I don't think "evil" exists. To me it's a religious or supernatural concept. "wrong" or "immoral" would be the words I would use. You and society decide what morals are and your society decides what is legal and illegal. If assisted suicide is illegal where you live you are going to jail if you break that law. Whether it is immoral or not depends on you and your society.
Evil is a consequence of duality there are realms that evil does not exist within because duality does not exist within these realms.
When memory is created within the brain, aspects of the limbic system, located in the core regions of the brain, will add emotional tags to the memory during the writing process. These tags are useful to natural animals since sensory induction of memory (see food or hear sound) will also trigger the emotional tag for quick assessment. Sight will trigger hunger so they eat or the sound can trigger fear so they run. These emotional tags are limited and help cluster our memory, during the reading process, by grouping a range of memory with a given emotional valence, so our choices are narrowed down to the task at hand. A feeling of hunger, induces images of food, food gathering and eating since each of these memories has a hunger tag. We don't think of doing pushups since that has a different cluster tag. Knowledge of good and evil and/or law is unique in that these memories are binary and require two opposite emotional tags. To know good and evil within law, we need to know both the good and the evil sides so we can do good and avoid the evil. The net result is the good side of law will have positive emotional tags (good citizen) the while the evil has negative emotional tags like fear of punishment. In traditions, heaven is a symbol of all the good sides of law while hell is all the bad sides of law, personified. Since these feelings of heaven and hell are conflicting and mutually exclusive, one can only be conscious of one side of law (bulk system) at a time, thereby causing the other bulk side to become more unconscious. There are hundreds of law in memory storage whether we think of its or not. The self righteous often try to do only good, but can get very mean or impulsive due to the repressed evil side of law; witch trials. The unconscious mind can have a mind of its own, causing the preacher to become unable to control his desire for the hooker; hooker has evil tag that was repressed. There are subjective laws of good and evil and there are objective laws of good and evil. Subjective laws of good and evil occur when up is called down and down is called up. This can create a different type of problem. If we (ego and culture) subjectively define good as evil and evil as good, the natural parts of the brain will not be fooled by this, but will continue to assign natural valance. The result can be one thinking they are doing good based on subjective law, however, because of the natural writing to natural evil, they will do natural evil and repress natural good. Terrorists are conditioned to think natural evil is good, such as killing children is good, because they use a subjective inversion. They will seek out natural good and innocent since this is repressed and subjectivity considered evil. Abortion kills the unborn, but that is called subjectively good. The natural parts of the brain will see this different regardless of the social subjective programming and it will assign the proper valence since the unborn pose no threat nor are they a source of food. The result will be fanaticism, intolerance, dual standard; binary. This is not found in nature; outsiders killing unborn, because the natural valence will not assign good to this. The bottom line is the natural brain; instinct, has its own set of standards when it comes to assigning valence. This is simple and basic and not convoluted with lawyers. The ego and culture can apply subjective standards with social programming, but this can conflict with the natural. This is why the tree of knowledge brings death; subjective beyond the natural set. Death appears due to natural selection needing natural. The subjective will not stand but may need to be overthrown by the unconscious mind; compulsions, to avoid unnatural selection leading to extinction.
There are limits to the extent to which might can make right in actual human societies - at least, in the normal sense of "might" as the largest scale political power handy, and "right" as the code by which one will suffer or enjoy serious effects from other people's assessments of one's behavior. Divorce, abortion, gambling, drinking coffee or alcohol, smoking tobacco or marijuana, polygamy, social nudity, living with one's parents as an adult, sending one's children to be cared for by others, informing for the police, starting physical fights, hitting one's spouse or children, caging domestic animals, eating them, killing snakes or spiders on sight, keeping a firearm handy, allowing one's daughters to go to school or drive a car, - - in many arenas and cultures, knowledge of the resident might alone would be little help in determining what is right.
