A biblical examination might conclude that evil does exist and that it is the product or effect of the Devil. John's gospel says that Jesus told the Pharisees that they were of the Father the devil and that therefore, they did the works of their father. You know, lies and murder. That argument puts Jesus in opposition to your witty student.
Genesis however, presents the matter in a slightly different light. According to a literal reading of Genesis (not a VP "literal according to usage, but reading it without the Way's interpretive overlay), the serpent didn't lie to Eve. His evil was in enticing her to disobedience. Adam and Eve were not changed, or corrupted by the original sin. They didn't lose holy spirit, and they didn't become inherently wicked. They simply lost their innocence. They had their eyes opened. So whatever is in man now, was already there. They were simply blissfully ignorant of their true natual state: their nakedness.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons...
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
So in essence, the serpent told the truth. Eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did make them like gods. But it was not the blessing the Serpent presented it as. They learned that they were naked. The $60,000 question is, 'what is nakedness?' Is it merely the absence of clothing, or is it inherent immorality? Is it mortality, as Paul implied in a double metaphor of II Corinthians 5:1-3? Genesis doesn't really answer any of these questions, which is why somebody had to write Exodus, Leviticus, Romans, etc. :-)
I have no idea if Einstein is the student in the story, but the response on that web page is some serious blabbery. Most of the word count deals with everything else BUT whether or not it was Einstein, only stopping for air briefly to say it probably wasnt and either way it can't be proven. But why pass up an opportunity to explain the soft-brained tendency of so many and their "faith"?
Those who are convinced of the existence of God, therefore, have no incontrovertible, irrefutable answer to anyone who challenges them to provide evidence of the veracity of their belief systems' tenets. They are left unable to squelch the nay-sayers, to demonstrate beyond any shadow of doubt that their inner direction is the right one, and so have to endure the catcalls and jeers of those who insist on independently verifiable proof of that which can't be proven.
What's that got to do with the a refutation of the claim it's Einstein who was the student? And why do I give a rats asz about "naysayers". Don't like my faith? Get your own. Geez, it's like reading a 9 year old boy's screeds about the girl with red hair two seats up in school who won't talk to him at lunch so he's gotta write all over the bathroom walls "Sally eats dog poop!"
Oh, but now we know WHY such a story would be promulgated. I see. Mostly Snope's status of "False" merely shows that in the absence of actual uh, what was that word...PROOF? they're more than happy to declare excathedra by both FIAT and CHEVY that something they disdain is false. Aparently Snopes is the Bible of the 00's.
Sorry, I can't pass an opportunity to poke fun at an article that is so dripping with self-righteous goo it's funny, because when I read it I'm reminded of why I have no interest at all to demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt as to what I believe as a matter of faith - because the proof of my faith is to me, not anyone else. That's why it's "my" faith.
I found the Snopes article disappointing because it missed the point. I didn't take the first post literally. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other whether this conversation actually took place in a classroom. I tend to agree with the conclusion of the first post, though, or at least I think it has merit: "Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart." I may have worded it differently, or maybe it's too simplistic, but I wonder if the evil or wrongs that happen in this world are fundamentally due to a lack of empathy. And, if they are, how do we go about the task of finding a remedy?
Also, even though I look at religion with a jaded eye, I give it credit for at least asking the questions: Why are we here? What obligation do we have to ourselves and others? What is the role of goodness in the universe? Is it worth pursuing, and, if so, where is it found?
George, don't you ever wonder about those things?
socks, where ya been? I've missed you.
Jerry, I'm not sure I get the connection between nakedness and immorality and evil and death. Sounds like a sermon title by John Cotton. Why should nakedness be something to be afraid of?
I always get uneasy about the veracity of such stories when they have
such a neat and tidy, sitcom sortof ending.
Real life seldom (does it ever?) works out so cleverly...
I keep getting these tidbits from email sent to me by various RELIGIOUS relatives.
I am always amazed to find out more about where they came from. Thank you George.
How do you find out where they come from? When I read this one in my email I thought, gosh, I bet it will get some discussion from GS and sure enough -- it has triggered some responce.
Had no idea the student could possibly have been Einstein.
One has to admit, much of what is said by the student sounds logical?
Depends on how you want to define "evil", I guess.
Is it just the absence of "good", or is it a force in and of itself?
Most of what I see that could be interpreted as evil, is mostly selfishness in the extreme. Somebody putting their own needs, wants, and ambitions first, with little or no regard for others.
Well, no, I'm a completely unique individual who, unlike every other human who has ever existed,
NEVER has considered any of that stuff. ;)
Sure, I've considered it. I have just found that religion is entirely inadequate in explaining any of it.
Religion doesn't encourage thoughtful investigation or questioning. On the contrary, it's quite the norm for the religiously disposed to cop a "My way or the highway" attitude. So if you have burning questions like "Why does God allow evil to exist?" or even "Why did my favorite aunt Julie die?, rather than delving into it and honestly searching out how that could be, we get spin or dodge. "God HAS to in order to be just."
or "Well, it's all according to God's plan. We can't know the mind of the Almighty", and such.
Like I said, entirely inadequate, well, for me anyway...
And as for whether "evil" exists or not, well, like Oak said, I think we need to define our terms.
Is it evil for a lion to cripple a gazelle and eat it alive? Maybe so, if you're a gazelle. Is it evil for a cornice to fall off of a building a smash a child into pulp? How about for an horribly abused child to grow up to be a horrible abuser himself?
How DO you place the blame? Maybe you can just declare it all "Evil" and then feel perfectly justified in doing whatever you like about it.
I've always wondered, would we even know 'evil' at all or that 'good could vs evil' if Adam and Eve hadn't disobeyed God?
My concept of God has always been, God is Love, God is Light and there is NO darkness in God, and that God is the Creator of ALL THINGS..... with that being stated, who in the 'sam hill' created Satan?
I hear tell he was once a 'perfect little angel' who through his own 'freedom of will' decided HE wanted to be the Boss, and then God cast him down? Did GOD put Satan down to earth TO temp or test Adam and Eve?
I got so many questions, and I doubt they will EVER get logical answers. Ok, I can understand that God is the Alpha and Omega, had no beginning will have no end.... but how can we understand that when we all HAD A BEGINNING somehow? Did God just come about like 'an evolutionary being'?
If God created US, couldn't he have also created other life-form out there? If God Created the Angels, and they WERE Perfect, and Satan had everything perfect - why would he want to go and BLOW IT?
I mean, he had a great thing going, and he STILL wasn't satisfied? What caused Satan to even know there was a 'different side' than that which is PERFECT?
Gonna stop now before I really go hawg wild with the QUESTIONS...... (or am I?)
I thought God couldn't look upon darkness, so WHO CREATED the 'evil' anyhow?
AND if God always was, with no beginning or end -- certainly he could have BROTHERS/SISTERS? Or were there just ONE of these Spirits that IS?
How do we know the GOD story and the Bible aren't 'stories made up by man' like so many other tales out there? Like Mythology, Like the Indian Folklores, and other Tales that have in and of it self very similarities?
For me, I've chosen to Believe (a step of blind faith - if you will), in Believing the God Story and about his Son, salvation and all, mostly because all the 'OTHER' stories, don't offer an escape from death. Therefore I've told myself -- "I have everything possible to GAIN, in believing in Christ" and "everything to loose" by NOT believing, and if I end up believing it WRONG -- well I've really not lost anything except Time which I would have lost anyhow........
