God created evil, just like he has stated. There is nothing that exists, which God did not create.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Correction: The question of the Op is where did evil come from? Darkness represents an absence of light. Hence we cannot see in the dark.
I'm not sure how what I said was received so as to imply I was assuming that angels didn't know they were created. I simply meant to imply that the angels had something to learn about God which would be revealed in mankind.
On the contrary, it has everything to do with the darkness since the Light of revelation is going to reveal what cannot be seen in the darkness. Keeping in mind that the Knowledge of God is about the knowing of His Person as in knowing Him personally. Hence the knowledge of God through His Christ is a revelation to those who were in ignorance/darkness. Your asking where the darkness came from is like asking where the ignorance came from. Suppose I introduced you tp someone you didn't know. Where did the ignorance of not knowing them come from?
Again, the darkness is ignorance. All angels share the same ignorance of God. Satan was the most beautiful and gifted of the angels according to scripture. This is what made him the most vulnerable to vanity. It does not make sense that vanity would first appear in the lesser endowed angels in comparison to others who were more gifted. It makes more sense that it would appear first in the most gifted and beautiful angel.
Vanity is about pride and about shame. Vanity is measuring one's self in comparison to others. Notice that when Adam and Eve's eyes were opened they were ashamed they were naked whereas before they were not. Their innocence of such things had gone.
Satan became vain because he took for granted his gifts that God had given him, (in vainglory), He gradually began to feel he had deserved them or earned them and also became unthankful accordingly. Essentially Satan began to desire worship. The other angels beneath him would begin to feel put down by him as if forced to acknowledge his status in a personal way. Nonetheless, through gaining a following, he apparently convinced a third of the angels to follow him. The way darkness/ignorance of God is related to this, has to do with understanding that God is not a boss at the top getting to tell everybody else what to do. God is at the bottom upholding all things and is a servant to all. Hence if the tyrant type of image of God is believed upon, vanity will promote a dog eat dog self serving world.
Adam was content until it was suggested that he was too stupid to know how he was being played. Adam sinned because he listened to the woman rather than trusting his own judgment.
I don't think so. I think its' the same envy that wants to see innocence destroyed in others. A young person who has had sex tends to brag and treat the virgin like the virgin is immature and missing out on something.
Angels were the go between God and mankind. Consider Jacobs ladder with the angels going up and down the ladder from heaven to earth and visa versa. And also consider that the angels administered the Old Testament, hence messengers.
This is true, he offered himself as a sacrifice for our sins, but not because he felt we deserved to die. This is a different subject which has much to do with culpability and being deceived.
How does your above theory explain hurricanes?I think of evil as a "thing we can do", rather than a "thing which exists". An action created from our reasonings, not an object tangibly acquired. I think this is what people mean when they say "evil doesn't exist".
"Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."
An example... A man can take things which exist, a hammer with nails and wood, and form them into a house which also now exists after the actions. Even so, "carpentry" doesn't exist in the way which the tools or materials or the house does. It is an intentional action, set into motion via internal reasonings in regards to utilizing objects, assigning purposes to those objects, and ordering them in a particular manner. The same can be said about evil. We look upon existing real objects, and use our reason to decide how to utilize them, but in this case the use is against God's will. The evil is "created" within our own selves, not obtained from a external source. Once we have created this evil reasoning in our own heart/mind, we often perform actions on tangible objects/people using it as our basis for action. The actual murders, the lies, the adultery, etc. are the equivalent to the house which the carpenter built. But just as the house itself is not a thing called "carpenter", the myriad actions coming forth from evil reasonings are not themselves a thing called "evil", but just as the house is a fruit of the mans ideas about how to use a hammer on wood and nails (his carpenter ideations), murder is the fruit of mans ideas about how to use a knife on a person (his evil ideations). The ideations themselves, before even being acted out on tangible objects or people, are evil. "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Also, the existence of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or the fact that God already knew what evil was prior to the fall, does not mean that evil must have already been. From Psalm 139: "Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." God knows of things which have not yet come to pass.
