He criticized the thoughts of happy and unhappy as ambiguous because they're subjective, from what I understood...unless you're speaking of his disdain of materialism, but that was something he gained from following the teachings of Confucius, from what I understand.

I think there may be some interesting similarities between Eastern philosophies and Christianity. Of course, it all depends on how one interprets things. The "knowledge" of good and evil, for example, can be interpreted as the opposite of Wisdom--as a kind of error or false belief, which produces and has produced every ill that flesh is heir to. The world of opposites may undermine itself, returning unto dust, for it is inherently self-opposed, a house divided against itself. Truth may exist beyond opposites, beyond good-and-evil, where all is only Good.

Furthermore, the notion of an anthropomorphic diety could actually contradict Christ's teachings, making Christ more of a Buddhist than a Jew. But, as I said, it is all a matter of interpretation.

Are we not in this day and age responsible to this clearer understanding of the human condition, instead of trying to accomadate a ancient holy text which is ever proveing to be sacred ignorance.

Except that, as Saiboimushi points out, that holy text goes a long way to give us a clearer understanding of this human condition.

I was thinking about "good" and "evil" and was wondering if good is what is natural, and evil that which is not. Let me know what you think of that, and I'll expand from there.

Adam and Eve are banished from paradise after eating the fruit from the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil'. Distinguishing between good and evil is their crime.

From Thomas Merton's introduction to Chuang Tzu:

"...the hero of virtue and duty ultimately lands himself in the same ambiguities as the hedonist and utilitarian. Why? Because he aims at achieving "the good" as object."

Chuang Tzu criticizes "profit motive" - hedonism and utilitarianism - because they strive for what is constantly out of reach (much like John Rockefeller's quest for enough money, one dollar more) and look towards good in the future, and not good now, in the present moment.

Chuang Tzu's criticism is not limited to the means of philosophers from his time, but he also criticizes the ends they pursue. He criticizes the notions of happiness and unhappiness as ambiguous because they are set in the world of objects. According to Merton, this criticism is equally true of virtues, justice, and even of 'good and evil' or 'right and wrong'.

"When the whole world recognizes good as good, it becomes evil" - Lao Tzu

Some early morning ramblings for your consideration.

Well I think i ment natural and unnatural in terms of how the body reacts to something. Kind of like a comfort zone. If the body is ok with something, then its "good," that being natural; whereas if the body gets some sort of uneasy feeling that makes something "bad" or "evil." This makes the concept of Good and Evil a very personal thing, which I think it is. The very fact there is a branch of Ethics I suppose shows that (in terms of the fact there is discussion and debate on what is the "right or wrong thing to do").

As for a biblical sense of good and evil. Well I'm not a religious person, but what little i do know, I think I'd have do disagree with your statement of "there is no such thing as good and evil in the biblical sense." I think the bible is full of examples of good and evil. First of all there is the set up of an all-powerfull, all-knowing, all-good god; and then there is this complete opposite character of Satan who is the encarnation of evil. The concept of heaven and hell suggests there is a system of "good" and "evil;" along with the idea of a judgement day. If there is no right/wrong, good/evil what is there to judge? Next you have the concept of sin and the act of original sin with Adam and Eve in the Garden: that suggests a biblical sense of good/bad. You have Cane killing Able and being banished: again a sense of what's right or wrong/good or bad. There's the flood to whipe out all sin.... I think you get the picture, but I'm only in Genisis of the Old Testiment (being raised Jewish that's all I've ever been really exposed to).

So I 100% aggree with you in that "good and bad" are a biological reaction. I suppose I'm looking for the root of that reaction. As for the Biblical stuff.. Well I think I ranted enough there to show that I disagreed with that statement :p

Adam and Eve are banished from paradise after eating the fruit from the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil'. Distinguishing between good and evil is...

Is duality, the apple of duality.

Hmmm, interesting perspective. It seems to ring a bell....
Care to elaborate a bit? I know where I'd go with that, I'd like to hear your perspective.
There seems to be no existence without the 'appearance' of duality. All existence is Contextual. Dualistic in appearance (good and evil is judging the appearance). All Perspectives have equal and 'opposite' other Perspectives (and everything in between). Dualistic.
What do you think?

The Story of Adam & Eve can also be seen as a parable that speak's of are mind's.

Yet you only spoke of the sum, of what was said within the whole text.

If you think of good and evil, yet while siting in one spot. Do you cast your action's out side that paradise within your mind? You dont if your siting in one spot, while thinking of that thought. Yet those that cast there thought's out of that one spot, (are deemed) evil.

For they would be once again breaking the founding concept of Do onto other's as want done onto one self. Thats the concept that all lived by around that time frame...

Hence I would not want to see the evil thought's of another person's mind displayed within the physical world, so I shall not do such that I would not want done onto my self.

I will not comment on Chuang Tzu. For his word's are his, and not mine, for let them tell the story of his own created understanding and perception of are physical and mental world's. I will not be a translator for thing's that I have deemed flawed in my mind.

You made some good points, but, when I said there is no such thing as good and evil in the bibical sense, it was to underline the absurdity of the concept of good and evil as to determine blame. These things are subjective, the concepts of good and bad spring out of your experience, the concept of evil is ladened with christian connotations which do not resemble reality.

The garden if not read literally is interpreted as a place of oneness, the focus of Christianity tends to be on the obvious, that of the duality of nature. The original sin of eating the apple, is the letting go of that oneness. It could, though probably not by to many Christians be thought of a the begining of life, for it is not until this occurance that Adam and Eve truely become self-responsible people, indeed it is only then, that life truely begins. As result of being saved I would imagine, it would mean a return to the garden, return to that mystic knowledge of oneness, which is so common to the religions of the east. All those judgements of sin are of course not possiable in a totality, in a oneness. Kind of beyond good and evil---hmmmmmm, the anit-christ, Nietzsche!!