# Is Death Inherently Evil



## panta dokimazete

Recently on another thread, I asked this question:

Is death inherently or intrinsically evil?

Why or why not?

For your consideration: All verses with "evil and death" and "Lord and death"


----------



## VictorBravo

A couple verses from Revelation gives us a hint:

Rev 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. 


Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 

Death is equated with hell, they ultimately will be consigned to the lake of fire.


----------



## panta dokimazete

So - when God puts someone to death:

Genesis 38:7
But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD put him to death.

Isaiah 65:15
You shall leave your name to my chosen for a curse,and the Lord GOD will put you to death,but his servants he will call by another name.

What is happening here?

How about the nation of Israel and the destruction of the Amalekites? Is God directing them to do evil in His name?


----------



## VictorBravo

jdlongmire said:


> So - when God puts someone to death:
> 
> Isaiah 65:15
> You shall leave your name to my chosen for a curse,and the Lord GOD will put you to death,but his servants he will call by another name.
> 
> What is happening here?
> 
> How about the nation of Israel and the destruction of the Amalekites? Is God directing them to do evil in His name?



The result is evil, but evil is the proper reward. God isn't evil for commanding the result.


----------



## heartoflesh

In the thread http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/no-physical-death-prior-fall-25899]this I'm asking a similar question, namely, is physical death in the animal kingdom a result of the fall or was it part of God's good order. I haven't decided on this one yet.


----------



## BrianLanier

Yes it is an intrinsic evil. For mainly the same reasons Paul gave on the other thread.


----------



## panta dokimazete

"To live is Christ to die is gain"

I don't this the Apostle Paul considered death intrinsically "evil".

Death is certainly a consequence of evil, but I have always considered it more "neutral" than inherently evil. For the elect, it is simply a transition point...


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

The death of men is evil, a curse upon us for certain but I also believe as I said in an earlier thread that death was part of the creation order and Adam had dominion over even it pre-fall.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

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. But I'm open to more discussion on these points.


----------



## Sonoftheday

God sends death and hades to hell doesnt he?


----------



## Jim Johnston

Rick Larson said:


> In the thread http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/no-physical-death-prior-fall-25899]this I'm asking a similar question, namely, is physical death in the animal kingdom a result of the fall or was it part of God's good order. I haven't decided on this one yet.



I'd add that I meant *human* death.


----------



## Jim Johnston

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. But I'm open to more discussion on these points.



*{Just speaking about human death. Image bearer death. Not trying to get into animal death, etc.}*


An evil can be used for justice.

And, an evil thing doesn't have to be an *immoral* thing. There's a difference.

For example, if a man has a sucking chest wound, and the only way to restore his breathing is to puncture his lung and insert a bic pen into it, that's a necessary evil, but it's not immoral.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Death is an enemy even if it is vanquished. Not all human death is proximately cause by something that is evil but death itself is a curse. Even Christians don't celebrate death but the fact that we have union with Christ and victory beyond the grave.


----------



## VictorBravo

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. But I'm open to more discussion on these points.




The justice in the punishment is not evil but righteous and good-- it is a return of evil for evil. That's what the wages of sin are. 

We know that "The sting of death is sin." (1 Cor. 15:56) and that Christ conquered death. (v.54-55). He didn't come to conquer something neutral or good.

Disobedience is sin. Adam's sin introduced death. Sin--> death. God hates sin and God hated death enough to sacrifice his son to conquer it. I can't see how it would be considered anything but inherently evil.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Tom Bombadil said:


> 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. But I'm open to more discussion on these points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *{Just speaking about human death. Image bearer death. Not trying to get into animal death, etc.}*
> 
> 
> An evil can be used for justice.
> 
> And, an evil thing doesn't have to be an *immoral* thing. There's a difference.
> 
> For example, if a man has a sucking chest wound, and the only way to restore his breathing is to puncture his lung and insert a bic pen into it, that's a necessary evil, but it's not immoral.
Click to expand...


True. But death is clearly set out as a just punishment by God himself. He executes his justice in perfect conformity to his holy nature. Death is that punishment. 

What do you mean that something can be evil and not immoral? In the case above, the action to save the man's life wasn't evil but good, though painful for him. Are you using a broader more popular definition of evil?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

victorbravo said:


> 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. But I'm open to more discussion on these points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The justice in the punishment is not evil but righteous and good-- it is a return of evil for evil. That's what the wages of sin are.
> 
> We know that "The sting of death is sin." (1 Cor. 15:56) and that Christ conquered death. (v.54-55). He didn't come to conquer something neutral or good.
> 
> Disobedience is sin. Adam's sin introduced death. Sin--> death. God hates sin and God hated death enough to sacrifice his son to conquer it. I can't see how it would be considered anything but inherently evil.
Click to expand...


But death is the execution of His wrath, which is perfectly just and good. By conquering death, Christ was taking the just wrath of God upon himself. Thus, reversing the effects of sin which is evil, and so removing the cause of death from us and giving us eternal life.


----------



## VictorBravo

Puritan Sailor said:


> But death is the execution of His wrath, which is perfectly just and good. By conquering death, Christ was taking the just wrath of God upon himself. Thus, reversing the effects of sin which is evil, and so removing the cause of death from us and giving us eternal life.



Sure, he removed the cause of death, and then he tossed death into the lake of fire, along with other ill-favored things, like hell and Satan and the beast.

I don't want to make too much of this. It seems straightforward. 

On the other track, regarding your question to Paul about definition of evil, I skimmed my lexicons for Hebrew and Greek and saw that the respective words are used both for moral evil and for just plain calamity, natural illness, and the like. So it is fair (and Biblical) to say a neutral injury is evil and yet not immoral. It's not my point, but a point of information.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

victorbravo said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> But death is the execution of His wrath, which is perfectly just and good. By conquering death, Christ was taking the just wrath of God upon himself. Thus, reversing the effects of sin which is evil, and so removing the cause of death from us and giving us eternal life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, he removed the cause of death, and then he tossed death into the lake of fire, along with other ill-favored things, like hell and Satan and the beast.
> 
> I don't want to make too much of this. It seems straightforward.
Click to expand...

But not all death is thrown away. The reprobate endure death for eternity. 



> On the other track, regarding your question to Paul about definition of evil, I skimmed my lexicons for Hebrew and Greek and saw that the respective words are used both for moral evil and for just plain calamity, natural illness, and the like. So it is fair (and Biblical) to say a neutral injury is evil and yet not immoral. It's not my point, but a point of information.



Good point. I'm just trying to clarify in what sense death is evil.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Patrick,

Hell is a just punishment. Hell is evil. An evil place for evil people.

I don't think I am using a broad or popular definition of evil. There are such things as natural evils, for instance. They are not immoral, though _they are_ evil. In the Bible calamities, storms, invading armies, etc., are called "evils," yet it is God who sends them. God sending a drought is called an evil, and indeed he is said to "create" evil. The drought _qua_ drought isn't "immoral," but it is evil. There are "devoted things" that were "purged as evil" yet we wouldn't call blocks of wood "immoral." People may have been "immoral" in how they _used_ them (as idols, for instance), but carved wood isn't "immoral." Indeed, the crippled man suffered from an evil (though it was not his sin or his parents sin that made him that way), but being crippled isn't "immoral." Pain in childbirth is an evil, it's not "immoral." Etc., etc., etc.,

It's not a good that a man got his chest punctured. Saving his life was good, but getting a hole in his chest wasn't. An evil was done for the greater good. But an evil was still done.

I'd begin by defining evil as rebellion against a personal God. When humans due this it is called "moral evil." When nature does this it is called, naturally, "natural evil." Having to put holes in peoples chest is a natural evil. It's not an intended action in God's world. Thus it is, in a sense, a rebellion of God's desired order (or _modus operandi_).

Hopefully I've helped more than confused....


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

Tom Bombadil said:


> Patrick,
> 
> Hell is a just punishment. Hell is evil. An evil place for evil people.
> 
> I don't think I am using a broad or popular definition of evil. There are such things as natural evils, for instance. They are not immoral, though _they are_ evil. In the Bible calamities, storms, invading armies, etc., are called "evils," yet it is God who sends them. God sending a drought is called an evil, and indeed he is said to "create" evil. The drought _qua_ drought isn't "immoral," but it is evil. There are "devoted things" that were "purged as evil" yet we wouldn't call blocks of wood "immoral." People may have been "immoral" in how they _used_ them (as idols, for instance), but carved wood isn't "immoral." Indeed, the crippled man suffered from an evil (though it was not his sin or his parents sin that made him that way), but being crippled isn't "immoral." Pain in childbirth is an evil, it's not "immoral." Etc., etc., etc.,
> 
> It's not a good that a man got his chest punctured. Saving his life was good, but getting a hole in his chest wasn't. An evil was done for the greater good. But an evil was still done.
> 
> I'd begin by defining evil as rebellion against a personal God. When humans due this it is called "moral evil." When nature does this it is called, naturally, "natural evil." Having to put holes in peoples chest is a natural evil. It's not an intended action in God's world. Thus it is, in a sense, a rebellion of God's desired order (or _modus operandi_).
> 
> Hopefully I've helped more than confused....


Is Hell itself evil or rather a just glorious divine wrath?


----------



## panta dokimazete

The people in Hell are evil, but didn't God create Hell?

Are hell and death *necessary* evils?

Are they evil in and of themselves?

The natural man would say an eternal place of suffering and the ending of human life is evil, thus their conclusion that God is evil. One could see a simple syllogism.


----------



## Jim Johnston

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick,
> 
> Hell is a just punishment. Hell is evil. An evil place for evil people.
> 
> I don't think I am using a broad or popular definition of evil. There are such things as natural evils, for instance. They are not immoral, though _they are_ evil. In the Bible calamities, storms, invading armies, etc., are called "evils," yet it is God who sends them. God sending a drought is called an evil, and indeed he is said to "create" evil. The drought _qua_ drought isn't "immoral," but it is evil. There are "devoted things" that were "purged as evil" yet we wouldn't call blocks of wood "immoral." People may have been "immoral" in how they _used_ them (as idols, for instance), but carved wood isn't "immoral." Indeed, the crippled man suffered from an evil (though it was not his sin or his parents sin that made him that way), but being crippled isn't "immoral." Pain in childbirth is an evil, it's not "immoral." Etc., etc., etc.,
> 
> It's not a good that a man got his chest punctured. Saving his life was good, but getting a hole in his chest wasn't. An evil was done for the greater good. But an evil was still done.
> 
> I'd begin by defining evil as rebellion against a personal God. When humans due this it is called "moral evil." When nature does this it is called, naturally, "natural evil." Having to put holes in peoples chest is a natural evil. It's not an intended action in God's world. Thus it is, in a sense, a rebellion of God's desired order (or _modus operandi_).
> 
> Hopefully I've helped more than confused....
> 
> 
> 
> Is Hell itself evil or rather a just glorious divine wrath?
Click to expand...


Are calamities themselves evils, or just glorious divine wrath?


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> The people in Hell are evil, but didn't God create Hell?
> 
> Are hell and death *necessary* evils?
> 
> Are they evil in and of themselves?
> 
> The natural man would say an eternal place of suffering and the ending of human life is evil, thus their conclusion that God is evil. One could see a simple syllogism.



Yes, God created hell. he created everything. One could see a simple syllogism.

Isa. 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things. 

Amos 4: 9 "Many times I struck your gardens and vineyards, 
I struck them with blight and mildew. 
Locusts devoured your fig and olive trees, 
yet you have not returned to me," 
declares the LORD. 

10 "I sent plagues among you 
as I did to Egypt. 
I killed your young men with the sword, 
along with your captured horses. 
I filled your nostrils with the stench of your camps, 
yet you have not returned to me," 
declares the LORD. 

These are evils. The Lord sent them, and made them.

Is human death evil in itself? I answered that in the other thread and here. At this point in the discussion is where you're supposed to propose a counter-argument, not ask me to repeat my previously stated one. 

Regarding your syllogism. So what. Anyone can make a syllogism. Is that supposed to scare me into changing my belief? That "someone could make a syllogism." I'm not bothered that someone can put together a simple syllogism. If the premises are false, then what do I care?


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

Tom Bombadil said:


> No Longer A Libertine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick,
> 
> Hell is a just punishment. Hell is evil. An evil place for evil people.
> 
> I don't think I am using a broad or popular definition of evil. There are such things as natural evils, for instance. They are not immoral, though _they are_ evil. In the Bible calamities, storms, invading armies, etc., are called "evils," yet it is God who sends them. God sending a drought is called an evil, and indeed he is said to "create" evil. The drought _qua_ drought isn't "immoral," but it is evil. There are "devoted things" that were "purged as evil" yet we wouldn't call blocks of wood "immoral." People may have been "immoral" in how they _used_ them (as idols, for instance), but carved wood isn't "immoral." Indeed, the crippled man suffered from an evil (though it was not his sin or his parents sin that made him that way), but being crippled isn't "immoral." Pain in childbirth is an evil, it's not "immoral." Etc., etc., etc.,
> 
> It's not a good that a man got his chest punctured. Saving his life was good, but getting a hole in his chest wasn't. An evil was done for the greater good. But an evil was still done.
> 
> I'd begin by defining evil as rebellion against a personal God. When humans due this it is called "moral evil." When nature does this it is called, naturally, "natural evil." Having to put holes in peoples chest is a natural evil. It's not an intended action in God's world. Thus it is, in a sense, a rebellion of God's desired order (or _modus operandi_).
> 
> Hopefully I've helped more than confused....
> 
> 
> 
> Is Hell itself evil or rather a just glorious divine wrath?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are calamities themselves evils, or just glorious divine wrath?
Click to expand...

Consequences of the fall brought about by the wickedness of man, creation moans with birthing pains from this curse and wicked men will do what the desires of their heart lead them to do.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Tom Bombadil said:


> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people in Hell are evil, but didn't God create Hell?
> 
> Are hell and death *necessary* evils?
> 
> Are they evil in and of themselves?
> 
> The natural man would say an eternal place of suffering and the ending of human life is evil, thus their conclusion that God is evil. One could see a simple syllogism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, God created hell. he created everything. One could see a simple syllogism.
> 
> Isa. 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.
> 
> Amos 4: 9 "Many times I struck your gardens and vineyards,
> I struck them with blight and mildew.
> Locusts devoured your fig and olive trees,
> yet you have not returned to me,"
> declares the LORD.
> 
> 10 "I sent plagues among you
> as I did to Egypt.
> I killed your young men with the sword,
> along with your captured horses.
> I filled your nostrils with the stench of your camps,
> yet you have not returned to me,"
> declares the LORD.
> 
> These are evils. The Lord sent them, and made them.
> 
> Is human death evil in itself? I answered that in the other thread and here. At this point in the discussion is where you're supposed to propose a counter-argument, not ask me to repeat my previously stated one.
> 
> Regarding your syllogism. So what. Anyone can make a syllogism. Is that supposed to scare me into changing my belief? That "someone could make a syllogism." I'm not bothered that someone can put together a simple syllogism. If the premises are false, then what do I care?
Click to expand...


Well, I guess since you reject the premise out of hand and have a perfectly formed opinion, that is that!  Next subject! The authority has spoken...

I am still of a mind that death and hell, in and of themselves, while not _pleasant_ or _desirable_ are not categorized as inherently evil. I think they are _necessary_ - tools God uses to enforce His justice and glorify Himself. I'd say it is analogous to the death penalty in our criminal justice system, only perfectly so. The death of a heinous person is not considered evil by God nor Man. 

Also, in certain circumstances, death could be a blessed relief.


----------



## Jim Johnston

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Longer A Libertine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Hell itself evil or rather a just glorious divine wrath?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are calamities themselves evils, or just glorious divine wrath?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Consequences of the fall brought about by the wickedness of man, creation moans with birthing pains from this curse and wicked men will do what the desires of their heart lead them to do.
Click to expand...


I guess I'll not be so cryptic.

The Bible calls them evils. God says he uses them for punishment.

Therefore, something can be both evil and used for divine punishment.


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people in Hell are evil, but didn't God create Hell?
> 
> Are hell and death *necessary* evils?
> 
> Are they evil in and of themselves?
> 
> The natural man would say an eternal place of suffering and the ending of human life is evil, thus their conclusion that God is evil. One could see a simple syllogism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, God created hell. he created everything. One could see a simple syllogism.
> 
> Isa. 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.
> 
> Amos 4: 9 "Many times I struck your gardens and vineyards,
> I struck them with blight and mildew.
> Locusts devoured your fig and olive trees,
> yet you have not returned to me,"
> declares the LORD.
> 
> 10 "I sent plagues among you
> as I did to Egypt.
> I killed your young men with the sword,
> along with your captured horses.
> I filled your nostrils with the stench of your camps,
> yet you have not returned to me,"
> declares the LORD.
> 
> These are evils. The Lord sent them, and made them.
> 
> Is human death evil in itself? I answered that in the other thread and here. At this point in the discussion is where you're supposed to propose a counter-argument, not ask me to repeat my previously stated one.
> 
> Regarding your syllogism. So what. Anyone can make a syllogism. Is that supposed to scare me into changing my belief? That "someone could make a syllogism." I'm not bothered that someone can put together a simple syllogism. If the premises are false, then what do I care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I guess since you reject the premise out of hand and have a perfectly formed opinion, that is that!  Next subject! The authority has spoken...
> 
> I am still of a mind that death and hell, in and of themselves, while not _pleasant_ or _desirable_ are not categorized as inherently evil. I think they are _necessary_ - tools God uses to enforce His justice and glorify Himself. I'd say it is analogous to the death penalty in our criminal justice system, only perfectly so. The death of a heinous person is not considered evil by God nor Man.
> 
> Also, in certain circumstances, death could be a blessed relief.
Click to expand...