God created everything and so everything in existence is good. Augustine actually put it this way, "The only possible source of evil, is good." What this means is that moral evil, aka "sin", is simply a detraction from or perversion of something already in existence, and this can only occur as an act of free will made by rational created beings. Evil is not generally done for the sheer sake of evil, but instead is committed in the pursuit of something good, or perceived to be good at the time. So we're driven by three main desires, the desire for self-glory (pride), desire for pleasure (various lusts of the flesh), and the desire for wealth, possessions. These are more or less outlined in 1 John 2:16. And all of these "disordered desires" as they've been called, usually under the rubric of "concupiscence", often motivate people to harm others in one way or the other in their quest for fulfillment. Love is forfeited at the altar of selfish desire.Origins of Evil Theory
I've often wondered about the origins of evil? Many church fathers and people in Christian circles believe that evil began with Satan. This may be true, depending on your definition of "Satan"; but if we look closely at the first few verses of Genesis, we'll see that this can not be. If we believe Satan is a fallen angel; (as much of church history has taught) than we know for a fact that evil did not begin with him, since it was present before angels were ever created. Darkness (destruction) was "upon the face of the deep" from the first time God had uttered "Let there be light."
The first words of Genesis start out with "In the beginning". This phrase is in "construct state" and has a "Beth" prefixed preposition to it. The construct state declares that the state of one noun is dependent upon the action of another. In this case the state of heaven and earth are dependent upon the action of God. (Yeah, I know that's an "uh duh" type of observation.) Now as for the Beth prefixed preposition, it indicates the location or instrumentality of the action. So in other words, the action of what happened "in the beginning" began with God. (Yeah, I know; another "no brainer".) This is important to understand though, because what it is really saying is that all subsequent happenings (including the presence of evil) did not exist before the beginning!
In a prior study I did concerning what had occurred "in the beginning"; I'd stated that I didn't know where evil came from. (I'm still not sure I know?) In that study, it appeared to me that evil was already present from the point that God began the creation process. I'd thought that it may have even predated creation itself. From a little closer look at this word / phrase "in the beginning" though it seems that from the very commencement of any action of God - evil appeared.
Interesting - now why is that?
Here is another point where I'm not sure I have the answer to this question but I'm gonna give it a crack with a theory that's been kicking around in my head here. Now admittedly, this theory isn't "my theory" - no, it's actually part of physics. "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
Now let's back up here from "the beginning" to before the beginning. Before any action of creating ever commenced; there eternally existed God. No action brought God into existence. He was just always ...there! So because there was no "action" that created God; there was no "reaction" to His existence. He as an entity is "something" and the opposite of "something" is "nothing". So, in eternity, besides God there was nothing and so any opposite of God that would have "existed" - did so in theory only.
Of course being omniscient; God knew this. He knew that as soon as He "did" something; there would be an equal and opposite reaction to what ever He did. He knew that what ever action He took; it would bring this theoretical opposite of Him into reality. (Because to every action is an equal and opposite reaction.) This is what I believe was the knowledge of good and evil that God possessed.
So, for as much as an oxymoron as this is going to sound like: this created a "dilemma" for God. He had to come up with a plan to adequately compensate for the opposite that would come as a result of His action. Now God being good, holy, righteous, just etc - the opposite of such would be evil, sin, wickedness, injustice etc. So how could God overcome this "reaction"? Well, since God is eternally existent; it would seem to me that His incorporating His own presence into His original action (i.e. being incarnated into His own creation, sending His Spirit etc.) does not create another "reaction" because God always existed.
So thus is the nuts and bolts of my "scientific" theory. (Admittedly, likely still needs some refining!) Evil was inherent in the act of creation itself because it was the opposite reaction to God's action. Could God have created a world where there would be no reaction to His action? I don't know; maybe on some other dimension or level He has? As for us though and what we understand of our physical universe; we could not exist without these contrasting duel addition to this though; this theory also lends explanation to why God could create something He knew was going to fall and still legitimately call it good. (Which the "good" in Hebrew really means "pleasant". I.E. God was happy with what He'd made. It "pleased" Him; which there is another whole dimension to that application - which maybe I'll tackle later.) Any how; ultimately God is not responsible for the fall because He did not create evil; nor did He plant within man the seed that would lead to transgression. All that transpired was a byproduct of the act of creation itself.
The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
What of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil than? The tree was just the vehicle that clued man into what was already present in his world. It simply opened the door to the knowledge of both good and evil; but it didn't create either! Remember it's the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"; not the "tree of good and evil".
The tree was necessary for that knowledge though; and that knowledge was necessary in order for humanity to truly know God. You see it was still possible for Adam and Eve to behave in ways that displeased God; they just had no knowledge of it because they had no commandments. The only instruction they'd had from God was to take care of the garden and not to eat the fruit off this tree. See "evil" had entered into the world even though sin had not, because sin is disobedience to God! So long as Adam and Eve didn't disobey; sin didn't enter, even though "evil" was still present.