Where does evil exist? Or whose bed are its boots under?
Does it exist? ... Was your question.
Not trying to be a pain in the arse, but I assume that you are asking people this question - you are not asking the essence people call "Evil" to manifest itself & start posting its own proof. :D
So then... you are asking people if they perceive, personally, that evil exists -
Here is the tricky part - usually when people ask if something exists - they are asking a person if it is "out there" in the outer or in the physical world. For if we perceive it to be "out there" then we can put space between it and us and flee from it. We can leave it behind us. Look at in our rear-view mirrors as we wave bye to it and watch its grimacing face - whither.
But what if it is NOT always ACTUALLY "out there"? What if it's definition (and hence, it's usual place of creation) exists as an extension of a mind's perception? Then it would go with us in the car... it would be like a "bad" companion - its boots would be under our beds at night... It would be in us - a creation of our own making.
At least that type - would prove to be in us - and not "out there".
If this is "so" or valid for at least one person... then I would have to say - it does exist... it exists as a perception in at least one mind - regardless of any other - out-there "reality"...
So, one can easily see, that it doesn't take much "quantity" for something to exist. It just takes one... one perception. And VIOLLA!!
Yes it does exist. Now What?
:unsure:
"Evil" - (in at least the internal generation of its manifestations) might be better thought of as a descriptor of an emotion - one that a person generates and experiences right after that person has pronounced a negative judgement or assesment of something - be it either internal or external. It certainly seems to be after or "post" judgement. It does not simply rise on its own accord. Judgement needs to get it started.
So in that instance, evil would be a "follower" emotion (following the judgement to condemnation).
My original post was an email sent to me by a Religious Relative, and it turns out that George found where that originated.
Actually, I understand 'evil' and I do not LIKE IT, It has done damage to me through out my life so far., so I know it exists in one form or another...... BUT, like that topic, I just in general, have QUESTIONS as I mentioned in a post before. I'm just wondering if OTHER PEOPLE have the same or similar curious ponderings....... or am I alone in my 'wonder ponder'?
You are not alone in pondering these things. I was plagued with similar questions long ago, before I took the PFAL class. I was very steeped at that time in Eastern religions and the yin-yang philosophies associated with them. It bothered me to hear evil being justified by them. However, I did quickly get the bulk of my questions answered in the class and in subsequent readings that came with it.
I think you can get the bulk of your questions answered too.
Please allow me to suggest this as a start: Don't buy the professor's premise.
In your first post on this thread you relayed: "The professor answered, 'If God created everything...'"
THAT'S where the whole argument goes into darkness, right at the start. The truth is God did NOT create everything. God did NOT form everything. God did NOT make everything.
In the very first chapter of the Blue Book we can see a scripture quoted that was the great beginning to my understanding anything about evil. On page 5 of BTMS we read:
"In Matthew 15:13 Jesus said, 'Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.'"
This verse was an astonishing revelation to me. Not only that but throughout the decades, since first seeing it in the Blue Book, I have noticed that it is entirely absent from our Western cultural heritage and awareness. In skim reading this thread I noticed that even the grads here were unable to spot the professor's false premise. (My apologies if I missed it.)
I know we all will benefit greatly when we finally get rid of all the sensationally whipped-up soap operas and the genuine pains that have been saturating our minds, and we come back to the wonderful and simple truths that God entrusted by various means to Dr. Wierwille to put into written form for us students of his class.
There's much more on this matter of evil (even a refutation of the yin-yang idea) in the first half of Romans, but I am very short on time lately. Maybe later I can resume if you desire.
Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God.
Interesting, ... and flawed premise.
1) Because evil is not the absense of god, but of good. The article's author (deliberatily IMHO) forgot to include an additional 'o'.
2) If his premise holds true, about evil being the absense of god, then atheists can do nothing *but* evil, since they lack god in their lives. ... So then could someone explain to me why that college football star, who gave up going pro so he could join the Air Rangers and who wound up dying in Afghanistan, ... who was an athiest, ................ I'm sorry, but something just doesn't quite add up here.
I had taken the PFAL like about a thousand or more times before 1980. Went WOW, Fellow Laborer, and took three "Advance Classes" to include the LIVE one in Ohio, I believe that was in 1979?
Blue Book and all, read them, etc. BUT --- I did not start this post with any of my own PERSONAL Beliefs, and I don't doubt the existence myself of 'evil'. However, there are lots of questions I still have. Those wonderful PFAL materials, books and all, were BURNED by my ex in 1981, and I have NOT had a copy replaced. I did get some books given to me by a Friend who is still in TWI in Houston, but, for me they are books still written by Men, and VPW to me now, after losing great respect for HIM as a 'Christian' in general leave me to wonder how much of what he wrote I could personally trust or count on. Anyway, Christianity just does not address much of my ponderments. (if there is such a word.)
I do agree with the thought that evil is the absence of 'good'., I also think evil is at war with good.
For everyone, "natural man' included, there's this constant Spiritual Battle, and with our Free Will we have to choose between doing what is 'good' or doing what is 'evil'. Just because a person 'professes to be a Christian' does not mean they won't choose to 'do evil' in a moment's notice. Its been a proven fact in TWI, that leaders decisions have literally destroyed the lives of others and tarnished their own reputations, and perhaps they were 'wolves in sheeps clothing' to begin with, we just don't know. Perhaps they were just foolish and made poor judgement calls. Not for me to answer, for I don't know what is in another's heart.
Hey we could have an entire post going on 'the heart of mankind'.....
I've noticed that many of us (me included) may have taken the classes and read the books many times, but it's also the case that our absorption, integration, and retention levels regarding the material were still very low. That's why I advocate (along with Dr's last advice to us) that we come back to PFAL and see what we missed.
It's also true and good to keep in mind that God often gives good revelation to evil men. Otherwise we would be totally out of luck. There's only been one man who ever deserved the revelation he was given, and that's the sinless lord Jesus Christ. All the writers of the ancient scriptures were sinners. Although us fleshly men may argue about the degree and timing of sins, to God all sin is sin. Sure, I realize that there are different degrees of hurt that we humans may experience from the sins of others and the timing of those sins. However, it is the case that ALL believing and acting contrary to God's revelation is a total slap in HIS face, even if no humans are visibly hurt in the process.
Even if you don't accept that the PFAL books are revelation from God, that Matthew 15:13 quote has been around for 2000 years in print, though out of sight. It is very helpful to know that God is NOT responsible for all that goes on. Also, those first 8 chapters in Romans have many clues to the puzzle of understanding evil. If it weren't for PFAL most of us would have no clue how to see what's in plain sight there. Most of the world's notion of evil ignores that quote from Matthew and the Romans chapters.
You wrote: "Anyway, Christianity just does not address much of my ponderments. (if there is such a word.)"
It sounds like you may not be aware of those Romans passages. In the KJV some of them are hopelessly translated, but in JCNG Dr quotes a large section from "The New EnglishBible" version that answered a lot for me about why God tolerates evil both in the present and in His foreknowledge. The passage negating the yin-yang philosophy on evil is also pretty convoluted in most translations I've seen. Romans also squashes the erroneous (and extremely common) idea that "all things (even evil) happen for a good reason" but most readers fail to see it due to the distractions brought to mind with the word "predestination" in that same section.
