AP_CHARLESTON4_150618_DG_4x3_992

TTAG commentator Bud writes:

I am both a retired police officer and a retired soldier. I have seen extensive combat with some really nasty people (the rice-propelled ones not the couscous-propelled ones) and I have worked homicides and rapes, child abuse and neglect, domestic battles and neighborhood fights. Just really nasty people doing really horrendous things to other people . . .

I grew up going to a Christian church and the whole concept of ‘evil’ as described in the Bible didn’t really stick with me until I was an adult and ran into it, up and front and personal, in all its variations.

Evil is real. It exists all around us and sometimes comes after us just like it did in Charleston.

I understand that. I prepare to meet it both physically and spiritually.

What I can’t understand is how anyone who professes to believe in an all-powerful spiritual supreme being can not understand that you can’t legislate evil out of existence.

You can’t pass a law that will prevent evil from attacking innocents. How is it that a major portion of our citizens think that removing the ability to defend one’s self is going to defeat the real evil that exists in the world and demonstrates its existence every single day.

They allow evil, pure demonic evil, to walk into a church or a school or a movie theater and kill everyone they find there and believe that they can end that by making everyone defenseless.

You can’t legislate evil out of existence.

You can’t negotiate with evil. You can’t make a deal with evil.

You have to accept the fact that evil is real and may be sitting right in front of you across a negotiating table or in front of a Congressional hearing or standing in front of a cheering crowd that will believe any false promise that is made to them by a politician who in fact, willfully or unknowingly, supports evil just to further his or her own agenda.

134 Responses to McDaniel Is Right: Arm Yourself Against Evil

  1. Sorry your being too black and white.
    The Communists have made the entire world gray didn’t you know?

  2. …a politician who in fact, willfully or unknowingly, supports evil just to further his or her own agenda.

    Politicians don’t just support evil…they are the evil, selling both their conscious and their soul for money, votes and power.

    • The politicians themselves aren’t necessarily evil, but the people who control their puppet strings on the other hand….

    • Back in the 70’s, I told my wife I was going to get a “rice burner”, instead of buying another “Detroit iron”
      She looked at me with a blank stare, and said we didn’t need another crock pot, and she was glad I wasn’t buying any more golf clubs!

    • I believe the idea is that “good” cannot make a deal with “evil”. That is to say, any deal with evil is itself inherently evil.

    • I forget which book it is in, and I’m paraphrasing, but Ayn Rand wrote that if white represents good and black represents evil then if you add any black to the white you get gray and it is no longer good, it is tainted by evil.

      Evil, on the other hand, when you add a little white to get some shade of gray, doesn’t give a damn, it’s still evil.

  3. “some really nasty people (the rice-propelled ones)”

    Yeah, those really nasty people who resisted against the US government’s decision to prop up a massively corrupt regime by attacking them with chemical weapons and wiping out entire rural areas (to save them from communism).

    No wonder you became a cop, your moral compass is FUBAR. And yet here you are waxing lyrical about evil-doers. 🙂

      • Karl. blaine cooper/trannysoreass/good riddence/waco biker is a troll. He spouts hate and fury at soldiers and cops but ask him what he’s actually done, asides from spouting off, to correct the supposed injustices.

        Nothing. Other than to point out that he’s done nothing. He’s a troll and he should comment as jihad jane.

        • Stay mad, Karl. The truth is anathema to delusional government killers and their gullible supporters. 🙂

        • And here I thought all the Waco bikers got themselves shot. One must have slipped through the cracks…

          He probably wasn’t a fan of WW1 or WW2, you know, when we were helping our friends who got attacked.

        • You think Woodrow Wilson forced the US into WW1 because the American people wanted to help the British Empire? Just, wow. 🙂

      • They are lucky the only thing they got was spittle, considering the horrific war crimes they committed in Vietnam. They left behind napalmed children and an entire generation of babies with birth-defects. They indiscriminately bombed civilians in multiple sovereign nations in secret, dirty wars.

        But as JWM said, you have to be a murderer to criticize murderers. 🙂

        • Not at all what I said, waco. But I’m going to play your game. You insist on calling me and my buddies murderers with no proof other than your own delusional fantasies.

          So from now on when you or one of your other personalities show up here I’m going to call you a child molestor. I have as much proof of your crimes as you have of mine. Pedophile. Suits you.

        • The government said I can kill people legally! Therefore I am not a murderer!

          The American government didn’t accept that defense from the Nazi SS, just so you know.

        • I’m not worried about the opinion of a pedophile, waco. Rage all you want against your moral superiors. While you’re angry and on the internets it’ll keep you away from the little boys.

        • That is some truly weak sauce, brosef. People who are skeptical of the official line are now pedophiles. Even the Pentagon PR hacks don’t stoop that low.

          You openly admitted to killing people for the government. Don’t deny your proud legacy of government murder. 🙂

        • wacophile, find a single comment here where I openly admit to killing any one for any reason. As long as you make up lies and spout them as gospel I will do the same. You’re just mad, brah, cause I’m using your tactics. Has nothing to do with the pentagon. Pedophile, that’s your new name. 🙂

        • You admitted you served politicians in the military, bro. At the very least, you are an accessory to mass murder. Deal with it. 😉

        • Yee, by your standard you and every citizen in America are guilty of the same crime. The .gov does these things in your name and if you haven’t risen in rebellion to put an end to it you’re just as guilty.

        • Using your argument, is there any single government decision that can ever be criticized? After all, every single thing they do is done “in our name” by the supposed legitimacy of elected representation.

          Anyways, it is expected that a volunteer government murderer like you believes in the “in your name” charade, where blame for government crimes (and your own crimes) is diffused across the entire population. This is despite that there was no direct referendum on these wars, nor was there a choice to opt out of the system due to the two-party duopoly. As always, political representation is little more than manufactured consent.