Kinda weird huh
In regards to sin itself. Even if there was no tree; God would eventually given them a commandment that they wouldn't have kept. Think of all the trouble a person could get themselves into out of sheer ignorance. God is not simply going to sit back and ignore actions that offend Him. So, as long as they obeyed; the knowledge of any offense of action they may have done was hidden from them. As far as any offenses they'd committed against God? Up until the point they actually disobeyed; apparently they had done (or failed to do) something that warranted God to tell them to care for the garden. Once He had instructed them to do so; obviously they obeyed, so still sin hadn't entered.
The word "good" in Genesis:
OK, now that we know "good" in Genesis didn't mean "unable to be corrupted". What did it mean? "Now I didn't really plan on putting "this" "here" but it's a good place for it. I'll explain what the word "good" means in the Hebrew and how the applied to Genesis and even the current underpinnings of how this creation is constructed.
This word "good" basically means "pleasing"; although pleasing in a natural way, not so in the connotation of lust or perverse desire for something. It's the same word used to describe Abraham's wife Sarah; she was "beautiful" she was "pleasant (or pleasing) to look at". She appealed to other men as an object of physical beauty. This word, or derivatives there of; is used in description of attractive men too and even other living things; i.e. physical qualities that would make them attractive - like health, strength, vigor, vitality of complexion / hair etc.
We see this concept of "good / pleasing" being inherent in the biology of the physical world. Some researchers at one point did an international study to come up with a composite of what human beings considered to be physically attractive or desirable in other human beings. The point of the study was to see if there was an underlying consistency in who people would consider to be the opposite parent to their individual future offspring. Of course, on account of the nature of this study - it only included heterosexual individuals of a probable reproductive age.
The questions were posed with line drawings of human forms and the findings were interesting. The consensus was that people preferred a reproductive mate that was not too fat or too thin, who's body was symmetrically proportional and who's skin and hair had a healthy appearance. The next most important attribute for both genders was the appearance of the face and head. Was the face symmetrical and did the head appear to have the proper skull capacity to be associated with good intelligence. Another attribute that was some what of a surprise to the researchers, yet none the less important to both genders was the appearance of a person's hands. Hands were generally thought of in relation to a person's propensity to be industrious.
Contrary to what the western fashion industry portrays to us; men generally were not attracted to women who were too much taller than they, who's breasts were either too large or too small and who's hips appeared too narrow. Both these portions of anatomy were considered vital to reproductive capacity: a pelvis who's breadth was adequate to safely deliver a baby and breasts that would produce the appropriate amount of milk to feed the child. The "universal ratio" came out to be an hour glass figure where the waist was roughly 10 inches smaller than the bust and hips.
For women, proportion was also of notable interest. Women ranked higher in considering the size and shape of a man's head as intelligence was generally believed to be related to temperament. (An ill-tempered strong man doesn't make a good mate.) That ranked just as high for women as a man who's body appeared to be healthy and physically fit. The "ideal shape" for men was the diamond (or kite) shape; head, neck, shoulders being the top of the diamond and chest, abdomen, hips being the bottom. Interestingly enough, even in industrial societies the size and shape of man's pelvis were considered important too. Even though women in industrial societies couldn't identify why a man's ability to run well seemed important; they considered it to be an attractive attribute. In hunter gatherer type societies - obviously this was attributed to a man's ability to catch food.
Now as for the reproductive attractiveness of people who have less than perfect bodies; this is where personality became much more important. This was especially true of people born with handicapping genetic defects. Here is where perseverance and the development of a specific skill set became vital to these individuals' survival.
So as interesting as all this research was - what does it have to do with the word "good" in Genesis? It goes to show us that what we find to be naturally "pleasing" or "attractive" is inherent in the make up of creation itself. Our inclinations and natural drives toward these things are there in us because they first existed in God. The good pleasure of God was made inherent in the world He created. (It's reflected in the reproductive process of every thing on this planet.) What is "good" gives us joy, just as the creation God had made gave Him pleasure. This goodness and joy we see extended even in areas of our lives that have nothing to do with our own sexuality. We find good pleasure in our children, our pets, our friends and family, our hobbies, the outdoors - what ever gives us pleasure.
