Evil

[Jack]

I was watching the Kirk Cameron And Some New Zealander vs. Rational Response Squad debate (specifically,

), and that beginning question from the moderator and Ray's response made me wonder something.

 

Every Christian who I've asked, "Why must the unsaved go to Hell? What's to stop God forgiving them without this contrived Jesus process?" answered something to the effect of "God cannot be in the presence of sin/evil".

 

If evil is not a positive presence, but is simply the absence of good, then what's this about God being unable to be in its presence? Beside the fact that he's supposed to be omnipotent (in which case, what damage would a bit of sin do?), if evil is not a presence of itself but an absence of good, why would that absence not be filled by the presence of God's goodness (ignoring the fact that Yahweh is a bloodthirsty tyrant for the moment)?

[Ouroboros]

How could God judge the evil people at the end of time, if he can't be near them?

 

And if there's evil in this world, and God can't be near it, then God isn't in this world. Ergo, if God exists, he's not here.

[Jack]

Gaspzorz!

But Gawd is /everywhere/!

Only.

Sort of not.

Because, um. It's, like, eh...

Say, I've got to go, but I'll be back in a few weeks to repeat my arguments with proper theomalogicalistic research.

[Tabula Rasa]

How could God judge the evil people at the end of time, if he can't be near them?

 

And if there's evil in this world, and God can't be near it, then God isn't in this world. Ergo, if God exists, he's not here.

 

It does boggle the mind. It makes me wonder if what they're saying is if someone evil is in God's presence, he'll knee jerk reflexively destroy them. And if God is omnipotent and all loving it would be no problem for him to forgive the sinners. I swear, it's almost as if the Christians think that sin is like Kryptonite to God.

[Deva]

If God can't be near it, then how did it get here?

 

Christians always say, "from Satan." Is Satan then another God?

 

Then they go to the Satan had "free will" excuse. Is "free will" another God then?

 

Makes it difficult for them. They cannot resolve the problem of evil without sinking. There is always something that is higher than their "all good" God.

[mwc]

As I recall the whole thing stems from a Greek(?) philosophy that holds that the perfect good must be held separate from anything that isn't perfectly good otherwise the thing that is perfectly good wouldn't become tainted. So if "god" is perfect he must stay away from us so as not to become tainted by us and the only way he can deal with us is through an intermediary (which later becomes baby jesus) but earlier was messengers (demons, angels, etc.). If, we ever became perfect, then and only then could "god" deal with us directly and so our goal should be to become perfect so "god" could come live with us rather than be forced to be held apart from us.

 

This concept can be seen in the NT when they talk about putting a new patch on a old coat or in the OT even when they speak about using certain tools on the temple. Certain tools would taint the stone ruining it. Extending that further we're that same thing that could "blemish" the perfection of "god" if we come into contact with him.

 

Nowadays we don't think that way and see things a bit differently (darkness is the absence of light, cold is the absence of heat, evil is the absence of good). This tends to screw over the philosophy but makes "god" more powerful in a certain respects (but less so in others).

 

mwc

[Japedo]

Riddle me this,

 

If Christ died for all the evil and sin in the world, how is it Christ is part of God if God can't have anything to do with evil. IN asking that incase someone gives me the ole.. God only turned his face against the human part of himself how about this.

 

Who forgives Christ and why isn't he the only soul burning in the lake of fire (If it were to exist)?

[Ouroboros]

As I recall the whole thing stems from a Greek(?) philosophy that holds that the perfect good must be held separate from anything that isn't perfectly good otherwise the thing that is perfectly good wouldn't become tainted. So if "god" is perfect he must stay away from us so as not to become tainted by us and the only way he can deal with us is through an intermediary (which later becomes baby jesus) but earlier was messengers (demons, angels, etc.). If, we ever became perfect, then and only then could "god" deal with us directly and so our goal should be to become perfect so "god" could come live with us rather than be forced to be held apart from us.

Angels as intermediaries can be understood, but Jesus as one doesn't make sense still since he's supposed to be God. Jesus would be God in direct contact with Evil, since he not only had parties with sinners, but he went to hell (according to some Christian cults) to fight the Devil. It only shows they haven't really thought hard enough about it.

