The Evangelism Showstoppers: Doctrine And Tradition

[danielwoods]

Was Lucifer's rebellion evil?

Indeed.

[mfbukowski]

Evil exists because we have been given the freedom to create it.

I'm not sure where your questions are coming from or going. I haven't stated that God is to blame. Rather, the "seeker friendly churches" tend to ignore evil, thinking that it will just go away, or that it doesn't really matter. Neither of which are accurate. Most systems that focus on a Utopian society (without God as the head) have this tendency (to ignore evil).

I was reacting to your use of the term "the problem of evil" which has been a theological bugaboo for at least a thousand years if not longer. I view this alleged "problem" - which I consider a result of the metaphysics of Neoplatonism- to result from confused "language games",

But if that's not what you were doing, or if you don't want to get into the "problem of evil" then I apologize for the derailment.

But then I don't know what you meant when you said

He's attempting to point out the logical flaw in thinking that everything can be nice in paradise without dealing directly with the problem of evil.

But then again, I am easily confused!

Edited June 14, 2013 by mfbukowski

[danielwoods]

I was reacting to your use of the term "the problem of evil" which has been a theological bugaboo for at least a thousand years if not longer. I view this alleged "problem" - which I consider a result of the metaphysics of Neoplatonism- to result from confused "language games",

But if that's not what you were doing, or if you don't want to get into the "problem of evil" then I apologize for the derailment.

But then I don't know what you meant when you said

But then again, I am easily confused!

Every religious/philosophical system has to deal with the problem of evil/pain.

The seeker friendly churches tend to avoid the topic of sin and the problems associated with evil, in an effort to attract people. That's what I meant by the last statement. I was actually thinking of that movie, "The Beach" from a while ago, where ignoring problems doesn't make them go away. Things appear to be all good in "Paradise" (or the beach) but not really when sin is simply ignored.

[mfbukowski]

Every religious/philosophical system has to deal with the problem of evil/pain.

Well then it appears that you want to get into a discussion on it.

Please explain why you think "evil"- whatever that is, is a "problem" theologically. I don't think "It exists" is an answer.

I mean what theory do you subscribe to? We always have the very scholarly wikipedia to turn to, don't we? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

In that article my position would be down somewhere in section 2.5 where it says "Denial of the existence of evil".

[Questing Beast]

Of course "evil" exists. It is the opposite of "good". You can't have one without the other. But largely this is perception, because being flip sides of the same coin (Existence), their purpose is not an end in themselves. Their purpose is to point out what Joy Is. That is what good leads to, and evil leads away from. Everyone has both "good and evil" in their being. We make "hell or heaven" by choices. "God" is always pointing us toward the right choices, we never are precluded from the power to choose. So even a soul in the darkest self-made hell beyond imagining is never disconnected from "God" and can change. If anyone could "fall from grace" to the point that "God" could no longer connect to them then that would be a problem attached to evil, but there is no reason behind such a teaching/assertion. So "evil" is only opposition to "good", not some horrible entity alien to "God" or "God's" mind; "evil" Is part of "God". Everything Is....

[Calm]

"Evil" is the set of behaviours that are bad for the individual and society. And depending on the context the same behaviour could be good, so it is only by result one can determine what has been evil. Evil therefore is simply a description, not an actual existing essence or substance or independent whatever.

[mfbukowski]

Everyone has both "good and evil" in their being.

Cool.

Let me get out my microscope and examine my "being" to see if I can find them.

Uh, what color are they? Oh I know- got to be black and white, right?

And where exactly is my "being"?

Edited June 14, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

"Evil" is the set of behaviours that are bad for the individual and society. And depending on the context the same behaviour could be good, so it is only by result one can determine what has been evil. Evil therefore is simply a description, not an actual existing essence or substance or independent whatever.

Thanks.

[Gervin]

And where exactly is my "being"?

Your "be-ing" is your spirit, or as SK would say, the "self." Hopefully, no microsope needed.

ETA: From "Sickness Unto Death."

Man is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation [which accounts for it] that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but [consists in the fact] that the relation relates itself to its own self. Man is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short it is a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two factors. So regarded, man is not yet a self.

In the relation between two, the relation is the third term as a negative unity, and the two relate themselves to the relation, and in the relation to the relation; such a relation is that between soul and body, when man is regarded as soul. If on the contrary the relation relates itself to its own self, the relation is then the positive third term, and this is the self.

Such a relation which relates itself to its own self (that is to say, a self) must either have constituted itself or have been constituted by another.

If this relation which relates itself to its own self is constituted by another, the relation doubtless is the third term, but this relation (the third term) is in turn a relation relating itself to that which constituted the whole relation.

Such a derived, constituted, relation is the human self, a relation which relates itself to its own self, and in relating itself to its own self relates itself to another.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Gervin

[danielwoods]

Well then it appears that you want to get into a discussion on it.

Please explain why you think "evil"- whatever that is, is a "problem" theologically. I don't think "It exists" is an answer.