The problem with all this is that you've not bothered to rebut or interact with any of the arguments I gave....

That I reject a premise doesn't mean you can't offer it in the context of an argument. I'm always open to inspect someone's formal syllogism. Care to put it up, or were you just arguing _ad baculum_? My main point was that any goof who has read an introduction ot logic book can make a "syllogism." Look, Islam is true:

1) Either nothing exists or Allah exists.

2) Something exists.

3) Therefore Allah exists.

(If you're adept at creating syllogisms, you'll see that you can make one concluding that I'm a "goof!  )

See, anyone can knock out "syllogisms." But I'm hardly bothered by that fact, so I wonder why you mentioned it. The only thing I can think is that you were trying to fallaciously support your assertions. Give your argument that extra "umph" it was so sorely lacking. 

Anyway, God didn't _have to_ make death his punishment. He _could have_ sent them immediately to hell. Thus it's not _necessary_ "to enforce His justice and glorify Himself." Moreover, how about when a saint dies? He doesn't need to "enforce his justice" on them. That's been done in Christ. So, your argument is neither necessary or sufficient. 

Jesus weeps when Lazarus dies. He doesn't revel in "divine justice on display." Why did he weep? Why mourn? Why did Mary weep? It would seem that it was because Lazarus was _dead_. In and of itself this was bad. It was at _death_ that they weeped. It needs no other fact in terms of which it is evil. Is is evil. _Death_.

Paul speaks directly to death _itself_. Paul says that _death_ stings. He says that _death_ is an enemy. James seems to imply that the final evil result of sin is death. "Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." He ends there. No need to go on. Death is evil and bad, because it's death. In heaven there "will be no more _death_." Why? One reason is that _death itself_ is bad, evil, acursed.


The death of an evil person is evil. That doesn't mean it is _immoral_ or that it can't _also be_ a punishment. You can add the fallacy of false dichotomy to your violations., as well as _ignoratio elenchi_.

Man wasn't made to die... Even heinous men. Man's cheif end is to glorify God and enjoy him _forever_. Dying, _in and of itself_, negates this foreverness. Therefore, it is inherently evil.

Death _itself_ is a break in our image bearing nature. We image the _living_ God. True and final death is an _end_, not a _means_ to an end. This is why God doesn't annhiliate anyone. He even lets "henious" _live_ forever. They still image God, even in hell. They are man and so by _nature_ image the _living_ God. For him to allow them to remain dead mars _his_ image!

Not only that, but things can be _both_ intrinsicly _and_ instrumentally evil (or good). Pain is intrinsically evil, but a sharp pain could cause me to jerk my hand and hit a tack, causing another pain. The first was an instrinsic evil, but also acted as an instrumental evil.

Or, something can be intrinsically evil _and_ instrumentally good - _harm_ is an instrinsic evil. Joseph's brothers intended harm, God _used it_ for good. Indeed, if you grant that there are intrinsic evils, then we can see that they are also instrumental for goods because "In ALL things, God is working them out for good." Therefore, just to point to any instrumental purpose for evil _does not logicaly imply_ that it is also not intrinsically evil. Thus _none_ of your arguments even lead to your conclusion - which goes beyond your premises, therefore.

Part of the creation mandate was to multiply goodness. Bring forth life. Adam names his wife "Eve," that is, _life_! Is life intrinsically good? Why is death not intrinsically evil?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> Rev 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: *and his name that sat on him was Death*, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, *to kill *with sword, and with hunger, and *with death*, and with the beasts of the earth.



Death as a person is evil. I am not sure that the judgment of death is nor the actual process of death? And it appears there is a difference between the person of death and death the process according to this passage. Death kills with death.

Sounds like Paul knows absolutely without a doubt that death is evil.


----------



## Kevin Lewis

*1 Cor 15:21*

The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

If it is an enemy of Christ, I would tend to say it is evil. If (and I know thats dangerous to say) Adam had not sinned, he would have never died physically.


----------



## Jim Johnston

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Sounds like Paul knows absolutely without a doubt that death is evil.



I don't know many thing "absolutely without a doubt." But I did give arguments for my position rather than smarmy comments. 

Also, I don't think the debate is about whether it death is _evil_, it's whether death is _intrinsically_ evil. There's a difference. You could note that by checking the title of this thread.

(Btw, the word "evil" isn't in the text you cited. If your "argument" works, _a fortiori_ mine?)


----------



## panta dokimazete

Tom Bombadil said:


> The problem with all this is that you've not bothered to rebut or interact with any of the arguments I gave....
> 
> That I reject a premise doesn't mean you can't offer it in the context of an argument. I'm always open to inspect someone's formal syllogism. Care to put it up, or were you just arguing _ad baculum_? My main point was that any goof who has read an introduction ot logic book can make a "syllogism." Look, Islam is true:
> 
> 1) Either nothing exists or Allah exists.
> 
> 2) Something exists.
> 
> 3) Therefore Allah exists.
> 
> See, anyone can knock out "syllogisms." But I'm hardly bothered by that fact, so I wonder why you mentioned it. The only thing I can think is that you were trying to fallaciously support your assertions. Give your argument that extra "umph" it was so sorely lacking.



I feel the love, I really do! 

Anyway, I thought the syllogism was so transparent that it did not require formal declaration. It is the old POE fallacy we face all the time.

1) Death is evil
2) God causes death
3) Therefore God is evil

We know that Romans 8:28 is the rebuttal for this assertion, but what if we could pull the teeth of the proposition?

That is, if death is NOT evil, then the proposition, at least as it concerns death, fails at the onset.



> Anyway, God didn't _have to_ make death his punishment. He _could have_ sent them immediately to hell. Thus it's not _necessary_ "to enforce His justice and glorify Himself." Moreover, how about when a saint dies? He doesn't need to "enforce his justice" on them. That's been done in Christ. So, your argument is neither necessary or sufficient.



"To live is Christ, to die is gain" - as Christians, death, as an enemy, is vanquished. Temporal life is revealed as a transitional phase - an important, God ordained phase, but still a phase. Temporal death is a just consequence of the Fall that still affects us and is a necessary component of God's plan to glorify Himself through Christ. If it weren't necessary, why does He enforce it?



> Jesus weeps when Lazarus dies. He doesn't revel in "divine justice on display." Why did he weep? Why mourn? Why did Mary weep? It would seem that it was because Lazarus was _dead_. In and of itself this was bad. It was at _death_ that they weeped. It needs no other fact in terms of which it is evil. Is is evil. _Death_.



I think Jesus was weeping to a) follow the Biblical mandate (weep with those who weep), b) in sadness - sadness that He would be wrenching His friend from the presence of God, back into the fallen world and c) for humanity, that we temporal beings should have to experience the suffering of separation from those we love. Christ was exhibiting His alignment with humanity and His Godly sovereignty over temporal death. Again, the activity of death is not evil, it is a tool, a circumstance. A circumstance that will be done away with, post-judgment.



> Paul speaks directly to death _itself_. Paul says that _death_ stings. He says that _death_ is an enemy. James seems to imply that the final evil result of sin is death. "Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." He ends there. No need to go on. Death is evil and bad, because it's death. In heaven there "will be no more _death_." Why? One reason is that _death itself_ is bad, evil, acursed.



Paul anthropomorphises death as an analogous literary device - do you believe there is an actual "person" death? Like Peirs Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality? Death rides an actual pale horse?

Death is a condition, a circumstance - necessary in this fallen Creation, intrinsic to working out God's plan, but unnecessary in the Kingdom.



> The death of an evil person is evil. That doesn't mean it is _immoral_ or that it can't _also be_ a punishment. You can add the fallacy of false dichotomy to your violations., as well as _ignoratio elenchi_.



I have not introduced a false dilemma - in fact I believe the dilemma is introduced when death must (as you are proposing) be categorized in terms of good vs evil.



> Man wasn't made to die... Even heinous men. Man's cheif end is to glorify God and enjoy him _forever_. Dying, _in and of itself_, negates this foreverness. Therefore, it is inherently evil.



Dying does not negate foreverness - it is a transition point. A consequence for Man to experience a "natural" component of this Creation as a result of sin.



> Death _itself_ is a break in our image bearing nature. We image the _living_ God. True and final death is an _end_, not a _means_ to an end. This is why God doesn't annhiliate anyone. He even lets "henious" _live_ forever. They still image God, even in hell. They are man and so by _nature_ image the _living_ God. For him to allow them to remain dead mars _his_ image!



I think you have a misunderstanding of the nature of the imagio dei - the image is that of spirit, which endows us with the characteristics of God - the flesh is what makes us uniquely Man. The spirit is *by nature* infinite and indestructable - it is life eternal. We were created to be an incarnation of that eternal state. Spirit eternally in flesh by God's plan. Death has always been a part of this Creation - a natural process utilized to "fuel the engine". Death, in this context, is *intrinsically good*. We were created to be sovereign over this process, but by our sin, became subject to it instead.