 

This concept can be seen in the NT when they talk about putting a new patch on a old coat or in the OT even when they speak about using certain tools on the temple. Certain tools would taint the stone ruining it. Extending that further we're that same thing that could "blemish" the perfection of "god" if we come into contact with him.

Also understandable. "Evil would taint God" ... I wonder about the story about Job though. Supposedly Satan was in God's council and talked to him directly.

 

Nowadays we don't think that way and see things a bit differently (darkness is the absence of light, cold is the absence of heat, evil is the absence of good). This tends to screw over the philosophy but makes "god" more powerful in a certain respects (but less so in others).

I'm not sure what you mean... You always make perfect sense MWC, get a cup of coffee and explain please. (And I need a cup too... maybe that's why I don't get this last part?)

[Jack]

If God can't be near it, then how did it get here?

 

Christians always say, "from Satan." Is Satan then another God?

 

Then they go to the Satan had "free will" excuse. Is "free will" another God then?

 

Makes it difficult for them. They cannot resolve the problem of evil without sinking. There is always something that is higher than their "all good" God.

 

Whee, continuity errors.

It's convenient little things like this that made me start questioning.

Sorry if I don't post much, by the way; I usually find that what I have to say has already been said, and prefer to lurk.

[Amanda]

FWIW:

Isa 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

 

IMO, most "Christians" have NOT studied the bible, nor thought about it, near as much as most of the people on this site.

 

It seems most "Christians" go to a church to be entertained and make them feel good... and have the mentality that the guy preaching is a "man of God". THAT should mean he is speaking Truth. Why should anyone investigate what he's saying, right?

[mwc]

Angels as intermediaries can be understood, but Jesus as one doesn't make sense still since he's supposed to be God. Jesus would be God in direct contact with Evil, since he not only had parties with sinners, but he went to hell (according to some Christian cults) to fight the Devil. It only shows they haven't really thought hard enough about it.

Good point. Of course he's not purebred and being a half-breed he would be the "perfect" go between if you look at it that way. The early church fathers weren't sure what to make of him (some thought he was an angel) so I can't really say much about the whole issue beyond my guess. I suppose that could also be why the rifts about what jesus was exactly broke out and why Nicea needed to eventually come to pass. If he wasn't "god" stuff then he could co-exist with "evil" but if he was then we have a little problem (but if he's not "god" stuff then we have other problems so we know what won the day).

 

Also understandable. "Evil would taint God" ... I wonder about the story about Job though. Supposedly Satan was in God's council and talked to him directly.

This is true but only from the xian perspective. The Jewish perspective holds that Satan is an agent of YHWH and not evil at all. If Satan is merely an agent of "god" then he can't taint him.

 

I'm not sure what you mean... You always make perfect sense MWC, get a cup of coffee and explain please. (And I need a cup too... maybe that's why I don't get this last part?)

Yeah, what was I thinking?

 

If evil is the absence of good then the Greek philosophy that I started the whole thing off with falls apart but in doing so it means that "god" chooses to not be somewhere as opposed to there is someplace that "god" cannot go without being tainted. In the former case "god" chooses his own limits and in the latter "god" has a boundary set around him that he cannot cross without being corrupted.

 

I think that's along the lines of what I had in mind. I'll say it was (unless I can actually remember what I was really thinking and then I'll just post that).

 

mwc

[mwc]

Who forgives Christ and why isn't he the only soul burning in the lake of fire (If it were to exist)?

Because he accepted himself as his personal Lord and savior? He has a very personal relationship with himself (very personal ).

 

mwc

[SWIM]

What actually *is* evil anyway?

 

Every watch the series on Discovery called "Most Evil"? Most of the serial killers in their studies have been found to possess some form of physical brain damage, along with a history of being psychologically abused as a child. The two go hand in hand quite often.

 

Here is a question for any Christians reading:

 

A man lost his job. Comes home and shoots his wife and kids, then puts a bullet in his brain. What caused it?:

 

A. Satan entered his body because he had not accepted christ and made him do it.

B. He suffered without treatment for a long time, psychological manic depression, could not control the negative thoughts in his mind, and an "episode" of depression *hit* him (or triggered by) the loss of his job. The only way out in his mentally ill mind is to take out his family and himself.

