What insanity does Satan have?

There is no such thing as “bad” or “good”. Both are man-made, context- and time-dependent categories. X centuries ago it was still common practice to subject a witch to the water test, nobody was bothered by the “arbitrariness” of such a method. The right or. The feeling of injustice is a bit more differentiated today - or are Orthodox Catholics secretly of a different opinion? Sin remains sin and should be atoned for with biblical irreconcilability? How would our judiciary behave if it were fundamentalist?

Is good and bad, custom and bad manners for religious people an eternal quantity and not a guideline agreed by people for people?

Again we argue about abstract concepts. If there are also folkloric imagery and personifications, we are walking on very thin ice. Satan - the Boelimaa, who comes when you've been angry, hui, we naughty children are scared and hide under the covers! Up to a certain age, such fantasies are still understandable that adult people in the 21st century argue seriously about “Satan”, “Hell” - with all due respect - amusing.

Interestingly enough, good is different from bad, not least because of the “motives”. What is good is what serves the purpose - what if the purpose is “bad”? From a legal point of view, this factor is eminently important when determining the sentence, Charles Swann certainly knows more about human abysses and their justifications for professional reasons.

Even more banal, in everyday life, we evaluate an act on the basis of the - real or assumed - intentions and responsibilities: to stick with a popular blog topic: Michael Bamberger and the misconduct of the clergy signaled by him: what makes pedophilia so particularly reprehensible among clergy? The act itself? The Greeks had completely different standards. Role and function of the perpetrator? The framework of the plot? The gap between moral standards and real offenses? Are evil deeds worse by perpetrators who should actually be particularly good than by normal people?

The conception of good and bad changes with the zeitgeist. An interesting example of this is Arafat. Once an internationally sought-after terrorist, he ended his earthly career as a “Nobel Peace Prize Laureate”. If someone murders for political reasons, he is an assassin. If someone shoots his neighbor in affect, he is a devious murderer. So is one evil less evil than the other?

Are certain deeds “good” for believers just because they correspond to “his” will? What if I disagree with this “will”? Whose will is it anyway? Do I infect my partner with HIV because, as Ratzinger loyalty, I do not allow a condom, well, what am I there? A criminal or someone who protects the “holiness of life”? Is a crime for materialistic, “low” motives more reprehensible than one that is done for idealistic motives?

Likewise, the personal component and one's own experiences are decisive, because compassion or the severity of a judgment also largely depends on one's own relation to the event. Am I directly affected? Does it affect total strangers or people with whom I identify?

Does the purpose always enrich the deed or is it only “under certain circumstances”?

What shocks us about the baseless violence against the helpless? The arbitrariness or the helplessness of the victim? Why do we find child or juvenile delinquency so strange, perhaps because it destroys our image of the “innocent” child? Is youthful folly more forgivable because it lacks judgment?

If a mother kills in order to protect her young, we are understanding, when such action is deeply selfish, calculated and conscious.

We are discussing things that are so fundamental that one could almost wish they really existed, THE good, THE BAD, but it is a lot more complicated.
Just as complicated and multi-layered as the nature of human beings. It is cowardly to reject things that belong to us. For this we can also claim the positive and praiseworthy that we do for ourselves.

One more side note to the heated argument in the last thread on the theory of evolution. Even the Vatican is no longer so averse to accepting scientific theories and even distances itself from the creationists. So it would be advisable to inform yourself regularly about the “official” line of your own club.
A propos: why does Ratzinger rail so against reason and science? Because they are “bad” or because they endanger the construct he represents? Yes, Rabbi, I have already mentioned that, the parallels between political mechanisms, mind control and mind f ... g, religions as a very secular instrument of power. Some of the sins according to the Decalogue can, if done excessively, disrupt public order, e.g. The lived out pleasure, resentment, an excess of egoism, the desire, and others should obviously ensure that the traditional hierarchy remains. Respect for the “elders”, the rulers, the haves (you shouldn't covet your neighbor Mercedes, on wheels or on legs :-).

To believe that good and bad are of extraterrestrial origin must be tolerated, if someone sees UFOs he will be ridiculed.

When it comes to the good-bad judgment, I once again agree with Luther: everyone their own priest, everyone - in the last instance - their own “judge”.