Theory on the origin of evil

[marineimaging]

As to you not seeing criticism in your answer. And your offering statement being just as valid and intellectually sound? It would have been more honest to say "I don't know" then to criticize those asking the question.



Why does it not matter?



This is a response that's critical of the question; which by implication of your own statement, makes you seem in your own mind that you are more "righteous" for not asking it.



This statement is condescending to those who do ask the question.

So please explain to me how this is not criticism of raising the question? Just because you apparently found that you could not answer the question (you stated that you stopped asking it, not that you found an answer to it) does not suddenly make the question invalid.

I am the original poster of the thread.

The theory is an idea that struck me one night when I was contemplating the question after reading a whole slew of historical interpretations of it. This question has been kicking around theological circles for centuries. The very first dichotomy mentioned in Scripture has to do with the role of "darkness". It's an important concept.

Yes, the primary subject of the Bible is salvation; yet if you do not consider the role of evil in the equation, salvation becomes a nebulous concept. Why is one saved if evil doesn't really matter? Does that mean our sin doesn't really matter to God? One concept can not be divorced from the other without actually losing the importance of salvation. If one really has no idea why they're saved (or why salvation is needed); how does that impact their perception of Christ?

Now introduction of the question of evil's origins, invariably leads to questions about God's character and culpability in this; which in turn boils down to the question of God's trustworthiness. Being able to answer the question is a function of apologetics and does serve to dispel doubts people may have. Now you may argue that one should not doubt; yet doubt in and of itself is not sin. Questions are a natural outcome to the state of having intelligence. We are intelligent life because we were created by an intelligent God. So, why would questions like this not be important?

Evil is not "the outcome of disobedience to God in every case". We know this because "darkness" preexisted God's creation of any conscious entity. It's a common misconception that "evil" is a result of the poor choice of creatures; yet that definition does not explain why they came to make those poor choices to begin with? And that; sparks the question of the origin of evil.

Would you call that "Why? - to be intellectually saved?"

Again, our intelligence is part of the make up of our being. God did not tell us to leave our brains at the door. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Faith has a substance and an evidence; it is not a nebulous concept either. We are commanded to be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is within us. 1 Peter 3:15

You are correct. I should, and will move on with no further comment.

 

[GodsGrace101]

You might read my post 357

OK. I read it.
There's nothing new there.
In fact, I can't even agree with your initial premise....
which is that evil exists for our benefit.

God, being a God of love, could have created us without the necessity to have evil.
What kind of a weird person buys a puppy and then lets him suffer so as to learn things?
Not a very nice person, I'm sure you'll agree.

 

[The Righterzpen]

You are correct. I should, and will move on with no further comment.

It's OK to ask the questions. There is no shame in that.

 

[bling]

OK. I read it.
There's nothing new there.
In fact, I can't even agree with your initial premise....
which is that evil exists for our benefit.

God, being a God of love, could have created us without the necessity to have evil.
What kind of a weird person buys a puppy and then lets him suffer so as to learn things?
Not a very nice person, I'm sure you'll agree.

Thank you very much for reading what I wrote.

1. There are just somethings, that are impossible to do, so even God cannot do them, as an example: It is impossible to create a being which has always existed (was never created), so it is impossible to create another Jesus who has always existed.

2. It is impossible to create a being who instinctively has Godly type Love, since an instinctive love is a programmed into the being love which makes it robotic and nothing like God’s Love. This Love also could not just be “forced” on a being like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun since that would not be Loving on God’s part nor would the “love” obtained be Godly type Love. This Love has to be the result of a free will choice by the obtainer of the Love, which God makes extremely simple and easy to obtain, just by accepting His Love as pure unconditional, undeserved charity (which it is and to except it as something else is not accepting it at all). Again, for it not to be forced on the person the person has to have at least one likely alternative which for man is the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.

3. The only way we have been taught, seen and experienced initially obtain Godly type Love in ourselves (it can grow with use after it is first obtained) is by “...he which is forgiven much Loves much…”. If you have truly understood and accepted God’s forgiveness of an unbelievable huge debt (created by sin) then you will automatically receive an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love).

4. As far as your puppy analogy: These “puppies” are really God’s rebellious disobedient children, which God is trying make into beings like Himself in that they have Godly type Love. What kind of father would knowingly give a rebellious disobedient child who just got through virtually tell him, “I wish you were dead so I could have my inheritance” his inheritance? While the Father could easily realize the son would waste the money in big time sinning and most likely windup in some pigsty of life? What was the prodigal son’s father hoping his actions would accomplish with his son? The son has to first realize he is a big-time sinner against his father he is heading to a cruel death to willingly accept a totally undeserved unconditional forgiveness from his father. (…he that is forgive much Loves much…)

 

[fhansen]

I agree with you here; and so does the theory.



What does not follow logically to you about evil being a reaction to God's creative action?

Creation is not "potentially evil" because God declared that it was "very good" upon the completion of creation (from a design standpoint). God obviously is still participating in the creative process by the fact that He still creates life as it "be fruitful and multiplies".

To say that God created something with a kernel of "evil" that makes it fall; would be to fault God with creating evil. God did not create evil; and I think you agree with that.

The manifestation of evil's existence in the creation is a result of choice of the creatures; but that choice is made because of evil's presence, not the creatures' will. The choice of the creatures did not create evil. Evil's influence caused their bad choices.

You follow me here?



What form did evil take? Both Genesis and John calls it "darkness". I'm not sure if you are familiar with science's theory of "dark matter" or "anti matter" as being a counter to the presence of the material world; but as best as I can tell from Scripture, that's what I would "coin" evil as. "Darkness" is the presence of a malevolent chaos; is the best way I can describe what I think the Scripture tells us it is. I wouldn't even say it's "conscious" in the sense of it "making a choice".

Another possible explanation would be like Star Wars "dark side of the force". George Lucas never described "the force" as being God. He did not intend to make it a theological application. It was a concept he came up with as part of the story line of Star Wars and he did not want to get into theological arguments. The intent was entertainment, not to propagate the invention of a new religion.

The "force" in Star Wars has a "moral good" and a "moral evil"; of which, it is utilized by choice of the creatures. So as you explained your understanding of creatures bringing "the dark side" to bear in the Star Wars universe by choices they make. Yet even in Lucas's concept of "the force", it ranks under the concept of a Deity that has over all control of the universe. In that sense "the force" is no different than the laws of physics.

Granted Star Wars does contain a lot of ideas from eastern religion and does not present any concept of an afterlife connected to a Deity. Still "the force" is a lesser thing than God in the Star Wars universe and Lucas made it as such for not wanting to spark theological controversy with the movie. It's entertainment; which if one looks at it in that venue, it is pretty benign.

So there is an example in current pop culture that may help clarify what "darkness" is in Genesis.

What contains or controls the darkness? God does and He's capable of doing so because He's omnipotent. What "spreads" the darkness? I'm not sure anything spreads the "darkness"; but choices of creatures do spread the manifestation of evil in the real world.

For example, if someone intends to commit mass murder by gunning down a bunch of people in a shopping mall; yet gets killed in a car accident on their way to the potential crime scene; evil has been limited because God took them out of the picture. Evil is "contained"; yet that did not stop the influence of "darkness" in the individual who sought to commit the crime. Now God does this all the time. He intervenes to control sin. He assigns government to that task. (Of course corrupt governments commit sin themselves; but God's intent for human governments is to control sin.

So, does this concept make more sense to you now?

The problem is that evil can't be just some mindless big black "thing", a nameless bad force that results naturally from God's creation. And that would be no different from Him creating evil either way. Anyway, evil must involve a mind and a will in order to be a meaningful concept-and in order to separate it from God's will.

 

[The Righterzpen]

The problem is that evil can't be just some mindless big black "thing", a nameless bad force that results naturally from God's creation. And that would be no different from Him creating evil either way. Anyway, evil must involve a mind and a will in order to be a meaningful concept-and in order to separate it from God's will.

And why? Please explain your objection. Scripture references?

 

[fhansen]

And why? Please explain your objection. Scripture references?

First of all Scripture personifies evil/darkness in the name and being of Lucifer. And God is also more than a mindless force but rather He's light and love personified. But logic, alone, tells us that some "dumb" force, with no mind, no will, no direction, has no purpose, no meaning. Presumably even George Lucas might expect us to fill in the blank spaces there.

 

[GodsGrace101]

And why? Please explain your objection. Scripture references?

R,
If there were scripture references, we'd know everything!

There are no references about what your O.P. is about.
At least none that I think are helpful.

 

[DennisTate]

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. (Note I'm not saying "equal an opposite reaction to what God is!) He knew that what ever action He took; it would bring this theoretical opposite of Him into the created 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 specifically had from God was to take care of the garden and not to eat the fruit off this tree. (All of carbon based creation was commanded to be fruitful and multiply.) 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!

This may be helpful.

Dr. Richard Eby's Near-Death Experience and the Second Coming of Christ

Jesus hesitated as I tried to capture the immensity of his explanations.

"You must understand, my son, that original creation mirrored the composition and perfection of Person-God. All creation vibrated in unison with us! There was total accord and harmony everywhere as the whole creation was resonating with and in God!

"Each separate thing or being thus carried out an appointed task in our scheme for the universe. A heaven-form of music resulted as even the stars sang in their appointed circuits. Here in paradise you are hearing these melodious vibrations directly upon your new mind, undistorted. On Earth you heard distorted sounds through the air waves. Throughout heaven the music flows from my throne, uninterrupted, undefiled, and peace-giving."

Jesus paused again.

"My book tells of the time when Lucifer's rebellion in heaven changed some things. He sought to usurp my Father's throne, assume his position as the most high God, and to rule the universe. For that blasphemy Lucifer was cast from heaven to Earth; in fact, I saw him fall as a bolt of lightning! In a tantrum of hate and rage over being deposed so fast he and his fallen angels disfigured our perfect Earth. It became void and uninhabitable. For punishment befitting his enemy of God, Lucifer was given a new name, Satan, since he was the self-appointed 'adversary' of the Almighty. Anything that God had made, Satan would attempt to destroy from then on. As Lucifer he had been created the highest angel about the throne, one of his assignments and talents being the chief musician in charge of worship and music. In his rebellious anger he set about destroying harmony on and in the Earth from then on. That is why the Earth where he operates now is out of harmony with God's other creations. In my book we call this disharmony 'sin', because it defies God's will that even the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament show his handiwork.

"But be of good cheer, my son. The Father has permitted me to overcome Satan's world system of sin, and to destroy the works of Satan, and to re-establish righteousness in the hearts of my friends. Eventually in his chosen time he will restore all creation as it once was, in him!"

 

[The Righterzpen]

First of all Scripture personifies evil/darkness in the name and being of Lucifer.

Yet Lucifer is not the first mention of "darkness" in the Scripture. This malevolent chaos Scripture calls "darkness" predated Satan. Genesis is pretty clear about that. We know this because Scripture describes an event that Satan fell. And if he fell on account of some "error of design" upon the part of God that originated evil with Satan; then God created evil. We know this is not the case because there is no evil in God.

And God is also more than a mindless force but rather He's light and love personified.

So because God is a conscious entity, darkness has to be a conscious entity? Why is that? Would that not imply that God created evil, since every thing else He created were conscious entities?

But logic, alone, tells us that some "dumb" force, with no mind, no will, no direction, has no purpose, no meaning.

"But logic......" (finish sentence).

 

[GodsGrace101]

This may be helpful.

Dr. Richard Eby's Near-Death Experience and the Second Coming of Christ

No one will read that book you posted.
What did it say that will clear up where evil originates?

 

[The Righterzpen]

This may be helpful.

Dr. Richard Eby's Near-Death Experience and the Second Coming of Christ

It is not authoritative if its not from the Bible. I do not trust this man's account of what he claims happened.

 

[DennisTate]

It is not authoritative if its not from the Bible. I do not trust this man's account of what he claims happened.

What he wrote does remind me of Ezekiel chapter 28 and Isaiah chapter 14 as well as some passages in the book of Revelation.

Messiah Yeshua -Jesus promised clarity in the future.... perhaps these near death experience accounts are a part of that promise being fulfilled.

Jhn 16:25

These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

and this is interesting too.....

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.
2Co 12:3

And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth
2Co 12:4

How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

 

[The Righterzpen]

R,
If there were scripture references, we'd know everything!

There are no references about what your O.P. is about.
At least none that I think are helpful.

You are entitled to your opinion, the OP is based on Scripture and if you have Scripture that refutes or corrects the OP; I want to hear it.

 

[The Righterzpen]

What he wrote does remind me of Ezekiel chapter 28 and Isaiah chapter 14 as well as some passages in the book of Revelation.

Messiah Yeshua -Jesus promised clarity in the future.... perhaps these near death experience accounts are a part of that promise being fulfilled.

Jhn 16:25

These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

and this is interesting too.....

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.
2Co 12:3

And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth
2Co 12:4

How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

If it's not written in Scripture, it's not part of the revelation given to us; so thus is irrelevant to the discussion. The clarity God promised us is the Scripture.

 

[fhansen]

Yet Lucifer is not the first mention of "darkness" in the Scripture. This malevolent chaos Scripture calls "darkness" predated Satan. Genesis is pretty clear about that. We know this because Scripture describes an event that Satan fell. And if he fell on account of some "error of design" upon the part of God that originated evil with Satan; then God created evil. We know this is not the case because there is no evil in God.

"Malevolent" implies intention, i.e. a rational mind and will. And while there's no evil in God, God nonetheless created knowing that evil would occur, and obviously deemed it worthwhile to create anyway. In any case free will plus creation were the ingredients for moral evil, manifesting itself once that freedom was abused.

So because God is a conscious entity, darkness has to be a conscious entity? Why is that? Would that not imply that God created evil, since every thing else He created were conscious entities?

If "malevolent chaos" resulted from God's actions He'd be directly responsible for evil. If the will of a created being brought about evil, then God would be an indirect cause.

 

[The Righterzpen]

"Malevolent" implies intention, i.e. a rational mind and will.

You may have a point here; maybe "malevolent" isn't the best word; because philosophically speaking, we can not measure evil outside of an entity's conscious intent. So, maybe "meaningless" would be more definitive? Yet this word "darkness" used in Genesis does carry "moral implication"; so "malevolent" does fit in that respect.

Yet, to illustrate the point about "darkness" and consciousness; if there is an "equal and opposite reaction" to you sitting in a chair; does that reaction have a consciousness? If a positive action is countered by a negative action, does the negative action have consciousness, or is its "malevolence" measured by its attempts to suppress the positive action? I.E. the darkness seeking to suppress the light.

So, if a counter action to a positive action is a meaningless negative action; it still can be considered "malevolent" because in the case of God's action; the positive action is still "good" (performed without evil intention). So by definition as related to God's good intention, a moral negative is still assigned to the reaction, even in the absence of conscious choice.

Yet, I suppose one could still argue that the darkness had a "consciousness"; yet it does not appear to have had the same type of consciousness as a created entity does? It doesn't seem to me out of the language of Genesis that the darkness did any "thinking". It only continued to react in agitation to every thing God "did" because it was inherently chaotic in its essence; therefore by definition "evil" for opposing God.

Now a non thinking chaos being a reaction to a thinking intentional God, does make a lot of sense. Yet that non thinking chaos has no effect until a conscious being submits its will to it - and wham - is corrupted.

And while there's no evil in God, God nonetheless created knowing that evil would occur, and obviously deemed it worthwhile to create anyway. In any case free will plus creation were the ingredients for moral evil, manifesting itself once that freedom was abused.

I agree with you here and so does the theory.

If "malevolent chaos" resulted from God's actions He'd be directly responsible for evil. If the will of a created being brought about evil, then God would be an indirect cause.

Now if God's intention / motivation is to do good; how does that make Him morally accountable for the negative counteraction? Just because He was aware that it would happen? There is a difference in moral accountability to something directed, as opposed to indirectly consequential.

For example, a highway authority may put salt on a road to prevent icing; yet icing may still happen and cars still slid off the road into the ditch. Does this make the highway authority responsible for the accidents? Not if they took reasonable precaution to make the road as safe as they could.

God's plan of redemption is integrally tied to His creative action. He has more than adequately compensated for the darkness and the evil manifest in the creation through the choices of the creatures. The plan really is genius because it best showcases the entirety of God's attributes. Remember, if we all got what we deserved, we'd all be condemned. So, evil reigns in certain aspects until God determines "times up"!

 

[childeye 2]

Actually if you look really closely at the phrase "Let there be light and the light was "letted"." is what the Hebrew actually indicates. If you "let" something happen. "Let the dog out" or "let the car through". The word "let" does not negate the existence of the dog or the car. That is the case here in Genesis. We know that's the case because light preexisted darkness because "light" comes forth as an attribute of God's character. And God being eternally existent; obviously light existed before darkness did.

Certainly Light preceded darkness even as the Creator preceded the creation. But since Genesis is speaking about the creation, the darkness preceded the light.

Yet "men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil".

This is the condemnation. Elsewhere Jesus says that this world cannot hold him because he testifies to it's wickedness. This is the difference between the carnal and the spiritual minded. Hence the tares like obscurity because they do not want to be found, while the wheat desire clarity because they want to be found.
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

The leaders of Israel did not seek to kill Christ out of ignorance. They knew who He was. They knew He was the Messiah. We know this because of what Nicodemus says to Jesus. "We know you are of God because no man could do what you do if God was not with him."

I don't think this sentence proves that all the Pharisees believed the same as Nicodemus. Nicodemus was not one of those who would seek to crucify Jesus. Jesus called the Pharisees the blind leading the blind which alludes to a form of ignorance that causes them all to fall into a ditch. Romans 11:7 , Romans 11:8 , Romans 11:25 .

What scripture does indicate is that demons and Angels do know that Jesus is the promised Messiah.​

The Romans on the other hand, not that they were ignorant of God from the moral perspective either. Jesus actually commands the Father to forgive the soldiers "for they know not who it is they do this to." Jesus is not declaring that the Romans don't understand who God is. Of course they know that much. They have the natural revelation of the creation.

If Jesus says they know not who it is they do this to, then they don't know him in that sense. Generally speaking, when I look at the Romans I notice that they had their own deities, and the God of the Jews was simply conflated with every other subjective religion. Caesar was even counted as a god by some.

The statement "for if the princes of this world had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"; actually has to do with the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, not intellectual knowledge. We see this because there's some really interesting language in the accounts of the crucifixion that indicate that at the very least from an intellectual standpoint. The Roman's knew "something was up".

I agree. Pontius Pilate found no fault in Jesus and was greatly troubled about crucifying this man. He had a sense of justice and injustice. And yes they would not have crucified the lord had they the revelation of the hidden mystery through the Holy Spirit. Therefore every person who God reveals Himself to, recognizes the Christ. John 6:44 , 1 Corinthians 1:21 , Matthew 16:17 , Luke 10:21 .

The answer to that is obvious. If the only "entities" are God and darkness, God is not going to be suppressing His own intention. And the "framework" of the universe that existed at that point, had no conscience to transgress. A created thing has to have consciousness to disobey.

I don't even think we can say the "darkness" had consciousness. It is/was just sort of this nebulous destructive chaos. It'd be akin to what theory calls "dark matter" or "anti-matter". Those are real scientific theories.

"Entities" would imply a consciousness of some sort, so I don't think that term works when speaking about the universe and it's mass. Besides the darkness in Genesis is specific to the earth and earth could be a type for a heaven that already exists complete with angels. Also I would not presume that the darkness would not serve God's intention. Perhaps (just guessing) what you are referring to with dark matter could be likened to a blank canvass upon which God intends to paint.

What you are saying here in regards to appreciation or esteem; might be true, yet it would seem reasonable to conclude the manifesting of those ideas would have been part of the fall.

We all take our parents for granted in an ignorance that only becomes informed when we become parents ourselves. It's circumstantial in that sense.

Yet, I'm not sure I would say so much about "comprehension". I suppose it would depend on how you'd define that? Both humanity and angels certainly had knowledge of God. Now did they "comprehend" Him in the totality of Who and What He was? As created beings they couldn't have; because of the inherit limitation of being created.

Yes the ignorance I am alluding to is circumstantial because of the limitations that comes with being created beings. I do not mean to imply that God is ever fully comprehended. I reason upon the simple dichotomy of faith and unfaith. Hence I am scrutinizing all imagery of god presented as either trustworthy or untrustworthy as an evaluation. In this form of reasoning light and dark are separated not by seeking where the light ends and the darkness begins, but rather by comprehending from which direction the Light is shining.

Hence you are correct to say that the created being would not have this information because we are inherently limited because we are created. We begin in faith and unfaith is introduced by Satan in the garden. However, since we are made in His Image with His Character, nor do we know who we are. This is why the image of god we believe in affects our character. If our imagery is corrupt and unholy, so also is our moral/immoral reasoning. In other words it is the Holy Spirit's revealing of God as Holy and therefore forever trustworthy, which sanctifies us. Which is part of the manifold purpose for why Jesus was sent, to believe upon and be saved.

Well, keep in mind that the Scripture states Eve ate the fruit because she wanted to be wise like God was. This is why the Scripture says she was deceived. I don't believe with her, that it was she wanted to supplant God; she wanted His wisdom. Well, where do you get wisdom from? You get wisdom from asking God, not eating fruit. LOL Also if she'd asked Adam, the answer he should have given her would have been, you seek wisdom from God. The Scripture states that Adam ate the fruit out of rebellion, not out of deception.

I don't believe Adam ate the fruit out of rebellion. If he did he was deceived since God is a loving trustworthy God Who with unsurpassed wisdom always looks out for our best interest. I believe he ate the fruit because he was meek towards Eve. Perhaps Eve ate first and he was wondering why she wasn't dead. I don't know. Anyway, scripture does not say he ate out of rebellion. God said that Adam should not have listened to the woman, so this means to me he caved to her against his own better judgment.

We were not there, but I believe grace requires that we find understanding through compassion. Satan was the most cunning of all God's creatures. For example, Adam and Eve were already like God in every aspect of Character. It's some clever propaganda to suggest that they could become like God and essentially be tricked into trying to fix what was not ever broken. And as always the lie appealed to vanity only because of this ignorance.

Sure it is easy to say they should go to God for wisdom. But that requires trusting in God as trustworthy. Satan's lie was already questioning God's motives for why they were denied wisdom. It's not clear that any answer God gave would placate that doubt. Besides the wisdom Eve was seeking in the knowledge of good and evil was deadly. Take for example the prodigal son. He was not prevented from leaving his Fathers house with his inheritance against his Father's wishes. I figure that is because the Father knew that the son had to find out for himself what was out there, and subsequently learn why the Father was keeping him from having to experience it.

As per "suppressing the truth"? Again, the suppression of truth commenced before there were created beings to willfully suppress it.

I do not understand how this is possible. In atrue dichotomy the truth is only suppressed by a lie.

Doubt in and of itself is not sin; because it still provides the opportunity to seek clarification from God.

Perhaps God could point out why all things are built on faith. Having said that, I must submit that doubt is sin trying to find a way in.

Psalm 139 talks about Jesus having doubt. What did He doubt? Probably whether or not He was correctly perceiving the plan, as it was being revealed to Him through the course of His life. At least that seems to be the context of Psalm 139. Jesus apparently dreamt a lot about what His purpose was to be. The psalm talks about that too. So it would be fair to conclude that His questions, or doubts or misgivings that the psalm describes would be in relation to correctly perceiving the plan.

I don't see Psalm 139 talking about doubt. I know that Jesus was sweating blood while in the garden of Gethsemane. I don't think he had doubt in the plan. I think he was struggling with facing the torment of being beaten and crucified.

You'd have to provide Scripture to support the idea that angels have "emotion" in the same venue as humanity bears them.

Yeah that's not really possible since angels are not humans. But according to scripture they do experience joy, anger, and vanity in their own manner. In view of these emotions, it would be wrong to presume they don't have empathy. Do they laugh or cry? Scripture doesn't say, so I would not presume whether they do or don't.

Now if angels don't have "the breath of life" because they are not carbon based; we could conclude they don't have souls and therefore, would not have "emotions" in the same context as humans. Satan is an entity that we see as exhibiting pride and anger; but outside of that, we see no other emotion. Satan apparently is incapable of sorrow, remorse, joy or love. He is "depraved totally".

I must conclude that Satan is hard hearted. Even scripture describes leviathan as hard hearted. Also Isaiah describes Satan as having a heart that desires to be like unto God. Scripture also says that God has a soul or is a soul, and yet He is not carbon based. Interesting topic though.

Again, I think this speaks more to the human condition than it speaks about angels. Does Satan compare himself to God and feeling inferior as "coming up short" or is it rather blatant open rebellion? I tend to gravitate toward the second.

If we're talking about where evil/iniquity/sin came from, I believe it starts with Satan and he is an angel. I think Satan considers himself just as worthy of praise and worship as God. But I don't see an open rebellion. I see in Satan a resentment of being under someone else's authority through a misguided ideology about political power, and I also see a patronizing fealty towards God with a knife in the back type of betrayal.

Omniscience pretty much covers the awareness of people's prayers.

Omnipresence would also be applicable. In fact scriptures indicate that the Holy Spirit will inform us what to pray and even prays for us from within us.

The concept of an intercessor we'd probably relate best to the idea of a criminal lawyer. The lawyer may plead to the judge for leniency once the criminal is declared guilty. Except Jesus isn't just "pleading the case"; He took on the punishment.

No I seriously don't believe Jesus took on our punishment. It doesn't make sense that God would punish the innocent and allow the guilty to escape their due punishment. That is not an image of god I will accept.
Besides scripture speaks of a vineyard that God built and where God puts certain servants (angels) in charge while He goes away. God then sends his servants, the prophets, one by one to collect His due and those in charge have those prophets killed one by one. Finally God sends His own son thinking surely they will respect him. But the wicked servants then kill the son thinking they will keep his inheritance. This is not a story indicating that God is punishing Jesus for our sins. Moreover, his blood was the sacrifice required under the law which was shed so sins could be forgiven. I believe Satan crucified the Christ, and also that the Christ went willingly knowing that through death he would defeat death.

In that sense an intercessor does not "take prayers to God". He intercedes upon behalf of the person's guilt.

Guilt according to the law, is not the same as guilt according to the conscience. For example Jesus was found guilty of blaspheme for proclaiming himself the son of God. He is the High Priest of the New Testament where he intercedes on our behalf as those who are afflicted and weak in the flesh, not guilty and deserving of crucifixion.

This is true under the New Testament too because "all judgement is given to the Son; because he is the son of man". We know by the rest of the Scriptures that all are not pardoned by the son but Jesus has the right to judge because He took on human flesh. He reserved to hold off on that judgement until after the resurrection when He received the Kingdom.

Here are the differences I see. Under the Old Testament which I believe Satan administered, all have sinned and stand condemned as worthy of death, including Jesus. But Jesus who is sinless came to die in this manner partly to pay the atonement required by the law as the lamb of God, but also to destroy the works of Satan. Wherefore because he is in reality undeserving of death, he has authority to takes the power of death away from Satan and now has the keys to hell. Hence his blood was shed so that sins may be forgiven and to set the prisoners free.

Now of course Jesus and the New Testament is not like Satan and the Old Testament, and his judgement reflects that. The condemnation is when men do not come to the Light of Jesus so as to be healed of their affliction. Look at the judgment of Jesus: The prostitutes enter into the kingdom of God ahead of the Pharisees. Those who are forgiven much love much, those who are forgiven little, love little. The merciful shall receive mercy. Judge not lest you be judged. Whatever measure you use to judge others will be used against you. Forgive us our trespasses even as we forgive those who trespass against us. Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whosoever you are that judges: for wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you that judges does the same things. This Spirit which is found in Christ actually deters condemnation, resists hypocritical judgment, cleanses from sinfulness, and lives in every true believer.

So I sincerely say again, I do not believe that Jesus who showed God's divine Love by laying down his life for us, believes we deserve death. And therefore my conscience is clean because neither do I.

We need to make our posts much shorter, I'm sure you agree.

 

[childeye 2]

[double post

 

[GodsGrace101]

You are entitled to your opinion, the OP is based on Scripture and if you have Scripture that refutes or corrects the OP; I want to hear it.

The O.P. is asking a question.
Where did evil originate?
You offered your own opinion since the bible does not state where it originated.

What scripture did you post that tell me WHERE evil originated? Please repeat it since I'm sure there aren't any.

And if there aren't any,,,they can't be posted.

There is no way to repute or correct the O.P.....which I never have done....because it cannot be corrected because we don't know where evil comes from.