Is Evil Independent of God?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Actually Docb77, a more difficult one:

I am walking by myself on the street from a baseball game. It's late at night, and I have my bat with me.

I see strange people lookin at me. I don't trust any of them, and this neighborhood is one of high crime. I start to get scared.

Someone GRABS my shoulder from behind in a really dark area, and i get terrified. I take my bat and start swinging, bashing that person's head open.

I see that person dead on the floor. I put my face forward to get a better look at who it was...

It was my own grandmother dead on the ground. I thought she was a mugger or some kind of criminal trying to attack me from behind....

I just killed her by accident.

Was my action good or evil ?

How about this ? Doc..Regret...Good evil or neutral ?

Evil. It was not self defense, it was you acting out of fear without provocation. It would be less than murder 1, and would be termed manslaughter. It would be a lesser degree of evil than premeditated murder. This would be due to the fact that all that occurred was the evil of the action, not the evil of the intent, or in other words, your thoughts would not aid in the condemning of your action.

Originally posted by Regret
Evil. It was not self defense, it was you acting out of fear without provocation. It would be less than murder 1, and would be termed manslaughter. It would be a lesser degree of evil than premeditated murder. This would be due to the fact that all that occurred was the evil of the action, not the evil of the intent, or in other words, your thoughts would not aid in the condemning of your action.

What if I have a history of being mugged in this city ? On top of that my grandmother was wearing gloves, and she grabbed me hard (probably because she was running after me or whatever)

I couldn't see her clearly, and it felt like a real mugging...So i swing with strong impulse...

What I did was truly evil, even though my INTENT was self defense ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
What if I have a history of being mugged in this city ? On top of that my grandmother was wearing gloves, and she grabbed me hard (probably because she was running after me or whatever)

I couldn't see her clearly, and it felt like a real mugging...So i swing with strong impulse...

What I did was truly evil, even though my INTENT was self defense ?

If it were truly self defense, then it would be mediated by such. Killing is evil. Context mediates the degree to which it is evil. Killing as a self defense mechanism should be the stopping of a killing as well as a killing. They equal out if the intent is pure. Self defense is mediated by intent and context.

I have a friend, he was walking down an alley, a man came upon him with a knife. My friend grabbed his hand turned around and plunged the knife into the other man's stomach. My friend then removed the knife and plunged it again a few times. He was punished because after he gained control of the weapon, and had stopped the assailant with the first stab, he became the assailant. His action was evil upon removing the knife because further action was not required.

Thanks for taking over for me Regret.

As far as the scenario goes Urizen, I'm pretty much in agreement with Regret. Although I do think that it illustrates that you do not have to be evil to commit an evil act.

I think that God takes the intention into account.

Besides, isn't the feeling of realizing what you did going to be pretty bad punishment anyways if you're a good person.

Originally posted by docb77
Thanks for taking over for me Regret.

As far as the scenario goes Urizen, I'm pretty much in agreement with Regret. Although I do think that it illustrates that you do not have to be evil to commit an evil act.

I think that God takes the intention into account.

Besides, isn't the feeling of realizing what you did going to be pretty bad punishment anyways if you're a good person.

The point is the INTENT was good, but the ACTION was bad.....

Therefore the entire scenario is NEUTRAL....

I would NEVER kill my own grandmother otherwise...if i had known it were her, that would have not even happened. If she would have not grabbed me SO HARD from behind, in the DARK, i would have not thought her a mugger or rapist or whatever.....

YET, despite the INTENT to defend myself, she fell and is dead....(in this scenario not in real life)

All it took was ONE SWING to make that happen. And the swing was DONE out of fear and self defense, NOT out of malice or cruelty.

What happened in this scenario was HORRIBLE, but the INTENT for evil was NOT THERE....

Therefore, the act is NEUTRAL......

And if you STILL CAN'T see that Regret and Docb77...