I've seen that the notion of evil in the Bible is much more general an idea than it is today in the world. Evil is simply going against God. In Noah's time the entire world was preoccupied with going against God in everything they did, ALL the time. Sounds like the social politics and philosophies of today that are constantly clamoring to promote whatever is perceived to be against God's will.
If you'd like some help in replenishing your PFAL collateral collection please PM me.
George, buy the latest Rolling Stone and read the U2/Bono intereview. In it he makes some interesting comments, as a person, a Christian, a person. It's an interesting read.
Laleo, I'm in semi-thread-retirement. Lost my coupons. :D
I once played bass guitar in a band that had a female singer, just a gig for a few months. This gal was nice enough but her voice - well, her range was limited at best. We did a version of "Cracklin' Rosie" by Neil Diamond that would curdle your brain by the second verse. Did 3 sets a night, 4 nights a week and did that song twice a night. THAT was evil.
Ya, Geo. It's anecdotal evidence, but something has to account for these things. :o I'm sure that the lowest level of Hades has Cracklin' Rosie on the Muzak system, looped endlessly with the original version of Orlando's "Tie a Yellow Ribbon". (You always know when Seed Kids are in a bar by the way because they love those two songs and ask for encores - reminds them of home).
As for me, I've been set free to jam!!!
So I gotta add some value to this thread or I'm gonna get dissed by a Mod, for sure. Mike has actually hit on the essence of my contribution, although I will add no cheesey infomercial nor attempt to diminish the other contributors to this thread in my post. :blink:
Evil is often defined in religious circles in relation to Lucifer (the devil, satan, etc.) as a sort of inventor of it, "the father of lies", etc. In a sense Genesis describes him doing so, although the ability to choose was within the first two humans we read about. Had he not shown up in the account, would they have always chosen correctly? Is it the natural state of man to choose right until given another option? Aren't there always other choices? Is evil only about choices?
I'm seeing it as two things -
1- as a relative term, in relation to something else. Something is in it's natural state or condition and a change occurs that causes loss or damage to it, or somehow works against it's natural state.
2 - an independent cause that produces a result that's damaging to another natural state or condition.
In general, "out of harmony" would describe evil to me, in a very broad way.
Oaks's example of the animal being eaten by another is a perfect example. There we see one's natural state being reduced to total loss by the actions of another. Yet we also know that the animal doing the eating, known as "the eater", is doing what contributes to his own natural condition and state although it's definitely a bummer for the animal being eaten, AKA "the eatee". (thank God for grocery stores!)
Interesting side note - people don't eat people, normally. Given the choice we'll eat other animals first. It doesn't seem natural for humans to scope out other humans as menu selections. When we read about such things we're revulsed. Or should be. If anyone's not, please move over a couple seats, thank you.
But nature gives us a view of a - call it "larger" natural state and condition of the world we live in. It's natural, at this point, for some animals to eat other animals. Whether it was always so, I don't know but it seems to be what we would call "the order of things" in the world we know about. Big fish eat little fish. Great Whites eat anything. Alligators too. So there must be something more to evil and badness than that.An animal's gotta make a living, right? Does an undiscriminating palette make one more evil? ("you have to try the Brie from France, it's to die for! It's the only Brie I'll touch!!")
I'm inclined to think that if I were to understand the true natural order of life I'd be able to determine what is and isn't evil. Whatever falls out of harmony with the way things are "supposed to be" would be bad.
I think that's where things like the bible come in to play, as well as other means of learning. If I can learn what's right, I can learn what's wrong as anything that isn't right, or takes away from what's right, or functions independently of what's right, will be wrong . God is defined as being all "light", no darkness, no deviations, love. Whether metaphorical or not, these indicate a steady state of "right" that on some level if not this one, would be measurable. Deviances would be hmmm, not right.
I think Romans is another good example. Paul struggled with understanding the world he lived in in relation to his new faith (which wasn't based on wishful thinking but specific events and study) and his understanding of the Torah, etc. I think he went a long way towards describing both good and evil beyond lesser definitions of do this-don't do that, you're a good boy, she's a bad girl.
Which doesn't really get me to a total answer, but in a very global way I believe it's possible to come up with some basic answers to what's right in life as I know it and then work out applying that in to specific instances and actions over time, while still learning and broadening my understanding.
Jerry, I'm not sure I get the connection between nakedness and immorality and evil and death. Sounds like a sermon title by John Cotton. Why should nakedness be something to be afraid of?
Sorry Laleo, I didn't explain that well. To some extent, there is some interpretive overlay involved. TWI taught that man was perfect in Eden and that, as a result of Adam's disobedience, man's very nature was corrupted. In essence, Adam and Eve were changed by the original sin and became the sorry, morally corrupt creatures whose offsrping became thieves, murderers, idolators, and Democrats.
So when I read Genesis, I look for evidence of this change and I don't see it. According to Genesis, Adam and Eve were not changed in any way by eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (hereinafer referred to as FOTKG&E). They were naked already, but they weren't ashamed of their nakedness because they were innocent or ignorant thereof. They ate of the FOTKG&E, they realized they were naked, and the started loking for clothing.
When God surveyed the situation. He didn't say, "sure you're naked, silly. I made you that way, and there's nothing wrong with it." Rather than telling them to take off those silly fig leaves and be proud of being naked, He gave them better coverings. I know about the implied connection with blood sacrifice in God's provison of animal skins, but what I'm getting at is the underlying principle of nakedness. If God created them naked and that was fine and dandy before they ate of the FOTKG&E, why was it not okay to be naked afterward? Why the fursuits? The context indicates that it wasn't okay to be naked before they ate. They just didn't know it. Once their eyes were opened, they realized they were fundamentally flawed and tried to do something about it. They hid from God. They discovered shame.
It is logical to conclude then that, had they known what God and the Serpent knew, they would have been hinding in shame from the very beginning. Therefore, whatever state that they sunk to that was so bad that God couldn't allow them to remain in Eden, was the very state in which He created them. The only difference, at least in the pages of Genesis, is their awareness of it.
Now let's return to the FOTKG&E. We always hear pastors, preachers say that before Eve took the bait, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of evil, only good. The text doesn't say that nor does it support that. The pastors talk as if they ate of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Evil. They teach as if there were three trees in the garden; the Tree of Life, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Evil. Not so. According to a strict reading of the text, Adam and Eve, had no knowledge of Good or Evil.
They had complete innocence, complete ignorance of morality. They just lived and enjoyed what God gave them. God knew what was good and what was evil, and gave them only good. The Serpent knew what was good and what was evil, and, eventually, gave them nothing but evil. But Adam and Eve were a blank slate. They had no morality at all. The idea that living without morals was God's original plan may sound heretical, but it is somewhat supportd by what Paul wrote of the Law in Romans chapter 7.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
The law was good, but the knowledge of it brought lust, sin, and death to mankind. likewise, Adam and Eve in the garden had the benefit of God's goodness, but no knowledge of good--or evil. Once their eyes were opened, they received the knowledge of good and evil and their lives were ruined.
So what does all of this malarkey have to do with immorality? Genesis doesn't really say exactly what nakedness is, beside the absence of clothing. But they didn't eat of the tree of the knowlege of silk and cotton, now did they? The fact that it was the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that uncovered their nakedness makes the connection between their physical state and their moral state. They realized that their basic character was flawed and that their urges were both good (giving Eve a mango when she's hungry) and evil (taking her comquat when she's not looking).
