Is Death Inherently Evil

[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.

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?

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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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?...

Interesting...

 

[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.

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?

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]

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!

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]

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]

Wow. You philosophers are in desperate need of poetry.

My arguments are in desperate need of refutation.

 

[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]

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.

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!

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?