even in death.  If our only response at the death of tyrants is rejoicing, we are beginning to lose our own soul.  When Jesus answers the question about the greatest law, he says, “love God with all your heart and mind and soul, and your neighbor as yourself.”  That includes neighbors whose deeds seem irredeemably evil, and those some call enemies, for God is equally their creator and ours."

 

Basically, it's not my place to say that anybody is damned, even the most evil men of history. Instead I choose to pray for all men, and commend them to God's mercy.

 

The full sermon can be found here:

 

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/fr/notice/episcopal-church-presiding-bishop-katharine-jefferts-schori-preaches-salt-lake-city-cathedral

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your thoughts.  

 

I think it's established that no person is beyond Christ's redemption if they seek it.  But I was wondering about those people whom willfully do turn away from God, and hurt those around them without remorse (or at least not enough remorse to do anything about it).  

 

Do we call these people evil?  Or is that even the right question?  

 

On one hand, I can't see how person whom willfully turns away from God is anything but "evil".  But I think of the few people like that I know and I... the first adjective that comes to my mind is "pitiful"... maybe that's all they are really.  

 

But then is Satan more "pitiful" as anything else?  For as much powerful and cunning as he is... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Satan pitiful? No. Never waste your pity on such a being. He is lost because that is what he has chosen and embraced.

 

Are those beyond Christ's redemption evil? Of course. To be "beyond Christ's redemption" means to have utterly rejected Christ, to have denied the Holy Spirit, to have in effect stood at noonday and declared it to be dark.

 

Pity and compassion are both marvelous feelings, actually spiritual gifts. But such spiritual gifts should not be misused, wasting them where they very clearly do not belong. The heavens wept over Satan and his followers. Wept. Past tense. The days of mourning are over. Satan is the enemy of our very souls. Show "compassion" or "pity" on him at your eternal peril.

 

Sorry if that sounds melodramatic. It's as close to pure truth as I know how to get on this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LDS Perspective:

 

Every single person that entered mortality - including Pots, Mao, Stalin, and Hitler - all chose to follow Christ - which is why they were born on earth.

 

So no... none of us who were or are going to be born on earth are evil.

 

Now, our purpose on this earth is to transform through the exercise of our Free Will to see where we end up in the next stage of our progression.  If the summation of all our choices lead us to transform into evil... then we become evil.

 

But, we also believe that mortal life is only one step in our progression.  Death is not the end-all be-all of our transformation.  Knowledge and learning continues past death.  So that, what we may see as evil here in mortality may not truly be evil as they continue to learn and exercise faith in the afterlife.

 

Note to the non-LDS on this thread:  Lucifer/Satan is of the same substance as God and man.  Lucifer chose not to follow Christ in the Plan of Salvation during pre-mortal existence which is why he didn't enter mortality and remained in his pre-mortal state with a third of the spirits that chose to follow him instead of Christ.

 

So, is Lucifer/Satan and the third of the hosts that chose to follow him all evil?  Well, their progression leads them to be eternally separated from God, so that must qualify as evil, yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are those beyond Christ's redemption evil? Of course. To be "beyond Christ's redemption" means to have utterly rejected Christ, to have denied the Holy Spirit, to have in effect stood at noonday and declared it to be dark.

 

Let me qualify this... one can only be beyond Christ's redemption if they reject Christ and deny the Holy Spirit with full knowledge.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me qualify this... one can only be beyond Christ's redemption if they reject Christ and deny the Holy Spirit with full knowledge.

 

I don't quite agree. "Full knowledge" comes only with exaltation. Those who deny the light within them and turn from God, knowing they are doing so, are damned. You don't have to be super-duper good to fall and become a son of perdition. You just have to be determined to turn your back on what you know to be right, then follow through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't quite agree. "Full knowledge" comes only with exaltation. Those who deny the light within them and turn from God, knowing they are doing so, are damned. You don't have to be super-duper good to fall and become a son of perdition. You just have to be determined to turn your back on what you know to be right, then follow through.

 

What you know... knowledge.  Yes?

 

But like someone pointed out above... what you think you know is right may be evil... so, that's why I say full knowledge.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think a lot of the debate we have going on here is a difference in how we are defining "good" and "evil." My definition makes it impossible for anything that exists to be entirely evil, by virtue of its existing. While I'm not sure it's been overtly stated, based on your guys' responses I'd be inclined to say that the LDS definition would be something to the extent of "how in line one's will is with God's." In that sense, obviously Satan's will is 100% out of line with God's, rendering him by that definition entirely evil.

