Theory on the origin of evil

Tone said:

It can also manifest in under-valuing oneself...I think the whole pride thing, is a fear based reaction to an even deeper undercurrent of feeling unworthy...which,yes,is the root, because what we are saying when we give into it is that His Work through us is not good, but we attempt to disguise what we are saying by directing it to ourselves.

Click to expand...

In agree with this. Pride sets an excessive standard, and when we live up to it in our minds we feel superior and when we fail it's standards we feel inferior. Shame is the flip side of the same coin. By wanting to be God, Adam and Eve ended up very aware of their own "creaturliness" by contrast, and shame of our inferiority has never left humanity. We still "hide". But we're here to learn to come out of hiding, to learn to accept the truth of who we really are and who God is, and of our undeniable need for Him after all.

The Righterzpen said:

Have you read the OP and these statements in context of the entire conversation of this thread? You seem to be missing the points I was making in context of the conversations of the people I was corresponding with.

Click to expand...

In the OP you asked questions and expressed concepts about the origins of evil. I responded to that. Afterwards I responded to yours and others replies to my posts

The Righterzpen said:

Doubt is not "unworthy feelings" though. Doubt is simply confusion over something.

Click to expand...

Well, yeah, it's all noise.

The Righterzpen said:

Jesus didn't feel unworthy because He was caught off guard though. His response was - Well BOSS; guess YA got me there? Glory to YOU for YOUR ways are above our understanding.

Click to expand...

Exactly, He is the perfect example of how to deal with the noise. How many times does it say that He went aside, to pray...to keep that channel open. This is where Adam failed...and the enemy before him.

The Righterzpen said:

The only entity(s) of conscience that existed at the point the "formatting" for the universe was established; (which was the initial commencement of God's "creating") were the persons of the Trinity. And obviously we know there is no communication break down within the Godhead.

Click to expand...

Right, He is the Sender, the Channel, and the Decoder,and we are to be found in Him.

fhansen said:

In agree with this. Pride sets an excessive standard, and when we live up to it in our minds we feel superior and when we fail it's standards we feel inferior. Shame is the flip side of the same coin. By wanting to be God, Adam and Eve ended up very aware of their own "creaturliness" by contrast, and shame of our inferiority has never left humanity. We still "hide". But we're here to learn to come out of hiding, to learn to accept the truth of who we really are and who God is, and of our undeniable need for Him after all.

Click to expand...

What Eve didn't get was that they already had what the serpent deceived them of not having...thus was born a distrust of the Creator's Goodness to Shine through them.

The Righterzpen said:

The "senders" of the messages within the Godhead obviously understand what each other is doing and saying. So thus no communication breakdown.

The "disturbance that blocks any step of communication" from God to humanity is our sin. That disturbance can not be removed without atonement.

Once atonement has been secured, the Holy Ghost works on the understanding of the individual (despite the fact they still struggle with sin) that they may receive and rightly understand the communication from God.

Click to expand...

Right, within Elohim there is no darkness.

The Righterzpen said:

If the receivers emotions are encumbered by sin this is true.

What we commonly interpret as "negative emotions" though can exist without being sinful. Jesus got angry. (There were times He got reeeeeallllyyyyy angry!) Yet He did not sin. Same thing with sorrow, joy, excitement, confusion, doubt etc. Jesus experienced all these.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is a right way to deal with perceived distance and silence.

Tone said:

What Eve didn't get was that they already had what the serpent deceived them of not having...thus was born a distrust of the Creator's Goodness to Shine through them.

Click to expand...

And yet it wasn't just deception, at least not for Adam. One teaching I'm familiar with said that God already intended to elevate them to a "divine" status, nearer yet to His image, but Adam wanted more. He "wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God".279 Adam's desire wasn't wrong in itself, but the desire to do it apart from God, to dismiss God and His will altogether, to effectively act as if he were equal to God, was wrong-and destructive.

James comes to mind here, applying to A & E as well as the rest of us I tend to think,:
"...but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed."

Man's will plays its own part in it all in any case.

The Righterzpen said:

Outer space I would say is a distinct physical representation of this "darkness" that evil is.

Space is a vacuum. There was a Russian (I think he was an astronomer) scientist who'd theorized that space is not cold; space is hot. He theorized that because of the radioactive electromagnetic energy that's in space. (This is released by stars.)

His theory raises an interesting question about whether or not space travel is actually possible (and if not, obviously could not have happened). Can you burn small scale fuel in a vacuum, even carrying your own fuel / O2 supply? (I don't know enough about physics to answer that question.)

And can we create shielding for a space ship that is adequate enough to protect life from the massive amounts of radiation coming off stars? (Especially when one considers the structure of the Van Allen Belts.)

Now there are lots of people who question whether or not man has actually been to the moon. Now if the answer to my previous questions is "no"; than the answer to the moon question would also be no.

If this Russian scientist is actually correct; than this means that the environment in outer space is actually that much more hostile than simply trying to get passed the Van Allen belts.

So, considering what outer space represents of darkness. It would not surprise me at all if God has designed all life (be it on earth or some other planet) as "planetary bound".

Which raises another question? How do radio waves (which are really short) coming from say the Mars rover; get through the Van Allen Belts as well as all the atmospheric interference once having reentered earth's orbit, seeing how these very long and powerful radio active waves can't get through the Van Allen Belts?

Still, I don't know enough about physics to be able to answer these questions - but it makes me wonder!

"Fake news" goes back centuries!

Click to expand...

"A pulsar (from pulse and -ar as in quasar)[1] is a highly magnetized rotating neutron star that emits a beam of electromagnetic radiation. This radiation can be observed only when the beam of emission is pointing toward Earth (much like the way a lighthouse can be seen only when the light is pointed in the direction of an observer), and is responsible for the pulsed appearance of emission. Neutron stars are very dense, and have short, regular rotational periods. This produces a very precise interval between pulses that ranges from milliseconds to seconds for an individual pulsar. Pulsars are believed to be one of the candidates for the source of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (see also centrifugal mechanism of acceleration).

The periods of pulsars make them very useful tools. Observations of a pulsar in a binary neutron star system were used to indirectly confirm the existence of gravitational radiation. The first extrasolar planets were discovered around a pulsar, PSR B1257+12. Certain types of pulsars rival atomic clocks in their accuracy in keeping time.[2]

The word "pulsar" is a portmanteau of 'pulsating' and 'quasar', and first appeared in print in 1968:


“ An entirely novel kind of star came to light on Aug. 6 last year and was referred to, by astronomers, as LGM (Little Green Men). Now it is thought to be a novel type between a white dwarf and a neutron [star]. The name Pulsar is likely to be given to it. Dr. A. Hewish told me yesterday: "… I am sure that today every radio telescope is looking at the Pulsars."[9]"
Pulsar - Wikipedia

I think there's an analogy somewhere in this...



"The best chance for a neutron star (inactive pulsar) to become a black hole is by either being pushed into one for a long time or as a Thorne–Żytkow object. The key to a black hole is not mass but entropy S=0.

A neutron star has a change distribution Wheeler called quantum foam. Basically it is a subspace that acts like a sponge absorbing and then accreting value (as a pulsar). A black hole has two fields but all its intrinsic value is in only one of those fields—an enfolding surface tension called a singularity. This is its distribution of information=no information.

For any object to be or contribute to the singularity value of a black hole, it must reduce its information to S=0. To do this has at least the same energy requirements needed to create a degenerate pressure like a neutron star. That said, neutron stars often have fields consistent in shape with a black hole. It is in fact very likely that these neutron stars are actually small black holes."
https://www.quora.com/Do-pulsars-become-black-holes

-Sasha- said:

Is it evil only because people can die, or homes can be destroyed? Or is all weather evil? Sun with a light breeze? Clouds to shade you from the heat of midday? Rain which helps the plants to grow? A light snow which blankets the earth in sparkling white? A magnificent sunrise which colors the heavens in beautiful hues? Do you not only think of some sorts of weather as being evil, yet others as gifts from God, depending on if it harms people or our things? When the skies became dark and the earth quaked at the death of Christ on the cross, was that weather evil, or was it empathetic with the sufferings of Him who made all things?

What then if people could not suffer bodily harm but were entirely incorruptible, would the hurricane still be evil? Is it not only seen as evil because of our mortality? If we could stand unharmed in the midst of a hurricane and watch the waters swirl and roll around us for a time, until they fell back to their places in the sea, would we think it evil?

The verses from Romans, I read as thus: man was given dominion over the plants and animals - the creatures - and since man has willingly corrupted himself, those things which are mans subjects have been unwillingly made subject to the corruption which we took upon ourselves. They suffer because we suffer. Animals die and suffer pains, not because they have done evil or sinned against God, but because man (their temporal master) has done so, and as the master suffers for his willing transgression, so too do his subjects suffer for it. However, these verses in Romans also say "until now", meaning until Christ restored our hope. That is, the creatures which before groaned in subjection to man's corruption, now are subject to a man who fervently hopes for restoration...and not only that man will be restored, but that the creatures subject to him will be also.

Click to expand...

Weather has evil built into it for the reason that you've stated. All of nature has been corrupted by the fall.

Rain could be good --- good
Rain could be a hurricane --- bad/evil
Ditto for everything else you've mentioned.

If we could stand unharmed in a hurricane, it would still be evil. It's not seen evil only because of our mortality -- it's evil unto itself.

And just as we await redemption, so does nature, so it could be freed from it, just as we will be.

GodsGrace101 said:

Weather has evil built into it for the reason that you've stated. All of nature has been corrupted by the fall.

Rain could be good --- good
Rain could be a hurricane --- bad/evil
Ditto for everything else you've mentioned.

If we could stand unharmed in a hurricane, it would still be evil. It's not seen evil only because of our mortality -- it's evil unto itself.

And just as we await redemption, so does nature, so it could be freed from it, just as we will be.

Click to expand...

On what basis do you call it evil?

-Sasha- said:

On what basis do you call it evil?

Click to expand...

On the basis that it seemed like you understood.

The fall caused the sin nature to invade man and nature. Everything has been affected by the fall.

Before the fall, the Garden of Eden was beautiful and would have remained so.

After the fall, grass stopped growing if it was too hot, trees became sick and died.

It's confirmed in Romans 8 which you explained perfectly to me.

So I call nature not evil...but I said it contains evil...it can be either good or bad/evil.

Like anything.
A computer could be good or bad.
It could be used for good purposes or bad purposes...but even if it's never used at all, one day it will decay and become unfunctional.

Everything is like this.

Unfortunately, sin has purpose and appears to be needed for all mature adults to help those who are willing to fulfill their earthly objective. The objective drives everything.

Starting with God is Love (the epitome of Love), which means God is totally unselfish and is not doing stuff for His own sake, but is doing everything for the sake of man which is also God’s desire and might be referred to as His sake.

God would be doing or allowing everything to help humans who are just willing to accept His help to fulfill their earthly objective.

So God allows evil to happen to help humans, but God also allowed Christ to go to the cross the help humans.

There is really nothing you (a created being) can “do” to help the Creator, but you can allow of your own free will God to help you, which is God’s desire since God is a huge giver of gifts.

Man’s objective is found in the God given Mission statement of: Loving God (and secondly Loving others) with all your heart, soul, mind and energy. In order to fulfill that mission man must first obtain Godly type Love which will make man like God Himself in that man will Love like God Loves. Would becoming like God Himself not be the greatest gift we could get?

The objective is not to never ever sin, but to obtain this Godly type Love is the first of man’s objective.

There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), the big inability for us is to be created with instinctive (programmed) Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real likely alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)



This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or ever deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).

This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.

All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them burden them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus (Luke 7: 36-50) and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

In order to be forgiven of sin you must first sin, so sin is necessary but not desired.

This messed up world is actually the very best place for willing mature adult individuals to see, receive, give, experience, accept and know Godly type Love. All these tragedies provide opportunities for Love, but that does not mean we go around causing opportunities, since we are to be ceasing these opportunities (there are plenty of opportunities) to show/experience Love.

You do not have to believe the Adam and Eve story is true to get lots of good messages from it. Most people go through a time in which they ask: “How could a Loving God allow such a thing”, which means “why does God not start us all out in a Garden type situation without, needy people, limited resources, death, and questions about His existence?”

What we can do is thank Adam and Eve for showing us and them that what we might consider the ideal situation is a lousy situation for man to fulfill his earthly objective. Adam and Eve as our very best all human representatives did not fulfill the objective while sinless in the Garden and really could not. The situation after sinning outside the Garden did provide a way to fulfill the objective.

I and it seems other have to have opportunities at our doorstep to respond with Love, if I would just cease the opportunities at some distance there might be few opportunities (tragedies) needed for me, so if you want to blame someone for all these tragedies blame me for not ceasing more earlier.

That is just an introduction.

The Righterzpen said:

Still appears to me that you misunderstood what was being communicated by me.

Click to expand...

Ok. As to the "reaction theory", I think that myst33 has a bit more refined concept on this with the idea that creation is simply inferior to God; God, alone, being perfect and anything else being relatively less than perfect. God cannot create another God, to put it another way. And this imperfection can then translate into less than perfect choices via created rational beings with free will, who lack God's perfect wisdom. Evil is the result. And yet God deemed it worthy to create anyway, desiring man to be able to freely choose the good instead, having developed a hunger and thirst for it here in this world, to choose love, to choose Him, to put it another way, the essence of goodness and love itself. And desiring this while knowing that evil would occur as a result in the meanwhile, endeavoring to ultimately bring an even greater good out of that evil, knowing the beginning from the end as only He does.

As to the concept of good, itself, everything that God creates is good, and yet, as noted above, it can be considered "evil" in the relative sense, relative to Him. At any rate creation possesses the seeds of evil in its relative imperfection, and, again, can manifest or express that inferiority only via the existence of free will.

As to the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the Tree simply represented the fact that man is obligated to obedience; eating of its fruit represented an act of disobedience, of not trusting and heeding God, of not acknowledging Him as God for all practical purposes. And this act, itself, was the first instance of evil they experienced, BTW, an act that immediately put them at odds with God and cast them out of His control and grace and corrupted their relationship with Him, with fellow man, with the rest of creation, and with their own selves. Disharmony, strife, conflict, and competition became the order of the day more often than not.

By disobeying, by seeking to determine good and evil for themselves, by setting themselves in opposition to God's will on the matter IOW, they had now gained a new knowledge, the knowledge of evil, and by contrast the knowledge of good. Prior to their first sin, everything in their experience was good; there was nothing to identify that as a separate reality until evil was also tasted or experienced. So with the experience of evil came the knowledge of good and evil. The Hebrew word for knowledge used is "yada", which is often used in the bible to mean knowledge gained by direct experience, as when a couple know each other carnally, for example.

GodsGrace101 said:

On the basis that it seemed like you understood.

The fall caused the sin nature to invade man and nature. Everything has been affected by the fall.

Before the fall, the Garden of Eden was beautiful and would have remained so.

After the fall, grass stopped growing if it was too hot, trees became sick and died.

It's confirmed in Romans 8 which you explained perfectly to me.

So I call nature not evil...but I said it contains evil...it can be either good or bad/evil.

Like anything.
A computer could be good or bad.
It could be used for good purposes or bad purposes...but even if it's never used at all, one day it will decay and become unfunctional.

Everything is like this.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree that animals and plants also suffer from the fall of man. However, I would not attribute either evil or sin to them, or say that it resides in them. What I would say is that they suffer the consequences of mans sin and evil. They are made subject to it, but not as participants in it. Man has subjected the creatures to disorder. Evil comes forth from the heart of man, not as eminating from plants or rain or irrational animals. If an animal kills a human being, the animal has not done evil, has not sinned, but has behaved as its keeper has bid it. The plants and animals are subject to us, to our disposition in relation to God. Any disorder among them is from us, not from their own being.

Imagine there is a king, and he rules that within his kingdom all the food will be destroyed and none will be brought in. His soldiers will be positioned at all exits of the kingdom, and will slay any who attempt to leave. His subjects take up the disordered act of consuming dirt from the ground, or other random objects in their desperate attempts to obtain nourishment. The disordered behavior is made manifest in the subjects, but it is as a direct result of the kings willful deprivation of what is needful for them, not something self-contained. The evil came forth from the king and his rule. The subjects who have no choice but to live by this rule take on behaviors not intended to be in their nature. This is, I believe, as our role in the disorder found among nature.

When it is said that the hurricane is evil because it is in disorder, or the animal which attacks a man is evil because it is in disorder, I believe this is assigning blame to victim of the ones who imposed the disorder in the first place. It is like saying of the dirt eating subjects in my above example "You are evil because you ought to be eating food but instead eat dirt." rather than saying to the king "Look at this evil you have done, you have made your subjects to do that which is against their nature."

martymonster said:

I never said that God isn't all good.

Click to expand...

You said that God created evil. Therefore by definition, you are saying that God is not omnibenevolent. Meaning God is no all good because he is the author and creator of evil.