One must understand the nature of good in order to understand evil. Contrary to the cynical opinions of life, and I am a cynic, most people are basically good in nature. There is a difference in being ‘good’ and observing a code of behavior. Neither is wrong. A good person is a good person. If you are a Christian, as am I, good is okay, but only John 3:16 is acceptable for Salvation. Being a Christian is not required to be a good person. Unfortunately, I know a heck of a lot of people who claim to be Christians who aren’t all that nice.
The problem with being incapable of grasping the fact that evil exists is exhibited in the need to look for a reason for why someone does something evil. Currently, no one can understand why Stephen Paddock did what he did. His life is now being examined, yet people aren’t coming to grips with the fact that there is something very wrong with the man.
His father was on the lam for a decade on the FBI’s 1o Most Wanted list. He was a bank robber. The FBI considered him a psychopath. Unfortunately, the son’s life can be explained, if you are wiling to accept the fact that evil does, indeed exist and psychopaths can be born. It is highly genetic. This leads to the discussion of nature verses nurture. I suspect the left would rather have a knock-down-drag-out battle over gun control than face the fact that evil can be born.
There are twenty traits psychopaths can share:
- glib and superficial charm
- grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self
- need for stimulation
- pathological lying
- cunning and manipulativeness
- lack of remorse or guilt
- shallow affect (superficial emotional responsiveness)
- callousness and lack of empathy
- parasitic lifestyle
- poor behavioral controls
- sexual promiscuity
- early behavior problems
- lack of realistic long-term goals
- failure to accept responsibility for own actions
- many short-term marital relationships
- juvenile delinquency
- revocation of conditional release
- criminal versatility
We don’t know about Paddock. The most interesting aspect of his odd life is the fact that, evidently, no one knew him. He was fairly wealthy. He was allegedly a high-stakes gambler. He moved, frequently. He had a nomadic life-style. Apparently, he had difficulty with relationships. He was well educated, did property management, dabbled in real estate to the point where he made himself independently wealthy, and collected guns.
If you know how to look for signs of something being wrong, they are all there. Allegedly he was in debt. He lived a nomadic existence. He was a loner. He would live in hotel suites for weeks and months at a time.
We also know he was meticulous in planning. Having taken his own life at the scene of the crime, was his behavior intended to be death by cop,and go out in a blaze of glory?
Or – was he just plain evil.
I think he was just plain evil. A person does not do what he did and not be evil. There is no other logical explanation. If you want my dos centavos, I suspect they are going to discover a domestic violence skeleton in his closet. The other part of this is liberals are going to be looking for explanations. For some strange reason, liberals just don’t quite grasp the nature of evil.