 

If I were to try to tackle the original question using (what I perceive to be) the LDS definition, I suppose I would have to say that somebody can be entirely evil. If becoming exalted requires fully aligning your will with God's, I would assume that the opposite applies as well. A person who has wholly and completely placed their will contrary to God's would have to be wholly and completely evil.

 

That being said, I would imagine that it would be difficult to be 100% completely and totally opposed to God, so I would think that a person would then only rarely be completely evil.

 

I'm not sure how the unforgivable sin works in LDS theology. In Catholicism, it is generally considered to be utter despair at the prospect of salvation. Basically its the belief that you cannot be saved, which is ironic considering that the belief actually does make that true....

 

Anyway, as always feel free to correct me on any LDS theological errors ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think a lot of the debate we have going on here is a difference in how we are defining "good" and "evil." My definition makes it impossible for anything that exists to be entirely evil, by virtue of its existing. While I'm not sure it's been overtly stated, based on your guys' responses I'd be inclined to say that the LDS definition would be something to the extent of "how in line one's will is with God's." In that sense, obviously Satan's will is 100% out of line with God's, rendering him by that definition entirely evil.

 

If I were to try to tackle the original question using (what I perceive to be) the LDS definition, I suppose I would have to say that somebody can be entirely evil. If becoming exalted requires fully aligning your will with God's, I would assume that the opposite applies as well. A person who has wholly and completely placed their will contrary to God's would have to be wholly and completely evil.

 

That being said, I would imagine that it would be difficult to be 100% completely and totally opposed to God, so I would think that a person would then only rarely be completely evil.

 

I'm not sure how the unforgivable sin works in LDS theology. In Catholicism, it is generally considered to be utter despair at the prospect of salvation. Basically its the belief that you cannot be saved, which is ironic considering that the belief actually does make that true....

 

Anyway, as always feel free to correct me on any LDS theological errors ;)

 

Hi Claire... EXCELLENT POST!

 

You encapsulated the LDS belief quite well!

 

The next thing that you'll need to wrap your brain around to understand the full extent of what LDS consider sin is the LDS teaching (absent from the Catholic faith) of Post-Mortal Existence.

 

So sin is not limited to mortality.  One can sin in Pre-Mortality and one can sin in Post-Mortality.  And at the same token, one can repent of the sin in pre-mortality (well, for all of us, we have already passed that probation and made the good choice of following Christ), and one can repent of the sin in post-mortality.

 

All who chose to follow Christ qualifies for Salvation (yes, that is every single person ever born).  The only way they can lose such a salvation is if they chose to reject the Atoning sacrifice of Christ (that they have accepted in pre-mortality) and remain unrepentant with knowledge (consider Vort's thinking on this above as well).  And that is judged on the last day... so basically, you have to reject Christ all the way to the end (enduring)... past mortality, past the spirit world... all the way through the Second Coming and the Final Judgement...

 

So... mortal sin is a Catholic concept that doesn't really apply to LDS because of the continued exercise of free will and the possibility of repentance past death prior to Final Judgment.

 

Now, one's sins may disqualify one from exaltation... but this is a different thing altogether.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So sin is not limited to mortality.  One can sin in Pre-Mortality and one can sin in Post-Mortality.  And at the same token, one can repent of the sin in pre-mortality (well, for all of us, we have already passed that probation and made the good choice of following Christ), and one can repent of the sin in post-mortality.

 

Hi anatess, I'm pretty sure I followed 95% of your post.

 

That being said, there's one question I have. You said that one can repent in pre-mortality. Since we aren't quite to the end of days yet, wouldn't that mean that the door is still open for Satan and the rest his third of the heavenly host to repent? I'm 99.9% sure the answer to this is going to be "No," but I'm a bit hung up on why that is.

 

-Claire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's established that no person is beyond Christ's redemption if they seek it. 

 

Depends I guess on what you mean by redemption. We know David lost his exaltation in spite of trying to repent and feeling truly mournful, etc. We also have scriptural references to unforgivable sin. So at some level, there is a state that is beyond Christ's redemption. I would say that usually, as I think you are suggesting, it is because they choose to be beyond...they have gone too far to ever turn back and actually "seek" it. But...as in the example with David, if you mean to find exaltation again? Not so sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi anatess, I'm pretty sure I followed 95% of your post.

 

That being said, there's one question I have. You said that one can repent in pre-mortality. Since we aren't quite to the end of days yet, wouldn't that mean that the door is still open for Satan and the rest his third of the heavenly host to repent? I'm 99.9% sure the answer to this is going to be "No," but I'm a bit hung up on why that is.

 

-Claire

 

Repentance in pre-mortality would mean following Christ in the Plan of Salvation - that is, they get to become mortal.  Satan and a third of the hosts of heaven has rejected this.  The Plan is already in motion.

 

But again... we're talking here with the assumption that Time is Linear...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends I guess on what you mean by redemption. We know David lost his exaltation in spite of trying to repent and feeling truly mournful, etc. We also have scriptural references to unforgivable sin. So at some level, there is a state that is beyond Christ's redemption. I would say that usually, as I think you are suggesting, it is because they choose to be beyond...they have gone too far to ever turn back and actually "seek" it. But...as in the example with David, if you mean to find exaltation again? Not so sure.

 

In Catholic parlance... Redemption = Salvation through the Atonement of Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi anatess, I'm pretty sure I followed 95% of your post.

 

That being said, there's one question I have. You said that one can repent in pre-mortality. Since we aren't quite to the end of days yet, wouldn't that mean that the door is still open for Satan and the rest his third of the heavenly host to repent? I'm 99.9% sure the answer to this is going to be "No," but I'm a bit hung up on why that is.

 

-Claire

 

Your description of the Catholic view of "unforgiveable sin" resonates with me. 

 

As for the possibility for repentance of Lucifer and his followers:  As far as I know, standard Mormon theology is silent on the matter.  I, for one, would like to believe that it's hypothetically possible; but I'm also reasonably sure that it won't happen--not because God can't or wouldn't forgive any such individuals who asked for it; but because the individuals themselves are too hardened to ask--and eternally will be.  The analogy I've used before, is that scene in Revenge of the Sith where Anakin's laying by the pool of molten lava, arms and legs burned off and in danger of falling in completely, and Obi Wan's looking down at him with compassion, and Anakin looks up and--even in his helplessness--rather than asking for help, just growls "I hate you".

 

But that's just my own opinion.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

standard Mormon theology is silent on the matter.  

 

That really depends on how literally you take the scriptures that repeatedly teach, for example:  "They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born; For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;" D&C 76:32-33 (emphasis mine).

 

The problem comes from D&C 19 where there is an implication that "endless" and or "eternal" may or may not actually mean "endless" or "eternal" when it comes to damnation. Of course, reasonably speaking, most LDS folk (and leaders) believe this teaching to be referring to those who suffer in Hell prior to the resurrection and Judgement. As far as I know, most people read the scriptures which speak of outer darkness being eternal as literal.  Of course, there's a wrench thrown into the machinery with the wording, "And the end thereof...no man knows;" (D&C 76:45), which almost seems to imply, if read a certain way, that there might, indeed, be an end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, there's a wrench thrown into the machinery with the wording, "And the end thereof...no man knows;" (D&C 76:45), which almost seems to imply, if read a certain way, that there might, indeed, be an end.

 

In that particular scripture, I have always interpreted "end" to mean "purpose" or "result" rather than "cessation".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your description of the Catholic view of "unforgiveable sin" resonates with me. 

 

As for the possibility for repentance of Lucifer and his followers:  As far as I know, standard Mormon theology is silent on the matter.  I, for one, would like to believe that it's hypothetically possible; but I'm also reasonably sure that it won't happen--not because God can't or wouldn't forgive any such individuals who asked for it; but because the individuals themselves are too hardened to ask--and eternally will be.  The analogy I've used before, is that scene in Revenge of the Sith where Anakin's laying by the pool of molten lava, arms and legs burned off and in danger of falling in completely, and Obi Wan's looking down at him with compassion, and Anakin looks up and--even in his helplessness--rather than asking for help, just growls "I hate you".

 

But that's just my own opinion.

 

Anyone who can relate Lucifer's repentance with Star Wars are free to impose their opinions on the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share