 

RESULTS:

 

A. He is forgiven because *he* did not do it, satan did. However, he is NOT forgiven because he rejected christ and burns forever for all eternity.

 

or

 

B. He is not punished, he is dead. Period. It is the *people* surviving that suffer, they look in horror at it and grieve for those that died. period.

 

or

 

C. He enters the unknown. We don't know what happened to him, if *anything* happened to him at all, IE reincarnation, time-loop etc etc (insert afterlife theory here), we simply *do not know* nor can we do anything at all about it, what will be will be.

 

 

Of all the scenarios which of the three is more probable?

 

Here is a tip for the xtians reading this: The answer requires the use of common sense.

[Japedo]

Who forgives Christ and why isn't he the only soul burning in the lake of fire (If it were to exist)?

Because he accepted himself as his personal Lord and savior? He has a very personal relationship with himself (very personal ).

 

mwc

 

 

 

 

So personal in fact it gives the cumming of Christ a whole new meaning...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mwc]

So personal in fact it gives the cumming of Christ a whole new meaning...

But 2000 years to cum again?

 

Christ needs a fluffer...stat!

 

 

mwc

[centauri]

Every Christian who I've asked, "Why must the unsaved go to Hell? What's to stop God forgiving them without this contrived Jesus process?" answered something to the effect of "God cannot be in the presence of sin/evil".

 

Christians often define Satan as being the epitome of evil and a rebel angel.

Yet, there is nothing in the Hebrew scriptures indicating that Satan ever disobeyed a command from God.

God has no problem with Satan being in his presence.

Job 1:6-7

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

[mwc]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I saw a lecture once that said that in the Hebrew there is only one instance where "Satan" in the entire Hebrew bible should be actually translated as "Satan" and in all other instances it should really be translated as "the Satan" (much like the devil). The book of Job is included in that but it is usually translated from the Aramaic (even in the Hebrew bibles) because it is the one of hardest texts to actually understand even in the native language (much less translate).

 

The point being that "Satan" really isn't any single entity but more of a concept or position. From the story of Job you have the sons of god appearing and the Satan comes with them meaning one of them has the role of the Satan but Satan isn't a specific one of them.

 

mwc

[trashy]

I think the entire concept of good and evil as forces or entities is bunk.

 

You can say God never does evil things, but that does not equate to 'God is good' - he might do only good things but he is not a 'thing' called good. Good and evil are descriptors only. They describe actions as we humans define them.

 

And since one man's good might be another man's evil........

 

So there is really no 'problem of evil' - evil isn't something God created or didn't create, it's just a word we use to describe actions. If people are going around doing 'evil' things, and God created those people, then he could potentially be held responsible for the evil, but it doesn't mean he created it outright, regardless of certain KJV scriptures and their translations.

 

That's my rambling .02 any way

[Amanda]

Christians often define Satan as being the epitome of evil and a rebel angel.

 

Centauri, as with many current beliefs, there is no biblical proof to support a rebel angel is Satan. In fact, there is much more proof that this rebel angel, Lucifer, aka the lightbearer, is Jesus. Both have the same name, the morning star to the Morning Star.

 

The point being that "Satan" really isn't any single entity but more of a concept or position. From the story of Job you have the sons of god appearing and the Satan comes with them meaning one of them has the role of the Satan but Satan isn't a specific one of them.

 

MWC, I think you're right... as usual. It seems to me, the concept of Satan back then was merely of an invisible adversary reacting to what people do that is disrespectful. My understandings is that man was made from the dust, our 'selfish, disrespectful' nature, and the serpent is to eat this "dust" all the days of our lives. That's why in revelations we are referenced as incense on the golden altar, as this old nature burns off, leaving only smoke... our pure spirit, which is a sweet smell to god. I know, I know what you are thinking... ......

\

It seems the predominant definition for Satan in the OT found here says:

 

Original Word Word Origin

!tX from (07853)

Transliterated Word TDNT Entry

Satan TWOT - 2252a

Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech

saw-tawn' Noun Masculine

 

Definition

adversary, one who withstands

adversary (in general - personal or national)

superhuman adversary

Satan (as noun pr)

 

Which according to the same site here, Satan evolved from this word:

 

Original Word Word Origin

!tX a primitive root

Transliterated Word TDNT Entry

Satan TWOT - 2252

Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech

saw-tan' Verb

 

Definition

(Qal) to be or act as an adversary, resist, oppose

 

So, I guess initially they made a character, Satan/Devil/Serpent to represent the negative repercussions people naturally encounter for their disrespectful actions.

 

Also, serpents seem to be steeped in lots of ancient mythologies, like Murdock and such. I'm curious as to what belief system Satan was borrowed...

[R. S. Martin]

Gaspzorz!

But Gawd is /everywhere/!

Only.

Sort of not.

Because, um. It's, like, eh...

Say, I've got to go, but I'll be back in a few weeks to repeat my arguments with proper theomalogicalistic research.

 

I love that!

[Jack]

Gaspzorz!

But Gawd is /everywhere/!

Only.

Sort of not.

Because, um. It's, like, eh...

Say, I've got to go, but I'll be back in a few weeks to repeat my arguments with proper theomalogicalistic research.

 

I love that!

 

Thankya.

 

These replies are really great; sorry again, but I'm not one to write massive essays like a lot of you are (too much time in IRC?).

 

Amanda: That's true, about clergy -- it's usually Not Good to question them, though I imagine no one could really give you a good reason why. I just always felt forbidden from questioning anything they said. Funny, that.

[garrisonjj]

Who forgives Christ and why isn't he the only soul burning in the lake of fire (If it were to exist)?

Because he accepted himself as his personal Lord and savior? He has a very personal relationship with himself (very personal ).

 

mwc

 

 

 

 

So personal in fact it gives the cumming of Christ a whole new meaning...

 

 

I don't know, but when I cummmm, that's heaven and god to me!

 

 

 

[mwc]

Christians often define Satan as being the epitome of evil and a rebel angel.

 

Centauri, as with many current beliefs, there is no biblical proof to support a rebel angel is Satan. In fact, there is much more proof that this rebel angel, Lucifer, aka the lightbearer, is Jesus. Both have the same name, the morning star to the Morning Star.

Well, "Lucifer" was Nebuchadnezzar II.

 

MWC, I think you're right... as usual. It seems to me, the concept of Satan back then was merely of an invisible adversary reacting to what people do that is disrespectful. My understandings is that man was made from the dust, our 'selfish, disrespectful' nature, and the serpent is to eat this "dust" all the days of our lives. That's why in revelations we are referenced as incense on the golden altar, as this old nature burns off, leaving only smoke... our pure spirit, which is a sweet smell to god. I know, I know what you are thinking... ......

It's like when people claim they have a "demon" or even more ridiculous "a monkey on their back." Obviously, there is no monkey. Maybe there was one person that literally did have a monkey but not anymore...I don't know the origin. But there is one "evil" and then over here there is another. Maybe they're the same? So they merge. The Satan and The Devil are now one and they're both evil incarnate. The Jews, on the other hand, don't believe this so the don't have use Satan in the same way. Other cultures have their own personifications of evil and xians try to roll them into the devil by saying that is just the name that the devil revealed himself to those people but really all ultimate personifications of evil are one and the same (and of course the lesser evils are demons).

 

By taking the whole thing from a concept to a personification it alters the whole idea though. In the gospels we see Peter get told "Get behind me Satan." We're told that Judas is possessed by Satan. We're even told that jesus is tempted by Satan. But all these three things are not equal. Peter is obviously not Satan. We can't say that Judas got taken over by an evil spirit or just if he made an "evil" choice. We also cannot say if the 40 days in the desert were spent alone or in the presence of an actual fallen angel (it appears he was alone since three temptations in 40 days seems strange...what did they do the rest of the time? Play cards?). Satan appears to be nothing more than the personification of evil rather than an evil being. Just like having a monkey on your back never seems to include a monkey.

 

I looked at your Revelation reference and I just don't see it. Sorry. The incense doesn't seem to be anything more than incense offered up so the prayers make it to God. Seems perfectly normal in a temple setting (of course I read that book as if it is Jewish and not xian since the xians just did what they normally did and crapped all over a Jewish apocryphal text).

