Open Theism Discussion Board

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

228 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Questioner
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48

Posted 8/23/2004 5:30 PM (GMT -6)

Just as I thought. If all of the above would constitute your evidence, then the conversation is over...at least on this issue.

Why?

Because with respect to Jesus,

1) All of the names Jesus uses that are associated with the Satan figure could EASILY be taken to be archetypal. (Just like Adam[earth] and Eve[living])

2) You already have a preconceived idea about what a single entity can do...and they definitely don't fit the idea of how powerful the "evil one" is made out to be in Scripture. (Remember the Santa Claus thought?)

3) You assume ambiguity of choice (ie going from good to evil or vice versa) to be evidence of individuality. This probably comes from your idea of freedom. At any rate, there is nothing like that in Scripture. The angels that are talked about STAY God-fearing, the demons STAY nasty.

What this means is that, given your criteria and what little I know about Scripture, I am unable to provide the requisite evidence that you would need.

Hence, I suppose we shall just agree to disagree. No harm, no foul.

Q

Truth Aficionado
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544

Posted 8/24/2004 11:23 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast

And it is what the serpent did when God communicated the metaphorical truth that Adam and Eve would die in the day they ate of the fruit. And please don’t take offense at this statement – I do not mean to imply that you are like the serpent – that you are the devil or anything. In fact, I don’t believe there is a literal devil at all. In my view the “serpent” is metaphorical speech for Eve’s “serpent brain” – her “survival / fight or flight” mechanism.

Interesting statement you made over on the "Serious Question" thread, Iconoclast.
Would you please elaborating on your meaning of “serpent brain” and her “survival / fight or flight” mechanism?

If you believe satan and demons to be metaphors, then you need to establish an alterative source to characterize the first sin. How could Eve’s sin be attributed to a hereditary, organizational, corporate or systemic forms of evil if a pattern for such was not yet established?

I’m all for being held accountable for our own sin, but how do we square that with Eve being tempted, did she tempt herself with her "serpent brain?

Thanks,
Mark

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 8/25/2004 9:57 PM (GMT -6)

Questioner to Icon: You assume ambiguity of choice (ie going from good to evil or vice versa) to be evidence of individuality. This probably comes from your idea of freedom. At any rate, there is nothing like that in Scripture. The angels that are talked about STAY God-fearing, the demons STAY nasty.

Doc: Just a thought. Grant for the moment that there's no evidence any biblical author help up the possibility of Satan or any in the demonic realm repenting (though see the Universalism thread) -- still, there IS direct evidence that once were GOOD and turned evil. They "rebelled," left their "first estate," etc... They "fell," in other words. This seems to denote CHOICE, which fits Icon's criteria of individuality.

heh?

Doc

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/26/2004 3:37 AM (GMT -6)

Doc: Just a thought. Grant for the moment that there's no evidence any biblical author help up the possibility of Satan or any in the demonic realm repenting (though see the Universalism thread) -- still, there IS direct evidence that once were GOOD and turned evil. They "rebelled," left their "first estate," etc... They "fell," in other words. This seems to denote CHOICE, which fits Icon's criteria of individuality.

Tom: Except Iconoclast also denies the personal existence of angels and demons. The character of choice fits his criteria of individuality, but the individuality doesn't fit his criteria of personal existence.

I'm dizzy already!
Tom

Truth Aficionado
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544

Posted 8/26/2004 4:37 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Sahid

I guess you'll have to take my word for it, but I don't have a problem accepting the figurative satan idea over the literal. In fact, in some ways I that idea would make life a little easier. But I don't think the literal satan idea is being charitably argued against.

Click on the link below to read Dr. Boyd’s (and others) arguments.
Satan is real

Truth Aficionado
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544

Posted 8/26/2004 5:33 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast

sparknheart

Most excellent Iconoclast,
Your reference of Peter walking on water was a great illustration used to sustain your premise. I will continue analyzing all related threads used to support your hypothesis. I find this to be a very interesting discussion, thanks.

Iconoclast

Wow - thank you for the kind words Mark. Much appreciated.

thanks,
Iconoclast

You’re welcome.
It is always most excellent to support an argument with Scripture. But, after giving it a little thought, I find holes in your premise. The miracle of Peter walking on water harmed no one. A madman sending two thousand innocent pigs to their death violated the owner of the pigs. Jesus and his disciples were run out of town for this very reason. If the madman’s miracle/power was attributed to his faith in God, then we are making God complicit in evil. Sorry Iconoclast but it’s the same old push and pop. As you push one problem down, a new one pops up.