I mean what theory do you subscribe to? We always have the very scholarly wikipedia to turn to, don't we? http://en.wikipedia....Problem_of_evil

In that article my position would be down somewhere in section 2.5 where it says "Denial of the existence of evil".

The "problem" of evil is that if it's not dealt with, it destroys people.

My position would be close to the "freewill" option.

Please by all means explain how you think it doesn't exist.

[Ahab]

Of course "evil" exists. It is the opposite of "good". You can't have one without the other. But largely this is perception, because being flip sides of the same coin (Existence), their purpose is not an end in themselves. Their purpose is to point out what Joy Is. That is what good leads to, and evil leads away from. Everyone has both "good and evil" in their being. We make "hell or heaven" by choices. "God" is always pointing us toward the right choices, we never are precluded from the power to choose. So even a soul in the darkest self-made hell beyond imagining is never disconnected from "God" and can change. If anyone could "fall from grace" to the point that "God" could no longer connect to them then that would be a problem attached to evil, but there is no reason behind such a teaching/assertion. So "evil" is only opposition to "good", not some horrible entity alien to "God" or "God's" mind; "evil" Is part of "God". Everything Is....

Evil is what is in opposition to God (our Father). He is an embodiment of all that is good, but if you want to think of evil as a part of him you can think of it as the part he abhors and rejects because he can see it does and wouldn't do any good for him, personally. Kinda like a tempation that someone doesn't give in to, such that if he were ever tempted to do evil it wouldn't be much of a temptation to him because he would be able to see how stupid it would be to give in to it.

He actually abhors what is evil and doesn't want to be around it, and so much so that if another person has the disposition to do something evil he won't want to be in that person's presence. He will endure it for a time if he thinks he might be able to do some good for that person, but he won't want to spend eternity living in the same place with him while he has an evil disposition. He makes sure the people who love evil have their own place to go while he can be in some other place with other people who love and represent whatever is good.

[Ahab]

And where exactly is my "being"?

Wherever you go, there you are and will always be. You can't get away from yourself.

[mfbukowski]

Your "be-ing" is your spirit, or as SK would say, the "self." Hopefully, no microsope needed.

ETA: From "Sickness Unto Death."

Man is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation [which accounts for it] that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but [consists in the fact] that the relation relates itself to its own self. Man is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short it is a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two factors. So regarded, man is not yet a self.

In the relation between two, the relation is the third term as a negative unity, and the two relate themselves to the relation, and in the relation to the relation; such a relation is that between soul and body, when man is regarded as soul. If on the contrary the relation relates itself to its own self, the relation is then the positive third term, and this is the self.

Such a relation which relates itself to its own self (that is to say, a self) must either have constituted itself or have been constituted by another.

If this relation which relates itself to its own self is constituted by another, the relation doubtless is the third term, but this relation (the third term) is in turn a relation relating itself to that which constituted the whole relation.

Such a derived, constituted, relation is the human self, a relation which relates itself to its own self, and in relating itself to its own self relates itself to another.

Very nice, but how do we know it is correct or not?

[mfbukowski]

The "problem" of evil is that if it's not dealt with, it destroys people.

My position would be close to the "freewill" option.

Please by all means explain how you think it doesn't exist.

It's an adjective describing certain behaviors we view as "bad". It "exists" like the color blue exists, or the noun "courage" exists as a description of things we actually experience like a courageous act or a blue sky. They do not exist as a sort of entity somewhere causing problems.

I have never heard anyone speak of the "problem of blue", or the "problem of courage".

[mfbukowski]

Wherever you go, there you are and will always be. You can't get away from yourself.

Yep.

Heck, I must say "here I am" at least once a month. Quite enlightening. Wherever I am, the answer to the question "where are you?" is always "here!"

Heavy.

[Ahab]

Yep.

Heck, I must say "here I am" at least once a month. Quite enlightening. Wherever I am, the answer to the question "where are you?" is always "here!"

Heavy.

There's a movie I like called 'The Greatest Story Ever Told' where someone knocks on a door and when someone on the other side of the door asks who is there he responds by saying "me", and he does so as if he has a habit of saying that. And he's right, too, you know. It is him, or from his perspective and as he would say: Me.

Kinda reminds me of what our Lord said when some guy named Moses asked him who he should say had sent him.

I am what I am. Tell them I sent you!

[mfbukowski]

I am what I am.

Hmmmm not quite

Popeye said "I am what I am"

God said "I am Who Am"

Just a little different!

[Ahab]

Hmmmm not quite

Popeye said "I am what I am"

God said "I am Who Am"

Just a little different!

You forgot an I in there, but yeah, your translation is better.

[mfbukowski]

You forgot an I in there, but yeah, your translation is better.

I grew up Catholic

On the other hand, Jehveh may be an imperfect qal from a grammatical point of view, and the traditional exegesis of Exodus 3:6-16, seems to necessitate the form Jahveh. Moses asks God: "If they should say to me: What is his [God's] name? What shall I say to them?" In reply, God returns three times to the determination of His name.