 

So, I guess initially they made a character, Satan/Devil/Serpent to represent the negative repercussions people naturally encounter for their disrespectful actions.

 

Also, serpents seem to be steeped in lots of ancient mythologies, like Murdock and such. I'm curious as to what belief system Satan was borrowed...

I would say it depends on the when/where and what for you're talking about. There's a long time to go over. Snakes and serpents in general probably just came from the Canaanites. The larger serpents (like Leviathan) would have come from earlier like Sumerian/Assyrian/Babylonian but most likely Egyptian sources. The Egyptians ran the region for so long the stories got into the Canaanite myths and handed down from there. The Babylonian stuff mixed in later during the captivity. Anyhow, Apophis was a large snake that ruled the netherworld and Set had to kill him every night so that Ra could rise again. Set's name could possibly be transliterated, over time, into a form that could allow for an early Satan and then it just went from there. Who knows? Set, the hero, became hated when the Hyksos chose to worship him so anything is possible I guess. It's all speculation on my part.

 

mwc

[Amanda]

By taking the whole thing from a concept to a personification it alters the whole idea though. In the gospels we see Peter get told "Get behind me Satan." We're told that Judas is possessed by Satan. We're even told that jesus is tempted by Satan. But all these three things are not equal. Peter is obviously not Satan. We can't say that Judas got taken over by an evil spirit or just if he made an "evil" choice. We also cannot say if the 40 days in the desert were spent alone or in the presence of an actual fallen angel (it appears he was alone since three temptations in 40 days seems strange...what did they do the rest of the time? Play cards?). Satan appears to be nothing more than the personification of evil rather than an evil being. Just like having a monkey on your back never seems to include a monkey.

MWC, in many ways it seems that satan can also be represented as a belief in a lie, as "he" is the father of lies, lying is his native tongue. Beliefs in lies can produce "evil" actions, such as if I steal this, they will not find out and I will be better off having what I want without paying.

I looked at your Revelation reference and I just don't see it. Sorry. The incense doesn't seem to be anything more than incense offered up so the prayers make it to God. Seems perfectly normal in a temple setting (of course I read that book as if it is Jewish and not xian since the xians just did what they normally did and crapped all over a Jewish apocryphal text).

 

Agreed, in that the group, come to be known as "Christians," distorted many, many of these ancient teachings. I know you just love a bible study... As I see it, opening the seven seals is revealing the 'christ nature' through people. Re 1:1 says it is the revealing of christ, written in signs and symbols. The incense section being a metaphor of people burning off their disrespectful characteristics, leaving a pure spiritual spirit. Part of the entire chapter here says this:

Revelation 8:3

And another angel came and stood at the altar(place of total sacrifice to the christ nature), having a golden censer (precious group of holy people reaching up); and there was given unto him much incense (the holy people), that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.

8:4

And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.

(emphasis is my interpretation by researching these words to their prime root meaning.)

 

MWC, thank you for all the insights to where the mythology of Satan could have originated. Hopefully you will bear with me with one more curiosity to snakes, if you know... why do the medical fields have a staff with two snakes twisting up the staff?

 

[OnceConvinced]

How could God judge the evil people at the end of time, if he can't be near them?

 

And if there's evil in this world, and God can't be near it, then God isn't in this world. Ergo, if God exists, he's not here.

 

It does boggle the mind. It makes me wonder if what they're saying is if someone evil is in God's presence, he'll knee jerk reflexively destroy them. And if God is omnipotent and all loving it would be no problem for him to forgive the sinners. I swear, it's almost as if the Christians think that sin is like Kryptonite to God.

I was brought up with the belief that God couldn't be in the presence of sin, but couldn't remember where exactly I got that idea from. Sunday school? A pastor? The bible?

 

I love the concept of sin being God's Kryptonite and have used it myself. On another site I even started a topic along those lines. One Christian jumped in and said, where in the bible does it say that God can't be in the presence of sin? And I had to admit that I couldn't find anything for sure that said that. I used the example of Christ on the cross calling out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" The Christian then replied that Christ in omni-present so could not have really left Christ. That he was there even though Jesus could not sense him.

 

Does anyone know of any scriptures that state God cannot be in the presense of sin?