          Don’t blame everyone else for your own conscious choice to murder for the government. That was your own choice and therefore is your own responsibility.

        • Huh.

          I wonder why so many moved here when they could after the war? And what was the deal with the million boat people fleeing from there years after we pulled out. What was that all about?

        • More of this “good guy/bad guy” BS? Communist repression does not justify repression committed by US puppets as well as war crimes committed by the US military. That just means all of them are evil.

          “That baby should be glad we napalmed him and his entire family, we saved them from possible future communist punishments.” Brilliant!

        • And again, pedophile, you’re calling me a murderer. Does everybody you don’t agree with get hung with that title? You sound like the pentagon propagandist, now.

          And every decision made by the ,gov should be challenged and reviewed. But you aren’t contributing to a solution. You and yee and chris mallory are like pavolov’s dogs. Hear the key word and yip yip goes the chi wa wa.

        • You were a murderer for hire. Just calling a spade a spade.

          The irony of you calling others “dogs” when you were an attack dog on the government payroll for years. 🙂

        • Pedophile, is that the best you have? Now I’m some kinda 007? And yes, the pavlov’s dog description of you is accurate.

          And once again, I have to ask. What have you done, other than rag on your moral betters, to make this a better world?

    • Actually I was there to kill the people that routinely took over a village and executed all the teachers, doctors and nurses, who as a normal course
      of action murdered entire villages of Montegards because they were “different” , who impaled and even crucified priests and nuns or, after wiring the hands of 3000 residents of Hue City, shot them in the back of the head because they were reactionairies.
      If you wren’t there then you know nothing.

      • Versus the US troops who simply bombarded a village to smithereens and killed everyone. That’s much better. Mass executions in Hue? You ever heard of the Phoenix Program? Oh wait, you probably think they were the good guys. 🙂

        Actually the Montegnards were targeted for actively siding with the US invaders, and as such they are collaborators. Bad move on their part.

        • Moral equivalency immediately invalidates your argument.

          “Why should we oppose ISIS mass slaughtering Christian civilians? After all, there were the Crusades.”

          You’re the worst kind of scum, giving a pass to any kind of evil becaus their opposition isn’t spic and span innocent.

        • You know the Crusades occurred hundreds of years ago, right? Nice strawman though.

          The real hypocrisy here are the sheepdog types at home who don’t realize their own vile criminality. If you don’t support us, you’re pro-some-other-evil-faction, be it ISIS/AQ/cartels/whatever suits the day. As if people cannot be opposed to evil in all forms.

        • But you’re not opposed to evil in all forms. You’re just a contentious little prick who picks and chooses what to condemn for the sake of starting an argument. If I say, “I oppose the evil being committed by Y,” you would immediately say, “Oh yeah, well X isn’t any better.”

          Your kind are everywhere. Bored, idiotic millenials incapable of adult discourse and incapable of recognizing disparity of evil between multiple sources.

        • @Silver

          You shouldn’t assume this guy is a millennial, since moral equivalence “logic” has been around at least since the 1960s, and probably much longer than that. cf. Noam Chomsky

        • He may not be, but his intelligence level is. Apologies to any millenials who managed to transcend their generation’s staggering failings.

        • @Silver

          So, you want a ritual condemnation of people or groups you consider evil in every single post?

          Or rather, you simply presume anyone who disagrees with you to side with those evils. Truly an infantile worldview, and here you are calling other people “millennials”, Oh, the irony.

  4. For years I’ve tried to explain the concept of evil people to my Lefty friends and acquaintances, but they seem incapable of believing it. In my friends’ Pollyanna world evil humans who commit horrible crimes do not exist. And when those crimes do occur, according to these friends and acquaintances, the perpetrators are never responsible for their actions or the consequences.

    • According to your line of thinking, the perptrators aren’t resonsible for their actions, either. “Evil” is.

      • Andy: You misunderstood my comments about evil; I was merely pointing out the naive opinion concerning human evil that many left-of-center people possess. Although in my opinion truly evil people are in the minority, they do create an inordinate amount of trouble and grief. And yes, to promote a reasonably civil society, I believe perpetrators of evil must be held accountable for their egregious behavior.

  5. Do godless people believe in evil? My question is not a trick. Over many years I have heard godless people refer to evil as a religious term making it outdated.

    • This irreligious person fully acknowledges that evil exists. Now, I don’t put the cause on a little red guy with horns and an oversized fork. I put it straight on the fact that there are some people who are just plain fvcked up.

    • The very definition of godless or faithless allows for evil to flourish. Just because you don’t believe in evil (or good for that matter) doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Evil would desire that you don’t recognize it. That makes its job easier. Without god, faith, and a moral compass, evil can have its way with you. There is no doubt in my mind that evil (Satan by another name) plays a significant role in the dastardly act committed by Mr. Roof. It also play a significant role in the behavior of the POTUS and his willing minions. Arm yourself, first spiritually and pray for the evil doers as well as the victims and families. Second, protect yourself physically.

      • Umm, pass. If a god exists, he, she or it could care less about you, the human race, or any of the creatures living on this insignificant planet on the edge of a far flung galaxy. As countless attacks on religious persons and places of worship demonstrate, “god” does not protect the pious; there is no safe haven.
        Morality is about choice, not belief in a supreme being. Instead, the alleged existence of a supreme being who will punish evil is the stick that humans have invented to compel compliance with the social compact necessary to civilization, whether that be a single tribe or a great nation. Just read the Bible and the stories of the jealous god of Moses; then compare that god to the gentle and forgiving god of Jesus. The ten commandments under Moses were all written in the negative: thou shalt not (or else). The ten commandments of Jesus are phrased in the positive, reflecting that we have can choose between good and evil. “Evil” has no meaning outside the human condition.
        If you choose to believe in a god, fine. But personally, I do not need to believe in a supreme being in order to choose right over wrong, good over evil, generosity over greed. and so forth and so on. God does not need to exist for me to be moral or to lead a moral life.