Socks referred to the natural order that includes predation by carnivores. Lions eat gazelles and we don't condemn them for it. This is perhaps because the animals didn't eat of the FOTKG&E, as man did, and so they have no awareness of the morality or immorality of their actions. They just do what's natural to them. I know that's not the only difference between man and animals, but perhaps it is one big difference that relates to what we're discussing here.
The really intriguing thing to me about this whole topic is God's summation in Genesis 3:22.
"Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." From this statement, we can conclude
1) that Satan didn't actually lie to them. They did in one sense at least, become like gods. He just set them up for something they were woefully unprepared to deal with.
2) That God knows both good and evil, not just good. That fits with Deuteronomy 30:15. God presented both to Israel. Which one they got depended on their actions.
The question that Genesis 3:22 raises in my mind is, "Who is us?" Was God referring to Himself alone, in that Queen of England idiom, Himself and the angels, Himself and the Serpent, Himself and Faith, Truth, and Virtue, as the gnostics wrote, or Himself as part of a Triune deity or even a pantheon of some kind?
Come on now! So if I cite my sources right immediately where I write it's cheesy, but if Dr does NOT cite his sources in the immediate vicinity it's plagiarism! I sense a shifting standard here.
I'd admit to cheesy informercialism if I were to benefit (and at others' expense) by my pointing others in the direction of PFAL. But it's just the opposite, I pay with my time and by my jeer-calluses to help others benefit in hearing where I get light.
And my references to the failings of other posters on this thread to see the obvious should be seen, again, in the context of helping them to see where there's more light than they have now. Criticizing someone's failing without offering the solution in the same breath is what I would consider cheesy.
Contrast "It's also true and good to keep in mind that God often gives good revelation to evil men" with "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost". Hmmm.
Jerry, "Nice post Socks. Much food for thought there."
Considering socks' topic (dog eat dog, in a manner of speaking) that's just WRONG!
Oh boy. I just realized something. Jimmy, stop the presses, we've got...a headline!
"Plaigarism is cheesey, says the American Dairy Producers!"
Back to topic.
The dog-eat-dog standard of the world we live in is one I have trouble with, so the pun is appreciated Evan!
I wonder if that's the way it's always been, the way life was intended. I personally subscribe to a life-view that assumes for one person to gain another doesn't have to lose. It's difficult to navigate at times and I often find myself applying it to situations where the net result isn't even close to what I intended. But I still persist. Christ's example was one of total giving and in doing so He gave one life, but gained another, one intended for Him. It says to me that there can be more going on than meets the eye.
Choice seems to be a big aspect of this. jet, I look at the spiritual battle you describe, one the bible sets forth consistently, and I wonder what exactly that battle is and who's at war with whom? And why?
We have the ability to choose but we can only choose within the range of choices we have, that we know about. So at the root level of a person's existence there has to be a means of knowing good from bad or we'd never be able to recognize good when it was offered. (I know some Christian teaching says that God has pre-chosen those who will believe and those who won't and that He orchestrates it all but I don't think that's what the bible teaches).
Paul speaks to mans' moral condition in Romans as basically at war with God by nature but he also offers another tidbit when he talks about Gentiles who by their own reasoning can observe the heart of "the Law" without knowing the Law, and how a Jew taught in the Law and knowing it gets no traction from only knowing it, they have to do it. If they don't live it they're not right by association, the Gentile who lives the same values and behaviors on their own is better off than the non-observant Jew. This must have p.o.'d a lot of Jews at that time. I think there's a lot more there than meets the eye at first glance.
I'm just pondering at this point, it's an interesting topic. jbarrax, your postings on Genesis are really interesting. As far as the devill not actually lying in chapter 3, didn't God in fact say that they would "die"? That being the case, his statement that they wouldn't, whatever "die" means, would be a lie wouldn't it?
The question that Genesis 3:22 raises in my mind is, "Who is us?" Was God referring to Himself alone, in that Queen of England idiom, Himself and the angels, Himself and the Serpent, Himself and Faith, Truth, and Virtue, as the gnostics wrote, or Himself as part of a Triune deity or even a pantheon of some kind?
Any thoughts?
Jerry, I'm going to take a stab at this, just from reading it. First of all, I'd like to suggest that it's possible to read the creation story as a sort of fun, lighthearted fable with a strong message, which might be something along the lines of: "Grow up. Be independent. Take responsibility. Make wise choices, because, if you don't, you will suffer the consequences." In its theme, I think this story is consistent with many of the other Bible stories, but in its particulars, it is not, especially in the attributes it assigns to God.
The short answer to your question ("Who is us?") might be the pantheon you suggest. Or at least, that's what I'm reading in the passage. Reading the creation story without reading anything into it -- like everything we know from the New Testament; everything we've learned in PFAL; everything we imagine God to be -- the attributes of this God are pretty unique. He has a form, which makes Him finite. He makes noise. He asks questions. He talks and plans and listens and reasons and makes decisions based on the outcomes of conversations. So maybe the "us" means there are a lot more like Him. But for His magical ability to create, He seems sort of . . . human. If he is omniscient, this passage doesn't indicate that. If he is omnipresent, then why does he walk through the garden searching for Adam and Eve?
Also, the serpent is an animal. There isn't anything in this story to indicate he is more than an animal. Now, maybe an argument can be made for imagery and foreshadowing, but I don't see it here beyond the obvious: the serpent as the embodiment of temptation and evil, but, so far as I can tell from the story, it is human evil and human temptation, and this is a fabled version of the natural world.
Anyway, I think I agree with your conclusion, though, that as far as defining "evil," Genesis seems to make an argument for self-awareness or consciousness as the characteristics that make us god-like.
Sometimes I think more is at stake here than just parsing verses, or arguing about morality. Laws and wars and social systems are decided by answers to questions like "What is man's natural state?" When we get it wrong, a lot of other things go wrong, too.
I'm just pondering at this point, it's an interesting topic. jbarrax, your postings on Genesis are really interesting. As far as the devill not actually lying in chapter 3, didn't God in fact say that they would "die"? That being the case, his statement that they wouldn't, whatever "die" means, would be a lie wouldn't it?
Goog question Socks. That's the most critical and problematic aspect of the whole story. God did say, according to Genesis 2:17 "17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." But of course, chapter three says only that, when they ate, "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."
That's a far cry from "thou shalt surely die". This is perhaps the first contradiction in the Bible. Much has been made of it, and it always prompts an explanation from Fundamentalist preachers. VP's choice of fixes was adding holy spirit to Adam and Eve so he could take it away at the point of the foul and declare that they died spiritually. If you want to say that the Serpent contradicting God makes him a liar, that's fine. But since what God said was going to happen didn't, and what the Serpent said was going to happen did, I don't see it that way.
The way I see it, Genesis three isn't about liars vs. truthtellers, it's about disobedience and consequence. Adam and Eve were told not to do something. They chose to do it and suffered. That basic premise is, I think, the underpinning, the fundamental lesson of the entire Bible. The bulk of the Old Testament is about the lives of people who either obeyed God and prospered (Abraham, Job, Joseph, David) and those who disobeyed God and suffered (Adam, Cain, the nephilim, Sodom & Gomorrah, etc) The Law is all about obedience. Do this, don't do that, receive this benefit, suffer this consequence. There are other virtues added to be sure, including faith, charity, courage, and perseverance, but most of these are manifest in part, or grounded in part, in simply doing what God says to do. Which is reflected also, as you said, in Romans chapter two about the difference between non-observant Jews and naturally pious Gentiles.