If you're Point of View is SO BLACK AND WHITE, then explain this:

A person with multiple personality disorder ends up killing her husband.

She was not in control over her own mind and body, because one of her alternate egos resurfaced and took control. She comes back to reality, only to find that one of her alters killed someone she loved.

She is NOT responsible for what happened. An Alternate Personality is a result of traumatic child abuse (usually sexual abuse). She is technically mentally impaired, and in no way can be held responsible for what her alternate egos DO....

The Murder/Manslaughter of her Husband......good or evil ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The point is the INTENT was good, but the ACTION was bad.....

Therefore the entire scenario is [b]NEUTRAL....

I would NEVER kill my own grandmother otherwise...if i had known it were her, that would have not even happened. If she would have not grabbed me SO HARD from behind, in the DARK, i would have not thought her a mugger or rapist or whatever.....

YET, despite the INTENT to defend myself, she fell and is dead....(in this scenario not in real life)

All it took was ONE SWING to make that happen. And the swing was DONE out of fear and self defense, NOT out of malice or cruelty.

What happened in this scenario was HORRIBLE, but the INTENT for evil was NOT THERE....

Therefore, the act is NEUTRAL...... [/B]

The act was not neutral, the intent was not evil, the act was. They offset, making the scenario neutral. Your entire post here is just restating my response in your words. I agree entirely with this post.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
And if you STILL CAN'T see that Regret and Docb77...

If you're Point of View is SO BLACK AND WHITE, then explain this:

A person with [b]multiple personality disorder ends up killing her husband.

She was not in control over her own mind and body, because one of her alternate egos resurfaced and took control. She comes back to reality, only to find that one of her alters killed someone she loved.

She is NOT responsible for what happened. An Alternate Personality is a result of traumatic child abuse (usually sexual abuse). She is technically mentally impaired, and in no way can be held responsible for what her alternate egos DO....

The Murder/Manslaughter of her Husband......good or evil ? [/B]

Dissociative Identity Disorder, the proper term for Multiple personality, is not 100% supported by psychological research. There are too few cases to study it adequately enough to make definitive statements concerning it.

I am of the behavioral school of thought. We believe that this Disorder is essentially "made up." A person creates another persona, a manner of behaving in certain circumstances, and this behavior results in a better outcome for the individual. This behavior is reinforced. Now, if the individual admits to remembering what occurred in this other persona, they incur some form of punishment. Thus remembering is punished. Given enough time a person may not respond to questions of remembering because of this shaping. In summary, it is my professional opinion that DID is a disorder, but it is not existent in the manner that many consider it to be.

Now, if this is the case then the person is wholly responsible for their actions. If DID is a fact and is not "made up" I would state that the individual is still wholly responsible, because the personalities, unless otherwise stated, are sane just splintered. Also, if DID is valid, it is claimed that these alter egos are all splintered portions of the whole. If this is the case, upon completion of treatment the alter egos should all combine into a whole personality. This personality is the culmination of all the other personalities. This whole personality is then responsible for the action.

If a mentally disordered individual does evil, it is mediated same as anyone else's actions are mediated, by context and intent. A mental disorder is a part of the context.

But, given this, I do not know whether she in "no way can be held responsible", I don't know what is going on in her head. I also do not believe in judging others, and this entire line of questioning requires a hypothetical judging that I do not believe should be made by me if the situation were real. I do not judge others. When asked about an act, I state the answer I would if asked whether I would consider myself evil or good in the situation.

I would state that the action was evil, but will be mediated by the context of the situation, a part of which is the disorder.

The real question is not whether the act was evil or not, it is whether or not the individual will be held accountable for the action. I believe the action is evil. But the individual may not be held accountable due to the mediating context of mental disorder.

Now, our view is not "SO BLACK AND WHITE." You merely infer that it is based on your continued disbelief as to what we say we believe. Our belief holds an enormous number of shades of gray. We believe that there are infinite levels of Good. Given this, a person goes to the area of heaven that matches their choices as to behavior here in mortality, and there are infinite levels of heaven to go to.