> Not only that, but things can be _both_ intrinsicly _and_ instrumentally evil (or good). Pain is intrinsically evil, but a sharp pain could cause me to jerk my hand and hit a tack, causing another pain. The first was an instrinsic evil, but also acted as an instrumental evil.



But what of the tack? Is it intrinsically good or evil? It is certainly instrumentally evil in this context. And IS pain intrinsically evil? If it is, why did Eve experience at least some pain during childbirth pre-Fall?



> Or, something can be intrinsically evil _and_ instrumentally good - _harm_ is an instrinsic evil. Joseph's brothers intended harm, God _used it_ for good. Indeed, if you grant that there are intrinsic evils, then we can see that they are also instrumental for goods because "In ALL things, God is working them out for good." Therefore, just to point to any instrumental purpose for evil _does not logicaly imply_ that it is also not intrinsically evil. Thus _none_ of your arguments even lead to your conclusion - which goes beyond your premises, therefore.



And I have proven that you are incorrect in your assertion. See below.



> Part of the creation mandate was to multiply goodness. Bring forth life. Adam names his wife "Eve," that is, _life_! Is life intrinsically good? Why is death not intrinsically evil?



If *all life* were meant to multiply, yet endure in perpetuity in Creation, it does not take a PhD in math to see that the Earth would have been overrun into a seething mass of life in a short time. Which supports my premise that death is not evil, it is an intrinsic part of the good Creation.

Paul...uh, Tom, you need to get outside your presuppositions.


----------



## VictorBravo

> I think you have a misunderstanding of the nature of the imagio dei - the image is that of spirit, which endows us with the characteristics of God - the flesh is what makes us uniquely Man. The spirit is by nature infinite and indestructable - it is life eternal. We were created to be an incarnation of that eternal state. Spirit eternally in flesh by God's plan. Death has always been a part of this Creation - a natural process utilized to "fuel the engine". Death, in this context, is intrinsically good. We were created to be sovereign over this process, but by our sin, became subject to it instead.



Huh? What is this “death fuel the engine” stuff? I see a mere assertion that death has always been a part of creation. 

I think you are mixing up death of plants, etc, with death of man. I am fairly confident that scripture treats them differently.

I don’t see how the death of man was always part of Creation. Exactly the opposite, it is a consequence of sin.



> But what of the tack? Is it intrinsically good or evil? It is certainly instrumentally evil in this context. And IS pain intrinsically evil? If it is, why did Eve experience at least some pain during childbirth pre-Fall?



brother, where are you getting this stuff? I find it very strange. We have no data that Eve even had children pre-Fall. It’s pure speculation.




> If all life were meant to multiply, yet endure in perpetuity in Creation, it does not take a PhD in math to see that the Earth would have been overrun into a seething mass of life in a short time. Which supports my premise that death is not evil, it is an intrinsic part of the good Creation.



This is a prediction based on empiricism. It doesn’t account for the possibility (never realized) that Adam’s descendants would tend their respective gardens faithfully, pruning plants and controlling the behavior of animals.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

I voted no, see LC # 85:

Question: Death, Being the Wages of Sin, Why are Not the Righteous Delivered from Death, Seeing All Their Sins are Forgiven in Christ?
Answer:
The righteous shall be delivered from death itself at the last day, and even in death are delivered from the sting and curse of it; so that, although they die, yet it is out of God’s love, to free them perfectly from sin and misery, and to make them capable of further communion with Christ in glory, which they then enter upon.

I don't think death being "out of God's love" is consistent with being "inherently evil". See also Psalm 116.13-15
I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD. 14 I will pay my vows unto the LORD now in the presence of all his people. 15 Precious in the sight of the LORD_ is_ the death of his saints. 

I agree that in many cases death can be classed as "an evil" in the Isaiah 45 sense, along with floods, earthquakes etc. which are calamitous. But an inherent evil, and by inherent or intrinsic I understand essentially so (so that if it is not evil it is not death) I don't think is supportable.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

"All they that hate me love death".


----------



## panta dokimazete

JD said:


> I think you have a misunderstanding of the nature of the imagio dei - the image is that of spirit, which endows us with the characteristics of God - the flesh is what makes us uniquely Man. The spirit is by nature infinite and indestructable - it is life eternal. We were created to be an incarnation of that eternal state. Spirit eternally in flesh by God's plan. Death has always been a part of this Creation - a natural process utilized to "fuel the engine". Death, in this context, is intrinsically good. We were created to be sovereign over this process, but by our sin, became subject to it instead.





VB said:


> Huh? What is this “death fuel the engine” stuff? I see a mere assertion that death has always been a part of creation.



I believe it is a good and necessary consequence of Creation.



VB said:


> I think you are mixing up death of plants, etc, with death of man. I am fairly confident that scripture treats them differently.



Not at all - I am saying that the death of plants and animals are intrinsic to the natural cycle of the good Creation. I am saying Man was never intended to be a part of the cycle, but became so because of the Fall.



VB said:


> I don’t see how the death of man was always part of Creation. Exactly the opposite, it is a consequence of sin.


 and so we are in agreement! 



JD said:


> But what of the tack? Is it intrinsically good or evil? It is certainly instrumentally evil in this context. And IS pain intrinsically evil? If it is, why did Eve experience at least some pain during childbirth pre-Fall?





VB said:


> brother, where are you getting this stuff? I find it very strange. We have no data that Eve even had children pre-Fall. It’s pure speculation.



Genesis 3:16
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

God is increasing what? How would Eve have a frame of reference of what God was increasing?



JD said:


> If all life were meant to multiply, yet endure in perpetuity in Creation, it does not take a PhD in math to see that the Earth would have been overrun into a seething mass of life in a short time. Which supports my premise that death is not evil, it is an intrinsic part of the good Creation.





VB said:


> This is a prediction based on empiricism. It doesn’t account for the possibility (never realized) that Adam’s descendants would tend their respective gardens faithfully, pruning plants and controlling the behavior of animals.



Pruning plants and culling animals, absolutely! Both use death as a means of accomplishing a good purpose.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Daniel Ritchie said:


> "All they that hate me love death".



Let's please keep the context:

Proverbs 8:36
But *whoever fails to find me* harms himself; all who hate me love death."

And the love of death is in the context of the absence of the Holy Spirit. For example: The atheist has failed to find God, so they love the idea that human death is the end of consequence - so in the end, they have harmed themselves in light of revealed truth - death is not the end.


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> Anyway, I thought the syllogism was so transparent that it did not require formal declaration. It is the old POE fallacy we face all the time.
> 
> 1) Death is evil
> 2) God causes death
> 3) Therefore God is evil



Oh, it was transparent. Transparently bad. You acted as my argument implied some falsehood that could be "shown by a syllogism." I baited you, you bite. Let't see:

i) You need another premise stating that if God is the cause of some evil, he is evil. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. You have 4 terms. So, it looks like you don't know how to write a valid syllogism.

ii) Refutation by parity of reasoning:

a) Satan is evil.

b) God caused Satan.

c) Therefore, God is evil.



> We know that Romans 8:28 is the rebuttal for this assertion, but what if we could pull the teeth of the proposition?



You don't even need Romans 8. You have an invalid argument.



> That is, if death is NOT evil, then the proposition, at least as it concerns death, fails at the onset.



What, now I'm confused. The OP is that death is _intrinsically_ evil. Now you don't even think it's an evil, _at all_? If the former, then we see that your argument needed a term not in there. If the latter, is the title of the thread just a smoke screen for an even more dubious position? And, I'm not in the habit of denying stuff just to save face. Hey, why not deny that we die? Then another propositions fails at the outset. 

I SAID:


> Anyway, God didn't _have to_ make death his punishment. He _could have_ sent them immediately to hell. Thus it's not _necessary_ "to enforce His justice and glorify Himself." Moreover, how about when a saint dies? He doesn't need to "enforce his justice" on them. That's been done in Christ. So, your argument is neither necessary or sufficient.



JD RESPONDED:


> "To live is Christ, to die is gain" - as Christians, death, as an enemy, is vanquished. Temporal life is revealed as a transitional phase - an important, God ordained phase, but still a phase. Temporal death is a just consequence of the Fall that still affects us and is a necessary component of God's plan to glorify Himself through Christ. If it weren't necessary, why does He enforce it?



How does this remotely refute what I said? You're shifting the goal posts. You tried to argue that death was a NECESSARY tool. I showed that it wasn't. Even if what you say is true, that doesn't prove that it is NECESSARY. Things don't gain necessity because soemone "enforces it."

So, you've not countered my rebuttal.



> I think Jesus was weeping to a) follow the Biblical mandate (weep with those who weep), b) in sadness - sadness that He would be wrenching His friend from the presence of God, back into the fallen world and c) for humanity, that we temporal beings should have to experience the suffering of separation from those we love. Christ was exhibiting His alignment with humanity and His Godly sovereignty over temporal death. Again, the activity of death is not evil, it is a tool, a circumstance. A circumstance that will be done away with, post-judgment.



a) Just made himself cry, huh? (Btw, weep with those who wep is meant to say that we need to be empathetic. It doesn't mean that we have to turn on the faucets every time someone else does.  ) b) Where is that, _in the text_? c) Where is that, _in the text_?

Calvin comments that he weeps because death is an _evil_. Thus, "he gives proof that he has sympathy, (συμπάθεια.) For the cause of this feeling is, in my opinion, expressed by the Evangelist, when he says that Christ saw Mary and the rest weeping Yet I have no doubt that Christ contemplated something higher, namely, the general misery of the whole human race; for he knew well what had been enjoined on him by the Father, and why he was sent into the world, namely, to free us from all *evils*."

Lastly, even if what you say is all true, and it is for the most part, that doesn't refute what I said. You're like those Gospel critics that think varrying emphasis implies inconsistency. If you've studied your logic, you'd note that what you said is consistent with what I've said. That is, _both_ could be true. You're supposed to be trying to _rebut_ my arguments here.



> Paul anthropomorphises death as an analogous literary device - do you believe there is an actual "person" death? Like Peirs Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality? Death rides an actual pale horse?



John is the one who talks about those things, not Paul. Paul was talking about a _physical_ resurrection, and hence a physical death, in 1 Corinthians 15. I also mentioned James too. He was speaking of literal death too. So, in responding to my comments you ignore Paul and James and pick on John, who I never mentioned.



> Death is a condition, a circumstance - necessary in this fallen Creation, intrinsic to working out God's plan, but unnecessary in the Kingdom.



If it is a necessary then what of Elijah? He was directly taken up to heaven. What of those who are _alive_ when the Lord returns? If you think there are exceptions to necessary things then do you think there's possibly a squared circle flaoting around somewhere out there? And again, I must point out that none of this refutes what you were supposed to be responding to.



> I have not introduced a false dilemma - in fact I believe the dilemma is introduced when death must (as you are proposing) be categorized in terms of good vs evil.



Sure you have. That something can't be intrinsic and instrumental both. If you don't believe this, then you're admitting that all your arguments from instrument don't rebut my position. And, secondly, that something can't be an evil as well as a just punishment. Make no mistake, you are drawing false dichotomies. Not admitting it doesn't change the facts.



> Dying does not negate foreverness - it is a transition point. A consequence for Man to experience a "natural" component of this Creation as a result of sin.



You just made my point. The only reason it doesn't negate foreverness is because _God brings us back to life_! Death is _un_natural. Scott B. Rae comments on the poorly stated euphemism, Euthenasia - the "good" death - that it may be a "...contradiction in terms. Death is the ultimate indignity, coming as a result of sin and the fall of man. The late protestant ethicist Paul Ramsey suggested that death is something wholly alien to humankind, imposed on man as a consequence of sin. He thus rejected any concept of death that is considered natural and part of the normal cycle of life. Since man in Christ is destined for eternal life, Ramsey argued, death is an indignity, inconsistent with man's eternal destiny in Christ." 

Consequences can be intrinsic evils, just like an intrinsic good can be a consequence. I'm afraid you don't know to argue for a conclusion. None of your points get you to where you want to go. Living with God forever is an intrinsic good. That is a _consequence_ of our trusting in the life and death of Jesus Christ, though!




> I think you have a misunderstanding of the nature of the imagio dei - the image is that of spirit, which endows us with the characteristics of God - the flesh is what makes us uniquely Man. The spirit is *by nature* infinite and indestructable - it is life eternal. We were created to be an incarnation of that eternal state. Spirit eternally in flesh by God's plan. Death has always been a part of this Creation - a natural process utilized to "fuel the engine". Death, in this context, is *intrinsically good*. We were created to be sovereign over this process, but by our sin, became subject to it instead.



First, there are many conceptions of the imagio dei. Not all agree with your position. For example, Merideth Kline (and many other reformed theologians) agree that our body images God. Kilne argued that there were three aspects of the image (cf. Images of the Spirit). He argued that the physical body images God, images His power to see (He who formed the eye, does he not see). God doesn't have literal eyes, but our eyes _reflect_ and _image_ His seeing power. Same with "hands" and "arms." Kline's second aspect is the "official" image. God holds the office of King, we image that in a smaller way, as his vicegerents or regents, that we have and take dominion. The third element, says Kline, is the ethical element. That we image God in righteousness and holiness. John Frame notes that these three correspond to his triade of control (body), authority (office/dominion taker), and presence (ethical).

Thus your remark smacks of an unfamiliarity with the field. You point out that we were meant to have life eternal. We were also meant to have that life eternal in the body. Both spiritual death and physical death are intrinsic evils. As Berkof points out, immortality is part of the image of God. Death is a break in this. Berkof notes that death mars this image, this original plan (ST, 2, III, B.6). Thus our _life_ images God.

But Dabney doesn't think the image is essential to man's nature. McPherson argues that it belongs to the essential. So, I'm not tto sure how much you've read on this. You're free to argue with me, but to merely state that I "don't understand the imageo dei" is nothing but ignorant and arrogant. There's no universal and agreed upon conception of the imageo dei! Most reformers (Witsius, Turretin, etc.,) have agreed that _immortality_ is part of that image. Hence death is meant to show that this original plan has been broken. Death itself implies, by its very nature, _mortality_! Hence death is intrinsically evil.

Lastly, you argue that death is an intrinsic good in a sense because it is an instrument "to fuel the engine." But if your arguments against my position were correct, you couldn't say that. If it's an instrument its not intrinsic. If you disagree with this then you agree that you have not rebutted anything I've said by pointing out (allegedly) the instrumentality of death. You're not trying to argue that (i) "death is an instrumental evil" you're trying to argue that (ii) "death is not an intrinsic evil." You've been making a case for (i) when you should be making a case for (ii).




> But what of the tack? Is it intrinsically good or evil? It is certainly instrumentally evil in this context. And IS pain intrinsically evil? If it is, why did Eve experience at least some pain during childbirth pre-Fall?



I don't know if Eve experience some pain during pre-fall childbirth. We're not told anything about pre-fall children. You're not gonna make a case from "greatly increse," are you? I could have 0 dollars in my bank account and it could "greatly increse." Lastly, you're not implying that there was no evil in creation before man fell, are you? If so, what of Satan? Was he not evil? If man had never fallen, Satan would still exist, and hence unfallen creation would include at least one evil (probably more, though).

When all is wrapped up, the _totality_ of creation will still include evil - hell and hellions. Heaven may not have evils, but then heaven is _part_ of the totality. At that point [when we're in heaven] we wouldn't want to say that the totality of God's creation isn't good. But, note what that implies, the _totality_ can be _good_ while some of the _parts_ are _evil_.

I SAID:


> Or, something can be intrinsically evil _and_ instrumentally good - _harm_ is an instrinsic evil. Joseph's brothers intended harm, God _used it_ for good. Indeed, if you grant that there are intrinsic evils, then we can see that they are also instrumental for goods because "In ALL things, God is working them out for good." Therefore, just to point to any instrumental purpose for evil _does not logicaly imply_ that it is also not intrinsically evil. Thus _none_ of your arguments even lead to your conclusion - which goes beyond your premises, therefore.



JD REPLIED:


> And I have proven that you are incorrect in your assertion. See below.



If it is "see below" than why "have" you? Why not "see above?"

And, what point are you refuting? That something can be both instrument and intrinsic? Are you denying _that_ point? If not, then your comment is irrelevant since _that was_ my point.



> If *all life* were meant to multiply, yet endure in perpetuity in Creation, it does not take a PhD in math to see that the Earth would have been overrun into a seething mass of life in a short time. Which supports my premise that death is not evil, it is an intrinsic part of the good Creation.
> 
> Paul, you need to get outside your presuppositions.



First, I said MAN was told to be fruitful and multiply.

Second, it doesn't take a Ph.D. in critical thinking to note that IF we had never fallen, and had kept growing in number, God could (a) make the world bigger, (b) send us to or have us figure out how to get to other worlds, etc.

Your premise was that death was from THE FALL. You had said above, _"Temporal life is revealed as a transitional phase - an important, God ordained phase, but still a phase. Temporal death is a just consequence of the Fall that still affects us and is a necessary component of God's plan to glorify Himself through Christ."_

Third, I stated in the thread that I'm arguing for the thesis that HUMAN DEATH is an intrinsic evil. So, even if you're correct about pre-fall animal death, that doesn't refute my point.

Fourth, death could still be an intrinsic evil but have an instrumental purpose in acheiving the greater good. So, it's not obvious that evils wouldn't have not existed in "the good creation" given the animal death hypothesis. (See above for where I argued for the existence of a good creation with some of the parts being evil.)

Fifth, the animal death hypothesis is superfluous, again, because I'm not arguing for the inherent evilness of that. So, you don't need to bother with the old earth creation sites that try to argue that "death" isn't an inherent evil - they're talking about animal death.


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> God is increasing what? How would Eve have a frame of reference of what God was increasing?



What an empiricist you are! 

If you want to play that way, since they had not experiences spiritual death, and God told them that if they ate of the tree they would experience said death, then how did they have a "frame of reference" to understand God?

And, what happened to their children? Did they eat the fruit too?

Lay off the turkey, J.D.!


----------



## panta dokimazete

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.


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> 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.




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.


----------



## VictorBravo

jdlongmire said:


> and so we are in agreement!



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.


----------



## Jim Johnston

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.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> 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.



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.


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 again, brother...
Click to expand...



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,



> "To live is Christ to die is gain"
> 
> I don't this the Apostle Paul considered death intrinsically "evil".



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.


----------



## panta dokimazete

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.


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> 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,



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



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!


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> Death is certainly a consequence of evil, but I have always considered it more "*neutra*l" than inherently evil.



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 geopolitical terms, J.D. thinks of death like Switzerland, the Apostle Paul thinks of it like North Korea.


----------



## k.seymore

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)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Tom Bombadil said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like Paul knows absolutely without a doubt that death is evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know many thing "absolutely without a doubt." But I did give arguments for my position rather than smarmy comments.
Click to expand...


I like that word smarmy. I haven't heard that word in a while. 


Tom Bombadil said:


> Also, I don't think the debate is about whether it death is _evil_, it's whether death is _intrinsically_ evil. There's a difference. You could note that by checking the title of this thread.



I saw that and I understood it. I understand that you are saying that death by nature is evil. 



Tom Bombadil said:


> (Btw, the word "evil" isn't in the text you cited. If your "argument" works, _a fortiori_ mine?)



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. 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Rev 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: *and his name that sat on him was Death*, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, *to kill *with sword, and with hunger, and *with death*, and with the beasts of the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death as a person is evil. *I am not sure that the judgment of death is nor the actual process of death?* And it appears there is a difference between the person of death and death the process according to this passage. Death kills with death.
Click to expand...


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 In my humble opinion. 

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.


----------



## Jim Johnston

k.seymore said:


> 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)


 
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.


----------



## Jim Johnston

PuritanCovenanter said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Tom Bombadil said:


> 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.




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....



> 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 In my humble opinion.




This has been a great thread.


----------



## Jim Johnston

PuritanCovenanter said:


> But I still think this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 In my humble opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been a great thread.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Tom Bombadil said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I still think this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 In my humble opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been a great thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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.



Tom Bombadil said:


> 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).



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.



Tom Bombadil said:


> Anyway, I don't want or desire to get into an extended semantic squabble.
> 
> Glad you enjoy the thread.



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.


----------



## Jim Johnston

> 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.



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.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Sorry but I love Metallica and...


----------



## k.seymore

Tom Bombadil said:


> 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?!


----------



## BrianLanier

k.seymore said:


> 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.



Well if you are going to use the _argumentum ad dictionarium_ (hey, if Paul can make up fallacies, so can I  ) as a rebuttal, then you might want to give the *rest* of the *modern* definition:

adj.
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant. 
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet. 
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens. 
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation. 
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper. 

n. 
1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness. 
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil. 
3. An evil force, power, or personification. 
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice. 

from:

"evil." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 23 Nov. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil>.

where the same distinctions Paul was drawing are clearly stated for all of us *modern* board members to read.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Tom Bombadil said:


> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> 
> Death is certainly a consequence of evil, but I have always considered it more "*neutra*l" than inherently evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 geopolitical terms, J.D. thinks of death like Switzerland, the Apostle Paul thinks of it like North Korea.
Click to expand...


Ahh, the food was soooo good, I have been sleeping it off all day... 


Paul, I think you would agree with this syllogism.

1) The enemies of God are evil
2) Death is an enemy of God
3) Thus Death is evil

Yes?


----------



## Jim Johnston

k.seymore said:


> 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."



Yes, my bad. I was assuming that people were conversant with contemporary debates on this subject and knew how to employ the proper terminology. You are correct that one shouldn't assume those things at places like the Puritan Board.

I was assuming that they had read "modern english-speaking" theologians and philosophers.

I was assuming that by bringing up the *same* questions "modern english-speaking" philosophers and theologians did, they were familiar with those discussions.

It would be lik me starting a thread asking some of the same questions "modern english speaking" mathematicians are asking and debating, and after getting my answers telling people that I didn't mean what those guys meant. I actually meant my terms the way the kids on deliverance did. You know, the red-headed kid with the banjo?



> Well, someone already pointed out that death isn't literally an enemy since this is obviously a personification.



Actually it was pointed out that what JOHN SAID about death was a personification. No one implied that what Paul SAID was a personification.

And, furthermore, I don't hold to a modern physicalist understanding of creation.

Jesus tells us that if the people are quieted from shouting hosanna, the rocks will cry out. Hosanna means "save us now." God tells us that creation will now fight against us in our work whereas before the fall it cooperated with us. Of course metaphores are used, but I don't see the problem with that given my positions. Steve Hays comments:

"The natural world is a material manifestation, in finite form, of God’s impalpable attributes (cf. Ps 19:1-7; Acts 14:17; Rom 1:18ff.; Eph 3:9-10). Metaphor is deeply embedded in human language inasmuch as nature is figural of God."

Thus even though something is *metaphorical* that doesn't mean that the metaphorical statement is a *false* statement. Thus it is *true* to say that nature fights against us. If it is true to say this, it is true to call it an *enemy* because enemies fight against us.

Lastly, I'd point out that Brian Lanier (above) did a nice job responding to your "modern english speaking" point you were trying to make. It appears that the dictionary, the "modern english speaking one," makes room for my usage. And, as you pointed out, my usage comports with the Bible's usage.

So all around you've presented a nice case against J.D. and the others. For that I'm thankful. Since we're so close to thanksgiving perhaps I can slip this in _ex post facto_? If not then I have to wait an entire year to mention it.


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> 
> Death is certainly a consequence of evil, but I have always considered it more "*neutra*l" than inherently evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 geopolitical terms, J.D. thinks of death like Switzerland, the Apostle Paul thinks of it like North Korea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, the food was soooo good, I have been sleeping it off all day...
> 
> 
> Paul, I think you would agree with this syllogism.
> 
> 1) The enemies of God are evil
> 2) Death is an enemy of God
> 3) Thus Death is evil
> 
> Yes?
Click to expand...


Don't know how you're using your terms. For example, there may be an equivocation on "enemy." Don't know how you're using it. Second, since there are natural evils and moral evils, and if you're using "evil" in P1 to include both, then "evil" in the conclusion would make the conclusion false, and valid arguments can't have false conclusions, so...

And, the OP is about *intrinsic* evil.

To add that term may make P1 false, perhaps.

You'd also need to add the word "human" to the argument since that's the position I said I was defending.

So, I think your syllogism still needs some work. Or, you could just agree with my position and we could get on to bigger and better things?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Paul, if your position is that human death is an inherently/intrinsically evil _necessary consequence_ of the Fall , then I am willing to consider it.

If your position is that _all_ death is intrinsically evil, then I reject it, since I believe it is a God ordained tool of Justice and regulation. 

Christ put death as an enemy of the elect under His feet, but death still exists among the reprobate post-judgment.

How about that?


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> Paul, if your position is that human death is an inherently/intrinsically evil _necessary consequence_ of the Fall , then I am willing to consider it.
> 
> If your position is that _all_ death is intrinsically evil, then I reject it, since I believe it is a God ordained tool of Justice and regulation.
> 
> Christ put death as an enemy of the elect under His feet, but death still exists among the reprobate post-judgment.
> 
> How about that?




J.D., though we could debate this as well, at this stage in my developement I'm inclined to agree with you about animal/plant/etc death. But "my position" in _this thread_ is precisely what I claimed in my first post in _this thread_. See here.

So, yes, you can "consider it." 



> Christ put death as an enemy of the elect under His feet, but death still exists among the reprobate post-judgment.



Spiritual death, yes. Not biological as they will have resurrected bodies. But they will not be annihilated. They will still _live_. They just won't live _by the Spirit_.


----------



## py3ak

I just reread this thread, and didn't notice any definitions of *human* death. I think the answer to the question probably lies along those lines.

Is death non-being? Is death separation? Is death corruption or decay? Is death another stage, like life in and out of the womb?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Good question, Ruben. I was actually thinking about this same thing earlier today.

The best I can come up with is that death is always defined by its relationship to life.

My take? 

Death is separation from life. Physical or spiritual.

Humans can experience both. Every other living thing only physical.


----------



## panta dokimazete

TB said:


> J.D., though we could debate this as well, at this stage in my developement I'm inclined to agree with you about animal/plant/etc death. But "my position" in this thread is precisely what I claimed in my first post in this thread. See here.



From TB's first post:


TB said:


> I'd add that I meant *human* death.



Well, not to split hairs  but I'd say that not *all* human death in *every circumstance* is evil. The just and necessary consequence of the Fall is death - that type human death is evil, caused by humans.

Human death directed by God is not evil. It is His right as Creator to give or separate from life by any means He sees fit.

Human death directed by other humans without God-given direction is evil.


----------



## py3ak

OK, so if we take death=separation, then you can think in a couple of ways, as you mention. Spiritual death=separation from God, right? I think we can agree that separation from God is an intrinsic evil, can't we? Sure, God is just to cast us out from His presence: but in a very real sense it is *not* good that we should be.

And physical death would then be separation of the soul, the immaterial, from the body, right? Under certain circumstances, this may seem attractive (sometimes you understand the pagan disgust at being trapped in this miserable prison): but in itself I think that's not ideal. For one, God promises the resurrection --the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our bodies is the culmination of salvation. It is difficult to conceive that what God has joined together (when He breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life), is good when put asunder. 

But there is another evidence, which doesn't rely so heavily on the definition of death as "separation". Jesus proves the resurrection by combining two true statements about God: He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; He is _not_ the God of the dead, but [He is the God] of the living. If God is not the God of the dead, then surely it is not good to be dead.


----------



## weinhold

Wow. You philosophers are in desperate need of poetry. Here are a few stanzas from Wallace Stevens, "Sunday Morning" to tide you over:



> She says, "But in contentment I still feel
> The need of some imperishable bliss."
> Death is the mother of beauty; hence from her,
> Alone, shall come fulfillment to our dreams
> And our desires. Although she strews the leaves
> Of sure obliteration on our paths,
> The path sick sorrow took, the many paths
> Where triumph rang its brassy phrase, or love
> Whispered a little out of tenderness,
> She makes the willow shiver in the sun
> For maidens who were wont to sit and gaze
> Upon the grass, relinquished to their feet.
> She causes boys to pile new plums and pears
> On disregarded plate. The maidens taste
> And stray impassioned in the littering leaves.
> 
> 6
> Is there no change of death in paradise?
> Does ripe fruit never fall? Or do the boughs
> Hang always heavy in that perfect sky,
> Unchanging, yet so like our perishing earth,
> With rivers like our own that seek for seas
> They never find, the same receding shores
> That never touch with inarticulate pang?
> Why set pear upon those river-banks
> Or spice the shores with odors of the plum?
> Alas, that they should wear our colors there,
> The silken weavings of our afternoons,
> And pick the strings of our insipid lutes!
> Death is the mother of beauty, mystical,
> Within whose burning bosom we devise
> Our earthly mothers waiting, sleeplessly.


----------



## panta dokimazete

py3ak said:


> OK, so if we take death=separation, then you can think in a couple of ways, as you mention. Spiritual death=separation from God, right? I think we can agree that separation from God is an intrinsic evil, can't we? Sure, God is just to cast us out from His presence: but in a very real sense it is *not* good that we should be.
> 
> And physical death would then be separation of the soul, the immaterial, from the body, right? Under certain circumstances, this may seem attractive (sometimes you understand the pagan disgust at being trapped in this miserable prison): but in itself I think that's not ideal. For one, God promises the resurrection --the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our bodies is the culmination of salvation. It is difficult to conceive that what God has joined together (when He breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life), is good when put asunder.
> 
> But there is another evidence, which doesn't rely so heavily on the definition of death as "separation". Jesus proves the resurrection by combining two true statements about God: He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; He is _not_ the God of the dead, but [He is the God] of the living. If God is not the God of the dead, then surely it is not good to be dead.



In order to say death (separation from life) is evil one would have to account for both physical and spiritual death as evil.

For the reprobate, both physical and spiritual separation from life is *just*, not evil - otherwise God would be using a tool inherently evil to mete out His justice. Death is not sentient, as Satan is, it is a tool of Justice and regulation.

For the elect, only physical separation from life applies - and is a just consequence of the Fall - it is also the transition from our corrupt bodies into our eternally glorified bodies and spirit. Is that evil? Post-Christ, do the elect ever fully die?

Again, it does not seem that Paul thinks so:

Romans 8:10
If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.


----------



## panta dokimazete

weinhold said:


> Wow. You philosophers are in desperate need of poetry. Here are a few stanzas from Wallace Stevens, "Sunday Morning" to tide you over:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Is there no change of death in paradise?
> Does ripe fruit never fall?...
Click to expand...


Interesting...


----------



## py3ak

jdlongmire said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so if we take death=separation, then you can think in a couple of ways, as you mention. Spiritual death=separation from God, right? I think we can agree that separation from God is an intrinsic evil, can't we? Sure, God is just to cast us out from His presence: but in a very real sense it is *not* good that we should be.
> 
> And physical death would then be separation of the soul, the immaterial, from the body, right? Under certain circumstances, this may seem attractive (sometimes you understand the pagan disgust at being trapped in this miserable prison): but in itself I think that's not ideal. For one, God promises the resurrection --the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our bodies is the culmination of salvation. It is difficult to conceive that what God has joined together (when He breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life), is good when put asunder.
> 
> But there is another evidence, which doesn't rely so heavily on the definition of death as "separation". Jesus proves the resurrection by combining two true statements about God: He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; He is _not_ the God of the dead, but [He is the God] of the living. If God is not the God of the dead, then surely it is not good to be dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to say death (separation from life) is evil one would have to account for both physical and spiritual death as evil.
> 
> For the reprobate, both physical and spiritual separation from life is *just*, not evil - otherwise God would be using a tool inherently evil to mete out His justice. Death is not sentient, as Satan is, it is a tool of Justice and regulation.
> 
> For the elect, only physical separation from life applies - and is a just consequence of the Fall - it is also the transition from our corrupt bodies into our eternally glorified bodies and spirit. Is that evil? Post-Christ, do the elect ever fully die?
> 
> Again, it does not seem that Paul thinks so:
> 
> Romans 8:10
> If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
Click to expand...


I think we're talking past one another here. Let's go back to creation. God created and it was good. That doesn't mean NOT creating was unjust. In other words, the dichotomy isn't between death-as-evil and death-as-just. On my paradigm, that doesn't make any sense. Death can be just and evil: it is a punitive evil, justly inflicted for a preceding moral evil. The evil choose evil and get evil. The evil of death is condign --that does not mean it ceases to be evil. 

So what about Christians and death? Well, there is no denying that death is not so objectively terrible for the Christian. But what we want is for mortality to be swallowed up of life.

And as far as Roman 8:10 goes, is it _absolutely_ a good thing that the body is dead because of sin? 

If we are to say that death is good because it finds a place within God's creation, are we also to say that sin is good because it finds a place within God's creation? 

And ripe fruit falling speaks not at all to the question of the separation of the parts of a human, or to the separation of humanity from God.


----------



## panta dokimazete

py3ak said:


> OK, so if we take death=separation, then you can think in a couple of ways, as you mention. Spiritual death=separation from God, right? I think we can agree that separation from God is an intrinsic evil, can't we? Sure, God is just to cast us out from His presence: but in a very real sense it is *not* good that we should be.



Let's make sure we are talking about the same categories:

- death = separation from life
- human death as a result of the Fall
- human death as a tool of Justice and regulation
- animal/plant death as a tool of nourishment and regulation

I do not believe the elect are ever fully separated from spiritual life or fully separated from God.

If the elect could be separated from God, that would be intrinsically evil.

The elect being separated from our corrupt bodies is not intrinsically evil - it is a just consequence of the Fall.

It is not evil for the reprobate to be separated from God. It is just.



> And physical death would then be separation of the soul, the immaterial, from the body, right? Under certain circumstances, this may seem attractive (sometimes you understand the pagan disgust at being trapped in this miserable prison): but in itself I think that's not ideal. For one, God promises the resurrection --the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our bodies is the culmination of salvation. It is difficult to conceive that what God has joined together (when He breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life), is good when put asunder.



But it *is* good that we are separated from the body that keeps us separated from God in the fullest sense, right?



> But there is another evidence, which doesn't rely so heavily on the definition of death as "separation". Jesus proves the resurrection by combining two true statements about God: He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; He is _not_ the God of the dead, but [He is the God] of the living. If God is not the God of the dead, then surely it is not good to be dead.



Not good for the physically and spiritually dead, no!  But is God evil for making it so? NO! Is it good for God to make it so? YES!