        • WIthout a God to show us what is moral and what is not, HOW do you know that what you believe IS moral and what an “evil person” believes is NOT? If we are all just an accident of intelligence hurling through space, what defines “good” and “evil”? It is vanity to suppose that we can do that for ourselves. If there is no eternal consequences for our actions here on earth, then WHAT stops humanity from turning on itself. If morality is not from GOD, then from WHOM/WHAT/WHERE?

        • I disagree. Without God, the very concept of “morality” becomes personal and arbitrary, able to change from one person to another without anyone being able to objectively say that another person’s actions were immoral. What you mean, rather, is that you don’t need to BELIEVE in God in order to be moral. Though, it sounds as if you still, perhaps unconsciously, borrow some ideas from “religion”, such as the idea of justice and the idea that people have value, which do not logically follow from a strictly atheistic worldview.

        • What does a moral life look like? …and who defines it as being so? Don’t read between the lines here. I’m just asking, cuz I really don’t know what you mean there.

        • “Morality” is defined by the social compact of the given group, and varies from group to group and religion to religion. In Afghanistan, men seem to have no moral compunction about raping boys, despite their religious believes that sex between men is sinful. I have read that it is said that women are for babies, boys for fun. American soldiers found this disgusting–because they came from a different social norm with different social compacts. There are universal rules, generally, the first being “do no harm.” Morality can be imposed, but it should come from within, from personal belief and choice. Just ask Jesus, because that was his whole point about rewriting the ten commandments.

    • Who would deny God would more easily deny existence of evil. This is not surprising. However, as Agnostic, I believe evil is not a spiritual force but just part of a default setting that exists in all human conscience. Goodness, God being the root word, is cultivated in our upbringing. Some people are born with more fertile soil so that goodness grows without much tending. Others need nutrients that for some, worship provides. If left to die on the vine, what you have left is the absence of good. Evil.

      • Bull patooties. That is no different saying that the gun is evil and is responsible for “gun violence,” attributing wrongful conduct to some force other than the perpetrator. Men do what we define as “evil” (or more properly acts that are wrongful and in denigration of societal norms) things–rape, murder, slaughter mayhem, genocide robbery and so on and so forth. I blame the man, not some invisible supernatural force called “Satan” for the ills of the world. More centrally, that which is “evil”, in many circumstances, depends upon which side of the argument you are on. I have little doubt that the Germans and Japanese in WWII thought they were patriots, while we thought they were “evil.” That which is “evil” is as much a reflection of the winning side’s opinion as it is of some universal principle against which conduct is judged.
        Most “evil” is one form or another of violence, and violence is ingrained into our very DNA. Without an innate willingness to do violence–for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons–our species would have ceased to exist millennia ago. Good violence is self defense, defense of family and tribe, defense of country in war. Bad violence is murder and mayhem committed for personal gain or aggrandizement. And violence for no reason at all is called, today anyway, sociopathic or psychopathic conduct, i.e. violent conduct without purpose or remorse.
        The comments posted here reflect an essentially Christian perspective on God and some essential morality that God passes down to us. But let me suggest that the Christian perspective clashes in many fundamental respects with the polytheistic Hebrew god (who ws one of many gods worshiped by other Semitic tribes, and many of the Jews themselves, Yaweh being the chief among them), and if all of you were worshiping the same god, how is it that the Christians for years have persecuted the Jews? Then let us also consider the pantheon of gods in the Roman and Greek traditions, most of whom were not particularly upright, any more so than the Norse gods. And all of this clashes with the Buddhist concept of godhead which is not personified, and the pantheon of Indian gods. Nor can we leave out Allah, who seems to hate all religions that came before, despite that religion tracing its roots to the Hebrew god(s).

        The simple fact of the matter is that the essence of “morality” has been chased after throughout the history of man by theists and philosophers alike. There are some fundamental rules that all agree upon, such as not committing murder, theft and incest, but after that, the rules are as that particular society deems most fitting in that time, culture and place.

        So what is a moral life? That is up to you to decide. For me, it means, first, do no harm; act not in denigration of the rights of others; do not lie, cheat or steal; and act honestly in my relationships with others. This is what is important to me, and I do not need some god or gods threatening me with eternal damnation if I do not toe the line, because for me, given the immeasurable and incomprehensible vastness of the universe, I cannot conceive of a god, loving or otherwise, who gives one whit about what I do or fail to do in this life, or that there is heaven or hell, or punishment after death. In existential terms, there is no exit. So one can cry over the fact that life for the individual is essentially meaningless, as Sartre would have had it, or one can commit to doing the best that he can to improve the human condition, at whatever level he can, for the personal accomplishment and pride that that brings. An that’s the end of it. When I die, that’s it. Toast my bones and scatter my ashes.

        Do what works for you.

        • What part of ” I believe evil is not a spiritual force but just part of a default setting that exists in all human conscience” did you not understand? Apparently, the three letter word NOT.
          I hate that you wasted so much time to write such a long reply in disagreement to something I did not even say.

    • Of course atheists know the difference between good and evil, and between right and wrong. Some of the most morally committed people I know are atheistic.

    • As an agnostic, I do believe in evil as separate from religious definition, but it requires a redefinition of evil. I think everyone in some way has to define what they consider to be “evil” and “good.” Some things are readily and easily shared, like mass killers = bad and helping granny cross the street = good, that kind of stuff.

      But then it gets tricky in the more subjective areas. A statist defines government as good and freedom as evil. Since I value personal freedom and the great potential of the human spirit, I define government as evil and freedom as good.

      In some parts of life, you have to define for yourself what is good and evil, and stick to your beliefs. Anyone talking about “gray areas” merely has not found the courage to define his own principles, and thus wallows in foggy and meek ambiguity.

      • Silver,

        There is one tiny problem with your worldview: there is no enduring, objective standard of conduct. Absent an Almighty God who defines good and evil, acceptable and unacceptable behavior, right and wrong, any professed standard is nothing more than an opinion and, eventually, the old “might makes right” problem rears its ugly head.

        Without Almighty God, people can argue (rather convincingly I might add) that “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” justifies any action since any action will improve the actor’s chances of survival. Example: a strong fit man can rationalize raping women with the intent to impregnate them (carry on his genes), relieve his mental stress to improve his decision making, and gain valuable aerobic exercise (during the act) to increase his health and lifespan. As for the woman, she deserves it because she is weak, or her (unwise) choice of a puny boyfriend who couldn’t stop the rapist was weak, or her clan is physically weak or mentally weak for lacking the constitution to stop the rapist.

        As for property rights? No way. If a stronger, fitter person can overpower you and take away your stuff, they are good to go. Again survival of the fittest and natural selection doctrine justify that action because, if you were fittest, you would fight off your challenger.

        Of course this doesn’t end at the individual. Entire governments have used the “survival of the fittest” doctrine to justify annihilating other countries or people who are “different”.

        • People rationalize great evil with God all the time. What do you think jihadis are telling themselves? Don’t tell me that’s not “real religion”, that’s just playing the “no true Scotsman” game. People have justified murders, bombings, arsons, all sorts of evil because it was righteous.

          So people use their own moral judgment whether they are religious or not. Religiously motivated suicide bombers are being immoral, any sane person, religious or not can see it. Volunteers at a soup kitchen are being moral, so much is equally obvious to everyone.

        • @Carlos T

          I think you’re noticing some of the same things Ayn Rand did. Anyone who claims to God as a justification for his morality is of course pointing to something in his head, other people point to (supposedly the same, indisuputable) God and get a totally different answer. So this isn’t a method that’s very objective.

          But more: Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you really DO have a direct line to God, and can prove it to people other than yourself. So, God is telling you what morality is. How did HE decide? Hold that thought!

          There is an age-old question out there about whether things are moral because God wants them to be, or whether God decrees them moral because they are somehow *inherently* moral. So which is it?

          If you posit that an action is moral simply because God says it is, then it’s GOD’s arbitrary whim that’s in use, rather than your own. Any better? No, not really–it’s still an arbitrary whim (even if it’s not yours), not an objective one.

          If God has any non-arbitrary criterion for deciding that something is moral, then he is in fact, not the source of morality either, he’s just passing along what he sees when he checks that criterion.

          So offering, as an alternative to *subjective* morality, God as a source of *objective* morality simply pushes the problem off one remove, it’s Someone Else’s subjective morality, or HE is having to consult yet another source for objective morality.

          So, either there is no objective morality whether or not God is in the picture… or it’s a totally different source.

          Read “The Objectivist Ethics” by Ayn Rand for a possible suggestion as to what it might be; it references only the facts of reality (or if you must, “the facts of the natural world”) and you will see that in fact, there is NO need to invoke a god to figure out a morality. Of course, many of the god botherers won’t like the morality that she came up with, but, well, we already know they’re out of alignment with reality so nothing’s new there.

        • Carlos and Steve,

          God’s objective standards are neither whimsical, uncertain, hidden, nor changing. His standards have been available for everyone to read for thousands of years in the Scriptures. We have all heard God’s standard with respect to our attitudes and interactions with other people — such as the commandments do not murder, steal, or commit adultery (rape), and respect your parents. There are other commandments such as to take care of widows and orphans and treat foreigners the same way that you treat local peers. Of course the “greatest commandment” is to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. The New Testament even tells us to love our enemies and pray for them. Nowhere does God give carte blanche open orders to kill unbelievers.

          Taken as a whole, the Bible clearly reveals God’s simple and unchanging values and standards. He cherishes us and values us beyond description. And he wants us to have the same head and heart with respect to others. The natural outflow of that condition is respect and value of other people — e.g. our Common Law bedrock principle of “live and let live”.

          People who tell you otherwise either have not read the Bible or have an agenda that compels them to distort and misrepresent the Bible. The standards are there and they work, plain and simple. Of course God’s standards require admitting that we humans are not the be-all end-all. And many people are not ready to admit that. Thus they are left trying to justify some other set of standards … which is why we see most of the world in such turmoil.

        • @uncommon

          Is an act immoral because god forbids it, or does god forbid it because it’s immoral and he has to tell us so?

          what reason do I have to accept the bible whilst rejecting the Koran?

          A Muslim is just as positive he knows god’s will as you are. Why should I believe you over him? Neither position makes a particle of sense to me, all I have to go on is how certain the proponent is that his head is on straight.

          What are the reasons you reject any claim by Hinduism to be truthful? Those reasons are the exact reasons I reject Christianity’s claims to being truthful.

        • SteveInCo,

          You raise excellent questions and concerns which I fully appreciate … I myself have wrestled long and hard with similar questions and concerns.

          I subscribe to the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures in their original languages for the following reasons:
          (1) They list countless names, places, and events that are consistent with non-Biblical sources (both historical records and archaeological finds) — that reinforces their credibility.
          (2) The Old Testament Scriptures predicted very specific future events that actually happened — that reinforces their credibility.
          (3) The Old and New Testament Scriptures describe attitudes and actions of its “heroes” that are downright shameful. This is not the sort of thing that authors would do who are making up something and trying to “sell” it. (You would never reveal multiple major character flaws in a “hero”.) Rather, it reflects the very realistic condition of mankind. This reinforces the credibility of the scriptures.
          (4) The Scriptures use “weak” testimony such as the testimony of women who, in the society of the day, were almost never regarded as reliable for witness testimony or to conduct business. Again, this isn’t what an author would do who is trying to “sell” a false faith. They would use the testimony of men — especially men of status.
          (5) The Scriptures have an overwhelming volume of material — 10s of thousands of manuscripts and manuscript fragments dating back over 2,000 years. Those manuscripts are nearly perfect in accuracy (with errors limited almost exclusively to scribes writing a word twice or omitting a word for example). Further, humans had to hand write all of those 10s of thousands of manuscripts which would have entailed an enormous expense. The incredible accuracy and expense reveals that the people who wrote and read those manuscripts must have ascribed enormous significance to them … something incredibly unlikely if the manuscripts were a work of fiction that told readers about their shortcomings.
          (6) The message of the Scriptures works. Societies that put the Scriptures into practice (either by happenstance or from reading and applying them) have the highest levels of peace, stability, prosperity, and achievement. Societies and cultures who operate counter to the principles (God’s standards) in the Scriptures experience widespread strife and suffering.