First, He uses the first person imperfect of the Hebrew verb "to be"; here the Vulgate, the Septuagint, Aquila, Theodotion, and the Arabic version suppose that God uses the imperfect qal; only the Targums of Jonathan and of Jerusalem imply the imperfect hiphil. Hence we have the renderings: "I am who am" (Vulgate), "I am who is" (Septuagint), "I shall be [who] shall be" (Aquila, Theodotion), "the Eternal who does not cease" (Ar.); only the above-mentioned Targums see any reference to the creation of the world.

The second time, God uses again the first person imperfect of the Hebrew verb "to be"; here the Syriac, the Samaritan, the Persian versions, and the Targums of Onkelos and Jerusalem retain the Hebrew, so that one cannot tell whether they regard the imperfect as a qal or a hiphil form; the Arabic version omits the whole clause; but the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Targum of Jonathan suppose here the imperfect qal: "He Who Is, hath sent me to you" instead of "I Am, hath sent me to you: (Vulgate); "ho on sent me to you" (Septuagint); "I am who am, and who shall be, hath sent me to you" (Targ. Jon.).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm

[danielwoods]

It's an adjective describing certain behaviors we view as "bad". It "exists" like the color blue exists, or the noun "courage" exists as a description of things we actually experience like a courageous act or a blue sky. They do not exist as a sort of entity somewhere causing problems.

I have never heard anyone speak of the "problem of blue", or the "problem of courage".

So I guess we agree that evil exists.

I haven't stated that it's some sort of entity somewhere causing problems.

I also agree it's a descriptor or adjective of something that actually exists.

[mfbukowski]

So I guess we agree that evil exists.

I haven't stated that it's some sort of entity somewhere causing problems.

I also agree it's a descriptor or adjective of something that actually exists.

Well this is going nowhere- so I guess I will opt out.

In fact you are the one who brought up "the problem of evil" without describing why it was a problem, and you still haven't.

We still have some "THING" being described now by the term "evil"- but what that "thing" is and how it "exists" remains unstated.

I have said that "evil" describes a bundle of behaviors, which you have neither accepted nor rejected. You said something about "freedom" but never explained what that had to do with evil.

That's fine- I don't want to be a jerk about it- I was just hoping to get a good discussion going, but it seems that is not working- sorry if I bugged you!

Have a good one!

[danielwoods]

Well this is going nowhere- so I guess I will opt out.

In fact you are the one who brought up "the problem of evil" without describing why it was a problem, and you still haven't.

We still have some "THING" being described now by the term "evil"- but what that "thing" is and how it "exists" remains unstated.

I have said that "evil" describes a bundle of behaviors, which you have neither accepted nor rejected. You said something about "freedom" but never explained what that had to do with evil.

That's fine- I don't want to be a jerk about it- I was just hoping to get a good discussion going, but it seems that is not working- sorry if I bugged you!

Have a good one!

later.

[Questing Beast]

Cool.

Let me get out my microscope and examine my "being" to see if I can find them.

Uh, what color are they? Oh I know- got to be black and white, right?

And where exactly is my "being"?

Farley obviously isn't a relative of yours. "No matter where you go, there you are." Also known as, "Being There". Nothing is ever black or white....

[Questing Beast]

Evil is what is in opposition to God (our Father). He is an embodiment of all that is good, but if you want to think of evil as a part of him you can think of it as the part he abhors and rejects because he can see it does and wouldn't do any good for him, personally. Kinda like a tempation that someone doesn't give in to, such that if he were ever tempted to do evil it wouldn't be much of a temptation to him because he would be able to see how stupid it would be to give in to it.

He actually abhors what is evil and doesn't want to be around it, and so much so that if another person has the disposition to do something evil he won't want to be in that person's presence. He will endure it for a time if he thinks he might be able to do some good for that person, but he won't want to spend eternity living in the same place with him while he has an evil disposition. He makes sure the people who love evil have their own place to go while he can be in some other place with other people who love and represent whatever is good.

That's how I see it too. God never gives into temptation, because God is not tempted. But awareness of the power to choose is always there, ergo God is as much "evil" as anyone, but perfectly righteous. You can count on that, with the faith required, of course....

[Ahab]

Well this is going nowhere- so I guess I will opt out.

In fact you are the one who brought up "the problem of evil" without describing why it was a problem, and you still haven't.

The problem of evil is in what it takes away from something that is good.

We still have some "THING" being described now by the term "evil"- but what that "thing" is and how it "exists" remains unstated.

Marriage between a man and a woman can be good, for example, but there is another form of marriage which is not good and is instead always evil. A marriage between 2 people of the same sex, for example. One is good and the other is evil, and the one that is evil is evil because something good was taken out of what it is that can make it a good marriage... someone of the opposite sex, in this instance. You can still call a marriage between 2 people of the same sex a marriage, technically, but it is an evil marriage and not a good marriage. Any abomination of a good thing is evil.

I have said that "evil" describes a bundle of behaviors, which you have neither accepted nor rejected. You said something about "freedom" but never explained what that had to do with evil.

That's not specific enough for me, and there may be some loopholes barring that from being a good standard of measure, so I'll stick with my idea that evil is what is being taken away from something that would otherwise be good.