God is beyond corruption. He created angels who are not succeptible to the evil. Oh course when Lucifer defied god, that was the birth of evil. It was the ever growing greed for power.

Lucifer expanded evil into what it is today.

God is the only being that cannot be influinced by evil.

Thats why he had trouble understanding how man was being corrupted by it.

So he had Jesus, both god and human. Who understood how easy it is to give into evil.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
And if you STILL CAN'T see that Regret and Docb77...

If you're Point of View is SO BLACK AND WHITE, then explain this:

A person with [b]multiple personality disorder ends up killing her husband.

She was not in control over her own mind and body, because one of her alternate egos resurfaced and took control. She comes back to reality, only to find that one of her alters killed someone she loved.

She is NOT responsible for what happened. An Alternate Personality is a result of traumatic child abuse (usually sexual abuse). She is technically mentally impaired, and in no way can be held responsible for what her alternate egos DO....

The Murder/Manslaughter of her Husband......good or evil ? [/B]

Multiple Personalitys means more than one soul inhabits a body.

The soul that commited the murder has been corrupted by evil.

The soul that did not is innocent.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Multiple Personalitys means more than one soul inhabits a body.

The soul that commited the murder has been corrupted by evil.

The soul that did not is innocent.

Prove that this is a soul. You can't, because there is no soul.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Prove that this is a soul. You can't, because there is no soul.

Um...ok 😐

I wont argue with you because there isnt anything to argue here.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Um...ok 😐

I wont argue with you because there isnt anything to argue here.

I understand why you will not engage in this argument because the idea of no soul is frighting. It puts all of the claims of Christianity and other religions in question.

Originally posted by Regret
Dissociative Identity Disorder, the proper term for Multiple personality, is not 100% supported by psychological research. There are too few cases to study it adequately enough to make definitive statements concerning it.

I am of the behavioral school of thought. We believe that this Disorder is essentially "made up." A person creates another persona, a manner of behaving in certain circumstances, and this behavior results in a better outcome for the individual. This behavior is reinforced. Now, if the individual admits to remembering what occurred in this other persona, they incur some form of punishment. Thus remembering is punished. Given enough time a person may not respond to questions of remembering because of this shaping. In summary, it is my professional opinion that DID is a disorder, but it is not existent in the manner that many consider it to be.

Now, if this is the case then the person is wholly responsible for their actions. If DID is a fact and is not "made up" I would state that the individual is still wholly responsible, because the personalities, unless otherwise stated, are sane just splintered. Also, if DID is valid, it is claimed that these alter egos are all splintered portions of the whole. If this is the case, upon completion of treatment the alter egos should all combine into a whole personality. This personality is the culmination of all the other personalities. This whole personality is then responsible for the action.

If a mentally disordered individual does evil, it is mediated same as anyone else's actions are mediated, by context and intent. A mental disorder is a part of the context.

But, given this, I do not know whether she in "no way can be held responsible", I don't know what is going on in her head. I also do not believe in judging others, and this entire line of questioning requires a hypothetical judging that I do not believe should be made by me if the situation were real. I do not judge others. When asked about an act, I state the answer I would if asked whether I would consider myself evil or good in the situation.

I would state that the action was evil, but will be mediated by the context of the situation, a part of which is the disorder.

The real question is not whether the act was evil or not, it is whether or not the individual will be held accountable for the action. I believe the action is evil. But the individual may not be held accountable due to the mediating context of mental disorder.

Now, our view is not "SO BLACK AND WHITE." You merely infer that it is based on your continued disbelief as to what we say we believe. Our belief holds an enormous number of shades of gray. We believe that there are infinite levels of Good. Given this, a person goes to the area of heaven that matches their choices as to behavior here in mortality, and there are infinite levels of heaven to go to.

Dissossiative Identity Disorder is a very real illness, as there is much evidense to support its existance.

Nothing in Psychology can be fully proven, since Psychology is the study of the MIND which is not tangible or solid. That does not render it non existant.

A person who suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder (a.k.a. D.I.D.) does not MAKE IT UP.... What an IGNORANT claim to make, you OBVIOUSLY know NOTHING true of this Illness.

Alternate personalities are the RESULT of a FRAGMENTED conciousness. Almost EVERY CASE of Dissossiative Identity Disorder, the victim was repeatedly sexually abused as a child, and the defense mechanism of his or her mind takes the core personality (the actual person) out of this situation, by putting another "ego" in his or her place, to DEAL with the abuse.

Most cases of Dissossiative Identity Disorder have been cured through the Integration Process which starts by the Individual retrieving a suppressed memory (the initiation of his or her childhood abuse)

To claim that D.I.D. in these people is "made up" is total bullshit and only proves the amount of religious idealogy that poisons your perceptions.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Multiple Personalitys means more than one soul inhabits a body.

The soul that commited the murder has been corrupted by evil.

The soul that did not is innocent.

WRONG 👇

How creative of you though..... 🙄

Multiple Personality Disorder - ONE PERSON whose ego was fragmented. Each alternate ego is a fragment of the CORE personality (the actual person) who are meant to protect the core personality from the abuse by taking the abuse FOR him or her.

The extant of "immorality" that derives in each personality is a result of the fact that those alter egos must DEAL with the abuse in place of the core personality.

Keep in mind that the Core personality (the actual person suffering from the disease) still exists, but his or her mental being has been minimized due to the fact that parts of herself or himself were broken to create the other egos.

Integration- Incase you DONT KNOW what it means..which you most likely DON'T....it's a process by which the alternate egos and the core persona are mentally fused together, to become ONE COMPLETE BEING.

The alternate egos are NOT destroyed. They are NOT erased. They are "glued" or molded back into the core personality, to become the complete being (the person he or she was before being severely abused as a child).

For YOU to claim that Multiple Personalities are more than one Soul is Fictional...because you have no proof that a soul exists, much less any proof that people with MPD have more than one soul or not.

If a soul exists, than logically a person with Multiple Personality Disorder has a FRAGMENTED SOUL, not "a bunch of souls" 🙄

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
[b]Dissossiative Identity Disorder is a very real illness, as there is much evidense to support its existance.

Nothing in Psychology can be fully proven, since Psychology is the study of the MIND which is not tangible or solid. That does not render it non existant.

A person who suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder (a.k.a. D.I.D.) does not MAKE IT UP.... What an IGNORANT claim to make, you OBVIOUSLY know NOTHING true of this Illness.

Alternate personalities are the RESULT of a FRAGMENTED conciousness. Almost EVERY CASE of Dissossiative Identity Disorder, the victim was repeatedly sexually abused as a child, and the defense mechanism of his or her mind takes the core personality (the actual person) out of this situation, by putting another "ego" in his or her place, to DEAL with the abuse.

Most cases of Dissossiative Identity Disorder have been cured through the Integration Process which starts by the Individual retrieving a suppressed memory (the initiation of his or her childhood abuse)

To claim that D.I.D. in these people is "made up" is total bullshit and only proves the amount of religious idealogy that poisons your perceptions. [/B]

No, to claim that D.I.D. in these people is "made up" is based in the amount of schooling I have done in the field of learning theory and behavior that impacts my perceptions. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with my views as to mental illness, and the validity of many disorders as they are commonly perceived. Behavior analysts do not believe claims can be made as to the "mind." Behavior analysts believe that the areas in psychology that deal with unobservable phenomena are as scientific as religion. We dislike the inferences made as to internal constructs. There is an enormous divide between behavioral psychology and cognitive psychology. Behavioral only deals with observable, directly testable, phenomena. Your statements as to this are in error. They only show a lack of knowledge in the field of psychology.

DID does not present as observable. What is presented is variation in behavior, that appear to be inconsistent and incompatible with each other. It is only as directly testable as God and spirits are. Anyone who claims otherwise is just as tenable as the religious that make the same claim. DID presents following your description, but multiple personalities cannot be 100% verified, there is room for skepticism in the case. I do not demean the disorder. I merely do not necessarily believe that there are "really" multiple personalities, there are other more plausible explanations.

Originally posted by Regret
No, to claim that D.I.D. in these people is "made up" is based in the amount of schooling I have done in the field of learning theory and behavior that impacts my perceptions. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with my views as to mental illness, and the validity of many disorders as they are commonly perceived. Behavior analysts do not believe claims can be made as to the "mind." Behavior analysts believe that the areas in psychology that deal with unobservable phenomena are as scientific as religion. We dislike the inferences made as to internal constructs. There is an enormous divide between behavioral psychology and cognitive psychology. Behavioral only deals with observable, directly testable, phenomena. Your statements as to this are in error. They only show a lack of knowledge in the field of psychology.

DID does not present as observable. What is presented is variation in behavior, that appear to be inconsistent and incompatible with each other. It is only as directly testable as God and spirits are. Anyone who claims otherwise is just as tenable as the religious that make the same claim. DID presents following your description, but multiple personalities cannot be 100% verified, there is room for skepticism in the case. I do not demean the disorder. I merely do not necessarily believe that there are "really" multiple personalities, there are other more plausible explanations.

Regret, there is FAR more evidense to back up the existance of Alternate Personalities, than there are to back up the current existance of God and Jesus....

Here are a FEW OBSERVATIONS made from viewing the MAJORITY of people with this disorder:

1) Each alternate ego has thier own name.
2) Each alternate ego has thier own personality
3) Usually, each alternate ego is aware of thier own existance, seperate from the core personality
4) The core personality (rather the person suffering from DID) does not remember the actual past trauma since it is repressed.

5) Once the woman or man remember what actually happened to them as a child, the alternate ego episodes begin to fade little by little.

6) When an Alternate Ego surfaces, the core personality blacks out. He or she has no knowledge of anything that happened when his or her alternate ego surfaced.

7) Once the victim faces what had happened to them at such an early age, they integrate. The alternate egos episodes begin to vanish, and the person becomes whole once again. This is evident, not only by lack of fragmented personalities, but by the fact that the Core Personality is never the same again....

Instead the Core Personality is usually altered slightly by the integration with alter egos, and has full access to thier memories.

All of this has been observed and recorded by almost ALL CASES OF DID.....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Regret, there is FAR more evidense to back up the existance of Alternate Personalities, than there are to back up the current existance of God and Jesus....

Here are a FEW [b]OBSERVATIONS made from viewing the MAJORITY of people with this disorder:

1) Each alternate ego has thier own name.
2) Each alternate ego has thier own personality
3) Usually, each alternate ego is aware of thier own existance, seperate from the core personality
4) The core personality (rather the person suffering from DID) does not remember the actual past trauma since it is repressed.

5) Once the woman or man remember what actually happened to them as a child, the alternate ego episodes begin to fade little by little.

6) When an Alternate Ego surfaces, the core personality blacks out. He or she has no knowledge of anything that happened when his or her alternate ego surfaced.

7) Once the victim faces what had happened to them at such an early age, they integrate. The alternate egos episodes begin to vanish, and the person becomes whole once again. This is evident, not only by lack of fragmented personalities, but by the fact that the Core Personality is never the same again....

Instead the Core Personality is usually altered slightly by the integration with alter egos, and has full access to thier memories.

All of this has been observed and recorded by almost ALL CASES OF DID..... [/B]

Yes, this is a possible explanation for the behavior, but it is not the only possible explanation. People do not go to a behavior analyst for treatment of this type of thing because they don't like our take on the situation. If we did discuss it, it would not be in the same manner as the studies that have been done on the subject.