          No other faith or religion comes anywhere even close the above list. That is why I reject other “faiths”. As Jesus said in the New Testament (paraphrasing), you can tell whether something is good or bad from the fruit that it bears. Christianity has created countless orphanages, charities, schools, universities, and hospitals. People operating under God’s standards go to great lengths to tolerate one another and do good for one another. That is bearing good fruit in my opinion. Contrast that with Islam for example. Look at all the violence and destruction in the Middle East and Africa. That is bearing bad fruit in my opinion.

          As for your question about the manner in which God’s standards exist, he established his standards before Creation. They are his Divine decree, unchanging and dependable. And because God cares so much about us, he gave us some sense of those standards in our conscience … and clear written manuscripts to reinforce and clarify what our conscience tells us. Of course all of that comes at a price. And that price is acknowledging that God is greater than we are. That is a bitter pill for some people to swallow.

        • Yes, the Bible, in one form or another, has been around for about 2500 years, and it was written down from an oral tradition by a synod of Rabbis meeting in Alexandria. The (now called) Old Testament was written by Jews for Jews, who at the time were a rather small tribal culture in a small corner of the Middle East that would soon be overwhelmed by the Roman Empire. The only reason it survived is that the Romans allowed all peoples their chosen gods, as long as proper obeisance was made to the Roman Gods (which is of course where the early Christians got into trouble).
          But accepting the Bible as an old book–much of it a history of a particular people–ignores the fact that morality existed for thousands of years before the Jews were a hint in Abraham’s eye. Hammurabi–and his famous code–was written 1200 years before the Bible, by the ancient Babylonians. The tribal cultures of the American Indians had morality without any connection to the the rest of the world, much less the Bible. Do you reject them, and all humanity, except for the Christian faith? let me suggest instead, as detailed above, that men devise rules of conduct in order to order their affairs. We do not live anarchically. And the rule of law is as old as the rule of morality, from the first homo sapiens who declared “this is mine and not yours.” Morality is a social compact, construct or contract that allows men to live together in groups, and many of its rules are quite practical methods of avoiding social anarchy and savagery. We did not need to send Moses up a mountain to speak to a burning bush to develop this set of rules (since those rules preceded him by tens of thousands of years), though admittedly giving them the power of the Word of God makes them all that more enforceable.

        • Uncommon_sense – I am copying your “6 reasons” to chose the Bible in order to use in future discussions. They are too well stated to let disappear on this one thread. I will include standard disclaimers that they are not my own work and that I am shamelessly plagiarizing from another well spoken man that I agree with.

          Cheers.

    • The best description of evil I’ve read was that evil is when you treat people like things, including yourself, and there are no “shades of grey” only white that’s gotten grubby.

  6. People that don’t believe in evil or fail to recognize it just haven’t been in direct contact with it yet.
    They have not had to heal from it themselves or help someone they care about deal with it.
    It really is out there.

    Good question about godless people though. I’ll have to find one and ask him..

    • That is exactly correct. It’s easy to sit back and look at the world through rose colored glasses. But when a person has been a victim of violent crime or witnessed it, perhaps repeatedly, or simply has a conscious realization of reality, who at some point in their lives taken the stance and declared “no more”, or “not me” they are the ones who cherish that freedom and are zealous in that freedoms defense.
      Chance favors the prepared.

    • Good question about godless people though. I’ll have to find one and ask him..

      Ready to answer any questions you may have.

      • Consider this… We who believe would not call you “Godless” men if you are doing no evil. To us you are simply a-religious, a-theistic, or agnostic, and we believe God is still working in and through you, whether you acknowledge of believe in Him or not. Some, admittedly not all, of us recognize that belief in the supernatural is a big stretch for educated, rational, skeptical people given the freedom to establish their own behavior patterns and rationale to back it up. Personally, I can’t offer you any proof or rationalize the existence of God. But I do believe that there must have been some Prime Mover that initiated Creation and is a force of good in the world. Given no exposure to an externally or societally applied moral restraint, primitive cultures have a tendency towards savagery and barbarism, primarily aimed at those considered “other”. I sometimes wonder if the different theological systems aren’t the result of the same God, providing Divine moral inspiration in a particularly digestible fashion to each culture in turn. Where humanity goes wrong is the perversion of and fanatical application of misinterpretations of said theological systems, particularly to the point we see in the world today where one belief system is making total war on another for religion’s sake alone… one case in point would be violent Islamofascism. In this environment one can understand a rational man’s reticence to ascribe to a particular set of theological paradigms. Evil doesn’t care if you believe or not, evil just wants to destroy. Evil does succeed more readily, though, if those that claim disbelief actively attack and denigrate those that believe, because it makes the work of destruction easier due to the marginalization of believers in modern secular society. I’ve yet to meet an atheist, and I know several personally, that spent half as much time ridiculing and attacking the “religion of peace” as they do Christianity. Is that because they know we won’t crucify, behead or burn them alive or is it because they are truly against Christianity and ambivalent to Islam? Never forget that Islam will reward your ambivalence with the sword if you refuse to convert. A good Christian will simply pray for your conversion and society’s continued existence. Because evil exists in this world, and if we spend more time arguing amongst ourselves instead of combatting evil, all will soon be lost.

