Patriot:
I have to agree with KFD. Your definition of “Creation” is not one that I’ve ever seen used to define that word. Love, Truth, Choice, Knowledge—each of those is a distinct word, representing a distinct concept, and bearing a distinct definition. I’d like to thing I have a pretty broad vocabulary, and even so, I cannot think of a word in the English language that can be said to at once encompass all of those concepts. Certainly not the term “Creation”.
But attempting to drill down into the individual concepts that compose your peculiar definition, I will try to answer the question, “is committing atrocities in Harmony with [fill in the blank]”?
I will first assume that you mean the term “atrocities” in the usual sense—as in, mass-murder, genocide, and that sort of thing. (Though in light of your peculiar definition of “Creation”, I can’t be confident you mean it this way at all). I’m also not 100% sure whether you’re using the term “Harmony” in the common manner—or whether you mean something more mystical. For purposes of my answer, I will interpret “harmony” to mean the same thing as “compatible”.
I also see no need to continue with the odd habit of capitalizing these terms. Unless they mean something different to you than the common dictionary definition, this strange capitalization practice adds no meaning to these words, and serves only to confuse me as to whether we’re discussing the same concept or not. Unless you want your reader to be confused, you may want to drop the capitalization except when necessary.
1. Is committing atrocities in harmony (or compatible) with love?
Well, love is a pretty abstract concept and emotion, but presumably you mean this to refer to “having a warm heart” of “being a kind person” or perhaps you mean it in the sense of “loving one’s fellow man.” Assuming you intend one of these meanings, I would say that committing atrocities (as I’ve defined that term) is not compatible with loving one’s fellow man, or having a warm heart. That said—and I do not mean here to defend the practice—I suspect that history is littered with examples of men (or groups of men) who committed atrocities, yet at the same time were capable of, and did in fact love somebody on some level. This is speculation, but it seems to me that men who wish to do bad things typically find a reason to do them. And the mere fact that they wish to do bad things to one person or a whole race of them, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that none of these thousands (or millions) of men have NEVER felt the emotion of love toward one person, or affection toward a group of people. Hitler was a pretty bad guy by our standards, but even he appeared to be fond of his own people, as well as his girlfriend. I can’t tell you whether this meets your definition of love. But I can tell you that if you’re really trying to ask whether a person can be a good and moral person and also commit atrocities, you’ve asked the question in a way that obscured your meaning. It is immoral to commit atrocities (as I’ve defined the term). But it’s highly likely that people have committed atrocities and also loved some person or group of people. So as a broad principle, I think it more accurate to say that “committing atrocities is incompatible with being a good human (or a moral human)”—and your use of the term “love” here seems to me a rather clumsy way to get at that conclusion.
2. Is committing atrocities in harmony (compatible) with truth?
Why wouldn’t it be? I fail to see how one relates to the other. The truth of a given thing is not dependent on anything else around it, and certainly not on existence or nonexistence of atrocities. One could make this question worse only by changing it to ask “is the truth of an atrocity in harmony with truth?” Do you see how the question is nonsensical? If what you really meant was something like “freedom of people to disseminate the truth” or something like that, then I suppose the answer would depend on the circumstances including which people we’re talking about (the persecutors or the persecuted).
3. Is committing atrocities in harmony (compatible) with choice?
It probably is for whoever is being atrocitized. But like #2, this doesn’t make much sense as a question.
4. Is committing atrocities in harmony (compatible) with knowledge?
I’m not sure how much this differs from #2 either since knowledge presumably pertains to accurate knowledge—and accurate knowledge is truth.
It sounds to me like you don’t know what your question is. I recommend giving it some more thought and restating it once you understand it yourself.
By the way—are you MPL? Your questions are without substance, and appear to be the product of very little contemplation. Just asking.