Recommended Posts
Jbarrax
A biblical examination might conclude that evil does exist and that it is the product or effect of the Devil. John's gospel says that Jesus told the Pharisees that they were of the Father the devil and that therefore, they did the works of their father. You know, lies and murder. That argument puts Jesus in opposition to your witty student.
Genesis however, presents the matter in a slightly different light. According to a literal reading of Genesis (not a VP "literal according to usage, but reading it without the Way's interpretive overlay), the serpent didn't lie to Eve. His evil was in enticing her to disobedience. Adam and Eve were not changed, or corrupted by the original sin. They didn't lose holy spirit, and they didn't become inherently wicked. They simply lost their innocence. They had their eyes opened. So whatever is in man now, was already there. They were simply blissfully ignorant of their true natual state: their nakedness.
So in essence, the serpent told the truth. Eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did make them like gods. But it was not the blessing the Serpent presented it as. They learned that they were naked. The $60,000 question is, 'what is nakedness?' Is it merely the absence of clothing, or is it inherent immorality? Is it mortality, as Paul implied in a double metaphor of II Corinthians 5:1-3? Genesis doesn't really answer any of these questions, which is why somebody had to write Exodus, Leviticus, Romans, etc. :-)
Peace
JerryB
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Keeds,
I wish you could read it in the original!
Well, the Snopes original anyway:
http://snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp
I always get uneasy about the veracity of such stories when they have
such a neat and tidy, sitcom sortof ending.
Real life seldom (does it ever?) works out so cleverly...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I have no idea if Einstein is the student in the story, but the response on that web page is some serious blabbery. Most of the word count deals with everything else BUT whether or not it was Einstein, only stopping for air briefly to say it probably wasnt and either way it can't be proven. But why pass up an opportunity to explain the soft-brained tendency of so many and their "faith"?
What's that got to do with the a refutation of the claim it's Einstein who was the student? And why do I give a rats asz about "naysayers". Don't like my faith? Get your own. Geez, it's like reading a 9 year old boy's screeds about the girl with red hair two seats up in school who won't talk to him at lunch so he's gotta write all over the bathroom walls "Sally eats dog poop!"
Oh, but now we know WHY such a story would be promulgated. I see. Mostly Snope's status of "False" merely shows that in the absence of actual uh, what was that word...PROOF? they're more than happy to declare excathedra by both FIAT and CHEVY that something they disdain is false. Aparently Snopes is the Bible of the 00's.
Sorry, I can't pass an opportunity to poke fun at an article that is so dripping with self-righteous goo it's funny, because when I read it I'm reminded of why I have no interest at all to demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt as to what I believe as a matter of faith - because the proof of my faith is to me, not anyone else. That's why it's "my" faith.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
I found the Snopes article disappointing because it missed the point. I didn't take the first post literally. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other whether this conversation actually took place in a classroom. I tend to agree with the conclusion of the first post, though, or at least I think it has merit: "Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart." I may have worded it differently, or maybe it's too simplistic, but I wonder if the evil or wrongs that happen in this world are fundamentally due to a lack of empathy. And, if they are, how do we go about the task of finding a remedy?
Also, even though I look at religion with a jaded eye, I give it credit for at least asking the questions: Why are we here? What obligation do we have to ourselves and others? What is the role of goodness in the universe? Is it worth pursuing, and, if so, where is it found?
George, don't you ever wonder about those things?
socks, where ya been? I've missed you.
Jerry, I'm not sure I get the connection between nakedness and immorality and evil and death. Sounds like a sermon title by John Cotton. Why should nakedness be something to be afraid of?
Edited by laleoLink to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
I keep getting these tidbits from email sent to me by various RELIGIOUS relatives.
I am always amazed to find out more about where they came from. Thank you George.
How do you find out where they come from? When I read this one in my email I thought, gosh, I bet it will get some discussion from GS and sure enough -- it has triggered some responce.
Had no idea the student could possibly have been Einstein.
One has to admit, much of what is said by the student sounds logical?
I love 'thought food'.
Blessings
Jeannette
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Does evil exist?
Depends on how you want to define "evil", I guess.
Is it just the absence of "good", or is it a force in and of itself?
Most of what I see that could be interpreted as evil, is mostly selfishness in the extreme. Somebody putting their own needs, wants, and ambitions first, with little or no regard for others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Laleo.
Do I ever wonder about these things?
Well, no, I'm a completely unique individual who, unlike every other human who has ever existed,
NEVER has considered any of that stuff. ;)
Sure, I've considered it. I have just found that religion is entirely inadequate in explaining any of it.
Religion doesn't encourage thoughtful investigation or questioning. On the contrary, it's quite the norm for the religiously disposed to cop a "My way or the highway" attitude. So if you have burning questions like "Why does God allow evil to exist?" or even "Why did my favorite aunt Julie die?, rather than delving into it and honestly searching out how that could be, we get spin or dodge. "God HAS to in order to be just."
or "Well, it's all according to God's plan. We can't know the mind of the Almighty", and such.
Like I said, entirely inadequate, well, for me anyway...
And as for whether "evil" exists or not, well, like Oak said, I think we need to define our terms.
Is it evil for a lion to cripple a gazelle and eat it alive? Maybe so, if you're a gazelle. Is it evil for a cornice to fall off of a building a smash a child into pulp? How about for an horribly abused child to grow up to be a horrible abuser himself?
How DO you place the blame? Maybe you can just declare it all "Evil" and then feel perfectly justified in doing whatever you like about it.
Personally I find the term to be of little use...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
I've always wondered, would we even know 'evil' at all or that 'good could vs evil' if Adam and Eve hadn't disobeyed God?
My concept of God has always been, God is Love, God is Light and there is NO darkness in God, and that God is the Creator of ALL THINGS..... with that being stated, who in the 'sam hill' created Satan?
I hear tell he was once a 'perfect little angel' who through his own 'freedom of will' decided HE wanted to be the Boss, and then God cast him down? Did GOD put Satan down to earth TO temp or test Adam and Eve?
I got so many questions, and I doubt they will EVER get logical answers. Ok, I can understand that God is the Alpha and Omega, had no beginning will have no end.... but how can we understand that when we all HAD A BEGINNING somehow? Did God just come about like 'an evolutionary being'?
If God created US, couldn't he have also created other life-form out there? If God Created the Angels, and they WERE Perfect, and Satan had everything perfect - why would he want to go and BLOW IT?
I mean, he had a great thing going, and he STILL wasn't satisfied? What caused Satan to even know there was a 'different side' than that which is PERFECT?
Gonna stop now before I really go hawg wild with the QUESTIONS...... (or am I?)
I thought God couldn't look upon darkness, so WHO CREATED the 'evil' anyhow?
AND if God always was, with no beginning or end -- certainly he could have BROTHERS/SISTERS? Or were there just ONE of these Spirits that IS?
How do we know the GOD story and the Bible aren't 'stories made up by man' like so many other tales out there? Like Mythology, Like the Indian Folklores, and other Tales that have in and of it self very similarities?
For me, I've chosen to Believe (a step of blind faith - if you will), in Believing the God Story and about his Son, salvation and all, mostly because all the 'OTHER' stories, don't offer an escape from death. Therefore I've told myself -- "I have everything possible to GAIN, in believing in Christ" and "everything to loose" by NOT believing, and if I end up believing it WRONG -- well I've really not lost anything except Time which I would have lost anyhow........
