Paul - I can see this is going to be an even more extended discussion than I thought. Excellent! Now if I can keep you from chasing rabbits, we may get some good out of this!

I am going to enjoy the rest of T-day with my family, then I will respond to your longer post.

Man was created to rule over the earth, one responsibility of rule is regulation. Non-human death is a tool of regulation. Death is not intrinsically evil.

__________________
-JD
1Thess5:21
Ordained Deacon, PCA
Serving in the SBC
MS

Team blog: ChristianSkepticism.org | Personal:...a Longmire rambles | facebook

I chase all your rabbits down and kill them as well. Good stew.

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.

__________________
Regards,

J.J.
PCA
Suffix

Heh. Yeah, sort of like two arguing partisans agreeing that they are in the same room.

Have a blessed Thanksgiving, J.D. I'm out of this thread for now.

__________________
R.Vic Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

JD has been fond of using this verse

Phi. 1:21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.

He's assuming that one can't gain from an evil.

Let's take an example. Families sometimes drift apart. And family tragedies sometimes bring families back together. Say a family member is murdered. As a result, the survivors no longer take each over for granted. They make time for each other. They value the time they spend together. They make the most of the time they have. That's a good result of a heinous crime.

Thus one could argue that the family gained from the murder of their family member. The murder was an evil.

J.D. has, again, given an argument which does not lead to his desired conclusion.

Sorry, couldn't let this pass:

I certainly do not assume one cannot gain from an evil. I gained a glorious Saviour from the evil of Adam.

So - wrong premise, wrong conclusion.

Oh, my bad. Cool, then you agree that your verse doesn't imply that death is not evil (or intrinsically evil)!

Either way, your argument from Phil. has been refuted. It's just easier having you refute it for us instead of people having to take my word for it.

Let's recall what you said,

You used this verse to show that Paul didn't view death as intrinsically evil because he gained from death.

You've now admitted that you were wrong.

Oy! Wrong again - Death for Paul is not intrinsically evil. He sees it as a good thing -he is ready to go - read the Scripture in context.

Wow, the extent of face saving.

I have read it in context. And, you didn't post "the context." You posted THAT verse. And, all know that you thought Paul's saying that "death is gain" implied that "death isn't evil." That is obvious.

Again, as you just agreed, a good consequence can come from an evil. So that Paul was "ready for it" doesn't mean that "it" can't be evil.

Recall that you said,

The murder of Jesus was the greatest evil ever, yet in one sense we see it is a good thing, the goodest!

The greatest evil brought about or was an instrument for the greatest good.

Go have some more time, gotta be more fun than this!

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. Or, to state the point in contemporary geo-political terms, J.D. thinks of death like Switzerland, the Apostle Paul thinks of it like North Korea.

Of course death isn't inherently evil. Israel wasn't longing for the day when their enemies were destroyed because death was inherently bad! But that doesn't mean it is inherently good either. It is just death. The meaning of a particular instance of death comes from elsewhere. For instance:
"Precious in the sight of the LORD
is the death of his saints." (Psa 116:15)

__________________
C. Gorsuch
Glencullen Baptist
Portland, Oregon

I like that word smarmy. I haven't heard that word in a while.
I saw that and I understood it. I understand that you are saying that death by nature is evil.

I wasn't drawing as much attention to the word evil as much as to the differences between the persona and process. Based upon this I was convinced one was evil but not sure about the other. Both are named death and they appear to be different things. The persona uses the process. I was mearly trying to figure out if both would be considered (intrinsically evil). Remember my stated opinion.

I am not so sure your argument is necessarily stronger. Which death? Is it both are inherently evil? I think you would say yes to both.

I like the term calamitous better than evil. Evil is so attached to wickedness and morality that I think it confuses the issue now days. The way we are using the word evil here is archaic, and ruinous or calamitous is a better description IMHO.

BTW, I am starting to look at death as a good mercy the older I get. It is a mercy to the unregenerate so they don't keep building up and storing up more sin for wrath. And it is a mercy because the fall has has ruinous effects on my physical being. I ache a lot more and relief is becoming more welcome. In that sense death is a mercy which is not ruinous.

__________________
R. Martin Snyder (Moderator)

1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Oh, yes, "of course" it isn't. What was I thinking.

I can tell you've not read the thread. Intrinsic evils can bring about goods. So, that they rejoiced at the good of enemy removal, it doesn't follow logically, at all, that human death is not an intrinisc evil.

It's not "just death." It's "just an enemy." It's "just a result of sin." It's "just the marring of God's image." It's "just contrary to our nature." It's "just," as Calvin said, "an evil."

Lastly, you're assuming that an evil can't bring about a good and thus be "precious." Jesus murder, an evil, was also precious in the sight of the Lord. Indeed, it PLEASED him to crush him. That crushing was the evil of murder.

ou're assuming that one can't gain from an evil.

Let's take an example. Families sometimes drift apart. And family tragedies sometimes bring families back together. Say a family member is murdered. As a result, the survivors no longer take each over for granted. They make time for each other. They value the time they spend together. They make the most of the time they have. That's a good result of a heinous crime.

Thus one could argue that the family gained from the murder of their family member. The murder was an evil.

Evils can be mercies. I might inject an dying soldier with enough morphine to numb the pain, knowing that it will kill him. I might treat a patient who has severe burns for free. My treatment may involve causing great pain and harm and suffering. But I did it for free. It was a mercy.

The unregenerate will store up wrath in hell. They'll sin in hell, all sins deserves the wrath of God, thus they'll store up wrath to last them an eternity.

The fall has ruinous effects on your being, right. Pains and such are enemies that Christ will put under his feet. The last and greatest one is death. That's the most ruinous effect on your being. The ultimate indignity. That's why Christ came to beat and vanquish it. The death of death in the death of Christ. His suffering of an evil, brought about a greater good. Thus an evil can bring about benefits while still being an evil.

This is a good point. I am sure they will continue to blaspheme in Hell. My thinking was limited to life here.

But I still think this....


This has been a great thread.

The way I'm using the term fits with most contemporary philosophy and theology books. See Helm's The Providence of God. Frame's The Doctrine of God. As well as various philosophy of religion texts which deal with goodness and the problem of evil.

I also defined how I was using the term on p.1

That almost every contemporary theologian and philosophers uses the terms the way I am, referring to natural and moral evils, implies that it isn't "archaic."

So, you can term it what ever way you want to. It's a free country. It's just out of touch with almost everyone I've studued (and by implication, the people they've studied too).

Anyway, I don't want or desire to get into an extended semantic squabble.

Glad you enjoy the thread.

I know how you defined it. I didn't see anything wrong with that. I totally agreed with you. Remember I read the KJV so I know how you were referring to it.

I am not referring to scholars and theologians. I am referring to the term being archaic (the way you are using it) with the general population. If you were to ask most people they would define evil with a moralistic definition.

I don't either. But we agreed on this mostly..... I think. That is cool. And you have convinced me. Death is inherently evil the way you are defining evil. And it is a correct definition of evil.

But we're not on the street.

And, most people that I talk to call starving children in Africa an evil.

That's why they ask how God could allow that.

That's why there was all the discussion about God's sovereignty and goodnes with Katrina.

if people didn't think those things were evils, then the problem would't arise. They say, "How can you believe in a good God that would allow those things to happen."

If this isn't the classic problem of evil, then nothing is.

Thus people do not only view moral crimes as evils.

Sorry but I love Metallica and...

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?!