Is Death Inherently Evil

[panta dokimazete]

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]

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 believe it is a good and necessary consequence 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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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

 

[panta dokimazete]

"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]

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 unnatural. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

Death is certainly a consequence of evil, but I have always considered it more "neutral" 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]

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.

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

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.

(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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

Death is certainly a consequence of evil, but I have always considered it more "neutral" 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.

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]

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.