Is ‘evil’ necessary in order to know ‘good?’

[SpaceMan]

Or, said another way, within the Judeo/Christian tradition (although I don’t mean to limit this discussion only to Christians), does God “need” Satan?

Yes, one of the first things we probably want to discuss/define is the nature of “evil” itself… So, what is “evil?” Is “evil” always arrived-at through choice, or is there such a thing as something/someone who is inherently “evil?” Where/how does the fallen angel, Lucifer fit into this?

I’ll offer some initial definitions to get the discussion under-way:


Evil: 1.) The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness. 2.) That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction. 3.) An evil force, power, or personification. 4.) Something that is a cause or source of suffering, or injury.

And from Wikipedia, we get this tidbit of discussion:

Evil is a term describing that which is morally bad, corrupt, wantonly destructive, selfish, and wicked. In most Christian and Western cultures, and some Eastern ones, the word is used to describe acts, and sometimes thoughts and ideas, commonly known as sin, that are thought to originate with Satan and challenge the law or will of God.

​

Evil is one half of the duality of good and evil expressed, in some form or another, by many cultures. It describes a hierarchy of moral standards with regard to human behaviour; evil being the least desired, while love is usually the most praised. In essence "evil" is a term for those things which (either directly or causally) bring about withering and death - the opposite of life. In casual or derogatory use, the word "evil" can characterize people and behaviours that are hurtful, ruinous, or disastrous.

A similar term, malice (from the Latin malus meaning "bad") describes the deliberate human intent to harm and be harmful. "Evil," by contrast, tends to represent a more elemental concept; a disembodied spirit that is natural and yet abominable. Whereas "malice" belongs to the specific, "evil" is the foundation for malice.

See also: this, from the Bible Tools web site:
http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Def.show/RTD/ISBE/ID/3265

...and then this, from the New Advent web site:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

(both offer very good discussions on the different types of “evil” that have been theologically distinguished, for those that want to take the time to read them)

 

[lordfalconer]

if we are to differentiate then we do need evil, whether that be satan or simply the existence of free will

 

[wryan]

In a word I would say 'yes'.

'Is evil neccesary in order to know good?' I would say that human beings only know anything by comparing it to it's antithesis. 'Hot' is only 'hot' because it's referenced to 'cold.' So the way our brains seem to work, it would be impossible for us to truly know any good unless we could contrast that good with something that was not good.

Biblically speaking, Genesis refers to the tree as giving 'the knowledge of good and evil'...I'm inclined to think that if Adam and Eve already knew 'good' prior to eating the fruit then they would only gain 'the knowledge of evil' by taking the fruit...as opposed to the 'knowledge of Good AND Evil'. So if the bible is to be viewed as a true insight into the nature of man, then evil does seem to be needed in order for us to know good.

'Does God need Satan?' Again, viewing the bible as a true insight into the nature of God(like it was man), Evil definately seems to play an important role in the world that God created. God sends 'lying spirits' to people, he allows Lucufer to 'test' Job..etc. If 'perfect love casts out all fear' and 'God is love' then why are we still told to 'fear God?'

Perhaps it's because everything and everyone in essence posseses an inner polarity somewhere between the poles of good and evil...including God? This is not to say that God is evil, but that the possibility of God doing 'evil' things exists within His nature. Perhaps the polarity within God the Father is expressed by contrasting Jesus(no sin) with an anti-Jesus(anti-Christ). In other words, if Jesus is God the Father personified and complete...why then the appearance of an antithesis? One theory might be that without the 'anti' then a true representation of the fullness of The Father can never be achieved. Only through the conflict of the all good(represented by Jesus) and the all bad(represented by the anti-Christ) can fullness be achieved.

One could argue then that Satan exists as an antithesis to God the Father because antithesis seems to be neccesary for completeness...which would make God 'all good'. I would disagree though. My thinking is that since Satan is created by God then he doesn't seem to be a 'perfect antithesis' of God which is why I contrasted the Christ and the Anti-Christ instead...Make Sense?...Just some thoughts....Bill

 

[stumpjumper]

I would have to say that freedom is neccesary, not evil, to realize the inherent good of the world, our existence, and God. Freedom inevitably leads to evil actions which go against God's will, but it is the freedom that God has allowed into creation not the evil that is neccesary.


God has saved man through His grace and all that is really required on our part is thankfullness for God's grace which requires a free act on our part. Unfortunately, that freedom that is required for us to share God's love has let us do evil things.

 

[Abbadon]

if we are to differentiate then we do need evil, whether that be satan or simply the existence of free will

Well, I wouldn't say free will is evil, but it can be used for such.

-------
There was an issue of Hellblazer where Constantine discovered that Satan was the voice in God's head that said "oh, don't do that."

