 |
| 
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/19/2005 8:29 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
I think it would only be fair, to those following along here, to post a traditional view of the fall.
Matthew Henry’s Commentary:
"God passes sentence; and he begins where the sin began, with the serpent. The devil’s instruments must share in the devil’s punishments. Under the cover of the serpent, the devil is sentenced to be degraded and accursed of God; detested and abhorred of all mankind: also to be destroyed and ruined at last by the great Redeemer, signified by the breaking of his head. War is proclaimed between the Seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. It is the fruit of this enmity, that there is a continual warfare between grace and corruption, in the hearts of God’s people. Satan, by their corruptions, buffets them, sifts them, and seeks to devour them. Heaven and hell can never be reconciled, nor light and darkness; no more can Satan and a sanctified soul. Also, there is a continual struggle between the wicked and the godly in this world. A gracious promise is here made of Christ, as the Deliverer of fallen man from the power of Satan. Here was the drawn of the gospel day: no sooner was the wound given, than the remedy was provided and revealed. This gracious revelation of a Saviour came unasked, and unlooked for. Without a revelation of mercy, giving some hope of forgiveness, the convinced sinner would sink into despair, and be hardened. By faith in this promise, our first parents, and the patriarchs before the flood, were justified and saved. Notice is given concerning Christ. 1. His incarnation, or coming in the flesh. It speaks great encouragement to sinners, that their Saviour is the Seed of the woman, bone of our bone, Hebrews 2:11, 14. 2. His sufferings and death; pointed at in Satan’s bruising his heel, that is, his human nature. And Christ’s sufferings are continued in the sufferings of the saints for his name. The devil tempts them, persecutes and slays them; and so bruises the heel of Christ, who is afflicted in their afflictions. But while the heel is bruised on earth, the Head is in heaven. 3. His victory over Satan thereby. Christ baffled Satan’s temptations, rescued souls out of his hands. By his death he gave a fatal blow to the devil’s kingdom, a wound to the head of this serpent that cannot be healed. As the gospel gains ground, Satan falls."
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/19/2005 9:39 AM (GMT -6) | |
jefscott said...Keith: The point I want to make is in regard to an understanding the aspect of God's cursing. It is not punitive, it is declarational; of the shift in relationships, the conflict that emerges because of this and the reality that life will never be found in this sphere. How natural evil fits into this is for another thread (I HAVE to go now!) Jeff: I agree that there is a declarational aspect to this passage. But doesn't it seem like this "shift" was inherited by subsequent generations? I think some might ask, "Why didn't God try to shield subsequent generations from whatever 'shift' Adam and Eve brought on themselves?" In that case, each person would be responsible for their own "shift." But that doesn't seem to be the case from Gen and Rom. 5.
Oh, it's all about a shift...big time, and it affects all people. Perhaps Adam and Eve should have given some thought to the ramifications of their actions before going in their own direction. After all, if the pronouncement was "death" upon eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, wouldn't it seem logical that this would affect their kids in one way or another. What are children to do when death (be it spiritual or physical) sets in on the parents? How do they go on in a jovial, euphoric state with that hanging over their head? Obviously, they don't.
I don't think the idea of God sheltering anybody would really deal with the issue, though. The cold, hard facts are that ANYONE from Adam and Eve (their offspring) could just as well plunge the world into chaos. How do you "shelter" anyone from this? I mean, the best that could be done is to remove the Self-Seeker, but this would defeat the whole point of creation: a free-moral agency that has the choice to move toward or away from God and live within the ramifications of said choices. So, once Adam and Eve blow it, their children come into the same arena the Couple is in. That's simply unavoidable. And lest any of us should shout out loud, "UNFAIR," we all would be, in our current state of affairs, far more inclinded to seek after Self more so than Adamelf were we in his shoes. I mean, sheesh, one minute we tell God we're sorry for doing something, and the next minute we are either doing the same thing again or doing something else that's not to kosher!
It is, thus, unavoidable that the whole world reap the ramifications of the first offender, be it Eve, Adam, or one of their offspring. And that is sad, isn't it. This is what is so great about the "all things have become new" and similar statements in the New Testament. The New Testament is the declaration that death will not come anymore, but life will rein again! This is a new sphere of existence for us, Christ having made the way possible. (By the way, Gen 3:15 is very messianic, but the context is much bigger than just "Hey, the first promise of Jesus!" That kind of statement has no context without a look at the bigger picture.)
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/19/2005 4:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: Why does natural evil exist? It is, in part, the necessary "side effect" of an environment conducive to relative ontological distinction for all Creation, and moral autonomy for sentient beings.
Why is this side effect necessary, Meph? That natural evil is a side effect is one thing, but that it is necessary, an environmental conducive element toward relative ontological disntinction? Is there no other ontological distinguishing element between all Creation and the autonomy of sentient beings?
Thanks,
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/19/2005 7:05 PM (GMT -6) | | | Tom: I thought this was gonna be about natural evil. Why are some of you talking about moral evil? If you wanna discuss natural evil, I’m in. If you wanna discuss original sin and Rom. 5 then I gotta go mow the lawn.
Jeff: Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought there was discussion about whether some natural evil is from God - like the cursing of the ground. If so, isn't that one of the factors that need to be taken into account to see how theodicy relates to natural evil? And wouldn't another factor be about whether natural evil which results from the sin of one is "visited" upon all others? In other words, aren't we trying to understand how God vs. Satan/fallen angels relate to natural evil? If not, I don't see how natural evil has much to do with theodicy, in which case I'm confused as to why it's important at all. Help me. 
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/19/2005 10:04 PM (GMT -6) | |
Jeff: Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought there was discussion about whether some natural evil is from God - like the cursing of the ground. If so, isn't that one of the factors that need to be taken into account to see how theodicy relates to natural evil? And wouldn't another factor be about whether natural evil which results from the sin of one is "visited" upon all others? In other words, aren't we trying to understand how God vs. Satan/fallen angels relate to natural evil? If not, I don't see how natural evil has much to do with theodicy, in which case I'm confused as to why it's important at all.
Tom: Yo man. I feel your pain! I think discussing natural evil is a natural evil!
Really though, I guess I misunderstood a few posts earlier on. Looked like they were into Rm. 5 and original sin or something. Anyhow, I think you’re questions are good and important. I’ll just shoot from the hip:
I think God cursed the “ground” (which might just mean the physical creation) as a consequence of human evil. Now, I’m open to seeing it differently (i.e., the Serpent cursed the ground, or Adam cursed the ground, whatever), but I can’t see an argument against God’s being the subject the idea that God simply doesn’t curse, period, ‘cause he does. One would have to argue that a God who does sometimes curse can’t curse “the ground.” It might just be that “cursed is the ground on account of you” means something like, “now that you’re screwed up, and since you have dominion over creation, creation will suffer on account of you; i.e., creation will suffer YOUR curse, which is sin.” So the ground’s not yielding would be a consequence of sinful human mismanagement, not some divinely implanted cancer into the physical order of things.
But assuming God cursed the ground, why think this means God directly wills natural evil? If the curse is a response to human sin, then natural evil (assuming natural evil is a result of this cursing—which has to be argued) would be a consequence of human sin. But might we be making too much of what’s actually said? I mean, might the “cursed is the ground on account of you” simply mean no more than it says, namely, that humans will have to strive with a sometimes uncooperative world to make a living? There’s no natural evil in this description. In other worlds, exercising dominion will not be so easy. Sin has entered the picture and will complicate humanity’s dominion of creation.
We can’t help but walk into the answer backwards, from the reality we live with today to supposing a scenario that makes sense of that messed up reality.
My head hurts now.
Peace,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
MattBrown
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 74
| Posted 4/19/2005 11:22 PM (GMT -6) | | | Tom: But assuming God cursed the ground, why think this means God directly wills natural evil? If the curse is a response to human sin, then natural evil (assuming natural evil is a result of this cursing—which has to be argued) would be a consequence of human sin. But might we be making too much of what’s actually said? I mean, might the “cursed is the ground on account of you” simply mean no more than it says, namely, that humans will have to strive with a sometimes uncooperative world to make a living? There’s no natural evil in this description. In other worlds, exercising dominion will not be so easy. Sin has entered the picture and will complicate humanity’s dominion of creation.
Matt: Let me make a feable attempt to boil this down by way of analogy with free will and the open view.
The idea is that God chooses from the start to "let go" so to speak, to create free will agents. His "letting go" is an essentially neutral action...it simply opens up possibilities. Then sin ends up abounding, but God in no way directly or even indirectly caused sin to abound. God's goal of "letting go" was for relationships of love not for wickedness.
Now with Gen 3 and the ground curse. (I am assuming that God does the cursing.) Here God again chooses to "let go" so to speak, thus cursing the ground. God's action is to choose to mearly step back from total control of the creation and allow it to run its course. Perhaps the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics comes in here http://www.secondlaw.com/ . You could say God grants creation free will, in a non-personality, a-moral sense. This "letting go" is also a neutral action...now that humanity has chosen rebellion and disharmony, God is just giving them what they are asking for...space and freedom FROM God over the dominion of creation. This is given out of respect for humanities choice to run, not meant to pour out natural disasters.
Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon. - Nietzsche | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/20/2005 8:41 AM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
I thought this was gonna be about natural evil. Why are some of you talking about moral evil? If you wanna discuss natural evil, I’m in. If you wanna discuss original sin and Rom. 5 then I gotta go mow the lawn.
As the weight of the world’s curse is endured, Tom toils the soil in denial.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/20/2005 9:06 AM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
Is he mowing the law or trying to grow back his hair?
Mowing the lawn or losing your hair, in either case its natural evil.
Its paradise lost! Exception of course you’re Sir Starkman..
Starkman said...Couldn't Adam have fallen and broken a bone (is breaking a bone "evil"  ?
Post Edited (sparknheart) : 4/20/2005 9:25:19 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
MattBrown
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 74
| Posted 4/20/2005 9:42 AM (GMT -6) | | | Starkman raises an interesting point...is a tornado which occurs in a barren field in Kansas and does no harm to creation really evil? Though the tornado is surely not part of God's original design, putting harmless and evil in the same sentence seems weird.
Either way I think the barren field tornado would be more likely attributed to chance than demons. Unless demons work to effect everything they can to cause damage...perhaps they were hoping the tornado would travel 1 mile south to the nearby farmhouse. Or perhaps a baby demon was just having fun. 
Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon. - Nietzsche | | Back to Top | | |
|
MattBrown
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 74
| Posted 4/20/2005 11:45 AM (GMT -6) | | | Good question. But are the mundane weather patterns of nature such as rain, part of natural evil? Though I guess someone could die from rain.
Can a distinction be made between normal weather/seasonal events and the bigger things which constitute "disaster"?
Just a guess...
Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon. - Nietzsche | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/20/2005 12:08 PM (GMT -6) | |
MattBrown said...
Good question. But are the mundane weather patterns of nature such as rain, part of natural evil? Though I guess someone could die from rain.
Unless they had an Ark of course. Genesis 2:4-6 (NRSV)
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, [5] when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; [6] but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground--
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 4/20/2005 12:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: I agree that He doesn't will natural evil. That's why I think the origin of it is important from the perspective of a theodicy. If God simply created a cursed ground, I would make more plausible the idea that God simply created the world with tornadoes and hurricanes (and if He did, there is no way out of the problem of natural evil by Doc's view, etc.). It wouldn't PROVE God created natural evil "just because," but it would add plausibility to that idea. I'm for lowering the plausibility if there are grounds for doing so.
Ron
Jeff, other uninhabited (by humans at least) planets and moons have storms, volcanos, indications of erosion, ice caps, ect. So I would think they are naturally occuring and not caused by the human fall. Even if some occurances recorded in human history have supernatural causes limited to that particular time and place, I would not attribute all occurances to an agent.
Peace
Ron
| | Back to Top | | |
|
MattBrown
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 74
| Posted 4/20/2005 1:42 PM (GMT -6) | | A natural disasters can be cause by a) God (though perhaps a rarely); b) demons; c) according to the laws of nature, chemistry/physics/biology, in other words chance; or d) any combo. Granting of course that 99% of natural disasters cannot be pinned down by our finite perspective this side of eternity, into any one category.
So perhaps the term "natural evil" is incorrect, because this assumes that a possibly random, and/or natural process of the laws of nature, which does not necessarily coming from the will of any agent is "evil".
Is my car not passing emissions evil? Could it be God - yes. Could it be demons - yes. Could it be just simple entropy and the laws of nature and the fact that my car is an old piece of crap - yes.
If I cannot with certainty place blame in regard to my junker car, how can I place blame with certainty in regard to a tornado or tsunami?
Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon. - Nietzsche | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/20/2005 2:08 PM (GMT -6) | |
MattBrown said...
So perhaps the term "natural evil" is incorrect, because this assumes that a possibly random, and/or natural process of the laws of nature, which does not necessarily coming from the will of any agent is "evil".
I don't find anything "natural" about evil.  I prefer the term "Metaphysical Evil":
"Metaphysical evil is the limitation by one another of various component parts of the natural world. Through this mutual limitation natural objects are for the most part prevented from attaining to their full or ideal perfection, whether by the constant pressure of physical condition, or by sudden catastrophes. Thus, animal and vegetable organisms are variously influenced by climate and other natural causes; predatory animals depend for their existence on the destruction of life; nature is subject to storms and convulsions, and its order depends on a system of perpetual decay and renewal due to the interaction of its constituent parts." Post Edited (sparknheart) : 4/20/2005 2:52:21 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
MattBrown
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 74
| Posted 4/20/2005 2:54 PM (GMT -6) | | So we are both uncomfortable with the term natural evil. I questioned the evil and you questioned the natural. I guess I agree that both are deficient words, laden with baggage and complex implications.
Perhaps I am biased to think that the word "evil" implies an moral agent behind it. So if the harmless tornado in Kansas or the junker car failing emissions does not have a moral agent behind it, then I would hesitate to call it evil. Sure, neither are at "full or ideal perfection", but it is so by the current economy of the natural world (how things operate between Gen and Rev).
So I would grand that if one thinks the current economy of the natural world is evil then the harmless Kansas tornado is evil too. Then again, maybe you're right?
Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon. - Nietzsche | | Back to Top | | |
| 87 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:09 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 |
|
|