Of course there is a "flip side" to this too. Our "good pleasure" can be corrupted into something perverse. This is where there is addiction to substances, sexual behavior, the pursuit of wealth or power and prestige. None of these things (drugs, alcohol, sex, money, authority, respect) are evil in and of themselves; but the corrupted desire for them is. This corrupted desire is what makes evil apparent in this world. Born out of corrupted desires comes hatred, jealousy, malice, envy, strife, prejudice, greed etc. Their manifest deeds being: criminal violence, theft, lies, unjust treatment, inequality, immoral behavior etc. These culminate in death and destruction; the final say of it all being the wrath of God.
The knowledge of good and evil had a profound impact upon this universe!
Is a soul in Hell not still made in the image of God?You said evil cannot exist if there is no good to corrupt.
What about hell?
All evil...no good.
In logical form:How does your above theory explain hurricanes?
Respectfully that's not the issue. I'm saying he was deceived. I'm saying the info he was basing his decisions on was false. His words in Mein Kampf are clearly carnal vanity.
Believing that to be true requires the denial of God's Omni-benevolence.God created evil, just like he has stated. There is nothing that exists, which God did not create.
Can you provide an example as to why it is not scripturally sound? Scripturally speaking?
Here is my "theory" on evil.
Just because God acted does not mean that there has to be an equal and opposite reaction.
I don't see how this informs us how to interpret Gen 1. this passage too is written in block logic.
and what of the people 3500 years ago? You claim I don't give anyone a chance to interpret it correctly but what about those 3500 years ago? what chance did they have? Was God not responsible with this text to them or was this just meant for those 3500 years in the future? Why would the meaning of the text change 3500 years ago vs today?
The OP is not really about salvation so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. I don't care what language you are using if we isolate the creation account I don't think that's enough scripture to show salvation even though the text in itself is a type of salvation allegory. you have to have a pretty firm grasp of the covenants to pick up on this allegory itself. This isn't about if you don't know Hebrew/Greek you can't have salvation but if we are looking for answers outside of text (and salvation) then we need to dive deep into the text otherwise you're just using it as a prooftext.
God does, but written scripture does not, it is static and remains in a static position so whatever it was it still is and the meanings are not dynamic. There is no "new revelation" in scripture there is only the same revelation newly found. The idea it points to (salvation) transcends culture but before we understand that idea we must interpret the nontranscendent words and to do this we must enter the space of the ancient 3500 years ago.
but you are answering something never asked. in a vacuum, the creation account does present a void in a preexistent state (in step logic) but since the purpose of the text has nothing to do with who created the void, any question regarding it is going to be in error. block logic doesn't ask this question nor was it an issue for the ancient mind. Within block logic, the information it presents is only a concern within the block and the point it's making, everything outside the point has no meaning. If we force it to work outside the block, it will have wide conflicts and be unreconcilable. We see this today when people force a literal 6-day creation and each day completely literal. This creates all kinds of conflicts because the literal account is forced and all we do is end up defending something that has nothing to do with the account.
block logic is how it is written because it is how Moses thought and how the Israelites processed information. Block logic/step logic is not about what is right or wrong it is about how the information is organized and presented. Once we know how it's organized we can better understand it's meaning.
God transcends these things, he uses God-logic and I'm not even going to pretend to know how that works. words however are fixed in the context they are written in. when truth is buried we must dig through the context which very much involves how the audience thought and processed information.
God created everything and so everything in existence is good.
Evil is not generally done for the sheer sake of evil, but instead is committed in the pursuit of something good, or perceived to be good at the time.
In physics we have "the law of entropy" Entropy is things going from a state of order to a state of chaos. This decay is the work of this perpetually destructive evil existence that God superseded with His creative work. This evil got it's foot hold in God's creation when Adam transgressed
It is of my opinion that there is probability life on other planets. If the world God has redeemed is singular (meaning our world), reason would have it that what ever life may be elsewhere either is not prone to sin or does not hold the capacity to be redeemed.
Believing that to be true requires the denial of God's Omni-benevolence.
This "light" was the fact that God was stronger than the evil
(Vs 3) The whole of the world (created universe) came through the channel of Him (the Word) and apart from Him not a single of any created thing which existed at it's height as a universe, did so without Him.
even in the presence of their fallen state
After participating in another discussion and then coming back here to read the OP (which I'm almost finished doing!), new thoughts are forming in my mind, as to the origin of evil. I think I know what that entropy or decay is...it is doubt...or, maybe more accurately, the potential to doubt. And how did it first gain a foothold within the heart of the evil one? I think that first toe, if you will, inched in quite differently than the way we usually imagine it. Picture a creature being nudged ever so slightly,with the feeling that somehow, he is not worthy of acclaim...the pull of decay...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?