Just something to think about.

 

[Rochir]

I think if there is no "evil" or nothing bad ever would happen, then we had no grounds for comparisson and couldn't appreciate those things and people who, by comparisson, are truly good!

Good needs evil so as to not be considered ordinary!

 

[Cleany]

i say absolutely not.

and the best description of evil i think is "the perversion of something good".

it is like cancer, cancer can only exist by destroying something good, by corrupting good cells, its the same with evil, it is corruption, perversion, it simply does not exist on its own.

 

[SpaceMan]

Biblically speaking, Genesis refers to the tree as giving 'the knowledge of good and evil'...I'm inclined to think that if Adam and Eve already knew 'good' prior to eating the fruit then they would only gain 'the knowledge of evil' by taking the fruit...as opposed to the 'knowledge of Good AND Evil'. So if the bible is to be viewed as a true insight into the nature of man, then evil does seem to be needed in order for us to know good.

Yes… interesting analysis. And didn’t the serpent comment that such knowledge would make the humans have ‘God-like’ knowledge?

'Does God need Satan?' Again, viewing the bible as a true insight into the nature of God(like it was man), Evil definitely seems to play an important role in the world that God created.

Might Satan serve some higher purpose in the scheme of things…?

Perhaps it's because everything and everyone in essence possesses an inner polarity somewhere between the poles of good and evil...including God? This is not to say that God is evil, but that the possibility of God doing 'evil' things exists within His nature.

I think I’m following you; are you essentially speaking of “light” vs “dark” natures? And I guess that that’s what I’m getting at with Lucifer: if Lucifer was a creation of God, then can we not at least speculate that Satan fulfills some sort of role which God needs him to fulfill?



(like with what you say here):

Perhaps the polarity within God the Father is expressed by contrasting Jesus(no sin) with an anti-Jesus(anti-Christ). In other words, if Jesus is God the Father personified and complete...why then the appearance of an antithesis? One theory might be that without the 'anti' then a true representation of the fullness of The Father can never be achieved. Only through the conflict of the all good(represented by Jesus) and the all bad(represented by the anti-Christ) can fullness be achieved.

One could argue then that Satan exists as an antithesis to God the Father because antithesis seems to be necessary for completeness...which would make God 'all good'. I would disagree though.

But does the ‘dark’ side of one’s nature (yes, I suppose even Divine Nature) necessarily have to manifest itself as something that is “evil?”

____________________________

I would have to say that freedom is necessary, not evil, to realize the inherent good of the world, our existence, and God. Freedom inevitably leads to evil actions which go against God's will, but it is the freedom that God has allowed into creation not the evil that is necessary.

Agreed (if I understand you correctly); to my mind, there isn’t really a component of ‘evil’ to the Divine Mind… ‘evil’ is primarily a phenomenon that exists only outside the Perfect Realm (so, Biblically-speaking: here on Earth, as a consequence of our free-will, and the exit from Paradise).

____________________________

Well, I wouldn't say free will is evil, but it can be used for such.

Exactly.

There was an issue of Hellblazer where

Constantine discovered that Satan was the voice in God's head that said "oh, don't do that."

Interesting…

_____________________________

I think if there is no "evil" or nothing bad ever would happen, then we had no grounds for comparison and couldn't appreciate those things and people who, by comparison, are truly good!

Good needs evil so as to not be considered ordinary!

Ah, but then this observation might necessitate having to clarify some of the terms: is “bad” the opposite of “good”—is “evil” the same as “bad?” A hurricane that kills hundreds of people might be universally referred to as “bad”—but was it “evil” as well?

____________________________

i say absolutely not.

and the best description of evil i think is "the perversion of something good"

That seems like a really optimistic view. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you believe that humanity is basically “good”—yes?

 

[wryan]

Yes… interesting analysis. And didn’t the serpent comment that such knowledge would make the humans have ‘God-like’ knowledge?

Yes, good point. One could argue that everything the serpent says is deceitful, however, the placement of the tree in the Garden and God's omniscence and foreknowledge seem to point pretty strongly to the possibility that God intended the fall(or at the least he did not seem to go to extreme lengths to prevent it).

Might Satan serve some higher purpose in the scheme of things…?

I think that what we're discussing concerning the Fall, and also Lucifer's position as 'the accuser' before God in Job would point to this.

I think I’m following you; are you essentially speaking of “light” vs “dark” natures? And I guess that that’s what I’m getting at with Lucifer: if Lucifer was a creation of God, then can we not at least speculate that Satan fulfills some sort of role which God needs him to fulfill?

