Theory on the origin of evil

The Righterzpen said:

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

Click to expand...

bling said:

You might read my post 357

Click to expand...

GodsGrace101 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The Righterzpen said:

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?

Click to expand...

The Righterzpen said:

And why? Please explain your objection. Scripture references?

Click to expand...

The Righterzpen said:

And why? Please explain your objection. Scripture references?

Click to expand...

The Righterzpen said:

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!

Click to expand...

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!"

Click to expand...

DennisTate said:

This may be helpful.

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

Click to expand...

The Righterzpen said:

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

Click to expand...

The Righterzpen said:

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.

Click to expand...

The Righterzpen said:

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?

Click to expand...

The Righterzpen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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".

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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".

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

The Righterzpen said:

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.

Click to expand...