Thanks,

Mark

Truth Aficionado
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544

Posted 8/26/2004 8:46 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
Moreover, even if the Pharisees DID believe that angels were literal independent entities it does not follow that for Jesus to uphold this notion means that He also ascribes to this specific belief.

I conclude that Jesus did ascribe to the belief of literal angels. If not, he would be bordering on being a lunatic for calling on metaphors for physical protection.

Matthew 26:53
Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

Peace,
Mark

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/26/2004 11:24 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart

quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
Moreover, even if the Pharisees DID believe that angels were literal independent entities it does not follow that for Jesus to uphold this notion means that He also ascribes to this specific belief.

I conclude that Jesus did ascribe to the belief of literal angels. If not, he would be bordering on being a lunatic for calling on metaphors for physical protection.

Matthew 26:53
Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

Peace,
Mark

GOOD POINT, MARK.

JEE
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466

Posted 8/26/2004 11:33 AM (GMT -6)

He was probably just being anthropomorphic in his speech; if the angels had appeared and delivered him, it would actually have just been his own psychic energy that did it. Clown

http://revivaltheology.net

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/26/2004 5:38 PM (GMT -6)

sparknheart

I conclude that Jesus did ascribe to the belief of literal angels. If not, he would be bordering on being a lunatic for calling on metaphors for physical protection.

Matthew 26:53
Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

Iconoclast

I understand this as Jesus calling on His Father who would send great power (many aspects of Himself).

Remember, a metaphor can point to a very powerful underlying reality. Which is more powerful - God Himself (many aspects of Himself) or literally legions of angels?

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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/26/2004 5:43 PM (GMT -6)

sparknheart

But, after giving it a little thought, I find holes in your premise. The miracle of Peter walking on water harmed no one. A madman sending two thousand innocent pigs to their death violated the owner of the pigs. Jesus and his disciples were run out of town for this very reason. If the madman’s miracle/power was attributed to his faith in God, then we are making God complicit in evil.

Iconoclast

Consider these two points:

1. If they were literally demons they asked Jesus if they could go into the pigs. Presumably Jesus could have said no in which case they would have been sent into "the country". Since Jesus allowed the demons to go into the pigs isn't Jesus just as responsible for the evil of the pigs being killed in this version as in mine?

2. Does Jesus care more about healing and saving a human being or about someone's farm animals?

In the literal demon version we have Jesus being kind to the demons over against the man who owned the pigs.

In the metaphorical demon version we have Jesus being kind to the man over against the man who owned the pigs.

Why would Jesus show mercy to demons who are supposedly purely evil and are unredeemable? Wouldn't Jesus be more complicit in evil in the literal demon version?

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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/26/2004 6:01 PM (GMT -6)

sparknheart

If you believe satan and demons to be metaphors, then you need to establish an alterative source to characterize the first sin. How could Eve’s sin be attributed to a hereditary, organizational, corporate or systemic forms of evil if a pattern for such was not yet established?

I’m all for being held accountable for our own sin, but how do we square that with Eve being tempted, did she tempt herself with her "serpent brain?

Iconoclast

I do not attribute Eve's sin to hereditary, organizational, corporate or systemic forms of evil at all.

I think the meaning of the story is that the possibility of sin was present in God's "very good" creation. I think the story is about choice - it is about free-will - it is about the fact that love must be chosen. God creates man and woman in His image - Imago Dei. We can truly love because we have true free-will - true choice.

Notice that the serpent is clearly a part of the creation that God just called "very good". Notice that this serpent is not identified as some outside entity - it is part and parcel of the very creation that was just identified as "very good". This is a crucial aspect of the story.

Thus, the creation fell from within.

This means that the "very good" creation really had the possibility of falling to begin with - it was built in - which only makes sense - for this must be true if love must be chosen.

This then means that temptation - or the thought of NOT choosing love HAD to be present else there could be no real choice TO choose love.

So, Eve naturally had the thought of eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This is easy to demonstrate thusly:

Mark, do not think of the color blue - especially deep blue.

Ha! Caught you - you just thought of the color blue.

You see, the very command to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil creates the thought of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This is simply the nature of consciousness. It is the nature of being conscious of choice.

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

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 8/26/2004 6:05 PM (GMT -6)

Questioner: "A thought. All of this thought only works if you assume that sentient, eternal non-corporeal creatures (ie angels/demons) don't exist. The existence of these creatures that exhibit sufficient epistemic distance to "fall" would be evidence that entropy leading unto death would NOT be necessary."

However, The existence of sentient, NON-Eternal, non-corporeal creatures (ie angels/demons) would not rule out epistemic distance and entropy. In Revelations Satan and the demons are thrown into the lake of fire, and if that isn't enough to kill them, God throws death in after them.

-S

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 8/26/2004 6:20 PM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast: "In the literal demon version we have Jesus being kind to the demons over against the man who owned the pigs."

Not so, if the demons were exercising their free will. My translation says the demons asked not to be sent into the abyss. Ranging around the country doesn't seem half bad in comparison.

Springs

JEE
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466

Posted 8/26/2004 6:35 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
In the literal demon version we have Jesus being kind to the demons over against the man who owned the pigs.

In the metaphorical demon version we have Jesus being kind to the man over against the man who owned the pigs.

Why would Jesus show mercy to demons who are supposedly purely evil and are unredeemable? Wouldn't Jesus be more complicit in evil in the literal demon version?

Iconoclast

How is consigning them to disembodiment (wandering through the waste places, "when an evil spirit goes out of a man" as He says elsewhere) showing mercy?

Jesus is not responsible for the pigs dying any more than he is for a HUMAN being literally scared to death. Also, I do think it is significant that pigs were considered unclean beasts according to the Law of Moses (which Jesus lived under). The story could have had sort of a double meaning for the purpose of showing the Messiah's mastery of unclean spirits and unclean animals.

http://revivaltheology.net

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/26/2004 6:38 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Springs

Iconoclast: "In the literal demon version we have Jesus being kind to the demons over against the man who owned the pigs."

Not so, if the demons were exercising their free will. My translation says the demons asked not to be sent into the abyss. Ranging around the country doesn't seem half bad in comparison.

Springs

Some questions:

Why didn't Jesus just send the demons into the abyss? Why did Jesus allow them to kill the pigs?

If it is not evil for Jesus to allow the demons to kill the pigs because the demons were acting out of their own free will then why would it be evil for Jesus to allow the man to kill the pigs since the man was also acting out of his free will?

And if, like sparknheart, you say that Jesus was complicit in the evil of killing the pigs because the man had the power from God while acting out of faith then isn't God complicit in Elisha (Elijah?) killing all those kids when they taunted him? Clearly Elisha used God's power acting out of faith as well.

And, if you say that God judged those kids as needing to die then why couldn't you say that Jesus judged the pigs as needing to die?

I guess I don't see how Jesus allowing the man to kill the pigs can be construed as Jesus being complicit in evil under any circumstance.

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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/26/2004 6:41 PM (GMT -6)

JEE

How is consigning them to disembodiment (wandering through the waste places, "when an evil spirit goes out of a man" as He says elsewhere) showing mercy?

Jesus is not responsible for the pigs dying any more than he is for a HUMAN being being literally scared to death.

Iconoclast

Are you suggesting that for the man to use his free will, acting out of faith, IS for Jesus to be complicit in evil?

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

JEE
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466

Posted 8/26/2004 6:43 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
Why didn't Jesus just send the demons into the abyss? Why did Jesus allow them to kill the pigs?

Good question. Perhaps it was to demonstrate his power and authority to bind and to loose evil spirits.

quote:
And if, like sparknheart, you say that Jesus was complicit in the evil of killing the pigs because the man had the power from God while acting out of faith then isn't God complicit in Elisha (Elijah?) killing all those kids when they taunted him? Clearly Elisha used God's power acting out of faith as well.

Many translations and commentators render "children" as "youths" in the story in question, most likely teenagers. Seems quite similar to the story of Ananias and Sapphira. The Bible affirms in both Old and New Testaments that God has the power to "kill and to make alive," and more than once He has chosen to mete out instant judgment on those who mocked the anointed servant of the Lord. (Apparently, He only does this every so often to make a very important point).

And it would be no more evil for God to kill someone who deserved it than it would be for him to damn someone who deserved it.

http://revivaltheology.net

JEE
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466

Posted 8/26/2004 6:46 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast

JEE

How is consigning them to disembodiment (wandering through the waste places, "when an evil spirit goes out of a man" as He says elsewhere) showing mercy?

Jesus is not responsible for the pigs dying any more than he is for a HUMAN being being literally scared to death.

Iconoclast

Are you suggesting that for the man to use his free will, acting out of faith, IS for Jesus to be complicit in evil?

thanks,
Iconoclast

Huh? As far as I understand the question, my answer would be no. I don't find the metaphorical interpretation of demons and angels that you posit to be persuasive at all. Like Doc and others, I've personally EXPERIENCED demon attacks, seen a demon before, and have cast demons out of people before.

http://revivaltheology.net

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 8/26/2004 6:49 PM (GMT -6)

I don't see Jesus as being responsible for the death of the pigs in either scenario.