Yes, sort of like saying 'every light casts a shadow' and 'the brighter the light, the darker the shadow.' It can get tricky because if we go back to Genesis again it describes 'a shapeless mass' that God's spirit floats over before He created the world. So does this incinuate that their is/was something that God did not create?(the shapeless mass)....and if that existed priori than perhaps the 'darkness' did as well....and this would act as a constriction on God that He has to abide by. In other words, if 'darkness' is always present when their is 'light' then that would make Satan(or what he represents) neccesary.

One could counter that with 'through God all things are possible', but perhaps that's God's motivation for all of this. In other words, perhaps He's 'making that possible' through this world...or to put it another way Christ(all light) 'destroying' the antichrist(all dark) is the culmination of a plan to make it so light can exist without darkness. Their are so many unknowns here that it would be impossible to say without a doubt, but is an interesting thing to wonder about.



(like with what you say here):

But does the ‘dark’ side of one’s nature (yes, I suppose even Divine Nature) necessarily have to manifest itself as something that is “evil?”

Are you asking if 'evil' is a relative term?(different people's perception of it certainly is) If you viewed the 'light' side of your nature as 'good', then your corresponding 'dark' side would be 'evil.' Just like if you believe the sun is 'bright' than you would view the darkness as 'dark'(your only knowledge of evil is contrasted by good just like your only perception of dark is contrasted by what you view as light). What I'm getting at is a causation effect which always manifests itself in the same way even if the result of that effect can be interpreted differently through different peoples beliefs and perceptions.....

Bill

 

[Cleany]

That seems like a really optimistic view. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you believe that humanity is basically “good”—yes?

nope.

 

[FreezBee]

One could argue then that Satan exists as an antithesis to God the Father because antithesis seems to be neccesary for completeness...which would make God 'all good'. I would disagree though. My thinking is that since Satan is created by God then he doesn't seem to be a 'perfect antithesis' of God which is why I contrasted the Christ and the Anti-Christ instead...Make Sense?...Just some thoughts

Good thoughts! God the Father could not create his own antithesis without destroying both himself and the antithesis.

That's the theological problem of Evil. If there is only one God, then Evil, if it exists, is created by that God, and if that God is fully good, how is that possible?


- FreezBee

 

[wryan]

Good thoughts! God the Father could not create his own antithesis without destroying both himself and the antithesis.

That's the theological problem of Evil. If there is only one God, then Evil, if it exists, is created by that God, and if that God is fully good, how is that possible?


- FreezBee

Two possibilities that I can think of then.

The first one I alluded to earlier with the verse in Genesis which refers to the spirit of the Lord hovering over 'a shapeless mass'(paraphrasing off of the top of my head.) Could this be a hint that their are things in existence that are/were not created by God? Now just what would exist outside the bounderies of His creation(and if evil is to numbered among them...even if only as a reactionary force to His own good nature) seems impossible to say while strictly using the bible as evidence. Nevertheless the door does seem to be cracked open a little bit in this direction.

The other would be that God does have evil in his nature. I'm not arguing that He allows that evil to be manifest, only that the possibility does exist. The Lord's prayer comes to mind. Why would Jesus ask 'lead us not into temptation' unless the Father was capable of 'leading us into temptation?' This point could really get crazy with the views on free will ...because an omnipotent being 'leading' you into temptation seems to be saying the same thing as putting you into a position where He knows you will fall short, which one could argue would make Him somewhat responsible for the deed.

For instance if I KNEW(not believed or though but KNEW) that putting you into a room with someone would lead to you killing that person and then not only did I allow you to enter that room, but I encouraged you to go into that room, it would seem I am partly responsible for your actions. Again, just some thoughts....Bill

 

[Casstranquility]

Or, said another way, within the Judeo/Christian tradition (although I don’t mean to limit this discussion only to Christians), does God “need” Satan?

Yes, one of the first things we probably want to discuss/define is the nature of “evil” itself… So, what is “evil?” Is “evil” always arrived-at through choice, or is there such a thing as something/someone who is inherently “evil?” Where/how does the fallen angel, Lucifer fit into this?

Yes, in order to experience "good" as "good", we must be also able to experience that which we call "evil".

"Evil" to me is a term we use to describe that which we don't see as "good". I think it only exists as a concept and not a reality. It is just something we see in order to experience all things. Within God there are all polarities united as One. I cannot say He is "good" or "evil", for both of the terms are relative to what we think of as good and evil. We would need to be able to see with the eyes of God, with no judgment and full understanding, to determine what the truth is concerning "good" and "evil".
No, there is nothing which is inherently evil.
I have no idea where Lucifer fits in, I think he is a myth.

Biblically speaking, Genesis refers to the tree as giving 'the knowledge of good and evil'...I'm inclined to think that if Adam and Eve already knew 'good' prior to eating the fruit then they would only gain 'the knowledge of evil' by taking the fruit...as opposed to the 'knowledge of Good AND Evil'. So if the bible is to be viewed as a true insight into the nature of man, then evil does seem to be needed in order for us to know good.