There is objective good and evil. There is also subjective good and evil. There is a simple litmus test to determine which are which. Objective laws of good and evil, are like the objective laws of nature/science, in that they apply to all, equally. For example, the laws of gravity are objective, because they are not filled with legal loopholes, or are they different for rich and poor or the young and old. We can't create an illusion, with words, that will allows some to float in the air in defiance of gravity, while others have to be stuck under even higher pressure, due to variable gravity that is different for each. Objective laws of morality or objective laws of good and evil will work the same way for all, without any additional cost or benefits for some and not for others. In the analogy of the laws of gravity, subjective laws of gravity might allow some members to float in the air. This is not possible in reality. It will need some special prosthesis and extra energy to create this illusion. If we use harnesses, wires and electric motors they can appear to float. But this uses extra resources. In the same token, if we cal also add more weight or chains to some, so they can't move, this illusion also changes the objective balance for gravity. Subjective law uses magic tricks to cheat objective laws and create illusions. Subjective laws of good and evil have extra social costs because all magic tricks and illusions need energy and apparatus to allow it to work. For example, quota systems need extra resources to force an unnatural result in a free society. This is subjective good and is not objective good. If we removed the quota system and allowed natural selection to occur, the best will float to the top, without any extra social costs, with all seeing the same gravity; pressures. The quota system adds weights and floatation devices to create an illusion. The ten commandments was a system of objective laws that were designed to apply to all. Having one god or one common sets of guiding principles, unifies any culture. When there are more than one guiding principle, there will be division, redundancy and waste. For example, the American melting pot was a way to place all the cultural ingredients of the immigrants on a table for all to see. Then all the diverse members of culture got to pick the best of the best, within the free market and free society, and integrate that as the common set of guiding ideas, products and principles. This is objective good; one god of all, that connects all; from the many, one (e pluribus unum). For example, the melting pot determined that Italian, Chinese and Mexican are among the most favorite foods in the free culture. Nothing personal to all the other cultures, but why not eat the most flavorful to maximize personal enjoyment. Why be wasteful of enjoyment to remain separate? It is called irrational. Cultural diversity, introduced by the same party that preaches social division; subjective law, requires more than one god or more than one set of guiding principles for the culture leading to waste and redundancy. Why maintain oneself within a second, third or fourth world culture, while living in first world culture, when the best opportunities will be within the common first world melting pot culture? This is irrational. Diversity is subjectively good, since there is too much waste of human potential due to less opportunity. It also has an extra resource requirement; teach 90 languages instead of one. There is a scam element always attached to subjective law; skim the excess. Objective law makes it harder to skim and may not be favorable to criminals.
I think the American melting pot, is cultishness and cybervoyuerism, false prides, false attachment to fleeting phrase or words like quota, and substances, and hapful ideas,and the better than complexes, or less than complexes, rather than decent practical factist stuff of kindness, therefore false security and false insecurity's which arise and concessions are made creating as mentioned above excessive personality issues for many whom latch on to pretension for temporal idea of value which is essentialy limiting theirs and others progress,ecowaste, unnecessary duress, hasting etc...and common innocence and therefore basic good, and greater scope of integrity and freedom to be doesn't get the goodgiven right it should have. for the fact that evil is really only drive of negative imposition or assumption, or coercive query.. instead of goodwilled directness the idiocracy of coerciveness has and does dissapointingly destroy what greater political occupational structurist cooperative cooperate continuance of confidence.we can have had and have with greater completeness and worth and really haven't.
"Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law , so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God."
So what? It doesn't alter the FACT that the Ten Commandments do not apply to everyone. Just because YOU (and your like) claim they do doesn't make it.
I'm not making a claim. I brought to your attention a passage that contradicts what you say. I have nothing to do with this...in other words, as pertains to your claim that the commandments don't apply to everyone, it is in fact your word against His. That's all.
Wrong. In other words you're claiming that that passage is correct. Nope. How can it be "my word against his" when "he" hasn't been shown to exist?