Anyone else with me on these thoughts? :blink:
Edited by jetc57Link to comment
Share on other sites
Too Gray Now
Where does evil exist? Or whose bed are its boots under?
Does it exist? ... Was your question.
Not trying to be a pain in the arse, but I assume that you are asking people this question - you are not asking the essence people call "Evil" to manifest itself & start posting its own proof. :D
So then... you are asking people if they perceive, personally, that evil exists -
Here is the tricky part - usually when people ask if something exists - they are asking a person if it is "out there" in the outer or in the physical world. For if we perceive it to be "out there" then we can put space between it and us and flee from it. We can leave it behind us. Look at in our rear-view mirrors as we wave bye to it and watch its grimacing face - whither.
But what if it is NOT always ACTUALLY "out there"? What if it's definition (and hence, it's usual place of creation) exists as an extension of a mind's perception? Then it would go with us in the car... it would be like a "bad" companion - its boots would be under our beds at night... It would be in us - a creation of our own making.
At least that type - would prove to be in us - and not "out there".
If this is "so" or valid for at least one person... then I would have to say - it does exist... it exists as a perception in at least one mind - regardless of any other - out-there "reality"...
So, one can easily see, that it doesn't take much "quantity" for something to exist. It just takes one... one perception. And VIOLLA!!
Yes it does exist. Now What?
:unsure:
"Evil" - (in at least the internal generation of its manifestations) might be better thought of as a descriptor of an emotion - one that a person generates and experiences right after that person has pronounced a negative judgement or assesment of something - be it either internal or external. It certainly seems to be after or "post" judgement. It does not simply rise on its own accord. Judgement needs to get it started.
So in that instance, evil would be a "follower" emotion (following the judgement to condemnation).
Edited by Too Gray NowLink to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
well gray
My original post was an email sent to me by a Religious Relative, and it turns out that George found where that originated.
Actually, I understand 'evil' and I do not LIKE IT, It has done damage to me through out my life so far., so I know it exists in one form or another...... BUT, like that topic, I just in general, have QUESTIONS as I mentioned in a post before. I'm just wondering if OTHER PEOPLE have the same or similar curious ponderings....... or am I alone in my 'wonder ponder'?
:blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi jetc57,
You are not alone in pondering these things. I was plagued with similar questions long ago, before I took the PFAL class. I was very steeped at that time in Eastern religions and the yin-yang philosophies associated with them. It bothered me to hear evil being justified by them. However, I did quickly get the bulk of my questions answered in the class and in subsequent readings that came with it.
I think you can get the bulk of your questions answered too.
Please allow me to suggest this as a start: Don't buy the professor's premise.
In your first post on this thread you relayed: "The professor answered, 'If God created everything...'"
THAT'S where the whole argument goes into darkness, right at the start. The truth is God did NOT create everything. God did NOT form everything. God did NOT make everything.
In the very first chapter of the Blue Book we can see a scripture quoted that was the great beginning to my understanding anything about evil. On page 5 of BTMS we read:
"In Matthew 15:13 Jesus said, 'Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.'"
This verse was an astonishing revelation to me. Not only that but throughout the decades, since first seeing it in the Blue Book, I have noticed that it is entirely absent from our Western cultural heritage and awareness. In skim reading this thread I noticed that even the grads here were unable to spot the professor's false premise. (My apologies if I missed it.)
I know we all will benefit greatly when we finally get rid of all the sensationally whipped-up soap operas and the genuine pains that have been saturating our minds, and we come back to the wonderful and simple truths that God entrusted by various means to Dr. Wierwille to put into written form for us students of his class.
There's much more on this matter of evil (even a refutation of the yin-yang idea) in the first half of Romans, but I am very short on time lately. Maybe later I can resume if you desire.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Interesting, ... and flawed premise.
1) Because evil is not the absense of god, but of good. The article's author (deliberatily IMHO) forgot to include an additional 'o'.
2) If his premise holds true, about evil being the absense of god, then atheists can do nothing *but* evil, since they lack god in their lives. ... So then could someone explain to me why that college football star, who gave up going pro so he could join the Air Rangers and who wound up dying in Afghanistan, ... who was an athiest, ................ I'm sorry, but something just doesn't quite add up here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
Hi Mike;
I had taken the PFAL like about a thousand or more times before 1980. Went WOW, Fellow Laborer, and took three "Advance Classes" to include the LIVE one in Ohio, I believe that was in 1979?
Blue Book and all, read them, etc. BUT --- I did not start this post with any of my own PERSONAL Beliefs, and I don't doubt the existence myself of 'evil'. However, there are lots of questions I still have. Those wonderful PFAL materials, books and all, were BURNED by my ex in 1981, and I have NOT had a copy replaced. I did get some books given to me by a Friend who is still in TWI in Houston, but, for me they are books still written by Men, and VPW to me now, after losing great respect for HIM as a 'Christian' in general leave me to wonder how much of what he wrote I could personally trust or count on. Anyway, Christianity just does not address much of my ponderments. (if there is such a word.)
I do agree with the thought that evil is the absence of 'good'., I also think evil is at war with good.
For everyone, "natural man' included, there's this constant Spiritual Battle, and with our Free Will we have to choose between doing what is 'good' or doing what is 'evil'. Just because a person 'professes to be a Christian' does not mean they won't choose to 'do evil' in a moment's notice. Its been a proven fact in TWI, that leaders decisions have literally destroyed the lives of others and tarnished their own reputations, and perhaps they were 'wolves in sheeps clothing' to begin with, we just don't know. Perhaps they were just foolish and made poor judgement calls. Not for me to answer, for I don't know what is in another's heart.
Hey we could have an entire post going on 'the heart of mankind'.....
Thanks for your input.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi jet,
I've noticed that many of us (me included) may have taken the classes and read the books many times, but it's also the case that our absorption, integration, and retention levels regarding the material were still very low. That's why I advocate (along with Dr's last advice to us) that we come back to PFAL and see what we missed.
It's also true and good to keep in mind that God often gives good revelation to evil men. Otherwise we would be totally out of luck. There's only been one man who ever deserved the revelation he was given, and that's the sinless lord Jesus Christ. All the writers of the ancient scriptures were sinners. Although us fleshly men may argue about the degree and timing of sins, to God all sin is sin. Sure, I realize that there are different degrees of hurt that we humans may experience from the sins of others and the timing of those sins. However, it is the case that ALL believing and acting contrary to God's revelation is a total slap in HIS face, even if no humans are visibly hurt in the process.
Even if you don't accept that the PFAL books are revelation from God, that Matthew 15:13 quote has been around for 2000 years in print, though out of sight. It is very helpful to know that God is NOT responsible for all that goes on. Also, those first 8 chapters in Romans have many clues to the puzzle of understanding evil. If it weren't for PFAL most of us would have no clue how to see what's in plain sight there. Most of the world's notion of evil ignores that quote from Matthew and the Romans chapters.
You wrote: "Anyway, Christianity just does not address much of my ponderments. (if there is such a word.)"
It sounds like you may not be aware of those Romans passages. In the KJV some of them are hopelessly translated, but in JCNG Dr quotes a large section from "The New EnglishBible" version that answered a lot for me about why God tolerates evil both in the present and in His foreknowledge. The passage negating the yin-yang philosophy on evil is also pretty convoluted in most translations I've seen. Romans also squashes the erroneous (and extremely common) idea that "all things (even evil) happen for a good reason" but most readers fail to see it due to the distractions brought to mind with the word "predestination" in that same section.
I've seen that the notion of evil in the Bible is much more general an idea than it is today in the world. Evil is simply going against God. In Noah's time the entire world was preoccupied with going against God in everything they did, ALL the time. Sounds like the social politics and philosophies of today that are constantly clamoring to promote whatever is perceived to be against God's will.
If you'd like some help in replenishing your PFAL collateral collection please PM me.
.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
George, buy the latest Rolling Stone and read the U2/Bono intereview. In it he makes some interesting comments, as a person, a Christian, a person. It's an interesting read.
Laleo, I'm in semi-thread-retirement. Lost my coupons. :D
I once played bass guitar in a band that had a female singer, just a gig for a few months. This gal was nice enough but her voice - well, her range was limited at best. We did a version of "Cracklin' Rosie" by Neil Diamond that would curdle your brain by the second verse. Did 3 sets a night, 4 nights a week and did that song twice a night. THAT was evil.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Socks,
Sheesh, when Neil Diamond did it, it was just barely humane.
I'm reminded of Judy Garland's last few performances, and I must admit,
Yes, Virginia, evil does exist...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Perhaps they coexist. It was the tree of knowledge of GOOD AND EVIL, after all. ONE tree, TWO "fruit".
And you can't gague one, without some sense of the other.
Enlightenment in my opinion is a two-edged sword..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Ya, Geo. It's anecdotal evidence, but something has to account for these things. :o I'm sure that the lowest level of Hades has Cracklin' Rosie on the Muzak system, looped endlessly with the original version of Orlando's "Tie a Yellow Ribbon". (You always know when Seed Kids are in a bar by the way because they love those two songs and ask for encores - reminds them of home).
As for me, I've been set free to jam!!!
So I gotta add some value to this thread or I'm gonna get dissed by a Mod, for sure. Mike has actually hit on the essence of my contribution, although I will add no cheesey infomercial nor attempt to diminish the other contributors to this thread in my post. :blink:
Evil is often defined in religious circles in relation to Lucifer (the devil, satan, etc.) as a sort of inventor of it, "the father of lies", etc. In a sense Genesis describes him doing so, although the ability to choose was within the first two humans we read about. Had he not shown up in the account, would they have always chosen correctly? Is it the natural state of man to choose right until given another option? Aren't there always other choices? Is evil only about choices?
I'm seeing it as two things -
1- as a relative term, in relation to something else. Something is in it's natural state or condition and a change occurs that causes loss or damage to it, or somehow works against it's natural state.
2 - an independent cause that produces a result that's damaging to another natural state or condition.
In general, "out of harmony" would describe evil to me, in a very broad way.
Oaks's example of the animal being eaten by another is a perfect example. There we see one's natural state being reduced to total loss by the actions of another. Yet we also know that the animal doing the eating, known as "the eater", is doing what contributes to his own natural condition and state although it's definitely a bummer for the animal being eaten, AKA "the eatee". (thank God for grocery stores!)
Interesting side note - people don't eat people, normally. Given the choice we'll eat other animals first. It doesn't seem natural for humans to scope out other humans as menu selections. When we read about such things we're revulsed. Or should be. If anyone's not, please move over a couple seats, thank you.
But nature gives us a view of a - call it "larger" natural state and condition of the world we live in. It's natural, at this point, for some animals to eat other animals. Whether it was always so, I don't know but it seems to be what we would call "the order of things" in the world we know about. Big fish eat little fish. Great Whites eat anything. Alligators too. So there must be something more to evil and badness than that.An animal's gotta make a living, right? Does an undiscriminating palette make one more evil? ("you have to try the Brie from France, it's to die for! It's the only Brie I'll touch!!")
I'm inclined to think that if I were to understand the true natural order of life I'd be able to determine what is and isn't evil. Whatever falls out of harmony with the way things are "supposed to be" would be bad.
I think that's where things like the bible come in to play, as well as other means of learning. If I can learn what's right, I can learn what's wrong as anything that isn't right, or takes away from what's right, or functions independently of what's right, will be wrong . God is defined as being all "light", no darkness, no deviations, love. Whether metaphorical or not, these indicate a steady state of "right" that on some level if not this one, would be measurable. Deviances would be hmmm, not right.
I think Romans is another good example. Paul struggled with understanding the world he lived in in relation to his new faith (which wasn't based on wishful thinking but specific events and study) and his understanding of the Torah, etc. I think he went a long way towards describing both good and evil beyond lesser definitions of do this-don't do that, you're a good boy, she's a bad girl.
Which doesn't really get me to a total answer, but in a very global way I believe it's possible to come up with some basic answers to what's right in life as I know it and then work out applying that in to specific instances and actions over time, while still learning and broadening my understanding.
? :P
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Nice post Socks. Much food for thought there.
Laleo said:
Sorry Laleo, I didn't explain that well. To some extent, there is some interpretive overlay involved. TWI taught that man was perfect in Eden and that, as a result of Adam's disobedience, man's very nature was corrupted. In essence, Adam and Eve were changed by the original sin and became the sorry, morally corrupt creatures whose offsrping became thieves, murderers, idolators, and Democrats.So when I read Genesis, I look for evidence of this change and I don't see it. According to Genesis, Adam and Eve were not changed in any way by eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (hereinafer referred to as FOTKG&E). They were naked already, but they weren't ashamed of their nakedness because they were innocent or ignorant thereof. They ate of the FOTKG&E, they realized they were naked, and the started loking for clothing.
When God surveyed the situation. He didn't say, "sure you're naked, silly. I made you that way, and there's nothing wrong with it." Rather than telling them to take off those silly fig leaves and be proud of being naked, He gave them better coverings. I know about the implied connection with blood sacrifice in God's provison of animal skins, but what I'm getting at is the underlying principle of nakedness. If God created them naked and that was fine and dandy before they ate of the FOTKG&E, why was it not okay to be naked afterward? Why the fursuits? The context indicates that it wasn't okay to be naked before they ate. They just didn't know it. Once their eyes were opened, they realized they were fundamentally flawed and tried to do something about it. They hid from God. They discovered shame.
It is logical to conclude then that, had they known what God and the Serpent knew, they would have been hinding in shame from the very beginning. Therefore, whatever state that they sunk to that was so bad that God couldn't allow them to remain in Eden, was the very state in which He created them. The only difference, at least in the pages of Genesis, is their awareness of it.
Now let's return to the FOTKG&E. We always hear pastors, preachers say that before Eve took the bait, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of evil, only good. The text doesn't say that nor does it support that. The pastors talk as if they ate of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Evil. They teach as if there were three trees in the garden; the Tree of Life, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Evil. Not so. According to a strict reading of the text, Adam and Eve, had no knowledge of Good or Evil.
They had complete innocence, complete ignorance of morality. They just lived and enjoyed what God gave them. God knew what was good and what was evil, and gave them only good. The Serpent knew what was good and what was evil, and, eventually, gave them nothing but evil. But Adam and Eve were a blank slate. They had no morality at all. The idea that living without morals was God's original plan may sound heretical, but it is somewhat supportd by what Paul wrote of the Law in Romans chapter 7.
The law was good, but the knowledge of it brought lust, sin, and death to mankind. likewise, Adam and Eve in the garden had the benefit of God's goodness, but no knowledge of good--or evil. Once their eyes were opened, they received the knowledge of good and evil and their lives were ruined.
