This is based on a Christian world-view. To re-phrase Sparks' second to last sentence: The definition of "good" according to the Bible, is that whatever God wants, is Good. Whatever God doesn't want, is Evil. Therefore, as silmaril says above, those who don't follow this God would have a different definition of good and evil.
Sparks isn't speaking in terms of pure good and pure evil, but in varying degrees, as in the comparison between Hitler and Koresh.
Evil as the absence of good = cold as the absence of heat = darkness as the absence of light. To be good is to overcome humanity's natural tendency for selfishness.
...or are we raised that way? Never mistake human nature for human nurture. This culture most certainly encourages selfishness (we call it "capitalism" instead, and think it's a good thing), but I'm sure there are examples of cultures which don't.
To me, this line of argument is getting into the idea that human beings are just intrinsically bad (again), and I don't happen to believe that. I don't think it's possible to say that human beings are intrinsically bad, or intrinsically good. The same person who's capable of acts of great humanity and kindness may also be capable of acts of great depravity and selfishness, depending on the circumstances. Human beings aren't binary switches or cardboard cutouts! Actually, I'm not even sure I want to be so essentialist as to say that human beings are intrinsically much of anything, which most certainly conflicts with the Christian worldview.
Glenn, as to your quote, let me put it to you this way. Do you really want to belong to a religion (or worship a god -- any god in general, so no capital) that has so low an opinion of human beings as to class them all as "evil," even comparatively? What a waste of time.
(no subject)
To re-phrase Sparks' second to last sentence: The definition of "good" according to the Bible, is that whatever God wants, is Good. Whatever God doesn't want, is Evil. Therefore, as
Sparks isn't speaking in terms of pure good and pure evil, but in varying degrees, as in the comparison between Hitler and Koresh.
Evil as the absence of good = cold as the absence of heat = darkness as the absence of light. To be good is to overcome humanity's natural tendency for selfishness.
Do human beings really have a natural tendency for selfishness?
To me, this line of argument is getting into the idea that human beings are just intrinsically bad (again), and I don't happen to believe that. I don't think it's possible to say that human beings are intrinsically bad, or intrinsically good. The same person who's capable of acts of great humanity and kindness may also be capable of acts of great depravity and selfishness, depending on the circumstances. Human beings aren't binary switches or cardboard cutouts! Actually, I'm not even sure I want to be so essentialist as to say that human beings are intrinsically much of anything, which most certainly conflicts with the Christian worldview.
Glenn, as to your quote, let me put it to you this way. Do you really want to belong to a religion (or worship a god -- any god in general, so no capital) that has so low an opinion of human beings as to class them all as "evil," even comparatively? What a waste of time.
Re: Do human beings really have a natural tendency for selfishness?
BTW, did I ever describe to you my understanding of original sin?