Cult wrote:

LightOne wrote:You mentioned a society practicing ‘survival of the fittest’ though, that’s the difference. The Nazis were the biggest advocate of ‘survival of the fittest’ for example, it was ingrained in their ideology to push it around the world, ‘eliminate the weak/unfit and accelerate evolution’.

The Nazis were trying to eliminate the Jews because they considered them a threat, not because they considered them weak - they dominated Germany before the holocaust. They were specifically concerned with the evolution of the Aryan race and uprooting what would hinder that, not humanity as a whole. That's not survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest =/= eugenics.

As for the church or medieval humans going against demonic ways in the time period they ruled, there was the ‘English civil war’ where where they saw an explosion of ‘dark ways’ were like when they got permitted. It was not pleasant at all.

Despite not being perfect we need somebody or something to create order against this, church and angels sponsoring them or not and any other people/beings.

What dark ways are you referencing, and when?

To give you a picture of what type of 'dark ways', think of what people like Herbert Spencer or Nietzsche advocated. 'Nature doing it' and the thing being a theory of how it works is different from a society that tries to implement it according to its own expectation.

Its also the kind which Hobbes was very afraid of when he saw it 'burst free and unopposed' in the 'English revolution' situation which resulted in extreme violence, ruthless actions or 'outright survival of the fittest' than any other time before. It was claimed for the first time 'morality and good' had no more value, power or sway over society anymore along with any ways related to keeping to the 'light' or the authority of angels/priests.

If you've read parts of the ideology though there were references that talked about 'strong' or 'weak' types of people across the world including for races. There was the belief that 'nature will pick the strongest most fit race of people to win the war' and thus being on their side. In some writings there were musings that 'the strong will eradicate the weak', 'the weak races will be eradicated by their superiors in nature' etc.

The idea of 'sub-humans' relate to the idea of people that are 'naturally inferior and unfit' compared to said 'superior humans' for example.

Some quotes for educational purposes to show examples for the post above, views expressed are not mine and made to serve as an example of the dangers that 'survival of the fittest' as an 'ideal' instead of theory can lead to. Just a warning to some viewers some of the quotes below are very repulsive:

“A stronger race will supplant the weaker, since the drive for life in its final form will decimate every ridiculous fetter of the so-called ‘humaneness’ of individuals, in order to make place for the true ‘humaneness of nature,’ which destroys the weak to make place for the strong.”
—Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter IV.

“In this world, the laws of natural selection apply. Nature has given the stronger and healthier the right to live. Woe betides anyone who is weak and cannot stand his ground! He cannot expect pity from anyone.” —Hitler Speech, clip from German documentary “Hitler’s Children,” part 4 (War), starting at 12:32

“We are all beings of nature, which—inasmuch as we can see it—only know one harsh law, the law that gives the right of life to the stronger and takes the life of the weaker. We humans cannot exempt ourselves from this law. ... On this earth we observe the unswerving struggle of living organisms with each other. One animal lives, in that it kills the other.” —Adolf Hitler, speech to army officers, 1942, quoted in Richard Weikart, Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), p. 4.

“The preservation and propagation, the evolution and elevating of life occurs through the struggle for existence, which every plant, every animal, every species and every genus is subjected. Even humans and the human races are subject to this struggle; it decides their value and their right to exist.”—Rassenpolitik (Berlin, no date), SS pamphlet approved by both Hitler and Himmler.

LightOne wrote: If you've read parts of the ideology though there were references that talked about 'strong' or 'weak' types of people across the world including for races. There was the belief that 'nature will pick the strongest most fit race of people to win the war' and thus being on their side. In some writings there were musings that 'the strong will eradicate the weak', 'the weak races will be eradicated by their superiors in nature' etc.

The idea of 'sub-humans' relate to the idea of people that are 'naturally inferior and unfit' compared to said 'superior humans' for example.

.....you're aware that especially this isn't survival of the fittest? That's just people trying to validate their racism. This is just using a natural law as an excuse.
If you're just quoting propaganda and that is what this is, that's already been tainted and is not the original meaning of survival of the fittest.

LightOne wrote:Many being like Angels (Like Michael) that serve the abrahamic deity, Light deities such as Astraea, the Dharmapalas or Jesus/God vehemently oppose ‘survival of the fittest’ if asked (They consider deliberately implementing it evil), and they had influence in the creation of morality that rooted it out.

Never forget, if you're talking about Angels doing things, these were the same Angels that killed every firstborn in Egypt that was not of the chosen race/faith. That's basically worse than survival of the fittest and this is what I would call evil.

Now we do not need to argue about the Nazis being evil. That's a given fact.
They supported the christian church too, so if them using survival of the fittest as an argument makes survival of the fittest an evil concept, the church is an evil concept too just by that association.

Honestly, survival of the fittest would probably do our society some good. I mean watch the movie Idiocracy and you will know what I mean. Sadly by looking at the state of the world, this seems to be our future.
And again, survival of the fittest is not about eradicating any race or actually anyone. It also means that the weak links will not procreate or not as much as the strong ones. That's Darwinism, that's Evolution.

If you all want to believe that good and evil is objective then go ahead but your believe doesn’t make it so .

No you’re wrong if I experienced things listed above I would not call them evil. Would I think badly of them? Yes I would but that doesn’t make sense people.

Morality is subjective. Every person has there own views about it. If it were objective different cultures would not have different views on it now would they?

Good and evil was created by human because it helps maintain order in a society not because it objectively exist.

Dasadon wrote:If you all want to believe that good and evil is objective then go ahead but your believe doesn’t make it so .

No you’re wrong if I experienced things listed above I would not call them evil. Would I think badly of them? Yes I would but that doesn’t make sense people.

Morality is subjective. Every person has there own views about it. If it were objective different cultures would not have different views on it now would they?

Good and evil was created by human because it helps maintain order in a society not because it objectively exist.

True, I totally agree with everything you said.

But also there's a mostly accepted level and there are malicious atrocities. In the eyes of the Nazis they weren't evil, everyone they didn't like was, basically. But they did go above and beyond to reach a new low concerning a level of, well, humanity. And that's something that I, personally, would define as evil and I'm sure that many others would agree. It was certainly very very malicious.

Aprophis wrote:

Dasadon wrote:If you all want to believe that good and evil is objective then go ahead but your believe doesn’t make it so .

No you’re wrong if I experienced things listed above I would not call them evil. Would I think badly of them? Yes I would but that doesn’t make sense people.

Morality is subjective. Every person has there own views about it. If it were objective different cultures would not have different views on it now would they?

Good and evil was created by human because it helps maintain order in a society not because it objectively exist.

True, I totally agree with everything you said.

But also there's a mostly accepted level and there are malicious atrocities. In the eyes of the Nazis they weren't evil, everyone they didn't like was, basically. But they did go above and beyond to reach a new low concerning a level of, well, humanity. And that's something that I, personally, would define as evil and I'm sure that many others would agree. It was certainly very very malicious.

I agree with that. They are monsters. But I can’t call them evil. They are simply products of there makers they didn’t chose that path. They were programmed to. Even hitler himself was programmed to think and act the way he did.

LightOne wrote:

Dasadon wrote:No. Good and evil is subjective and survival of the fittest is an aspect of nature. Humans implemented it in society because we as biological organisms are subject to nature. Unlike morality which is created by man. To be more specific it is created by each individual person.

You wouldn’t say ‘evil’ is subjective if you were experiencing it yourself. You can look at the Nazis for example to see how ‘subjectively evil’ implementing it was or the subject colonies of the British Empire which followed it. There is a universal point in morality, who wouldn’t agree that it isn’t evil if they themselves were considered ‘weak’ and must be rooted out/die? It is something nobody wants to happen to them thus we can all agree it is evil in a universal sense. It’s where you know the line “First they will say this group is unfit, then they will come for (name of other group) and then they will come for you.”

Many being like Angels (Like Michael) that serve the abrahamic deity, Light deities such as Astraea, the Dharmapalas or Jesus/God vehemently oppose ‘survival of the fittest’ if asked (They consider deliberately implementing it evil), and they had influence in the creation of morality that rooted it out.

Deliberate implementation in how it differs restricts people to only try to survive certain ways as approved, which if they don’t have their strength in despite having their own natural way of surviving (which everybody alive does) are ‘killed off’.

Re: you wouldn't say evil is subjective if you were experiencing it yourself. But the Nazis committing atrocities, the colonizers inflicting every kind of oppression and atrocity on indigenous peoples around the world, and the slaveowners of the past and present ALL THOUGHT THEY WERE RIGHT to do the heinous things they were (or are) doing! We look at their actions and see evil incarnate. They look(ed) at their own actions without a particle of remorse, because their regard of their victims as somehow lesser or inferior beings means they have/had no qualms about raping, killing, and/or destroying the cultures of their victims.

Even the abusive partner in a relationship who tells his (or her) victim, "You MAKE be beat you when you disobey me", thinks they are right. The rest of us see it differently, but the abuser paints him/herself as the victim whose partner drives them to violence.

And in some cultures, it's perfectly acceptable for men to beat or kill a wife for disobedience, real or perceived. Women or girls who are raped get murdered BY THEIR OWN FAMILIES for dishonoring the family name by their "promiscuity". The rapist doesn't face any repercussions in those societies. Google "honor killing". Google "acid attacks". The societies from which these atrocities spring, CONDONE these actions.

Yes, evil can be subjective. Things by which we, or the victims, are utterly horrified might well be regarded as "business as usual" or "no big deal" by the perpetrators.

you wouldn't say evil is subjective if you were experiencing it yourself.

Uuuuuu yah I would. I would say that.
People have threatened my life, assulted me and stolen from me. When I was younger I had a front row seat to a woman I know getting beaten by her husband. THis same man druged her so him and all of his friends could rape her. DOes this mean that he is a monster? Yah in my book it does. Does this make him evil? In your book yes but in mine no.

Dasadon wrote:If you all want to believe that good and evil is objective then go ahead but your believe doesn’t make it so .

No you’re wrong if I experienced things listed above I would not call them evil. Would I think badly of them? Yes I would but that doesn’t make sense people.

Morality is subjective. Every person has there own views about it. If it were objective different cultures would not have different views on it now would they?

Good and evil was created by human because it helps maintain order in a society not because it objectively exist.

There are some areas that are grey, but on both sides there is genuine good or evil. If you commit evil but deny its bad then at this point it is nothing but denial to make yourself feel good.

It does not change the 'fact' the act itself on a universal frequency was evil and intent behind it if it can't be justified on a more universal level.

If your actions hurt another unprovoked it is seen as evil by all humans or animals experiencing it.

Aprophis wrote:

LightOne wrote: If you've read parts of the ideology though there were references that talked about 'strong' or 'weak' types of people across the world including for races. There was the belief that 'nature will pick the strongest most fit race of people to win the war' and thus being on their side. In some writings there were musings that 'the strong will eradicate the weak', 'the weak races will be eradicated by their superiors in nature' etc.

The idea of 'sub-humans' relate to the idea of people that are 'naturally inferior and unfit' compared to said 'superior humans' for example.

.....you're aware that especially this isn't survival of the fittest? That's just people trying to validate their racism. This is just using a natural law as an excuse.
If you're just quoting propaganda and that is what this is, that's already been tainted and is not the original meaning of survival of the fittest.

LightOne wrote:Many being like Angels (Like Michael) that serve the abrahamic deity, Light deities such as Astraea, the Dharmapalas or Jesus/God vehemently oppose ‘survival of the fittest’ if asked (They consider deliberately implementing it evil), and they had influence in the creation of morality that rooted it out.

Never forget, if you're talking about Angels doing things, these were the same Angels that killed every firstborn in Egypt that was not of the chosen race/faith. That's basically worse than survival of the fittest and this is what I would call evil.

Now we do not need to argue about the Nazis being evil. That's a given fact.
They supported the christian church too, so if them using survival of the fittest as an argument makes survival of the fittest an evil concept, the church is an evil concept too just by that association.

Honestly, survival of the fittest would probably do our society some good. I mean watch the movie Idiocracy and you will know what I mean. Sadly by looking at the state of the world, this seems to be our future.
And again, survival of the fittest is not about eradicating any race or actually anyone. It also means that the weak links will not procreate or not as much as the strong ones. That's Darwinism, that's Evolution.

These aren't 'propaganda' but genuine ideological teachings for those who were converts, the youth that were being taught while in school even reported 'survival of the fittest' being a primary principle that was taught in behavior/the classroom. Even in Mein Kampf you can find references if you look.

It is still evil regardless of whether it does your 'society' good or not. If you don't like certain people you can branch off and form your own society to leave them in peace to develop within their own. Unless you are suggesting 'the strong' are so 'strong' that they somehow need to depend on living with the other side they call 'weak' in the same society to survive.

For the topic of angels, also what about the fact all light deities or gods/goddesses of good including Astraea are against it as mentioned? https://redeeminggod.com/who-killed-the ... -of-egypt/

So far as goes for the Nazis relationship with the Church they were planning to destroy them once they had achieved victory to replace it with a 'new faith'.

You also have to remember that the Church might have changed somewhat at this point and was no longer the old church based on a collaboration between 'medieval humans' and some particular 'race of angels' (before 'certain demonic/dark type' ways became more dominant in human society). Point being is that they are preferable to a 'survival of the fittest' society which would be turmoil/injustice/death/suffering for innocents. The most good or virtuous people should survive, not the most capable of benefiting off evil.

See this: