 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > I met the devil, and he is me ( Doc/Icon) | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
billzbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/19/2004 6:12 AM (GMT -6) |   | Icon,
I see where you gave an answer. Thanks for the help.
You have your own interpretation. No, I don't think you are crazy. As I've said many times now, there are some things about what you are saying that are useful.
But you apparently believe that the writers either didn't know what they were writing, or that they did, and wrote in a manner that no one would understand. I can't fathom why you would think that. Nor can I imagine it ever happening.
Sounds like contemporary revisionism to me.
Thanks again for the help, Icon!
bZb | | Back to Top | | |
 |
ataraxia
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 67
| Posted 8/19/2004 10:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Larris,
I'm sorry, but your lengthy post on the preceding page is unacceptable. You named Iconoclast personally and the general tone was judgmental. Specifically, I'm not accepting judgments like this:
quote:
Of course if you have come to this board, you are in good company because everyone here pretty much loves and follows the same deceitful types of men, and their ears are just itching to hear what you have to say. You can all pat each other on the back and flatter each other while heaping up judgment, that will in fact literally come upon your heads. There are a “few” here....”very few” who actually have some sort of reverence for God and His Word and just might come out of their own false notions.
As for you, I cannot judge as to weather you will wind up in heaven or hell since I don’t know your future. However I can say that you and those like you, IF you do not repent from the manner in which you read and handle and speak concerning the Written Word of God, will suffer eternal judgment.
Look you guys. I let a lot of stuff go by in the interest of debate. I don't want people to refrain from hearty discussion as a result of feeling the board is too "policed." Maybe I should change that. No more of this ad hoc rubbish.
Larris, you're lengthy post is history and you're taking a break. The rest of you who tend toward the same abrasive unloving attitude, stick to the topic and lose the ad hoc chips on your shoulder.
ataraxia | | Back to Top | | |
|
ataraxia
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 67
| Posted 8/19/2004 11:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Jee,
Sorry if you were offended. If you're not rude or abrasive, you have nothing to worry about. But my comments were intended to be frank and to the point, not abrasive or unloving. Others are rude and abrasively ad hoc from time to time and I've said very little about it. I'm just putting the word out that I might try to be a little more "involved." It's my job to make judgements about the decorum of our discussions. Just trying to do it.
ataraxia | | Back to Top | | |
|
billzbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/19/2004 11:40 AM (GMT -6) | | I appreciate the challening task of the moderator, and his/her effforts.
 But to keep the human element out of it,
don't you think all posts
could be censored at random?
JUST KIDDING!
Keep up the good effort, ataraxia.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ataraxia
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 67
| Posted 8/19/2004 12:10 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Jee: Not offended the least bit, ataraxia. Just curious about how the "non-judgers" seem to think they're not judging when they call others judgemental. 
If that's humor, then I'm smiling.  If not, then I'll encourage you to ponder the difference between me as a moderator whose responsibility it is to try to judge/discern/moderate behavior on this forum and other members who dialogue.
ataraxia | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 8/19/2004 12:31 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/19/2004 1:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Sahid
Sorry, didn't mean to do that.
Iconoclast
No problem.
Sahid
What I meant was if God is just talking to us like little kids (like we need to be talked to), then why is it that lots of people recognize the specific ways we are being talked to.
Iconoclast
We are all at various stages of growth. The bible, in my view, is an amazing document in that its language addresses many, many levels of understanding. A small child can understand that Jesus loves them and the wisest person on earth can continue to see new meanings in the text. The bible is “layered” with meaning – layer upon layer. It is like an onion that we peal. In my view this notion of ha-satan being metaphorical speech opens up whole new vistas of understanding within the text. Understanding that is coherent with the previous level of understanding and then goes beyond it. Wouldn’t we expect this sort of thing from God?
Sahid
If the devil is merely a metaphor, why doesn't the Bible come out and say so.
Iconoclast
When you use a metaphor to explain some concept do you announce it to the person you are talking to? Imagine telling your girlfriend that your relationship has “come to a dead end”. Would you then tell her that you really mean that metaphorically?
But let’s turn this around for a second. If the devil is a literal entity like God, Jesus, Abraham or Lot why doesn’t the bible give us some history about who he is and what happened here? Why doesn’t the bible tell us his name? If this devil is such an important adversary of ours why don’t we know more about him? It seems to me that the lack of this kind of information is itself evidence that ha-satan is a metaphorical concept and not a literal entity.
