Jump to content

Natural Evil Before The Fall


trust

Recommended Posts

All of these can be traced back to natural evil

How so?

 

George

 

Natural evolution has built in us a desire to reproduce with as many others as possible, to lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc. to get what we want at any cost and survive. Every single moral evil can be traced to the precursor of natural evil. It is only recently that we have developed the moral and emotional intelligence to know when this is wrong. We can now follow the golden rule of doing to others what we would want done to ourselves if we were them. It is the choices of the heart that Christ talked about.

 

According to the Gospel of John, Christ says "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

 

Job says:

"Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?

Tell me, if you understand.

Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!

Who stretched a measuring line across it?

On what were its footings set,

or who laid its cornerstone

while the morning stars sang together

and all the angels shouted for joy?"

According to this, there were angels in the early beginning.

 

Later on, Christ says, "Simon, Simon! Listen! Satan has received permission to test all of you, to separate the good from the bad, as a farmer separates the wheat from the chaff. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith will not fail. And when you turn back to me, you must strengthen your brothers."

 

I can't help but think that according to the Gospels, Christ believed that natural evil from the beginning was a result of the evil one who had free will. "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“You yourself are participating in evil, or you are not alive. Whatever you do is evil to someone. This is one of the ironies of creation.”

 

It seems that life is designed to be this way. As soon as we judge or condemn anyone, we have also condemned ourselves. If I am correct in my belief that life was designed to be centered around Christ, then suffering is a pre-requisite for us to become Christ-like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life is what it is and not something else. If we could live as long as we wished, there would be little need to procreate. We can cooperate and help each other through the transition from birth to death, or compete to live as long as possible at the expense of the other. That's about it. The Jesus I grew up with saw the need to move to cooperation, the movement towards compassion as a proper goal of evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not an expert on this topic, so I need to tread with care - here is a Campbellian interpretation (not necessarily Campbell's).

 

21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

 

Verse 22 states (clearly to me) that Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden of Eden for gaining the knowledge of good and evil.

 

If we take up a monistic line of thought then we do realize several things. There is no separation from god. There is no good or evil other than our arbitrary definitions. We live in the now. Campbell's translation for eternity is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myron, I personally would make a distinction between negligence or irresponsibility and 'evil.'

 

George

Myron,

 

Do you mean to argue that when one avoids responsibility, even if it is out of ignorance or misunderstanding, that 'evil' is being committed or that such can lead to evil being committed?

 

Paul

 

Paul,

 

Sorry for the delays here. Responsibilty is a difficult topic. It is often associated with the term "intentionality" (in the technical sense). Much of human behavior is over-determined. That is, any specific behavior might have more than one cause behind it. When pressure is placed upon people to be accountable for the conscious and uncounscious causes of their behavior, they sometimes become avoidant simply because they do not know the answer themselves.

 

Myron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Campbell stated that to follow your bliss means "The experience of life as a self responsible individual."

 

Yep and we can be responsible without good and evil. In exactly the same way the sun is responsible for a good portion of our weather patterns on earth, life on Earth and melanomas.

 

We don't need morality to be responsible. We don't need the guilt trip. Another Cambell quote:

 

If all you think of are your sins then you are sinner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep and we can be responsible without good and evil. In exactly the same way the sun is responsible for a good portion of our weather patterns on earth, life on Earth and melanomas.

 

We don't need morality to be responsible. We don't need the guilt trip. Another Cambell quote:

 

If all you think of are your sins then you are sinner.

 

Psychologists almost always balk at the word "we".

Edited by minsocal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph Campbell was

Yep and we can be responsible without good and evil. In exactly the same way the sun is responsible for a good portion of our weather patterns on earth, life on Earth and melanomas.

 

We don't need morality to be responsible. We don't need the guilt trip. Another Cambell quote:

 

If all you think of are your sins then you are sinner.

 

As a student of C. G. Jung and his editor Joseph Campbell, this will take some explanation on your part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psychologists almost always balk at the word "we".

then we can ask that the said psychologists take reponsibility for their balking :)

As a student of C. G. Jung and his editor Joseph Campbell, this will take some explanation on your part.

