Lesson video

Hello, my name's Mrs. Rawbone, and I'd like to welcome you to this RS lesson today on good and evil intentions.

Thank you for working with me through this lesson.

In today's lesson, you will be able to explain different views, including Christian ones, on good and evil, human nature and suffering.

Keywords we'll be using today are evil intentions, original sin, and suffering.

Evil intentions are having the desire to deliberately cause suffering or harm to another.

Original sin is the belief that human nature is flawed and that we all have the tendency to sin, traditionally believed to come from Adam and Eve's disobedience, and suffering is an effect of evil, undergoing pain and hardship.

The lesson today will form three parts.

We'll be looking at good and evil, human nature, and at suffering.

So let's get started on good and evil.

Alex and Sam are debating what we mean when we say an action is wrong.

Sam says, "An action is wrong if it causes harm or breaks moral rules, no matter what the intention was.

What matters most is the outcome." So Sam is expressing the view that actions matter more than intentions.

Alex says, "The intention behind an action is just as important as the outcome.

Without harmful intent, an action might not be truly wrong." Alex is expressing the contrasting view that intentions matter more than actions.

So for some, actions matter more than intentions when deciding whether something is wrong, but others would disagree.

Let's think about an example here.

Is lying wrong? Well, if we focus on the action, then we might say yes because it breaks a moral rule or it results in harm.

If instead we focus on intention, we might also say, yes, it's wrong, but this might be because if it was done to cause someone harm rather than to protect them.

So we're thinking about the intention and what the person meant to do.

On the other hand, if it was done to protect someone rather than to cause them harm, we could perhaps argue that lying was okay if we're focusing on intention.

The word "evil" comes from Old English, and the word "intentions" comes from Latin.

"Evil" comes from a word, "yfel", meaning bad or wicked, and "intentions" comes from "intendere", which actually literally means to stretch toward.

So literally evil intentions means stretching or aiming towards evil.

So it's come to mean having the desire to deliberately cause suffering or harm to another.

So intentions can be good.

We might embrace positive qualities.

We might deliberately choose to do what is good, and examples could be deciding to treat someone kindly.

Intentions, however, could be evil.

We might reject positive qualities.

We might deliberately desire to do wrong.

An example might be the opposite of kindness, instead deciding to treat someone cruelly.

Which of the following best describes evil intentions? A, choosing to follow a moral rule even if it causes harm, b, accidentally causing harm without meaning to, c, having the desire to deliberately cause suffering or harm to another, or d, aiming to do good but making a mistake.

Take a moment to think about your answer.

Pause the video if you need to, and then come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you chose c, having the desire to deliberately cause suffering or harm to another.

Some people value the action more than the intention.

They might say, "Well, whether or not someone intended to cause harm is less important than the fact that harm was caused." On the other hand, some people might value the action more than the intention.

They might say, "What truly matters is why a person acted as they did.

If their intentions were good, then the action should be judged with understanding and mercy." So when thinking about good and evil, Christians usually agree that the intention and the action both matter.

They might say, "God cares about what we do but also why we do it." Many non-religious people might also agree.

They might say, "A good action with selfish motives isn't truly good, and sometimes good intentions result in evil actions," so showing that it's balanced, that both of those things matter.

The Bible is an important source of authority for Christians when they're considering issues surrounding good and evil intentions.

1 Samuel 16:7 says, People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." This verse teaches that while humans judge actions based on what they can see, God judges based on a person's intentions and inner character.

Matthew 5:21-22, "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'You shall not murder.

' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgement ." In this quotation, Jesus teaches that intentions matter as much as actions.

Even if someone does not physically cause murder, harbouring anger or hatred is still morally wrong in God's eyes.

Is this statement true or false? The Bible teaches that God judges people only by their actions.

Take a moment to think about the verses we've just considered.

Pause the video.

Also have a think about why.

Come back when you're ready to check your answer.

So well done if you spotted that it was false, but why is it false? Well, the Bible teaches that God judges not only by what people do but also by whether they have evil intentions.

For example, in Matthew 5:21-22, Jesus says that even anger is subject to judgement.

For task A, I'd like you to consider this scenario then answer the questions.

A teenager steals 100 pounds from their parents to buy food for a friend who has been living on the street.

The teenager knows stealing is wrong but believes helping their friend is more important.

So firstly, would someone who focused on the actions say this was wrong or right and why? Secondly, would someone who focuses on the intention say this was wrong or right and why? And thirdly, what do you think most Christians would say about whether the teenager's action was right or wrong and why? Take your time, pause the video, and come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said for number one someone who focuses on the action would say this is wrong because stealing is always breaking a moral rule.

It does not matter why it was done.

The action itself is wrong.

For number two, someone focusing on the intention, they would say it was right because the teenager wanted to help someone, not to be selfish or cruel.

The intention was good so they would understand the action.

And number three, what would most Christians say? Well, most Christians would say that both the action and the intention matter.

Stealing is wrong, but if the reason was to help someone, then God would look at what was in the teenager's heart as well as what they did.

So well done if you managed to show those two different points of view but also to show how the Christian view on this would probably be that both were balanced and equally important.

For the second part of our lesson, we're going to be looking at human nature.

There are lots of different ways to approach questions about human nature.

Religious approaches, so theology draws on sacred texts, doctrines and beliefs about God, and religious philosophy, which uses reason to explore religious ideas about human nature.

And there are non-religious approaches or secular approaches.

We might use social sciences.

These study how human nature is shaped by the mind and society and by culture, or we might use secular philosophy, using reason and logic to explore human nature and ethics.

Andeep, Sofia, Lucas and Aisha are asking some questions about human nature.

Andeep says, "What do sacred texts say about human nature?" Sofia says, "Does our capacity for goodness come from God?" Lucas asks, "Do humans have an essential nature?" And Aisha asks, "Are we born with a particular nature or is it shaped by our environment?" Who is using theology to approach this question? So take a moment.

Think about those different ways of approaching questions.

Turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, or you can talk to me and then come back when you're ready to move on.

So well done if you spotted it was Andeep.

He used the term "sacred texts".

Zoe is an atheist and a psychologist.

She's explaining whether she thinks human nature is good or bad.

Zoe says, "Human nature is shaped by both biology and environment.

People are born with certain tendencies, like fear or empathy, but how these develop depends on upbringing, culture and personal experience.

I do not believe humans are naturally good or bad.

Our behaviour is influenced by rewards, punishments, and social expectations.

What we often call evil actions usually have complex causes, including trauma, unmet needs or distorted thinking." So according to Zoe's view as a psychologist, what best explains why people do bad things? Pause the video.

Take your time to reread what Zoe has said.

Turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

So well done if you noticed that Zoe says, "our behaviour is influenced by rewards, punishments, and social expectations." Which explanation of human nature is based on social science? Is it a, people are shaped by society's rules and norms, not born good or bad, b, humans are born with a potential for goodness but must develop it, or c, behaviour is shaped by rewards and punishments? Take a moment.

Pause the video so you can jot down your answer, and then come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you spotted it was a, that people are shaped by society's rules and norms and not born good or bad.

Different Christian denominations have different views on whether human nature is good or evil.

For the view that human nature is good, Quakers are a good example.

Quakers believe that there is an inner light in everyone.

Sin comes from individual choices and social influences, not from a fallen nature.

In contrast, we have many Christians, including Catholics, who would argue that human nature is fallen.

Catholics believe all humans inherit original sin.

This means that human nature is inclined to sin but that God's grace helps them to overcome this.

Now, for many Christians is a combination of those views.

Human nature is good but also human nature is fallen.

So what that means is that people are naturally good, but they're also inclined to sin.

The Bible is an important source of authority for Christians when they're thinking about these kinds of issues about human nature.

Genesis 1:27 says, "So God created mankind in his own image." This verse teaches that human nature is rooted in the image of God, and it suggests that humans are created with dignity, with reason and with free will, but then later in that creation story, in Genesis 3:11, we have God asking, "Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?" So this verse shows that in the very beginning, humans exercise their free will to disobey God, and it highlights the moment the sin entered the human experience.

Some Christians believe that this act itself corrupted human nature, but there are others, as we saw, who believe that human nature remains essentially good.

Romans 7:19 says, "For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do, this I keep on doing." In this verse, the writer, Paul, is describing an inner struggle.

He knows what's right, but he fails to do it.

So he is reflecting the Christian view that sin somehow weakens human nature.

Which biblical teaching highlights the fact that humans struggle to act morally even when they want to? Is it a, "So God created mankind in his own image", Genesis 1:27, b, "Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?" Genesis 3:11, or c, "For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do, this I keep on doing", Romans 7:19? Take a moment, jot down your answer, pause if you need to, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

So well done if you spotted it was that verse written by Paul in Romans 7:19, that he doesn't do what he wants to, which is the good.

The evil is the thing that he keeps on doing.

So he's struggling against human nature.

Father Jason is a Catholic priest, and he's talking about human nature.

Father Jason says, "The Catechism of the Catholic church teaches that suffering entered the world through original sin," and he reads from paragraph 404.

"Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit." "This human nature is inclined to sin and it causes suffering.

However, by trusting in Christ, suffering can have purpose.

It may draw a person closer to God." So according to Father Jason, where does suffering come from? Pause the video.

Take a moment to reread what he's written.

Have a think and have a conversation if you can with someone nearby, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Father Stefanos is an Eastern Orthodox priest, and he's talking about what his church teaches about human nature.

He says, "We do not believe in original sin in the sense that all humanity has inherited guilt.

Sin introduced death and a broken relationship with God, but our nature remains created in his image.

Suffering is not a punishment, and it can be a path to spiritual healing when we seek union with God.

Through prayer, repentance and the sacraments, we are restored and transformed by God's grace." So does Father Stefanos agree with the doctrine of original sin? Pause the video, reread what he has said, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Is this statement true or false? Both Catholic and Orthodox Christians believe that all people inherit guilt from Adam and Eve.

Take a moment to think about your answer and also to think about why.

Pause the video and come back when you're ready to move on.

So well done if you spotted that it was false, but why is it false? Well, Catholics believe in inherited original sin, but Orthodox Christians don't believe we inherit the guilt, only the consequences of the sin.

For task B, I'd like you to explain two religious beliefs about human nature.

In your answer, you must refer to one or more religious traditions.

To answer the question, you might want to use the suggestions below.

Point, so some or insert the name of a group.

Develop, this means.

Point, other or, again, insert the name of a group.

This means.

So pause the video.

Take your time to think about expanding on those two different Christian beliefs about human nature.

Come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said, "Some Christians believe that human nature is fallen and sinful because of original sin.

This means that all humans inherit a simple nature from Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden, as described in Genesis 3.

This belief is especially important in Catholic theology, which teaches that people need God's grace to be saved and overcome their sinful nature.

Other Christians, such as Orthodox Christians, also believe humans are made in the image of God, but that this image has been damaged by sin.

They believe human nature remains essentially good but is weakened, meaning people are more likely to sin." So well done if you managed to explain those two different views using the concept of original sin.

Let's move on to the third part of our lesson, which is on suffering.

The Bible is an important source of authority for Christians when considering issues surrounding whether good can come from suffering.

Romans 8:28 says, "And we know that in all things God works for good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." This verse suggests that even in times of suffering or hardship, God is at work bringing about good for those who trust in him.

It does not say everything that happens is good but that God can bring good out of suffering.

So what's the missing word? "And we know that in all things God works for the, of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." Pause if you need to, jot down your answer, and then come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you put "good".

Some people argue that suffering can lead to good.

A young woman loses her job.

She suffers financial hardship.

She prays.

She reflects on the suffering of Jesus, and she finds strength in her community.

As a result, she develops patience and learns to trust God more.

So we can see in this example how a difficult situation, a situation of suffering, could potentially lead someone to develop personal qualities.

And some Christians would argue that suffering can lead to personal growth.

It can help people like this young woman to develop qualities or virtues such as patience or compassion.

They would also argue that suffering can bring people closer to God.

She learned to trust God more.

Ji-eun is a Methodist minister.

She's explaining what she believes about whether suffering can lead to good.

Ji-eun says, "I believe God created a world where suffering and challenge exists to help us grow.

As the theologian John Hick said, this life is a 'vale of soul-making' where we develop strength, compassion and character.

Suffering is painful, but it can have meaning when it helps us become more loving.

God is with us in it, shaping us through it, not punishing us." So where would you place Ji-eun's view on the scale thinking about the statement "suffering leads to good"? Would she be at the disagree end, near a zero, or would she be at the agree end? Take your time to have a conversation with someone nearby if you can, or you can pause and talk to me.

Come back when you're ready to move on.

Fergus is a liberal Anglican who studied theology.

He's talking about whether suffering can lead to good.

Fergus says, "I agree with the theologian D.

Z.

Phillips, who argued that suffering should not be justified by saying it leads to something good.

Turning suffering into a benefit risks treating people as a means to an end and ignoring their pain.

God calls us to respond to suffering with love, not to explain it away." So let's have a think about that scale again, suffering leads to good.

Would Fergus be at the disagree end or at the agree end? Again, pause the video.

Turn and talk to someone nearby, or you can talk to me, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Diane is a humanist.

She's talking about whether suffering can lead to good.

Diane says, "Suffering isn't needed for people to grow.

While some people do become stronger through hardship, that doesn't justify the pain they went through, and for others, suffering has no good outcomes at all.

Our focus should be on reducing suffering, not trying to justify it." Let's think about that scale again.

Where would you place Diane's view? Is she disagreeing at the zero end or is she more likely to agree that suffering leads to good? Pause the video again.

Turn and talk to someone nearby, or you can talk to me, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

So which statement expresses the view that good can come out of suffering? Is it a, suffering has no value and should not be justified, b, suffering can help develop compassion and bring people closer to God, c, suffering always causes harm and must be avoided, or d, suffering is a punishment for wrongdoing? So take your time to think about the answer.

Pause the video.

Come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you chose b, suffering can develop compassion and bring people closer to God.

For task C, I'd like you to consider the statement "Suffering can lead to good".

Complete the table below showing which of these points could be used to argue for and which against the statement and explaining how.

So the first point, suffering can help people grow, is this a point for or against? Why? And the second, turning suffering into a benefit risks ignoring real pain, and the same thing.

Is it a point for or against? Why? Pause the video.

Take your time to really think about those two points and to think about what they're saying and also why.

Come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said, for the first point, suffering can help people grow, that this is an argument for the statement because people who say this believe God can use suffering to help people become stronger and more loving.

This view teaches that challenges in life can develop good qualities like patience and compassion.

So suffering can have a positive purpose.

For the second point, turning suffering into a benefit risks ignoring real pain, this would be a point against.

People who say this argue that suffering leads to good, and it can ignore how painful it really is.

It risks treating people as a means to an end, and instead, Christians should focus on helping those who are suffering, not trying to explain it away.

So well done if you worked out that one of those points was for and the other against and if you managed to explain why.

In today's lesson, we've looked at the fact that some people judge actions as wrong if they cause harm or break moral rules regardless of the intention behind them, but others believe that if someone meant well, the action may not be truly wrong, even if harm was caused.

Christian teaching generally holds that both action and intention matter.

Some Christians believe human nature is fallen to original sin, while others are more positive about the human capacity for good.

Many Christians believe suffering can lead to spiritual growth, although some liberal Christians and non-religious people such as humanists would argue that it cannot justify pain.

Thank you for all of your hard work today on this challenging lesson on good and evil intentions.

Well done.