In that day and time killing pigs may have been a merciful act anyway. Trychinosis and what not.

Springs

JEE
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466

Posted 8/26/2004 6:56 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by JEE
How is consigning them to disembodiment (wandering through the waste places, "when an evil spirit goes out of a man" as He says elsewhere) showing mercy?

Jesus is not responsible for the pigs dying any more than he is for a HUMAN being being literally scared to death.

What I meant here was that Jesus would not be any more responsible for the pigs' reaction to the demons (or the demons' influence on the pigs) than a police officer would be responsible if a dog were to happen to be shot by a criminal during a crime in progress (i.e., collateral damage).

http://revivaltheology.net

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/26/2004 7:02 PM (GMT -6)

JEE

Like Doc and others, I've personally EXPERIENCED demon attacks, seen a demon before, and have cast demons out of people before.

Iconoclast

I don't deny your experience. I totally believe your experience. I just deny your interpretation of what you are experiencing.

We all experience the sun going around the earth. And without knowing what is really going on we would all still believe that the sun really does go around the earth.

I realize that this is not evidence regarding whether your interpretation of your experience is accurate or not but I do hope it is compelling evidence that our interpretations of our experience are subject to being modified greatly given better information. This is the greatest lesson of modern science - Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics.

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

JEE
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466

Posted 8/26/2004 7:05 PM (GMT -6)

If what you're saying is true, then why can't psychiatrists offer anything more than lifelong institutionalization for the severely mentally ill (like apparently the man with the legion of demons inside him was?) And why can't a shrink open a blind man's eyes, or deliver a stooped over woman from a spirit of infirmity, like Jesus did? The text says she had been afflicted with a spirit of infirmity for many years. I fail to see how the power of suggestion or psychic power would effect a REAL cure of something like this. This was not just a psychosomatic illness that lady was suffering from.

I fail to see how your perspective answers the issues raised when Scripture itself says Christ "spoiled principalites and powers, triumphing over them in it" (the cross). Further, it seems to me that your theory would only condemn the severely afflicted to a lifetime doped up on antipsychotic medication, instead of offering them the possibility of freedom over evil spirits by the power of Christ. That's just what your antisupernaturalistic paradigm seems to me to imply.

http://revivaltheology.net

Truth Aficionado
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544

Posted 8/26/2004 7:33 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast

sparknheart

The miracle of Peter walking on water harmed no one. A madman sending two thousand innocent pigs to their death violated the owner of the pigs. Jesus and his disciples were run out of town for this very reason. If the madman’s miracle/power was attributed to his faith in God, then we are making God complicit in evil.

Iconoclast

1. If they were literally demons they asked Jesus if they could go into the pigs. Presumably Jesus could have said no in which case they would have been sent into "the country". Since Jesus allowed the demons to go into the pigs isn't Jesus just as responsible for the evil of the pigs being killed in this version as in mine?

To answer your question: A big NO!

You have a mixed basket of fruit, Icon. The two versions are not one in the same. Jesus permitting literal demons their freedom is no comparison to empowering a madman’s faith in God to do evil. The literal demons acted on there own power and choice. They DID NOT receive power or a miracle through their faith in God (like Peter did walking on water). You can not equate evil acts with miracles. The act is not about violating animals but about violating the people that owned them. These people did not embrace the event as a miracle (the madman did); instead, they ran Jesus and his disciples out of town.

Your translation would be like Peter acting like a drunken sailor, walking on water punching holes in innocent people’s boats. Could you see Jesus standing by encouraging Peter like you imply he did with the madman?

Brother Icon, maybe there is something wrong with your point, when you have to work so hard to prove it.

Shalom,
Mark
P.S. for some odd reason I like the color blue. Wink

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 8/27/2004 4:20 AM (GMT -6)

Sparknheart: "The act is not about violating animals but about violating the people that owned them. These people did not embrace the event as a miracle (the madman did); instead, they ran Jesus and his disciples out of town. It would be like Peter acting like a drunken sailor, walking on water punching holes in innocent people’s boats."

How do we know the town's people were innocent? Maybe the loss of the heard was just. Perhaps the horrible state of the madman's mind was the direct result of the abuse inflicted on him by that community.

Spark: "Brother Icon, maybe there is something wrong with your point, when you have to work so hard to prove it."

Or maybe it's just that our core belief in the reality of angels and demons is so strong that makes it hard for us to understand the proof. Evil

Springs

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 3:17 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual