quote:

---

It is interesting in the Genesis story, God did not say to Adam and Eve, "eat of the tree and I will kill you". He said, "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", meaning choice rather than obedience, "for when you eat of it you will surely die", for it is sin that kills you. God doesn't kill anybody, in that sense; we kill ourselves. So the minute we take our life in our own hands to do what we want to do, and do not obey God, basically we commit suicide. Furthermore, we put that death over to our children who are born in the same condition of death when born into the world. That is what the 'ancestral sin' is all about. A second point is that we would say that the human task is to overcome and destroy death, and to make death to die so that life can then live.

The whole Old Testament, which includes the Law, Psalms and Prophets, is really about teaching people the will of God to reconstruct a rebellious humanity in order that ultimately death can be destroyed. For example, in the Law of Moses you have two very interesting things, one is God says, through Moses, 'I present to you only two ways: the blessing and the curse' (i.e. life or death). Then it says, 'choose life and don't choose death'. The Law, Psalms and Prophets say Obey God, give up your choice, obey God and you will live. For example, Psalm 118 (119) that is read in our funeral service and on the night of Holy Saturday before Pascha says, "Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord! Blessed are those who keep His testimonies, who seek Him with the whole heart!" Then the Psalm continues "If I keep I Your law, I find life in it and I can not die". That is way it is read over the body of the dead Jesus, because He is the only One who kept the Law of God completely, and therefore could not die.

http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/afterdeath.htm

---

quote:

---

Doc:
I agree that its "hard to imagine" a physical world without entropy, or without death, or without carnivorous animals. For the only world we know is the one WITH entropy, death and predators. But you concede that it IS conceivable, for you end your reflection by saying "The “new heaven and new earth” and our resurrected bodies will be made of something more stable than matter." …And all you're saying is that when the Kingdom comes, it will BEHAVE different. With this I agree. But if its possible AT THE END, it was certainly possible AT THE BEGINNING. And I think it reasonable to suppose that it was so at the beginning.

---

OK. If entropy is the work of the evil one, it was factored into the nature of creation from the beginning. So what you’re suggesting is that the entropic universe we are a part of is “Plan B.” That the original plan was to populate the eternal Kingdom, but that the rebellion of Satan caused a change in plans. So Plan B was creation of an entropic universe, beginning with the ultimate irreversible process and example of the 2nd Law: the Big Bang. (I can just hear Satan say, “What was that noise?”)

To quote the Meph man: Hmmm…..

You may be right, but theories about “before the Big Bang” are as pure as speculation gets. At least the physical evidence is obliterated, but perhaps you have philosophical or scriptural support. Confession: I haven’t read Satan and the Problem of Evil yet. Perhaps you treat this issue there.

Magneton

“If the God of the Bible is the creator of the universe, then it is not possible to understand fully or even appropriately the processes of nature without any reference to that God. If, on the contrary, nature can be appropriately understood without reference to the God of the Bible, then that God cannot be the creator of the universe, and consequently, cannot be truly God and be trusted as a source of moral teaching either.” Wolfhart Pannenberg

• a lessening of the aspect of CREATOR, and



• a lessening of the axptect of COSMOS.

quote:

---

Great discussion. I agree with Semeia that we can't identify the brutal aspects of nature with evil. As she so eloquently states we call it evil because of "preconceptions of what things ought to be." I also agree with her that the fossil record argues against the view that violence and physical death originated with the Fall.

The universe is contingent and certainly COULD have been another way. But this is due not only to willful acts of free-will agents, but also to truly random features in nature about which moral judgements are irrelevant, rendering judgements about what "SHOULD have been" meaningless. Thus "natural evil" is an oxymoron: that which is evil is not natural, and that which is natural is not evil. This reminds me of the quote by Samuel Johnson: "Your manuscript is both good and original; but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good."

Just as God granted SPIRITUAL freedom to allow the development of beings who could become meaningfully related to him, he granted PHYSICAL freedom to the universe to allow it to develop in a valuable state. Rather than a "blueprint" universe in which each particle is predetermined, God included random/chaotic features which allowed the universe to undergo a process of self-adaptation in which each component can adapt to its environment. The universe is more interesting and valuable by virtue of this "freedom."
Just as granting free will to spirit beings entailed risk of evil, so granting this freedom to the creation entailed risk of violence and destructive events, and the attendant suffering. In both cases this was a necessary risk in order to achieve the desired outcome. (The evil and suffering are not necessary, but the risk or possibility of them occurring is.) Keith Ward has written along these lines in God, Chance, and Necessity.

I will grant that the Fall of angelic beings provided them with motives to use their influence in the cosmos destructively. The Fall of humans provided similar motives for humankind to harm the environment, as well as openings for these demons to exercise their destructive influence on it. However, I would think that the majority of what we "think should be some other way" in nature is a consequence of a universe created with the freedom to develop into a valuable state. With Don, I wonder how extensive and effective is demonic influence in nature.

What would our interaction with nature look like had the Fall not occurred? Obviously this is something we can never know, but I offer some speculation to flesh out this view. I think the biggest difference would be in US as humans rather than in NATURE.

Firstly, our PRIORITIES would be very different. The potential dangers of nature would still be there, but in a truly global community of love, all people would have access to protection. Our technology would be more focused on the priorities of anticipating and protecting people from earthquakes, tornadoes, and the like. In our earthquake-proof, tornado-proof homes and public places we would be free to celebrate these displays of nature's power with awe and admiration rather than fear. Or maybe better priorities in commerce and community would lead us not to inhabit dangerous regions.

This unfallen world would not eliminate all risk for us. Just as God took risks in creating the universe and spiritual beings, we who are made in God's image would take risks in our activities to achieve valuable states. Things like rock-climbing and skydiving would still entail risk, although more of our resources would have been directed toward personal safety in equipment and procedures. Newton's laws of motion would still apply for skydivers: pain and physical death would still be a reality. As "Skydiver Doc" would testify, just as God's risks resulted in a better creation than would otherwise have resulted, there are risks that we take which result in a better experience. So a second major difference would be in our PERCEPTIONS. All of humankind would recognize the real role of our life on this earth as a development process for eternal life with God. Physical death would be viewed in truth the way we today can only bravely try to describe it - as a homegoing and entry point to an eternal life that transcends our physical limitations.

A third difference would be in our PRACTICE. Our ability to cope with the uncertainties that life on this planet brings us would be far better. For example, in the face of death, our support system would meet the needs of orphans and widows.

Implicit in this view is the idea that planet earth was NEVER intended to be our eternal home (which is a good thing, because it's not going to last forever).

This went further and more speculative than I planned when I started, but it seems in keeping with the picture Semeia has painted. This is a "work on progress", where I am re-thinking views that I have held for a long time. If I have been too ambitious in this "mental housecleaning" by throwing out too many old ideas, or have done violence to clear scriptural teaching, I'd welcome suggestions.

From “Doc and "Natural" Evil : What's REALLY Going On?”
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=579

---