  7. I grew up watching evil everyday and meet few people today who understand that it is ever-present all around us. Sadly, the rest are oblivious to both its nature and prevalence. Once one can recognize evil in people and their actions, everyday life is never the same. Most people are sheep.

    • Please explain how you arrived at the conclusion that anything supernatural is automatically not factual.

      • By it’s very definition “beyond natural”. There is no empirical proof of the supernatural, otherwise it would be “natural”.

        • I said “factual”, not “natural”. Per Dictionary.com, the definition of “fact” is “something that actually exists; reality; truth”. The idea that something being supernatural automatically means it is not factual is based entirely on the unwarranted assumption that only natural things exist. It’s circular logic, don’t you see?

        • You can not see the wind, but you can feel it. You can not see heat, but it warms you. You can’t see gravity, but it never lets go of you. Just because you can not SEE the spiritual does not mean that it doesn’t exist and that it can not and does not impact your life.

        • I said “factual”, not “natural”. Per Dictionary.com, the definition of “fact” is “something that actually exists; reality; truth”. The idea that something being supernatural automatically means it is not factual is based entirely on the unwarranted assumption that only natural things exist. It’s circular logic, don’t you see?

          Facts are all part of our knowledge of nature. Recall, nature is literally everything in the universe.
          Facts are facts because we can prove them to be truth. The supernatural cannot be proven nor disproven. Therefore, it is not a fact.

          You can not see the wind, but you can feel it. You can not see heat, but it warms you. You can’t see gravity, but it never lets go of you. Just because you can not SEE the spiritual does not mean that it doesn’t exist and that it can not and does not impact your life.

          You have a very poor grasp of science. You can feel the wind. That is on par as seeing it. Same with heat. It’s called “sensing”. Further, we can accurately measure both the wind, it’s contents as well as heat (Kelvins, anyone?). Even gravity is detected and measured. We know how it relates to the mass of a body.

          But there is zero data to support the “supernatural”. It relies totally on subjective feelings, thoughts, and interpretations. There is nothing factual about the “supernatural”.

        • Ah, I like your argument. Let me use it. While you can not see wind, heat, or gravity…you can measure it….by measuring the differences in it’s impact on something (100 degrees vs 212 degrees, 5mph wind vs 10mph wind, etc) Evil, as originally argued as being a supernatural force can be measured as well. 6 million+ slaughtered Jews and other undesireables by Hitler, more millions dead at the hands of Stalin and Pol Pot, thousands of starved Native Americans uprooted from their homes and relocated or other peoples shipped across an ocean and forced into slavery (that’s right, the US is not immune to evil forces), millions starving in Africa because of warlords who steal food. You see, evil CAN be measured. A psychopath who kills 9 people in a church is, comparatively speaking, a little evil. My other examples are bigger evils. See how the two are measured? But if you agree with me that evil is evil and that “no sin is greater than another”….well, that’s a bit of Biblical truth.

        • “Facts are facts because we can prove them to be truth.”

          I guess this is where we disagree. I hold that facts are facts based on being true, regardless if that truth can be proven. An example would be an axiom. By its definition, an axiom of a system is so fundamental that it is assumed and cannot be proven. Are axioms not factual, then?

          Another example would be most any claim of history. I can see a signature on the Declaration of Independence that reads “John Hancock”. I can also read accounts of witnesses claiming that John Hancock signed the Declaration. However, is it empirically provable that he signed it? Does not being able to prove it empirically make Hancock’s signing any less a fact?

          As to your “no data” claim, I would argue that the existence of such immaterial things as logic and reason would very much support the claim that there is more than simply the “natural” world. How about human will (or am I just preprogrammed to be bringing this up)? Or we could get into the more mundane arguments, pointing out all the other ways that what we know of the physical universe contradicts the idea that everything we see today arose from natural processes.

        • Evil, as originally argued as being a supernatural force can be measured as well. 6 million+ slaughtered Jews and other undesireables by Hitler, more millions dead at the hands of Stalin and Pol Pot, thousands of starved Native Americans uprooted from their homes and relocated or other peoples shipped across an ocean and forced into slavery (that’s right, the US is not immune to evil forces), millions starving in Africa because of warlords who steal food. You see, evil CAN be measured. A psychopath who kills 9 people in a church is, comparatively speaking, a little evil. My other examples are bigger evils. See how the two are measured? But if you agree with me that evil is evil and that “no sin is greater than another”….well, that’s a bit of Biblical truth.

          So, first off, claiming supernatural evil is measured by number of resultant deaths is just beyond ridiculous. I was addressing your fallacious statements (and frankly, grade-school understanding) about wind and heat. Second, your ending statement just demolishes the entire argument of supernatural evil being a factual, measurable force.
          No, I completely disagree that “no sin is greater than another”. Stealing your pocketbook is worlds away from killing millions of people on an industrial scale. Evil is in what men do, not some supernatural force.

          I’ll end with this; referring to the evil acts that men do to one another as a supernatural force basically absolves them of responsibility. “It’s not him that decided to pull the trigger, it’s an other-dimensional malicious entity that nobody has provided any proof for”. No, the asshole is evil because of what he did, but that does not make anything about the situation beyond natural forces. Evil exists because men harm one another. That’s it.

  8. I can make it even simpler. Whether or not you believe in the Bible or evil or whatever else, the simple fact remains that some people choose to brutalize, rape, maim, torture, and kill fellow human beings. Let me reiterate: that is a fact, whether you like it or not.

    Given that some people endeavor to brutalize, rape, maim, torture, and kill fellow human beings, the most relevant question is, “What is your plan to deal with it if a violent person targets you or your family?” And remember that failing to plan is planning to fail.

    • I can make it even simpler. Whether or not you believe in the Bible or evil or whatever else, the simple fact remains that some people choose to brutalize, rape, maim, torture, and kill fellow human beings. Let me reiterate: that is a fact, whether you like it or not.

      And that’s really all one needs, the identification of the problem. I suspect just about every atheist/agnostic PotG understands this, though that’s not to say that there aren’t plenty of atheists and agnostics who do not, or somehow excuse these individuals.

      Where controversy erupts here is when some believers in God insist that somehow wihtout God it is impossible to identify the problem and address it.

      • Believers in God do not claim that without God one cannot identify or address the problem. What we claim is that without God, the very idea that there is a problem becomes an arbitrary choice. That is to say, morality becomes subjective rather than objective.

        • Yes, morality is subjective. Why is this a problem? Aside from a few fundamental rules, different cultures had different ideas on what is right and what is wrong. Are you still stuck on the ideology that there is “absolute truth”? Whatever theoretical possibility may exist for such a phenomenon, you will not be able to establish it, certainly not from the malleable material that is Man.

  9. Excellent post… Thank you McDaniel. IMO this truly speaks the core of what we’re all faced with. The empirical evidence is in; we’re all living in a war zone… The war between good and evil and the pitch (if you will) is getting higher and higher… Armor up good people and God Bless…

  10. How would you define a people whose military conducted thousands of bombing missions that killed hundreds of thousands of civillians, sprayed defoiliant on farmers crops so entire regions starved, forced people into relocation camps and conducted search and destroy missions where the only goal was body count? Good, Evil, Grey Area?

    I married one of those evil rice fueled monsters. Her brother doesn’t have a leg because a 2000lb bomb vaporized it, he was 6 so I don’t think he was Charlie. That same bomb killed their mother, 2 sisters, and their 80yr old grandparents. Every single person in their village lost someone in that bombing raid. They didn’t give a damn about politics before the raid, they just wanted to be left alone.

    Sure the Vietnamese didn’t treat POWs too well, but how would you treat an enemy soldier when you had to scrap what was left of your family together with a shovel after one of their war planes devastated your home?

    • “Sure the Vietnamese didn’t treat POWs too well, but how would you treat an enemy soldier when you had to scrap what was left of your family together with a shovel after one of their war planes devastated your home?”

      If I remember from post 9/11, I believe we passed anti-profiling laws and bent over backwards not to offend them. Next?

      Nice to see another idiotic moral equivalency child in the room, though. You’d probably be the first to condemn any white soldier who lost a family member to terrorism treating a jihadist prisoner without bent-knee respect.

      Also, your first paragraph described this little thing called “war” that’s been going on for a few millenia now. Good luck finding a single people that hasn’t participated in those activities.

    • No answer from the brainwashed, racist, POW torture supporter?

      I think you’re on the wrong site, pal. Head on over to the DailyKOS, they’re all about supporting communism, jihadists, and blaming whitey and America for everything.

      • Implying John McCain didn’t deserve every bit of torture he received.

        The world would be a better place if the NVA finished off that turd.

        • Pedophile, nobody deserves to be tortured. You have no trouble with war crimes as long as they’re being committed on Americans. Bad pedophile.

        • Yeah maybe you’re right. The NVA AA-missile should have just killed outright, that would have been more merciful for everyone in both Vietnam and the US.

        • Only because he became a politician later on. Remember, politicians aren’t human, they’re monsters.

    • Lots of people were never brutalized by US forces, but when North Vietnam overran the South, they sure were. Do their voices cancel yours out?

      • And lots of people weren’t brutalized when North Vietnam finished off the corruptocrats in the South. What’s your point?

        • So you’re fine with 100,000 summary executions and a million in the re-education camps, another couple of million fleeing the country. Uncle Ho would be proud of you.

        • Who are you, Bush? If you’re against the Vietnam War, you’re a communist. If you’re against the Iraq war, you’re a terrorist. Same old shit.

          Maybe if the US didn’t invade Vietnam and force people to pick sides, there wouldn’t have been so much retribution afterwards. Chew on that.

  11. I don’t need a book — even the Good Book — to teach me the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. My parents taught me all that I need to know about that, and my conscience does the rest.

    The little Charleston punk doesn’t have a conscience, no matter what his parents or his pastors taught him. Kill the bastard. Legally, of course.

    • Your parents learned their morality from? And your conscience is guided by? And if Roof didn’t have a conscience, then what determines who does? Luck of the draw at birth? So good and evil is like a lottery? I think not.

      • My parents were not religious. Neither of them could recite a line of scripture if they had a gun to their head. They just knew right from wrong. If you need a book for that, I feel sorry for you.

        • I’m not (necessarily) saying that you must learn morality from the Bible. But we obviously agree that it IS learned. And all things LEARNED have a source. I know MY argument for what it is, I’m just curious what you think the source of morality is. (I truly wish there was some way to express tone of voice in comments…..as I’m not arguing vehemently, I just enjoy the debate and getting the view point of others)

    • Spectre, thanks.

      Waco Biker (who probably isn’t because all of them are either dead or still in the County jail trying to make bail) is just another Vietnam vet hater who i have had to listen to for the past fifty years or so.

      After a while it doesn’t really matter anymore.

      • Don’t think you’ve been doing any listening, just bloviating about your supposed victimhood while insulting your real victims in Vietnam.

        muh honor
        muh service
        muh sacrifice
        we never lost a battle

        Cry more. 🙂

        • Naturally a fan of government murder in SE Asia would also be in favor of government murder right here at home.

  12. Empathy is taught.
    If you had consequences for your actions then you begin your lessons.
    Parents have to share their own experiences. Books and film can give and reinforce examples, but parents have to point it out.

    Some folks are wired differently. They need guidance to be safe productive members of society.
    Each of these mad actors has had numerous teachers, friends and peers who now say they new about this person’s direction. Why didn’t they help him. No empathy? To often I here folk say, “well I didn’t want to judge.” Judge what? Your friend is slowly talking crazy and you aren’t there to listen or find other resources? The guidance counselors at Virginia Tech wouldn’t meet with that perp alone for over a year because they were scared of him. They could have reached out to him and pulled him into their community. They could have made sure he had someone to share with. Push him out and he doesn’t see others as alive or significant or able to feel pain.

  13. 9 black people die in a church in Charleston and its called a tragedy.

    9 black people die on the streets of Chicago its called last week.

    “you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.”

    Honduras has a murder rate that is 5-6 times greater than Chicago’s.

    30 black Christians recently died in Libya for being Christians.

    These 9 died for being black.

    There is always some reason. My point of view is that the killings will continue and that I want to leave the human race.

  14. You gun nut terrorists caused this evil.

    You gun nuts enabled the NRA-affaliated psycho to do this due to your aversion to laws that would have actually stopped this incident.

    You sick freaks continue to dance on thier graves with your hypocritical holier-than-thou bull.

    You 2nd amendment extremists are now considered irredeemably evil in me & in the eyes of this country and civilized world.

    Enjoy your fascist beliefs gun-nuts because this country and the civilized world will fight against your tyranny.

    • Tubesteak, we are fighting against tyranny. You civil rights denying savages are on the wrong side of this fight. We civilised people will fight against you klan/skinhead/berkerly indoctrinated types to your last breath.

      • What kind of beliefs?

        You mean the fascist tyranny you right-wing terrorists do to us civilized americans and the civilized world on your outdated 19th century beliefs that more guns equals less crime.

        Criminals would have guns if you didn’t cleatus the tiny penis terrorist.

        The fascist belief of forcing every tom, dick and harry against their wills into possessing weapons they and the civilized world don’t ever want that are instead put into the hands of criminals causing even more innocent people to suffer and the tyrannical fascist NRA organization and the vile arms companies profiting off the blood of innocents all in the name of “Feedum fur murica!”

        The same fascist beliefs you penis compensating gestapo use in promoting backwards outdated pseudo-science beliefs that were heavily debunked by actual scientific organizations here and abroad along with international police agencies even pointing out more guns in the hands of innocents would cause more crime.

        They fact this great country has to suffer at the hands of you actualy savages freaks?, Who is going to protect us from you?

        • Tubesteak, get a gun and protect yourself. And if you weren’t the facist aggressively trying to deny me my rights, would you even need a gun?

          Here’s a little advice. Quit trying to suppress the rights of hundreds of millions of law abiding people and you will no longer need to feel afraid of the backlash.

      • You still didn’t answer my question gestapo thug.

        Who is going to protect the civilized community when “law-abiding” fascist thugs such as yourself decided to go postal?

        Who is going to protect us when nut-jobs like you go into some straw-nihilist, Darwinian rant while attacking the law abiding community?

        You and the “law abiding gun community” probably think your high electric bill or you toothless meth-head girlfriend/boyfriend breaking up with you is some heinous government plot.

        And I refuse to touch an instrument of death that is more likely to injure or kill than protect me and I refuse to buy an evil object when money could be going to more useful things such as actually helping the community instead of feeding your sick sexual fetish for weapons.

        You gun-nuts are the problem, Your NRA tyrants puppet masters are the problem and you continue to eat the crap that they spoon feed you.

        • Tubesteak. I answered your question you jack booted thug. Protect yourself. Or not. Besides, what are you worried about? Murder is illegal. And if you’re still worried move to a gun free zone. Those signs will protect you.

          Now, put on your big girl panties and deal with the fact that people have a right to own and carry guns.

        • P.S. tubesteak, the gun owners are the civilised community. It’s you statist thugs trying to smother the rights of free people everywhere that are causing the trouble.

        • Each individual (and their guardian if applicable) are ultimately responsible for their own safety.

          Who is going to protect the civilized community

          In the end, each individual is responsible for their own selves. That’s what a free society requires.

          Who is going to protect us

          Again, each individual is ultimately responsible for their own safety. That’s a natural part of being a free adult individual.

          And I refuse to touch an instrument of death

          IMHO, that’s a foolish choice but it is none the less your choice to make. I respect your freedom to choose. It appears that nobody will be responsible for your safety. Remember, you are making that choice so you cannot blame anyone but yourself for it.

        • An “instrument of death” can be anything. Better not touch a fork, knife, rock, rope or any other object that could be used to kill someone. Not sure how you will survive though. You really cannot even touch your own hands. Hands have been used to kill people. Did you know that ?

  15. Great article. I’m also former military and current law enforcement. I’m a Christian with a moral code, and acknowledge that a man doesn’t need to be be a believer in Christ to reject crimes of moral turpitude such as murder, rape, etc.

    And weak minded idiots who call me a government thug / killer won’t cause me to lose a minute of sleep (especially since I have a new Custom Comfort mattress!). I’ve got dozens of guns suitable for target shooting, hunting, and for opposing evil.

    I also have direct experience working with multiple levels of government. When push comes to shove, the government protects itself and its interests. The taxpayers are on their own. I’ve seen it first hand in riots when government resources are overwhelmed. History bears witness to these facts – shopkeepers defending themselves and their businesses during the Rodney King riots, Ferguson, Baltimore, etc.

  16. Evil to me is the result of free choice, nothing more. We have free choice because if we did not there would be no reason for us to be here. We choose every day. Most choose the path of good. Some choose the other path. And yes, there are grey areas in between. That’s it. I am not a very religious person but I enjoy the study of many different religions. Most religious have similar basic values and examples we can look at to help us all make better decisions. Religions have also been exploited for personal gain. I suspect that is really what is going on in the Middle East right now. Convince some Fanatic to sacrifice himself for the religion and you have a fearless, willing soldier to fight your battles for you. Very similar to what the Japanese did with their suicide pilots in WW2.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *