Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil  I can tell you've not read the thread. |
Yes, you are correct. I was simply explaining my vote, not realizing the discussion that was going on in the thread. I'm sorry if my words were belittling. Now that I have read the thread, it seems like there are two factions which are not simply answering the question differently but are interpreting the question in a way where it ends up being two different questions. One group uses a common modern definition of the english word "evil" and one group uses the word to stand in the place of a Hebrew word that is far more general in its definition. If one takes the current english definition:
"evil: profoundly immoral and malevolent : his evil deeds"
Lying is immoral, but being lied to is not immoral.
Stealing is immoral, but being robbed is not immoral.
Murder is immoral, but death is not immoral.
Like jdlongmire said in his 2nd post: "Death is certainly a consequence of evil, but I have always considered it more "neutral" than inherently evil."
Puritan Sailor said, "Death is God's just punishment for sin. How can that be evil? Death certianly is tragic and foreign to the created order, but it is still just."
You responded, "an evil thing doesn't have to be an *immoral* thing. There's a difference."
There is nothing wrong with defining evil in the way you do, but we are on an modern english-speaking board here (well, for the most part) and you have to expect that some people will mean "immoral" by the word "evil." That doesn't mean that I think there is something wrong with you defining it as "not necessarily immoral". The Hebrews used a word for both moral an immoral acts that the KJV translated as evil as has been pointed out. Modern translations usually use the current common definition of the english word "evil" and so translate the word differently depending on the context. It might have been better if the question was "Is death inherently immoral?" What would your answer to that be? That seems to be the question that jdlongmire is asking. You may have brought up something that prompted his original question, but it seems from reading his posts that, "Is death inherently immoral?" is the sense in which he is asking the question in this thread.
You later said, "I'd begin by defining evil as rebellion against a personal God. When humans do this it is called "moral evil." When nature does this it is called, naturally, "natural evil."
So using your definition here, the original question would be understood as "Is death 'rebellion against a personal God'?" Is that how you understood the question?
You said, "Again, and for the last time, I'm not talking about non-human death. I said that in my first post in this thread. Lastly, you argue from "non-human death" to "death is not intrinsically evil." This clearly doesn't follow. Before you respond do attempt to at least make valid arguments."
Anyone could argue any point as you do here and never come to an agreed upon conclusion. 1st person says all types of death considered, death doesn't appear to be intrinsically evil. 2nd person says he isn't talking about the types of death that may not be intrinsically evil, just the one he believes to be intrinsically evil, so death is intrinsically evil–and the one who argues otherwise is not making a valid argument. Nice!
Then later you said,
"Paul says that Jesus puts enemies under his feet, the last one being death. This logically implies that death is an enemy. Enemies aren't neutral."
Well, someone already pointed out that death isn't literally an enemy since this is obviously a personification. And has anyone even argued that death isn't in some sense an enemy? Now I'm actually kind of interested to know if you might think death is intrinsically an enemy. Or better yet! Is there anything (other than death) that you think is intrinsically an enemy?!