I agree with this. I was thinking that when Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil then they were capable of seeing separations between things. It was the first step of the evolution of the human spirit. Someday we will come full circle and have no need of separations.

 

[SpaceMan]

…the placement of the tree in the Garden and God's omniscence and foreknowledge seem to point pretty strongly to the possibility that God intended the fall…

Agreed.

…if 'darkness' is always present when their is 'light' then that would make Satan(or what he represents) neccesary.

Yeah, its just the issue of what the darkness represented that is unclear (is the darkness always ‘evil’ or can it sometimes be a representation of the unknown?).

…Christ(all light) 'destroying' the antichrist(all dark)…

But is it more about the darkness/anti-Christ not having the ability to understand the actions (the sacrifice) of the light/Christ? Is it about the duality between the two?



_____________

That's the theological problem of Evil. If there is only one God, then Evil, if it exists, is created by that God, and if that God is fully good, how is that possible?

Why can’t it simply be a consequence of the types of choices that get made with the use of one’s free-will?

____________

I was thinking that when Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil then they were capable of seeing separations between things. It was the first step of the evolution of the human spirit. Someday we will come full circle and have no need of separations.

To my mind, that’s what Jesus was all about; he taught (arguably, perhaps more through example than through spoken words) the way to achieve the type of transcendence/unity about which you speak…

 

[morningstar2651]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that haSatan isn't considered evil in Judaism. Isn't haSatan viewed as an angel who works to find fault with Man, and acts as a prosecuting attorney against mankind on behalf of YHVH to test them.

 

[SpaceMan]

I don’t know what Judaism has to say about Satan—but I’m troubled by the perspective that does little more than to proclaim him “evil”…seems like an overly-simplistic way to explain/describe a very interesting figure within Christian mythology…

 

[wryan]

Yeah, its just the issue of what the darkness represented that is unclear (is the darkness always ‘evil’ or can it sometimes be a representation of the unknown?).

With the example from Genesis I'm not saying that I think the 'darkness' mentioned is referring to evil specifically and would agree that it is a representation of the unknown. What I'm saying is that if one 'unknown'(the dark, shapeless mass) can exist without being created then can another thing(such as what we know as 'evil') also have existed in a similiar way?

But is it more about the darkness/anti-Christ not having the ability to understand the actions (the sacrifice) of the light/Christ? Is it about the duality between the two?

I see it as about the duality between the two. In Revelation we see the lamb pouring out a ton of 'wrath'. Christ on earth said to 'love your enemies' and then all of the sudden He's destroying them utterly. So which is it? Turn the other cheek or wipe them out entirely? My point is that it seems like the ressurected Lamb has both the characteristics of peace and vengeance at His disposal which doesn't seem to either ascribe to the total love of the gospels nor to the hatred and lust for power that we see in the Anti-Christ(or that many would ascribe to Satan). Perhaps then the ressurected Lamb has become the embodiment of both the Father and the 'accuser' to such an extent that the accuser's role is no longer needed and he can thus be stripped of his power. Just as Christ the man died...so the antichrist is destroyed as well...in place of both we have the ressurected Lamb...who instead of duality(the war between good and evil) he posseses or achieves a harmony of both...a bringing together of 2 opposites....

 

[Abbadon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that haSatan isn't considered evil in Judaism. Isn't haSatan viewed as an angel who works to find fault with Man, and acts as a prosecuting attorney against mankind on behalf of YHVH to test them.

In some of the older traditions, yeah.

Some traditions were influenced by Zoroastrian's Ahriman, which influenced Christianity, which influeced some modern traditions.

The same kind of applies to Islam as well, from what I've read (some say he's just there to present the faults in humanity to God, some say he's just plain EVIL).

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

I saw that "freeWill" was being banded about earlier in regards to "evil"...

...just a thought here, was Adam and Eves experience of gaining freewill evil because of:

1.it was disobedience,
and
2. they were not mature or responsible enough to have the same knowledge as God?

This seems to sum up evil to me...

 

[SpaceMan]

...was Adam and Eves experience of gaining freewill evil because of:

1.it was disobedience,

and

2. they were not mature or responsible enough to have the same knowledge as God?...

My thoughts (for what they’re worth):

• IMO, nothing that Adam & Eve did was ‘evil.’ In a round-about way, they were actually doing what God wanted them to do.
• As I understand it, Adam & Eve already possessed free-will, prior to eating the forbidden fruit (which makes sense, because they had to have the freedom to disobey God in the first place).
• As to the maturity of Adam & Eve...can you say more about what you mean?—I’m not sure I’m following your line of thinking…