We would view this as making inference as to the internal constructs within the individual, and not necessarily an accurate appraisal.

1) Names could have been prompted in the individual by those that believe in DID as being entirely factual. One of the most famous cases, Eve Black and Eve White did not display separate names until after it was considered she may have had DID.

2) The names were placed to seemingly conflicting behaviors. Differing behavior patterns do not necessitate DID.

3) If it is made up, the person could present this. Behaviorally this would be a sound anticipated response.

4) Same as 3

5) Once presented with evidence that the DID could have been fabricated, the behaviors lose their reinforcing efficacy.

6) Or so the person states.

7) Refer to 5

Successful treatment could just be the person adjusting to not lying or switching behaviors anymore to the lack of typical reinforcement that occurs due to these behaviors.

My, my, what an interesting discussion we have here, re: DID.

Lord Urizen
I can appreciate your point of view. The concept of a "fragmented ego" is an interesting one, especially since, IMO, even a "normal, unified" ego is something of an illusion. That is, a "healthy" ego seems singular because people generally don't pay significant attention to what's really going on inside them and miss a lot of the details. As such, I wonder if the difference between a healthy/normal ego and DID is more one of degree than of kind.

Interesting stuff to speculate about. That aside...

Regret's position, I believe, is that such speculation--an analysis of the unseen ops of the mind--is not the point, from the perspective of behavioral analysis. Behavioral analysis concerns itself with empirical data, addresses observable, measurable, problematic behavior, and seeks to correct this by reinforcing behavior which enhances the quality of life for the person. The operative word here is behavior.

While inner speculation can be quite useful--especially if both therapist and patient have an affinity for that POV--from the Behavioral POV, it is simply not relevant from an observe-n-measure perspective. This is Not to say mental operations are irrelevant on principle; just that they are not Behaviorism's concern. Indeed, they can even be viewed as distractions and hinderances to the functional analysis of observable, dysfunctional behavior.

Bottom line: when a person is in distress, one wants to do what works (ethically, of course) to alleviate that distress. "What works" will depend on large part, again, on what is important to both therapist and patient. Some people like talking therapy and philosophical speculation. Others don't. For them, a behavioral analysis approach is quite valid and indeed may be the single best approach to a problem, which may well include DID.

Pardon my intrusion. I hope my 2-cents worth was helpful. I'll get off my soapbox now.

PS. What does all this have to do with Evil and God, anyway?

Originally posted by Regret
Yes, this is a possible explanation for the behavior, but it is not the only possible explanation. People do not go to a behavior analyst for treatment of this type of thing because they don't like our take on the situation. If we did discuss it, it would not be in the same manner as the studies that have been done on the subject.

We would view this as making inference as to the internal constructs within the individual, and not necessarily an accurate appraisal.

1) Names could have been prompted in the individual by those that believe in DID as being entirely factual. One of the most famous cases, Eve Black and Eve White did not display separate names until after it was considered she may have had DID.

2) The names were placed to seemingly conflicting behaviors. Differing behavior patterns do not necessitate DID.

3) If it is made up, the person could present this. Behaviorally this would be a sound anticipated response.

4) Same as 3

5) Once presented with evidence that the DID could have been fabricated, the behaviors lose their reinforcing efficacy.

6) Or so the person states.

7) Refer to 5

Successful treatment could just be the person adjusting to not lying or switching behaviors anymore to the lack of typical reinforcement that occurs due to these behaviors.

So let's get to the point...

You basically beleive that D.I.D. doesn't exist? Despite all the cases that have been reported, besides all personal testiment, besides all treatment success, besides all case similiarities, and besides all the studies done on D.I.D. period...

You are still under the beleif that people who suffer from D.I.D. make it up for whatever reason....primarily a "cop out purpose"

Am I correct or incorrect in interpretting your stance?