So what does all of this malarkey have to do with immorality? Genesis doesn't really say exactly what nakedness is, beside the absence of clothing. But they didn't eat of the tree of the knowlege of silk and cotton, now did they? The fact that it was the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that uncovered their nakedness makes the connection between their physical state and their moral state. They realized that their basic character was flawed and that their urges were both good (giving Eve a mango when she's hungry) and evil (taking her comquat when she's not looking).
Socks referred to the natural order that includes predation by carnivores. Lions eat gazelles and we don't condemn them for it. This is perhaps because the animals didn't eat of the FOTKG&E, as man did, and so they have no awareness of the morality or immorality of their actions. They just do what's natural to them. I know that's not the only difference between man and animals, but perhaps it is one big difference that relates to what we're discussing here.
The really intriguing thing to me about this whole topic is God's summation in Genesis 3:22.
"Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." From this statement, we can conclude
1) that Satan didn't actually lie to them. They did in one sense at least, become like gods. He just set them up for something they were woefully unprepared to deal with.
2) That God knows both good and evil, not just good. That fits with Deuteronomy 30:15. God presented both to Israel. Which one they got depended on their actions.
The question that Genesis 3:22 raises in my mind is, "Who is us?" Was God referring to Himself alone, in that Queen of England idiom, Himself and the angels, Himself and the Serpent, Himself and Faith, Truth, and Virtue, as the gnostics wrote, or Himself as part of a Triune deity or even a pantheon of some kind?
Any thoughts?
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
socks,
Come on now! So if I cite my sources right immediately where I write it's cheesy, but if Dr does NOT cite his sources in the immediate vicinity it's plagiarism! I sense a shifting standard here.
I'd admit to cheesy informercialism if I were to benefit (and at others' expense) by my pointing others in the direction of PFAL. But it's just the opposite, I pay with my time and by my jeer-calluses to help others benefit in hearing where I get light.
And my references to the failings of other posters on this thread to see the obvious should be seen, again, in the context of helping them to see where there's more light than they have now. Criticizing someone's failing without offering the solution in the same breath is what I would consider cheesy.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Contrast "It's also true and good to keep in mind that God often gives good revelation to evil men" with "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost". Hmmm.
Jerry, "Nice post Socks. Much food for thought there."
Considering socks' topic (dog eat dog, in a manner of speaking) that's just WRONG!
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Oh boy. I just realized something. Jimmy, stop the presses, we've got...a headline!
"Plaigarism is cheesey, says the American Dairy Producers!"
Back to topic.
The dog-eat-dog standard of the world we live in is one I have trouble with, so the pun is appreciated Evan!
I wonder if that's the way it's always been, the way life was intended. I personally subscribe to a life-view that assumes for one person to gain another doesn't have to lose. It's difficult to navigate at times and I often find myself applying it to situations where the net result isn't even close to what I intended. But I still persist. Christ's example was one of total giving and in doing so He gave one life, but gained another, one intended for Him. It says to me that there can be more going on than meets the eye.
Choice seems to be a big aspect of this. jet, I look at the spiritual battle you describe, one the bible sets forth consistently, and I wonder what exactly that battle is and who's at war with whom? And why?
We have the ability to choose but we can only choose within the range of choices we have, that we know about. So at the root level of a person's existence there has to be a means of knowing good from bad or we'd never be able to recognize good when it was offered. (I know some Christian teaching says that God has pre-chosen those who will believe and those who won't and that He orchestrates it all but I don't think that's what the bible teaches).
Paul speaks to mans' moral condition in Romans as basically at war with God by nature but he also offers another tidbit when he talks about Gentiles who by their own reasoning can observe the heart of "the Law" without knowing the Law, and how a Jew taught in the Law and knowing it gets no traction from only knowing it, they have to do it. If they don't live it they're not right by association, the Gentile who lives the same values and behaviors on their own is better off than the non-observant Jew. This must have p.o.'d a lot of Jews at that time. I think there's a lot more there than meets the eye at first glance.
I'm just pondering at this point, it's an interesting topic. jbarrax, your postings on Genesis are really interesting. As far as the devill not actually lying in chapter 3, didn't God in fact say that they would "die"? That being the case, his statement that they wouldn't, whatever "die" means, would be a lie wouldn't it?
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Jerry, I'm going to take a stab at this, just from reading it. First of all, I'd like to suggest that it's possible to read the creation story as a sort of fun, lighthearted fable with a strong message, which might be something along the lines of: "Grow up. Be independent. Take responsibility. Make wise choices, because, if you don't, you will suffer the consequences." In its theme, I think this story is consistent with many of the other Bible stories, but in its particulars, it is not, especially in the attributes it assigns to God.
The short answer to your question ("Who is us?") might be the pantheon you suggest. Or at least, that's what I'm reading in the passage. Reading the creation story without reading anything into it -- like everything we know from the New Testament; everything we've learned in PFAL; everything we imagine God to be -- the attributes of this God are pretty unique. He has a form, which makes Him finite. He makes noise. He asks questions. He talks and plans and listens and reasons and makes decisions based on the outcomes of conversations. So maybe the "us" means there are a lot more like Him. But for His magical ability to create, He seems sort of . . . human. If he is omniscient, this passage doesn't indicate that. If he is omnipresent, then why does he walk through the garden searching for Adam and Eve?
Also, the serpent is an animal. There isn't anything in this story to indicate he is more than an animal. Now, maybe an argument can be made for imagery and foreshadowing, but I don't see it here beyond the obvious: the serpent as the embodiment of temptation and evil, but, so far as I can tell from the story, it is human evil and human temptation, and this is a fabled version of the natural world.
Anyway, I think I agree with your conclusion, though, that as far as defining "evil," Genesis seems to make an argument for self-awareness or consciousness as the characteristics that make us god-like.
Sometimes I think more is at stake here than just parsing verses, or arguing about morality. Laws and wars and social systems are decided by answers to questions like "What is man's natural state?" When we get it wrong, a lot of other things go wrong, too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Goog question Socks. That's the most critical and problematic aspect of the whole story. God did say, according to Genesis 2:17 "17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." But of course, chapter three says only that, when they ate, "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."
That's a far cry from "thou shalt surely die". This is perhaps the first contradiction in the Bible. Much has been made of it, and it always prompts an explanation from Fundamentalist preachers. VP's choice of fixes was adding holy spirit to Adam and Eve so he could take it away at the point of the foul and declare that they died spiritually. If you want to say that the Serpent contradicting God makes him a liar, that's fine. But since what God said was going to happen didn't, and what the Serpent said was going to happen did, I don't see it that way.
The way I see it, Genesis three isn't about liars vs. truthtellers, it's about disobedience and consequence. Adam and Eve were told not to do something. They chose to do it and suffered. That basic premise is, I think, the underpinning, the fundamental lesson of the entire Bible. The bulk of the Old Testament is about the lives of people who either obeyed God and prospered (Abraham, Job, Joseph, David) and those who disobeyed God and suffered (Adam, Cain, the nephilim, Sodom & Gomorrah, etc) The Law is all about obedience. Do this, don't do that, receive this benefit, suffer this consequence. There are other virtues added to be sure, including faith, charity, courage, and perseverance, but most of these are manifest in part, or grounded in part, in simply doing what God says to do. Which is reflected also, as you said, in Romans chapter two about the difference between non-observant Jews and naturally pious Gentiles.
Peace
JerryB
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.