Theory on the origin of evil

[The Righterzpen]

We'll break this up into subjects covered:

But since Genesis is speaking about the creation, the darkness preceded the light.

Except that isn't what the language in Genesis depicts. The darkness did not precede the light. The darkness was suppressing the light.

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.

And the unregenerate remain entrapped in that darkness because they don't want the light of truth and the reason they don't want it is because they are dead in trespass and sin.

Again, a spiritual awakening is like unto as described in Genesis. Light breaks through the suppressing darkness because God supersedes this darkness.

 

[The Righterzpen]

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.

You misunderstand the weight of what Nicodemus said. "We KNOW you come from God because no one could do what you do if God was not with him."

Nicodemus is not talking about "having faith", "putting trust in" or "believing" in. He is making a statement that the Sanhedrin recognizes Jesus is the Messiah. They recognize he is the one that was promised to come. They hate him though, because they are willfully entrapped in the evil that they love. They know; they just refuse to obey and this is why Jesus says they've committed blasphemy against the Spirit.

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 I made about the Romans having awareness of God comes out of the epistles that state the wrath of God is revealed from heaven, therefore all of humanity is accountable. That is the revelation I'm referring to.

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.

The fascinating thing about Pilate though is that as a historical figure; he was not one known to be particularly concerned with justice. Pilate's usual "modes operands" was if you make my life hard, I make your's harder.

The rulers of Israel figured he'd just do what they wanted because he was always looking for some guilty party to put down a rebellion. Pilate though was a little more politically savvy than that. He had marginal awareness of who Jesus was. So did the soldiers. They knew Jesus was "a good guy"; although they didn't understand why. And that's what that verse means - if they'd known why, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.

 

[The Righterzpen]

"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.

I agree with you that "entity" is not the best word to define the darkness described in Genesis. It was a suppressive chaos. "The earth is without form and void and darkness is upon the face of the deep." So thus, I don't believe the darkness was specific to only earth because it does't say the darkness was particularly upon the earth.

Now what does "face of the deep" mean. Maybe a bit more research on that is required; for if it's talking about what would become the domaine of angels, that would make some contextual sense to Satan being the first entity of consciousness who falls. The term seems to imply "hades" which is said was made for Satan and his demons. I've heard people say "hell" was never meant for human beings (which I suppose could be true - although it is clear that humans end up there).

Yet if the darkness is in rebellion of God, how is it serving His intention? It's not a "blank canvas" if it's actively suppressing God's action.

 

[The Righterzpen]

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.

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.

I think you give Satan too much credit for being ignorant or "having his feelings hurt"; neither of which I think were true.

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.

1 Timothy 2:14 says Adam was not deceived (but Eve was); so because Adam knew what he was doing was disobedience; that certainly implies he did it out of rebellion. Now what was going on in Adam's head? I don't think the Scripture ever tells us.

Note though when God confronts Adam; Adam's response is "The woman YOU gave me!" Look where he's putting the blame / passing the buck!

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.

I do agree, it is baffling to us on the other side of the fall to understand why the fall happened (at least in practical terms). If we'd say it was out of ignorance - if we conclude ignorance of what evil was - I'd agree with that!

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.

I certainly agree, Eve had no idea what she was asking for. Yet, did they have enough understanding of the nature of what they were as created beings to know that the knowledge of evil would corrupt them? That's a good question. Did Adam know this and Eve didn't on account of being deceived? That's another good question?

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

In the philosophical realm of what we understand, this is true. The manifestation of evil becomes apparent with choice and choice can only happen with entities that have consciousness. Yet the Scripture does define this darkness as "evil" on account of its actively suppressing the light even though it's not doing so by "thought".

 

[The Righterzpen]

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.

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.

Verse 23 of Psalm 139 in the Hebrew mentions doubt. It's translated in that psalm as "thought" but it's translated other places as "doubt". "search me.... my anxious doubt".

Now doubt isn't necessary "doubt of the plan" or "doubt of the Father" but can certainly be doubt of self. Can I do this. Can I get through this. Jesus was legitimately afraid. We see this in Jeremiah 30 that speaks of "Jacob's trouble". "Jacob" is afraid. What is he afraid of? He's afraid of losing his inheritance through failure.

When Jesus said "My God, my God; why have You forsaken me." That was not some hyperbolic statement. That was a real experience to him. He was forsaken of the Father, as well as the Spirit. That was part of the atonement because that is what is required to pay for sin. When people are cast into the lake of fire at the end of time; they are cast out of God's presence. That's what it means to be under God's wrath.

Based on these following statements; it's clear that you do not understand the atonement!

The "battle" to redeem sinners had nothing to do with Satan. He was "collateral damage". The horror for Jesus was to be severed from the only fellowship He'd ever known and then to have His own Divinity rent from his existence. This is what actually killed him. Imagine having your fellowship with God torn from you and than your own existence ripped apart to atone for people who if left to their own devices wouldn't even care?

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.

Satan did not crucify Christ. The atonement had to do with God Himself.

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.

Jesus was proclaimed guilty in the eyes of the Father according to the law. He was able to secure payment for sin because He did not sin himself.

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.

If you believe Satan wrote the Old Testament, you have some serious issues with your understanding of Biblical canon!

Wow - just wow!

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.

 

[The Righterzpen]

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.

You realize I wrote the OP don't you?

I do see where the Bible does give us information about the origin of evil. That was the point of the OP.

You want to know where evil originated - go back and read the OP.

So if you don't believe you can figure out based on Scripture where evil came from - why'd you respond to this thread?

 

[DennisTate]

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.

Could this time be the fulfillment of "afterward?"

Joel 2:28

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.

The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

 

[GodsGrace101]

You realize I wrote the OP don't you?

I do see where the Bible does give us information about the origin of evil. That was the point of the OP.

You want to know where evil originated - go back and read the OP.

So if you don't believe you can figure out based on Scripture where evil came from - why'd you respond to this thread?

I know you wrote it.
What I've said from the very beginning is that we do NOT know how evil originated.

You think you've figured it out?
It has nothing to do with action and reaction.
I said from the first page that this is equivalent to God making evil, and we know this cannot be.

You can think you've got it figured out. I'm not here to argue with you. I thought I had it figured out too many years ago...but I found that I was wrong.

Augustine also thought he had it figured out, but later on in his life, he said there was no way to know.

If God is all-good and omnipotent...
evil should not exists. This is the biggest question Christianity faces for which it has no answer.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Could this time be the fulfillment of "afterward?"

Joel 2:28

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.

The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

The answer to that question is linked to when did the "afterward" begin and its connection to the writing of the Scripture.

Once the canon of Scripture was completed; the miraculous signs ceased because all of what God wanted to reveal to humanity was already established. That's what 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 is talking about.

When that which is complete is come - than that which is in part is done away with.

Jesus uses this same language when he addresses a Pharisee who comes to tell him that Herod seeks to kill him. Jesus says: "Tell that fox, I preach and do miracles and healings today and tomorrow and on the 3rd day I will be perfected.

That word "perfect" (or perfected) is actually a term connected to conception. It means "to come to the full power of". We'd use the term "climax". Jesus came to the "end" or "full power" / "climax" of his preaching and teaching before He left the temple that Tuesday afternoon. This is just on the onset of the atonement (3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth).

Now if we look at the New Testament, what does it consist of? It consists of a record of what Jesus said and did and explanations of that. It is the written record of what Jesus refers to as "being made perfect" (complete) "having come to the climax" etc.

 

[trophy33]

If God is all-good and omnipotent...
evil should not exists. This is the biggest question Christianity faces for which it has no answer.

It has and it is not a difficult one. Read Theodicy by G.W. Leibniz, its fully online:

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Theodicy, by G. W. Leibniz

 

[The Righterzpen]

If God is all-good and omnipotent...evil should not exists.

Yet, God all good and omnipotent and evil does exist.

So, just because you don't like my answer and you don't have an answer for yourself does not mean the question is unanswerable. That is a fallacy of your own thought process.

Besides, the presupposition that evil should not exist is a different issue than where it came from.

 

[The Righterzpen]

It has and it is not a difficult one. Read Theodicy by G.W. Leibniz, its fully online:

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Theodicy, by G. W. Leibniz

Thanks for the link. I'll read this.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Yet, God all good and omnipotent and evil does exist.

So, just because you don't like my answer and you don't have an answer for yourself does not mean the question is unanswerable. That is a fallacy of your own thought process.

Besides, the presupposition that evil should not exist is a different issue than where it came from.

No theologian or biblical scholar will put forth any idea as to where evil originates.

It's not a matter of my not liking what you wrote or believe.

 

[GodsGrace101]

It has and it is not a difficult one. Read Theodicy by G.W. Leibniz, its fully online:

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Theodicy, by G. W. Leibniz

I've read plenty of books...spoken to plenty of persons that should know.

Could you just state what the author believes is the origin of evil? Because whatever it is, it'll be wrong.

 

[The Righterzpen]

No theologian or biblical scholar will put forth any idea as to where evil originates.

It's not a matter of my not liking what you wrote or believe.

Oh they certainly have put forth this question.

Again, just because you can't answer it for yourself does not mean other people have not put up answers that they are satisfied with.

Granted it's a big question with multiple layers of answers that arise out of the various questions the issue presents. This does not mean that you are correct that it's unanswerable and "no one knows".

 

[The Righterzpen]

Could you just state what the author believes is the origin of evil? Because whatever it is, it'll be wrong.

You just need to walk away from the question at this point.

 

[trophy33]

No theologian or biblical scholar will put forth any idea as to where evil originates.

Leibniz did. And he was not the only one.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Leibniz did. And he was not the only one.

Well, let's have it!
What is the answer?
Where or how did evil originate?

 

[trophy33]

Could you just state what the author believes is the origin of evil? Because whatever it is, it'll be wrong.

I think it will be better if you read the author's statements yourself, because you seem to be very closed minded.

 

[trophy33]

Well, let's have it!
What is the answer?
Where or how did evil originate?

SUMMARY OF THE CONTROVERSY REDUCED TO FORMAL ARGUMENTS