Sahid
When Jesus spoke in metaphors, His audience often if not always, knew what He was doing. It seems like this idea has God tricking us.
Iconoclast
Jesus spoke in parables that many did not understand. He had to explain some of them to his disciples. Was that tricking people also?
The purpose of metaphorical speech is to convey a concept. The metaphor of ha-satan as an entity is a helpful construct in understanding what is happening. It is no different from the metaphor “time is like a river”. The only confusion comes in when we start thinking that the metaphor is literal. I mean time is not REALLY a river. It is just like it in some ways – but not ALL ways.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/19/2004 3:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Jo-Anne
This thought/question comes from that: The Father God was not/is not human at all; yet He addresses the satan. We cannot liken it to Jesus' temptation in the desert of course, because Jesus was also flesh/fully human, as well as fully God. So how would you explain God the Father talking to the satan in the heavenly council?
Iconoclast
The following is something I posted some time ago regarding this question:
Previous Iconoclast post:
I just read a good book called “The Story of Job’s Beginning”. It is an exegetical analysis by Meir Weiss written in 1983 and published by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It only focuses on the prologue – Job 1-2. It acknowledges that it is likely that this was an addition to the original story yet argues persuasively that it is an “organic” addition by a skilled author.
As much as I would like to I won’t go into the full analysis but I will say that a key component was the determination of the meaning and role of “ha-satan” (the adversary) in the text. The author’s conclusion is that “ha-satan” is a rhetorical device used by the author in order to NOT ascribe doubt to an all-knowing God. He argues that this is similar to Zachariah where “ha-satan” is used to show God as only being an agent of mercy versus “ha-satan” being focused on justice like a prosecuting attorney. Again, a rhetorical device related to theological concerns.
To do this the author goes through a comprehensive analysis of the use of this word (“ha-satan” = Satan) in its various forms throughout the Bible. He categorizes three basic usages:
One) An attitude of opposition, occasional and transient, caused by a specific, temporary situation. One interesting example of this is in Numbers 22:22, 32 where the angel of the Lord says to Balaam, “It is I who came out “ha-satan” (as an adversary) …” The author says, “From this usage we can also determine that the behavior indicated by the word ‘ha-satan’ is not in itself objectively evil.”
Two) A permanent office like a prosecutor. This is when the definite article is associated with it. This is a common noun and is the usage in both Job and in Zachariah 3:1-2.
Three) A proper noun denoting the heavenly being who incites and tempts human beings to sin so that God will punish them.
Interestingly enough, the author deals with the passages in I Chronicles 21:1 and II Samuel 24:1 in passing to show how “ha-satan” is being used as a proper noun. He also touches on the meaning of the connection but that is for a later post…
A key aspect of the structure of the story that the author shows is the parallel between what is going on in Heaven and what is going on in Earth. He shows that the stories are actually parallels of each other – the only difference being the introduction of Satan into the “Heaven” view. Where Job has doubt about his children’s righteousness the parallel doubt of Job’s righteousness is relegated to Satan. Again the author argues persuasively that the meaning of the story is that God is the one who has doubt about Job’s righteousness and that Satan was introduced as a theological consideration because an all-knowing God cannot have doubt.
The KEY ISSUE of the story is DOUBT.
In Heaven the question is: does true fear of God for its own sake exist or not?
On Earth the question is: is there an ethical basis to God’s behavior or not?
Before looking at this further I will make a claim:
This story is fundamentally another creation story like Adam and Eve designed to communicate the deep truths related to the dichotomy between the nature of Love and the Knowledge of Good and Evil. But whereas the Adam and Eve story is primarily from the perspective of God the story of Job is primarily from the perspective of us humans.
Job is a perfectly righteous and upstanding man who fears God and follows Him in all His ways. Even Job’s children are perfect. Job is completely and totally blessed by God. In essence one could say that Job is living in the Garden of Eden. But it is a Garden that brings forth its fruit based on the doctrine of “Wisdom”.
The doctrine of “Wisdom” (the author’s term) is basically the doctrine that the righteous are given rewards commensurate with their righteousness and the wicked are punished commensurate with their wickedness. It is quite simply the very best of human Ethics – which is nothing but the knowledge of good and evil.
The KEY ISSUE to understanding this story is to see that the WHOLE story is from the perspective of human kind. Again, as in the “lying spirit” story, the heavenly scenes in Job in NO WAY constitute a “meta-story” of the story of Job. Rather these scenes are an integral part of the overall meaning.
Thus it is NOT that God REALLY doubts whether Job is righteous or not and therefore must torture him to see if he is really faithful. This is a major mis-reading of the story.
It is also NOT that God is trying to prove to some REAL adversary that Job really IS righteous and loves God. This is also a major mis-reading of the story.
What the story is conveying is that THIS is the very best that the doctrine of “Wisdom” can come up with from ITS perspective. In other words THIS is the human perspective of how we seek to justify God. And, YES, it has all the holes that Mephi constantly hammers on – as can be seen in the story. But the purpose of the WHOLE story is to blow away this very perspective by DENYING in TOTAL the doctrine of “Wisdom” while at the same time showing the absolute and incomprehensible goodness of God. Or, at least, incomprehensible to the doctrine of “Wisdom”. And why is it incomprehensible to the DOCTRINE of Wisdom? Because it is a DOCTRINE. It has as its foundation the stolen knowledge of good and evil.
First let me try to show this by looking at the Heavenly question – the Heavenly DOUBT. The heavenly question is: does true fear of God for its own sake exist or not?
But first notice that this question cannot possibly be uttered by the omnipotent God who created the universe. It is absurd on the face of it. It can only be attributed to Him by US in an attempt to understand what is going on. But since we know that He could never have uttered it we MUST invent a DOUBTER, an ADVERSARY as the one who uttered it.
From the perspective of one caught in the knowledge of good and evil THIS is the powerfully insightful question that leads us in the right direction. However this question can never be answered from this perspective. It can only be answered from the place where the knowledge of good and evil is already overcome. It can only be answered in Christ.
In Christ we can see that this question is pointing NOT to God’s doubt but rather to God’s desire and God’s design. In Christ we know that Love is the goal. Love is God’s desire and we learn that free-will is God’s design for we know that Love can ONLY be chosen. It is quite simply orthogonal to the doctrine of “Wisdom”. And thus the doctrine of “Wisdom” can only point in its direction while being totally mystified in being able to comprehend it.
Thus the Heavenly scenes in Job are the doctrine of “Wisdom’s” best view into the reality of God’s love. And yet this view misses the essential feature entirely – it misses His total and complete Love and Goodness.
Let me quote the final conclusion of the author:
Meir Weiss
There is thus a debate in heaven: does true fear of God for its own sake exist or not? In order to resolve this heavenly debate, Satan, on God’s authority destroys the logical, harmonious, ethical world of “the Land of Uz”, which, being a speculative construction, the creation of the “wise” over-sophisticated man in his own image, has no basis in reality. This imaginary world is destroyed, but only for Job. His friends continue to believe that it exists, as real as ever.
On earth the debate still rages: is there an ethical basis to God’s behavior or not? Is the doctrine of “Wisdom” true or not? Eliphaz believes that God’s behavior is based on justice, and that Job’s situation proves this since he had taken pledges from his brother “for nought”. But Job no longer sees in this world of “Wisdom” anything more than the blind and deaf chaos of God’s arbitrary dealing: Job’s situation proves this, for God “multiplies his wounds – without cause”. Yet he refuses to accept what he sees, and he cannot accept what his friends say. He therefore searches and beseeches god, demanding to be shown the whole truth, the world’s eternal truth. In order to settle the controversy on earth, God will appear to Job and will show him the world in all its stark reality. On the surface it is illogical, disharmonious, unethical. Yet the heart will comprehend that all the details of the world complement each other, forming one unified whole, each and every detail “good” in itself, and in its entirety “very good”, complete, perfect, and, as a creation of God, as incomprehensible as its Creator.
Iconoclast
“The Land of Uz” is the new, totally imaginary, Garden of Eden that the stolen knowledge of good and evil seeks to construct. For God (Satan is really an aspect of God in this story) to destroy this land is metaphorical language AND it is from the “land of Uz’s” perspective.
The meaning of this is that God in his mercy destroys this fantasy construct of ours BECAUSE it is our ETERNAL DEATH. We are dead in this “Land of Uz”. He frees us from this “Land of Uz”.
Of course this is also metaphorical from OUR perspective. From GOD’S perspective love requires free will – it must be chosen. Thus in order to ALLOW us to participate in His triune love He provides us a reality that is in each and every detail “good” in itself and in its entirety “very good”. We only need to live in His reality with Him as our source of life. This is the TRUE Garden of Eden. It is US who through our rebellion and our insistence on seeking life on our own fall into the doctrine of “Wisdom” and thus FRAGMENT the whole which is good into parts which we seek to bind to US as our own new center of life. It is as though we tear asunder the whole into fragmentary parts in order to reassemble them in alignment with ourselves as the center. We are thus surrounded by a cloud of fragmentary parts and we are desperately seeking to piece them together using the very best of our ethical thinking, using the very best of our knowledge of good and evil to put them into an order that is good. Our heart knows what “good” is but our knowledge of good and evil cannot order the fragments into anything resembling this “good”. It is an impossible and unneccessary task. For we only have to die to our own knowledge of good and evil to realize that we are creating all the fragments in the first place. When we see directly with our heart we see that the fragments are really part of a whole. We see that the whole is good and that once the fragments are reintegrated with the whole that they are good as well – but only insofar as they are part of THE whole and NOT torn asunder as a THING in and of themselves that we want to label as good or bad.
Burton Watson on Chuang Tzu (from the introduction to “Chuang Tzu – Basic Writings”)
If man would once forsake his habit of labeling things good or bad, desirable or undesirable, then the man-made ills, which are the product of man’s purposeful and value-ridden actions, would disappear and the natural ills that remain would no longer be seen as ills, but as an inevitable part of the course of life. Thus, in Chuang Tzu’s eyes, man is the author of his own suffering and bondage, and all his fears spring from the web of values created by himself alone.
Iconoclast
“The Land of Uz” itself creates all the calamities that befall Job. It is itself a delusion created by the man who has lost his origin and now lives in the knowledge of good and evil.
God the merciful creator does not allow this delusion to completely take hold (thereby assigning us to Eternal Death) but upholds the reality of His creation and thus allows His love to break through calling us to die to this doctrine of “Wisdom” and thus see with our “heart” the wholeness and goodness and Love of His creation and thus of the Creator.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
billzbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/19/2004 3:17 PM (GMT -6) | | JoAnne, you need to decide for yourself how syncratistic or not Icon is.
Here's one of the authors he just mentioned: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/cz-text2.htm
quote:
Taoism Information Page
Lin Yutang's tr. of the Chuang-tzu
Then, God's truth is not totally foreign anywhere. Zoroastrianism probably played a hand in forming language about the personal nature of the Spirit, enabling the revelations given us by God in the Evangel of St. John.
You decide. Icon is quite artistic in his thinking. And the bit of radical bent sometimes makes me nervous about how much he might be clothing other ideas in Christian clothes.
He has to decide for himself. You for you. And I don't consider myself qualified, or responsible to do so.
He writes well though.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/19/2004 3:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Jo-Anne
Another thought; how would you interpret Romans 8:38,39 if not in light of actual spiritually opposing forces?
Iconoclast
Romans 8:38-39
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
I do believe that there are “actual spiritual opposing forces”. I just do not believe that these spiritual opposing forces are literal entities. I believe that they are pervasive patterns that were originally created by us and are sustained by us.
Walter Wink wrote several books on “The Powers”. In them he reviews all the language in the bible regarding “principalities and powers”. He comes to the same conclusion. A city has a “zeitgeist” to it – it has an “angel” which is nothing but the general attitude of the people within the city. This is actually a relatively well understood phenomenon these days. For example an experiment was done with 5 gorillas that demonstrate the nature of pervasive patterns in human (or animal) behavior.
The experiment was that 5 gorillas were place in a cage with a small ladder in the middle that was below a bunch of hanging bananas. When the first gorilla went to climb the ladder to get a banana all of the gorilla were sprayed with freezing cold water. Needless to say the gorilla did not get the banana. The experimenters then replaced one of the gorillas with a new gorilla – one who did not have this negative experience. When this new gorilla went to try and get a banana the rest of the gorillas pounced on him and beat him up in order to prevent him from causing them to be sprayed with the freezing water. The experimenters then replace each gorilla in turn (with the same results) until NONE of the gorillas left had actually experienced the freezing water. But the pattern of beating up a gorilla who tried to climb the ladder to get the banana remained.
So what exactly is going on here? What is this “force” this “pattern” that is so strongly influencing the gorillas behavior? I believe that this is what is meant by “spiritual force”. A spiritual force is a pattern that influences us.
One thing that is interesting about patterns is how powerful they really are. For instance, what exactly are we made up of? If you say cells, which are made out of molecules which are made out of atoms I guess I would have to agree except that I would then ask you if you are aware that 10 years from now your body will be made up of completely different atoms than it is today? Our bodies completely refresh all the atoms that make us up over a period of time. So what are we really made of? Atoms or a pattern (a spiritual force)? Which has more reality? Atoms or the spiritual forces that shape them?
The most powerful opposing spiritual force is the accusation that we are not worth to be loved by God because we are bad. This pattern is deeply ingrained in all of us. It is, in fact, our fallen essence for we all succumb to this lie to some extent or another and we all promulgate this lie to others to some extent or another. Only love can overcome the insidious power of this amazingly powerful force.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/19/2004 3:51 PM (GMT -6) | | billzbob
But you apparently believe that the writers either didn't know what they were writing, or that they did, and wrote in a manner that no one would understand. I can't fathom why you would think that. Nor can I imagine it ever happening.
Sounds like contemporary revisionism to me.
Iconoclast
I don't believe that I am doing this. In my view if someone uses the metaphor "time is a river" it is perfectly valid for me to both observe the metaphor as well as to deny that time is literally like a river. And I believe this is true even if the writer actually believes that time literally IS like a river.
Again, I don't doubt that some of the writers of the NT believed that demons were literal entities. I do not believe that Jesus thought they were literal entities. What is important to note is that it is impossible for anyone to claim with a certainty whether some particular writer actually believed that demons are literal entities or not because it is impossible to tell for sure whether they are speaking metaphorically or not unless they reveal this in some direct way.
For example. If a writer says that "time is a river because it flows," we have no idea whether he believes time is literally like a river or not. Now if this writer says that "time is a river because the past and the future literally exist just like downstream and upstream do," then we can be pretty sure he really believes that time is literally like a river.
I see no evidence for the latter in the bible. I have not been able to find any passages that give us any sort of "meta-view" into the literal reality of demons. In fact, the text strongly points in the other direction. "ha-satan" is used in many, many ways - even in direct reference to God. How can this literally mean "the devil as a literal being" when it is used in reference to God?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 8/19/2004 4:16 PM (GMT -6) | | .
Iconoclast wrote:
.
quote:
I do believe that there are “actual spiritual opposing forces”.
I just do not believe that these spiritual opposing forces are literal entities. I believe that they are pervasive patterns that were originally created by us and are sustained by us.
.
Could "systemic evil" fit within this definition?
Peace & blessings,
<><
.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/19/2004 4:16 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
quote:
Originally posted by ataraxia
quote:
Jee: Not offended the least bit, ataraxia. Just curious about how the "non-judgers" seem to think they're not judging when they call others judgemental.
If that's humor, then I'm smiling. If not, then I'll encourage you to ponder the difference between me as a moderator whose responsibility it is to try to judge/discern/moderate behavior on this forum and other members who dialogue.
ataraxia
The unavoidable irony of this issue IS humorous, isn't it? 
I completely agree that, as moderator, it is your responsibility to "judge/discern/moderate" behavior on this forum. It is precisely THAT distinction (between "discern" and "condemn") that I have been trying to demonstrate to Icon and his "non-judgmental" crowd. Thanks for your help. (And for the good job you do here as moderator).
Blessings in Christ,
John
Me too. I agree that there is a distinction between these two kinds of judgment and that this example is a demonstration of it.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 8/19/2004 4:27 PM (GMT -6) | | .
Thank you...
That makes perfect sense.
<><
quote:
I would say yes. Examples of this are racism and sexism. These are pervasive patterns of messages, attitudes and behaviors that have reverberated throughout history.
thanks,
Iconoclast
.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 8/19/2004 5:17 PM (GMT -6) | | .
Iconoclast explained: quote:
.....These are pervasive patterns of messages, attitudes and behaviors that have reverberated throughout history.
Okay.
So, could the 'PATTERN' of systemic evil (pervasive; ongoing) -- be considered a variant of generational sin?
<><
.
.
.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 8/19/2004 8:22 PM (GMT -6) | | .
Greetings, JEE:
I was afraid that my question (to Iconoclast) might be confusing.
If so, I apologize.
However, I asked my original question(s) -- because I didn't know the answer.
As clarification regarding my intent:
In my use of the word "variant," I had hoped to impart that I was not referring to a multi-generational 'attitude or message' (for example, the sin of racism, etc.), that was the result of *parental* behavior.
Rather, I was referring to the "PERVASIVE PATTERNS of messages, attitudes and behaviors that have reverberated throughout history," as referenced by Iconoclast.
i.e., "Patterns" of system-wide (systemic) evil that seem to be a legacy from
one generation and/or culture to the next: Racism in the form of slavery during Colonial Times; Bigotry/racism in the form of Racial Profiling in 2004, etc.
I think the term "generational" is typically applied to a more restricted concept than what I intended to flesh out.
In my use of the term "variant," my train-of-thought was: Pervasive wrongdoing (or, mindset?) 'passed down from one generation' to another, via an unhealthy "SYSTEM" ....
Hence,
The concept of "systemic evil."
Adam wasn't in this equation.
Does that make sense?
Peace & blessings,
<><
JEE wrote: quote:
What is the biblical basis for "systemic evil?"
Ezek. 18 has some thought-provoking things to say about those who would say their sins are the result of something their parents (or grandparents, or Adam) did.
.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/20/2004 12:37 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
When you use a metaphor to explain some concept do you announce it to the person you are talking to? Imagine telling your girlfriend that your relationship has “come to a dead end”. Would you then tell her that you really mean that metaphorically?
No, I wouldn't, because she knows what I'm talking about.quote:
But let’s turn this around for a second. If the devil is a literal entity like God, Jesus, Abraham or Lot why doesn’t the bible give us some history about who he is and what happened here? Why doesn’t the bible tell us his name? If this devil is such an important adversary of ours why don’t we know more about him? It seems to me that the lack of this kind of information is itself evidence that ha-satan is a metaphorical concept and not a literal entity.
I know the prince of Tyre stuff is questionable, but what about Revelation. A lot of the information you're looking for is there. It seems to me that evil is portrayed as fighting not from within humanity but against God and humanity.quote:
Jesus spoke in parables that many did not understand. He had to explain some of them to his disciples. Was that tricking people also?
His parables were understandable, however. Those who had eyes to see could see what He meant. He spoke in a kind of code in the parables, a code that could be broken. But belief in the metaphorical Satan seems to require an unfounded leap of faith. There is no code, but instead plain language stating the opposite.quote:
The purpose of metaphorical speech is to convey a concept. The metaphor of ha-satan as an entity is a helpful construct in understanding what is happening. It is no different from the metaphor “time is like a river”. The only confusion comes in when we start thinking that the metaphor is literal. I mean time is not REALLY a river. It is just like it in some ways – but not ALL ways.
But what if you said, "The great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him"? Is this a metaphor for the fall of man? But what about the earlier verses? "She was with child; and she cried out being in labor and in pain gave birth." Doesn't this represent the fall and the coming of Christ? I know it's risky trying to pin anything down in Revelation, but the imagery in chapter 12 is pretty clear. How do you deal with this stuff?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 8/20/2004 9:29 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
The most powerful opposing spiritual force is the accusation that we are not worth to be loved by God because we are bad. This pattern is deeply ingrained in all of us. It is, in fact, our fallen essence for we all succumb to this lie to some extent or another and we all promulgate this lie to others to some extent or another. Only love can overcome the insidious power of this amazingly powerful force.
thanks,
Iconoclast
I absolutely agree with you Iconoclast about "the most powerful opposing spiritual force..." That is why it does not work to change someone. They need to believe who they are, and the change needs to come from that belief. Dr James Richards writes a powerful book on this subject called Breaking The Cycle - tremendous. He really focus on faith righteousness, and its impact on the life of a believer.
Many churches give lipservice to accepting people where they are at, but what they really communicate is: behave, belong, believe - when it should be belong, believe, behave.
I guess this goes back to the 'ol self fulfilling prophecy thing of psychology. If you believe something, you will likely become what you believe. That is why (IMHO) we must be extremely careful not to assess and judge others; especially to verbalize those things. I see it all the time, and it is what keeps community from being a safe place. There is a place for spiritual discernment, within a relationship of spiritual friendship.
I would rather err on the side of grace, so I guess that makes me an honourary member of the JUDGE NOT SOCIETY (HMJNS)
There was a world of wisdom in that old tune: "What The World Needs Now" (is love, sweet love...it's the only thing that there's just too little of).
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 8/20/2004 9:33 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
Jo-Anne
Another thought; how would you interpret Romans 8:38,39 if not in light of actual spiritually opposing forces?
Iconoclast
Romans 8:38-39
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
I do believe that there are “actual spiritual opposing forces”. I just do not believe that these spiritual opposing forces are literal entities. I believe that they are pervasive patterns that were originally created by us and are sustained by us.
It's late, but the question that immediately surfaces from this is: What is happening during prayer? Is prayer warfare, against real spiritual powers of darkness, or are we just agreeing with God, and altering our own patterns of thought/behaviour? Is prayer "bringing every thought captive"? Is prayer just great psychology? Or, all of the above?
Jo-Anne 
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
| 228 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:00 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|