Quite simple really, the original sin was thinking in terms of sin. Thinking in terms of separation.

 

... and with respect to separation this Campbell quote just about nails it for me:

 

... But the ultimate mystical goal is to be united with one's god. With that, duality is transcended and forms disappear. There is nobody there, no god, no you. Your mind, going past all concepts, has dissolved in identification with ground of your own being, because that to which the metaphorical image of your god refers to the ultimate mystery of your own being, which is the mystery of the being of the world as well.

Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

then we can ask that the said psychologists take reponsibility for their balking :)

 

Quite simple really, the original sin was thinking in terms of sin. Thinking in terms of separation.

 

... and with respect to separation this Campbell quote just about nails it for me:

 

... But the ultimate mystical goal is to be united with one's god. With that, duality is transcended and forms disappear. There is nobody there, no god, no you. Your mind, going past all concepts, has dissolved in identification with ground of your own being, because that to which the metaphorical image of your god refers to the ultimate mystery of your own being, which is the mystery of the being of the world as well.

 

Please note the source, I have most of Campbell's work in my library. His wiriting on the subject in Mythic Image does not seem to relate to your interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please note the source, I have most of Campbell's work in my library. His wiriting on the subject in Mythic Image does not seem to relate to your interpretation.

 

It is in PoM - page 2XX - unfortunately I have lent out my copy - it is towards the end.

 

Try here

Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is in PoM - page 2XX - unfortunately I have lent out my copy - it is towards the end.

 

Try here

 

In The Mythic Image (p. 194), Campbell expounds on the full story found in Genesis. He states:

 

"Now it is the essence of the axial point or pole that it should symbolize the way or place of passage from motion to rest, time to eternity, seperation to union; but then also, conversely, rest to motion, eternity to time, unity to multiplicity. Hence in the Biblical Eden the image is of two trees: "the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledsge of good and evil." (Genesis 2:9) ... Adam and Eve were expelled forn the garden lest they should "take also of the the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" (Genesis 3:22)."

 

For those familiar with A. N. Whitehead and C. G Jung, this is a familiar concept. Whitehead called it "the method of adjusted contrasts" and Jung called it "complementarity".

Edited by minsocal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From PoM

 

“That is to say, put yourself back in the position of paradise before you thought in terms of good and evil. You don’t hear that much from the pulpits.”

 

To be fair, Campbell then goes on to say:

 

“Why was the knowledge of good and evil forbidden to Adam and Eve? Without that knowledge we would still be a bunch of babies in Eden, without any participation in life.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From PoM

 

“That is to say, put yourself back in the position of paradise before you thought in terms of good and evil. You don’t hear that much from the pulpits.”

 

To be fair, Campbell then goes on to say:

 

“Why was the knowledge of good and evil forbidden to Adam and Eve? Without that knowledge we would still be a bunch of babies in Eden, without any participation in life.”

 

Thank you. That is exactly the view of Jung and Campbell. Both take a developmental or constructive view of what it takes to be human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Natural evolution has built in us a desire to reproduce with as many others as possible, to lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc. to get what we want at any cost and survive. Every single moral evil can be traced to the precursor of natural evil. It is only recently that we have developed the moral and emotional intelligence to know when this is wrong. We can now follow the golden rule of doing to others what we would want done to ourselves if we were them. It is the choices of the heart that Christ talked about.

 

According to the Gospel of John, Christ says "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

 

Job says:

"Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?

Tell me, if you understand.

Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!

Who stretched a measuring line across it?

On what were its footings set,

or who laid its cornerstone

while the morning stars sang together

and all the angels shouted for joy?"

According to this, there were angels in the early beginning.

 

Later on, Christ says, "Simon, Simon! Listen! Satan has received permission to test all of you, to separate the good from the bad, as a farmer separates the wheat from the chaff. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith will not fail. And when you turn back to me, you must strengthen your brothers."

 

I can't help but think that according to the Gospels, Christ believed that natural evil from the beginning was a result of the evil one who had free will. "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one".

 

Since I have never read any philosophy, you seem to be going over my head ;) Going back to my quote from Christ, I have three options

 

1) Christ is literal in his discussion of the devil. This seems rather unlikely considering our current knowledge of life.

 

2) The devil is simply ego. When the devil (aka "ego") takes Christ on a forty day journey, this is simply Christ's own ego tempting him. This makes perfect sense in the realization that we all have a inner demon tha tempts us, yet at the same time is a complete manifestation of something completely separate from reality. This does not really explain why ego existed before the fall in animals. Are animals only rarely capable of exhibiting non-ego?

 

3) This is simply, in my opinion, a fable based on the tens of years the gospel was written after the fact. The incredible teaching of Christ in seen in the gospels such as the Sermon on the Mount becomes almost defiled by this "devil" or "unclean spirit" talk that we know is without any scientific reasoning of our current knowledge. However, to ignore the sheer genius of Christ would be an even greater mistake than to believe Christ actually taught we should handle snakes and drink deadly poison or believe in a physical devil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I meant to say above I have not read any of this philosophy that you are referencing. Obviously I have read a limited amount of philosophy.

 

 

So where do we stand? We don't know why natural evil was allowed? It was necessary to create moral evil? Natural evil does not exist in the first place? Natural evil is simply the lack of God similar to how cold (absolute zero temperature) does not actually exist? It could be any number of reasons but we are unsure which one(s)? etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Jesus did believe in natural evil. I don't know as clearly I wasn't there. But even if he did, is it an issue?. I'm pretty comfortable accepting that not everything Jesus believed was neccessarily accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Natural evil does not exist. The perception that there is natural evil is not an excuse for harming any other part of creation.

 

There are certain fungal infections while not evil per se in any reasonable sense of the word, I would have no problem harming them even if they are part of creation.

Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was watching the Big Bang Theory and slowed the intro down to a crawl to see all the pictures. You can actually see all of them here http://haraldkraft.d...ebigbangtheory/

 

This got me thinking about how the stars starting eating each other. When the the stars eat each other, there is no suffering. Yet there is suffering when we eat each other because of mind. This got me looking into theories on when life first started on earth. Something that was interesting was how it is possible that the building blocks of life came through comets to earth. Just as how the moon has craters from asteroids hitting its surface, the earth attracted other objects that could have been an ingredient in the begining of life on earth.

 

Another idea is that amino acids which were formed extraterrestrially arrived on Earth via comets. In 2009 it was announced by NASA that scientists had identified one of the fundamental chemical building blocks of life in a comet for the first time: glycine' date=' an amino acid, was detected in the material ejected from Comet Wild-2 in 2004 and grabbed by NASA's Stardust probe. Tiny grains, just a few thousandths of a millimetre in size, were collected from the comet and returned to Earth in 2006 in a sealed capsule, and distributed among the world's leading astro-biology labs. NASA said in a statement that it took some time for the investigating team, led by Dr Jamie Elsila, to convince itself that the glycine signature found in Stardust's sample bay was genuine and not just Earthly contamination. Glycine has been detected in meteorites before and there are also observations in interstellar gas clouds claimed for telescopes, but the Stardust find is described as a first in cometary material. Isotope analysis indicates that the Late Heavy Bombardment included cometary impacts after the Earth coalesced but before life evolved.[125'] Dr. Carl Pilcher, who leads NASA's Astrobiology Institute commented that "The discovery of glycine in a comet supports the idea that the fundamental building blocks of life are prevalent in space, and strengthens the argument that life in the Universe may be common rather than rare."[126]

 

Based on computer model studies, the complex organic molecules necessary for life may have formed in the protoplanetary disk of dust grains surrounding the Sun before the formation of the Earth.[127] According to the computer studies, this same process may also occur around other stars that acquire planets.[127] (Also see Cosmic dust/Earth.)

 

Recent observations suggests that the majority of organic compounds introduced on Earth by interstellar dust particles are considered principal agents in the formation of complex molecules, thanks to their peculiar surface-catalytic activities.[128][129] Studies reported in 2008, based on 12C/13C isotopic ratios of organic compounds found in the Murchison meteorite, suggested that the RNA component uracil and related molecules, including xanthine, were formed extraterrestrially.[130][131] On August 8, 2011, a report, based on NASA studies with meteorites found on Earth, was published suggesting DNA components (adenine, guanine and related organic molecules) were made in outer space.[128][132][133][134] More recently, scientists found that the cosmic dust permeating the universe contains complex organic matter ("amorphous organic solids with a mixed aromatic-aliphatic structure") that could be created naturally, and rapidly, by stars.[135][136][137] As one of the scientists noted, "Coal and kerogen are products of life and it took a long time for them to form ... How do stars make such complicated organics under seemingly unfavorable conditions and [do] it so rapidly?"[135] Further, the scientist suggested that these compounds may have been related to the development of life on earth and said that, "If this is the case, life on Earth may have had an easier time getting started as these organics can serve as basic ingredients for life."

[/Quote]

A universal common ancestor is at least 102860 times more probable than having multiple ancestors

[/Quote]

 

I find it interesting that the essential building blocks could have come from the stars if the above theory is correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is the most succinct explanation I have heard for the problem of evil (taken from here http://sguthrie.net/evil.htm). Point one below refers to the question at hand and while I initially thought this was not a good explanation, I am starting to think it is a better explanation than I originally thought.

IV. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE INFERENTIAL PROBLEM OF EVIL

Unlike the logical problem of evil' date=' the advocate of the inferential or probabilistic problem of evil only suggests that evil would be reduced more than what the actual world contains. Since the world does not contain minimized evil (for one can think of situations in which suffering is short-lived or reduced) then God probably does not exist. There are three main responses that philosophers have utilized in addressing this problem.

 

1. Since God's methodology in permitting evil is inscrutable, then one cannot object to God's existence in the presence of evil. Many have taken the position that the world we live in is far too complex and delicately balanced for it to be any other way. If one event were to be altered, then such a disturbed consequence may preclude this world from having the same amount of good in it with a minimum amount of evil . So suggesting why God would allow evil is viewed as similar to suggesting why God would choose to part the Red Sea for Moses instead of simply evaporating it. Both accomplish the same task of allowing the Israelites to pass through the Red Sea. But if God were to fulfill another part of His plan by destroying the Egyptian pursuers in the collapse of the parted Red Sea waters, then evaporation would not be the preferred choice. Thus God's decision to choose parting the Red Sea instead of evaporating would be considered inscrutable. God is said to be inscrutable when no direct knowledge is ascertained as to why God would permit or cause a specific event. (10) When considering a scenario that such inscrutability envisages, it seems as though one really cannot begin to find a way in which a possible world, one with the same amount of good in it but with no or little evil, is even feasible. Now this seems to show that the non-theist goes beyond what is known or can be known in order to reject the existence of God on the basis of evil. Consider the claim that non-theists usually make when they say that God could create the same effects that exist in our world currently but with good causes in place of evil ones. I do not think that we can make this sort of conjecture for reasons exemplified in our physical laws. Our universe is interwoven with a delicate balance of interrelated causal chains. If we were to disturb one link in any causal chain, whether it be through time, space, or both, then serious repercussions would result. For example, chaos theory suggests that if a butterfly were to flutter its wings then certain weather conditions may be altered in another part of the world. This is called the butterfly effect. (11) Given such a sensitive and delicate relation between two (or more) events, perhaps the causal chains that exist are far too complex to hypothesize an alternate world in which evil events do not contribute to good ones. Since no one can speculate how to have a better world than the actual one then the inferential problem of evil loses its probability.

 

2. The presence of evil may actually contribute to the goodness of the whole of creation. Although this was capitalized on in addressing the logical problem of evil above, there are further reasons to consider evil as a possible link in the chain of maximally good events. And the only reason why God would want to allow evil in His plan of creation is if He had an overriding desire. Typically, theists affirm that God has such an overriding desire, namely that people are brought to a point of spiritual well-being or salvation. With respect to this as God's primary motivation, the existence of evil is not so problematic. In fact, it seems to be quite instrumental given that there seems to be a correlation between immense suffering and pain and belief in God. If suffering yields up more believers in God for their spiritual well-being then it should not at all seem dubious that God would permit evil. Moreover, the presence of evil may actually have a spiritually therapeutic effect. Certainly everyone has said or has heard a parent say to a child, "I spanked you because I love you." In the same way evil may be seen as an instrument of God to "correct, purify, and instruct." (12) Thus God may use evil as a way to advance someone's ability to do good. If a child is disciplined then perhaps she will refrain from committing the same "evil" again. Likewise, a morally irresponsible person develops moral responsibility through the evil inflicted as a consequence of doing morally irresponsible things. Such notable theists as Irenaeus and contemporary philosopher of religion, John Hick, utilize this particular theodicy. Hick says that "in removing all occurrences of pain and suffering, and hence all challenge and all need for mutual care, we should have converted the world from a person-making into a static environment, which could not elicit moral growth." (13)

The usual comeback by critics generally revolves around a possible world in which a causally linked chain of events does not include evil ones. After all, if God is omniscient (all-knowing) then He would know how to construct a world in which the same good events occur but without the evil antecedents. This leads us to the final objection to the inferential problem of evil we have to consider.

 

3. A world without evil may not be a feasible world for individuals who possess free will (the Free Will Defense). Perhaps the most debated issue on the question of evil is whether or not evil is a necessary precondition for individuals who possess free will. Such notable figures as St. Augustine have taken such an approach to the problem of evil. (14) Others have taken a more effective approach. Professor of philosophy at Notre Dame, Alvin Plantinga, suggests that "there may be a very different kind of good that God can't bring about without permitting evil. These are good states of affairs that do not include evil . . . nonetheless God Himself can't bring them about without permitting evil." (15) This is called the Free Will Defense. Critics suggest that perhaps God could have created a possible world without evil and without infringing upon free will by constituting people to always freely choose the good. After all, this is a possible world. But is this a feasible world for God to create? Consider what this suggests:

 

(3) Everyone always freely chooses to do good acts.

 

(4) God constitutes everyone to freely choose good acts.

 

(5) Free will exists.

 

(6) God exists.

 

But surely there is something wrong with statement (4) for it entails that no one can do otherwise but to always choose the good. But if no one can choose otherwise then no ability to choose really exists. Therefore, free will does not exist here. True freedom of the will in regard to moral decision-making entails that the agent must be able to choose otherwise. If God constitutes everyone to always choose the good then the act is ultimately brought about by God directly. The second problem of eliminating evil in the equation of moral decision-making is that justice is not being served. Would it make sense to send a Jeffrey Dahmer to prison if his acts were orchestrated by a mind chip? It seems that the faculty of free will is required. But with free will comes the possibility of bad choices (evil ones). This ultimately leads to a full freedom of the agent to genuinely decide between two palpable options: good and evil. Moreover,

 

 

(7) It is possible that God could not have actualized a world containing moral good without one that also contained moral evil. (16)

 

The theist could rightly argue that because statement (7) is possible then there is no reason to think that God could create a world such that all persons freely choose to do only good.

Therefore, it may not be feasible for God to create a possible world where only good actions exist. It may be that every time God chooses to create a possible world where only good exists, the free creatures rebel and introduce evil into the world. It is surely not the answer to suggest that God make all persons freely choose the good. Such a world eliminates what it truly means to be free to choose. (17) Thus the theist has a reasonable defense against the inferential problem of evil.

 

 

V. CONCLUSION

The problem of evil has been a plaguing issue for theists ever since the concept of God became an object of academic discourse. However, we have seen how two versions of the problem of evil do not sufficiently render theism either impossible or improbable. First, the logical problem of evil sought to diminish the possibility of God's existence via logical incompatibility. But it is possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil. So the existence of God and the existence of evil are not logically incompatible after all. Secondly, the inferential/probabilistic problem of evil is more modest because it denies the probable existence of God given that there may be better solutions to the amount of evil in the actual world. However, there is no reason to think that God does not have overriding desires surpassing the protection of free creatures from harm. Therefore, the problem of evil remains to be an emotional issue because it is the impact of pain and suffering in each of our lives that truly casts doubt on the existence of God. I submit that upon closer inspection the existence of God fairs well against the problems evinced by evil.

[/Quote']

 

For me to accept number one above, the only thing I would need to accept is that God wanted to accomplish something specific. If all he wanted was to create people without much of a reason, obviously this would not suffice. But if I am correct in my belief that he wanted to create life so that "the wolf will live with the lamb" based on our own free will, then this could be a perfectly logical explanation. Is a team winning the World Series such a great thing because we call it the "World Series"? Or is it such a great thing because of the amount of effort it takes to get there? If God's purpose is for all of creation to be united in one, only after our free will decides we should be, then I see no reason why life should not be the way it is and there is so much effort necessary to reach it. If we all were simply created to love each other right off the bat, what reward would there be in that? To quote Christ, "If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Do not even the tax collectors do that?" We even know the basic mechanism by how we will get to the wolf living with the lamb http://www.hedweb.co...-predators.html If picking up our cross, following Christ and laying down our lives for our sheep was easy, what reward would there be for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Jesus did believe in natural evil. I don't know as clearly I wasn't there. But even if he did, is it an issue?. I'm pretty comfortable accepting that not everything Jesus believed was neccessarily accurate.

 

When we take away the obvious forgeries and contradictions that made it into the much later written gospels, what are we left with? The most intelligent teaching the world has ever known. To me, the intelligence is beyond human. For someone to live at that time and get these concepts that we are just now understanding and still wrestling with is almost beyond belief to me.

 

There are certain fungal infections while not evil per se in any reasonable sense of the word, I would have no problem harming them even if they are part of creation.

 

Since these do not have a central nervous system to experience pain, and combining the fact that they do not have a brain to imagine yourself as, it is impossible to break the golden rule with them. There is no reason to believe that this would even be "harming" them. Insects of course have a brain (though it might be doubtful that most of them experience pain) so it is possible to start breaking the golden rule with them. Jump up to animals and that is of course where it becomes even more critical that we follow the golden rule. I think we can all agree that we should at least start thinking about others in creation, even if it only starts out with minimal consideration it hopefully turns into asking what we would want if we were them.

 

 

Thinking of natural evil when I look at my garden..... I see so many beautiful flowers, yet the weeds always draw my attention. Even plant life mimics our moral world. That first life had bad apples or weeds built in by design. Maybe I should just start focusing on the flowers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking of natural evil when I look at my garden..... I see so many beautiful flowers, yet the weeds always draw my attention.

 

Frankly trust there is no evil in your garden, natural or otherwise. That evil is simply a confluence of events that result in a way of thinking. Albeit very different from my way of thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly trust there is no evil in your garden, natural or otherwise. That evil is simply a confluence of events that result in a way of thinking. Albeit very different from my way of thinking.

"The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one". - Matthew 13:38. Of course it is not our job nor ability to judge the ultimate soul of anyone.

 

I would be upset if everyone thought the way I thought. We would never find the truth or come up with different ideas.

 

 

 

I have reached the following thought process. Of course feel free to disagree or agree to disagree.

 

1) Natural evil was a precursor to moral evil

2) Denying natural evil means that we deny moral evil

3) Natural evil is the desire for selfish DNA survival

4) The first signs of life on earth were possibly created by the debris of a star that came to earth and combined with other building blocks pre-existing on the earth

5) Life from this common ancestor developed to the point we are at now

6) The "devil" has been with us since this "beginning" of life (1 John 3:8) on earth. We are filled with his nature and it is this nature that causes us to sin

7) This world is not ours. "My Kingdom is not of this world...My Kingdom is not of this realm. (John 18:36) "I'm not asking you to take them out of this world, but to keep them from the evil one" (John 17:15)

8) The "mind" in humans and some other animals has now developed to the point where we can not only recognize the selfish DNA survival, but we can actually break away from the selfish DNA survival

9) Christ shows us this "mind" the best and how we can break away from the old selfish DNA surival. He shows a complete reversal of selfish DNA survival: "I am the Good Shepherd. I lay down my life for the sheep". "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me" (Matthew 16:24)

10) It is this dying to our selfish DNA reproduction based on our own free will that will lead us the promised land and the greater good for all of creation

11) "The wolf will live with the lamb" (Isaiah 11:6) and all of creation will follow the golden rule on earth as it is in heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service