Kurieuo wrote:Yes, knowing full aware of the passages you have in mind. Be careful not to compare apples with oranges.
And also . . .
Danny wrote:Sorry, yes, to be the enemy of Jesus you would have to be evil.
Then I submit to both of you1 Cor 15:25-27
- For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
And in case you are going to argue that death isn't Jesus' enemy, but rather man's, I'd remind you of two things:
1. Jesus
is a man, so what is the enemy of us is the enemy of Him, too.
2. The verse explictly says "his enemies," and then goes on to talk about death.
Thus, I take death to be evil.
Gman wrote:Ok, so physical death is evil? How so?
Philosophically, because it is a privation. Theologically, because it is Jesus' enemy. Humanly, because it is unnatural. Or let's forget animal death for a minute, do you actually think that Adam and Eve would have died if they
didn't eat of the forbidden fruit? On the assumption you'll rightly reject that idea, then you have to agree that physical death is unnatural for humans. If, then, you agree that physical death is evil in humans (being unnatural), on what basis do you assert it is natural in the rest of the animal kingdom, both of which are called
nephesh by God? Put differently, why is the death of all
nepheshim natural except in the case of one particular one (man)?
Of course He had to physically die.. But he didn't spiritually die. Did he?
Yes. Again, I'll emphasize, I've come to not make quite the firm distinction most people do on that, but yes, he died spiritually as well, I think.
I don't believe that they think that death was evil, the problem here is that they (or Darwin) couldn't rationalize how a loving God could allow death and suffering into the world. This same rationalization is also applied to the YEC'rs. They too cannot rationalize how a loving God could allow death and suffering into the world.
But there are other reasons why God would allow it... You follow?
I follow. I'm trying to get at a deeper question that I think you are missing that is very instructive for both of us. So le tme just ask you:
What is it about death and the nature of God that both YECs and atheists see as incompatible?
Grossly overstated Jac. The Trinity didn't suddenly appear in the 3rd or 4th century. It was a restatement of what the majority of the church already believed and put forth from its earliest days. It was not the gift of anyone or anything outside the gospel message and scriptures themselves. I do happen to think that the loss of perichoresis in the west was due more to events in the 3rd and 4th century that had to do with the introduction of other elements that we've spoken of. The use of all or nothing structures like what you've indicated above are typical of some of the dualistic structures added after the time of Christ and the early Church, but your attempt to define things in that matter do not require me or others to accept the premises upon which they rest.
I'm not anti-philosophy. It has value in places. I'm anti the attempt to strip mystery from the Godhead and person(s) of God by means not employed or intended in the original writings or in the early church. I appreciate Augustine and Thomistic theology as far as it goes. I don't accept it as a suitable replacement for or an addition to the gospel message itself particularly when I see the fruits that some of it has given rise to. You no doubt disagree with me, but I see this as very pertinent and relevant to the discussion at hand because I believe many elements of YEC find their primogenesis in this realm and the results are not in my estimation particularly desirable. Ironically, I think some of the elements Augustine warned against in one of the quotes of my signature have been brought to full fruition in that regard by the attempt to isolate scripture from realm of natural reality.
(edited and elements added 3.1.2010 1:12 am est)
Now this is a rather strong claim. Tell me, what, pray tell, in classical theology (the proper name for the Thomism you seem to be attacking here) is a "replacement for" or an "addition to" the Gospel? Now, I'm not going to assume anything, but I notice you go on and say that "many elements of YEC find their primogenesis in this realm." What do you mean by "this realm," because "this" seems to point back to "Augustine and Thomistic theology as far as it goes," which you seem to think presents itself "as a suitable replacement for or an addition to the gospel message itself." Are you now telling me that you think YEC is to be regarded as a replacement for or an addition to the Gospel, because, if so, how are you not saying that YEC is blantanly a false gospel? I suppose if you really believe that, I understand your refusal to condemn Deem's remarks that the appearance-of-age view "ought not be tolerated within the Church" and that such a God is not the God of the Bible.
Further, despite your assertion that I "grossly overstated" my objection, I see nothing but a denial in your response. You offered nothing to counter my argument. Where, exactly, do you disagree with me? If I can't appeal to philosophy to explain
why death is evil, then what am I to appeal to? Further, why can I not appeal to philosophy here, but I can in, say, the Trinity? There is no difference. Either we can rightly appeal to reason to explain what God has revealed or we cannot. You can't pick and choose where you want to apply it and where you don't. That's just special pleading.
--------------------------------------
Bottom line: why is death evil? Because it is contrary to the nature of God, who is life itself. Nothing could be more contrary to His nature, for it is the denial of His very essence.