JD said:


> In order to say death (separation from life) is evil one would have to account for both physical and spiritual death as evil.
> 
> For the reprobate, both physical and spiritual separation from life is *just*, not evil - otherwise God would be using a tool inherently evil to mete out His justice. Death is not sentient, as Satan is, it is a tool of Justice and regulation.
> 
> For the elect, only physical separation from life applies - and is a just consequence of the Fall - it is also the transition from our corrupt bodies into our eternally glorified bodies and spirit. Is that evil? Post-Christ, do the elect ever fully die?
> 
> Again, it does not seem that Paul thinks so:
> 
> Romans 8:10
> If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.





> I think we're talking past one another here. Let's go back to creation. God created and it was good. That doesn't mean NOT creating was unjust. In other words, the dichotomy isn't between death-as-evil and death-as-just. On my paradigm, that doesn't make any sense. Death can be just and evil: it is a punitive evil, justly inflicted for a preceding moral evil. The evil choose evil and get evil. The evil of death is condign --that does not mean it ceases to be evil.
> 
> So what about Christians and death? Well, there is no denying that death is not so objectively terrible for the Christian. But what we want is for mortality to be swallowed up of life.
> 
> And as far as Roman 8:10 goes, is it _absolutely_ a good thing that the body is dead because of sin?



Human death as a consequence of the Fall is an evil consequence from the perspective of humanity.

Human death for the reprobate is just and good.

Human death for the elect is merciful and good.



> If we are to say that death is good because it finds a place within God's creation, are we also to say that sin is good because it finds a place within God's creation?



Sin is evil. Sin is not from God. Human death is. Human death is just. Justice is good.



> And ripe fruit falling speaks not at all to the question of the separation of the parts of a human, or to the separation of humanity from God.



And I never said so, I was looking for a way to acknowledge the poetry. As I said, interesting...


----------



## Jim Johnston

weinhold said:


> Wow. You philosophers are in desperate need of poetry.




My arguments are in desperate need of refutation.


----------



## Jim Johnston

J.D.'s above confusions stem from not knowing how to use the term "evil" the way it is used in Phi. of Religion discussions. 

I'd also point out that I thought quoting Calvin 'round these parts was just a notch lower than quoting Holy Writ itself! Calvin said that death was an evil.

Perhaps we can save this debate and J.D. can debate J.C. (John Calvin, that is) when he gets to heaven.

And, yes, it is good to die and be with the Lord (although I've already argued and proved that evils can also be goods), the point is: WE WERE NEVER SUPPOSED TO HAVE TO DIE TO BE WITH THE LORD. WE WERE NEVER SUPPOSED TO DIE IN THE FIRST PLACE!


----------



## py3ak

I don't draw a distinction between your 2nd and third categories. As for #4, it doesn't fall within the purview of what I'm addressing. So we have death defined as separation --from God, in spiritual death, from the body in physical death.

Do we have a definition of evil? I am taking evil as the opposite of good, specifically of the "good" as defined by God's act of creation: NOTE, not as the opposite of just, holy, etc. Of course it is good to punish evil: that doesn't make evil good. Are you familiar with the category "punitive evil"? The punishment of evil is condign: that doesn't make the punishment of evil pleasant.

You do seem to raise a number of side issues in your post, whose relevance is not immediately clear to me: such as, is God evil, are the elect ever separated from God, etc., etc. I don't see how any of that bears on the point at issue, and I'd rather not get bogged down in spin-off discussions. Of course God isn't evil; He is the definition of good. And I think the elect are truly dead before God calls them, but once their union with Christ has been established it is indissoluble and a relatively little thing like does nothing to change that.

And I am not sure why this seems to be so hard. God displays mercy in the death of the righteous: but God displays mercy in all our afflictions. God can turn those "evils" to good; but He can do the same with sin, as when a fall into one sin stirs us up to greater diligence against other sin. None of that makes sin/affliction/death _inherently_ good. If they were inherently good, what would be the point of promising us that these things are passed away in the new heavens and the new earth?


----------



## panta dokimazete

**sigh** g'night guys - my pastor and most of the deacon body is out of town, so I am working triple duty tomorrow - been fun - I am satisfied that the reader can make their own decision and I am satisfied that we have been *at least* iron sharpening iron, so I am outta here for awhile.

Ya'll have a blessed Lord's day!


----------



## weinhold

Tom Bombadil said:


> weinhold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You philosophers are in desperate need of poetry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My arguments are in desperate need of refutation.
Click to expand...


----------



## Jim Johnston

I'd add that I can bow out now considering the fine job py3ak is doing....


----------



## py3ak

Ho, there, Tom Bombadil, we may still an encounted an Old Man Willow of argument!


----------



## k.seymore

BrianLanier said:


> Well if you are going to use the _argumentum ad dictionarium_ (hey, if Paul can make up fallacies, so can I  ) as a rebuttal, then you might want to give the *rest* of the *modern* definition... where the same distinctions Paul was drawing are clearly stated for all of us *modern* board members to read.





Tom Bombadil said:


> Yes, my bad. I was assuming that people were conversant with contemporary debates on this subject and knew how to employ the proper terminology. You are correct that one shouldn't assume those things at places like the Puritan Board.
> 
> I was assuming that they had read "modern english-speaking" theologians and philosophers.
> 
> I was assuming that by bringing up the *same* questions "modern english-speaking" philosophers and theologians did, they were familiar with those discussions.
> 
> It would be lik me starting a thread asking some of the same questions "modern english speaking" mathematicians are asking and debating, and after getting my answers telling people that I didn't mean what those guys meant. I actually meant my terms the way the kids on deliverance did. You know, the red-headed kid with the banjo?



Ok, I apologize for putting an abbreviated dictionary definition in my post. Of course you are right, there are multiple definitions of the word evil. But why didn't you deal with what I was addressing? I wasn't addressing what the "proper" definition of evil is. Read my post again. I brought up the (or as was pointed out, one) modern definition of the word to compare it to the hebrew usage to explain that there are multiple definitions of the word being used in this thread. I even said there is nothing wrong with that–words can be used in multiple ways. You guys argue that what I said was deficient since there are even multiple definitions of the word "evil" in a modern dictionary. How in the world does that weaken my point that there are multiple definitions of the word "evil" being used in this thread?

In my post I was explaining that there is one english question at the beginning of this thread. There are at least two different groups that are interpreting the question in a way that appears to create two different questions. For a person to understand the author of the first question's intent, and so reply to it, one must figure out what the person who asked the question meant by it. If one is answering a question he wasn't exactly asking, that might make it a little hard for everyone to agree on an answer, right? So I quoted some of what jdlongmire said elsewhere which matched the abbreviated definition that I listed. I thought that was enough to define what question he was actual asking, but I most definitely could be mistaken, and if so I'll simply re-answer the actual question. I should have simply asked him. 

Jdlongmire, when you wrote out the question originally, were you thinking evil is immoral or as neutral or something else?

Thanks!



Tom Bombadil said:


> Actually it was pointed out that what JOHN SAID about death was a personification. No one implied that what Paul SAID was a personification.
> 
> And, furthermore, I don't hold to a modern physicalist understanding of creation.
> 
> Jesus tells us that if the people are quieted from shouting hosanna, the rocks will cry out. Hosanna means "save us now." God tells us that creation will now fight against us in our work whereas before the fall it cooperated with us. Of course metaphores are used, but I don't see the problem with that given my positions. Steve Hays comments:
> 
> "The natural world is a material manifestation, in finite form, of God’s impalpable attributes (cf. Ps 19:1-7; Acts 14:17; Rom 1:18ff.; Eph 3:9-10). Metaphor is deeply embedded in human language inasmuch as nature is figural of God."
> 
> Thus even though something is *metaphorical* that doesn't mean that the metaphorical statement is a *false* statement. Thus it is *true* to say that nature fights against us. If it is true to say this, it is true to call it an *enemy* because enemies fight against us.
> 
> Lastly, I'd point out that Brian Lanier (above) did a nice job responding to your "modern english speaking" point you were trying to make. It appears that the dictionary, the "modern english speaking one," makes room for my usage. And, as you pointed out, my usage comports with the Bible's usage.
> 
> So all around you've presented a nice case against J.D. and the others. For that I'm thankful. Since we're so close to thanksgiving perhaps I can slip this in _ex post facto_? If not then I have to wait an entire year to mention it.



I too believe that metaphors are not false statements. All I was trying to ask is if you thought the metaphor being used implied that death was intrinsically evil. It appeared that you did because why else would you bring it up? I never thought of people or things that become one's enemy as being intrinsically evil, so I asked you if you could think of some other examples of people who were intrinsically enemies. There may be some, and death may be one, I just couldn't think of any others. So my first reaction would be that bringing up the point that death is an "enemy" doesn't really help answer this thread's original question. I'm not saying it shouldn't be brought up, I'm just saying tat I am not yet understanding why it would help answer the question.


----------



## ANT

I was reading in Proverbs this evening and came across this verse ... then thought about this thread that I saw a few days ago ...

Proverbs 14:32 (ESV)
The wicked is overthrown through
his evildoing,
but the righteous finds refuge
in his death.


Can the righteous find refuge in something that is evil?


----------

