Origin of Evil.


Here are my conclusions on the origin of Evil.

I cannot comprehend the view that a perfect, good; loving god of pure light could ever conceive the concept of evil in his totally pure and holy mind.

Evil is totally opposite to gods absolute goodness, completely alien to his innate intrinsic nature and essence. All evil is a monstrous abomination to God.

God is perfect and would, therefore, does not permit the concept of evil to originate or exist in his perfect holy mind or in his presence of pure light.

How then could god create a being with the "potential" for the utter evil that we see all around us on planet earth and in the universe? (Lucifer, eve, Adam, some of mankind)? Lucifer was perfect when created! Adam was innocent!

How could a perfect being like Lucifer become corrupt? I like to use the analogy of the perfect motor car. A perfect motor car would simply last forever in its original perfect condition. Except under one condition "outside destructive interference".

The very same result would be with a perfect being such as Lucifer! (Who told him he was beautiful? certainly not God!) God would never write into his book of existence the concept or possibility of a malignant thing such as evil. Evil must, therefore, have originated outside of his perfect self and mind! What possible use could evil be to god?

God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (all - present) and omniscient (all - knowing) he is however not "everything" god is "light" and in him is no darkness whatsoever! , Therefore, "darkness" must be an external something separate from Himself.


I know from experience, that the source of EVIL and its origin is from some external eternal monster that lurks remote from god in the primeval darkness of the deep (Gen 1:1). I call this place the "void"(hell). I am convinced that the ‘(‘VOID’) is HELL by a terrifying personal experience during a near death episode.

I was shown an evil monster of almost infinite intelligence lurks in the deepest darkness of the void (hell), while there. It is this eternal monster that I believe tempted Lucifer, resulting in his downfall and his metamorphosis into Satan or the Devil. This monster is the complete opposite to god and dwells in utmost darkness deep, and very remote from god. I know this is true as I was shown this Malignant Monstrous Beast by an intelligence I took for God, while in the Void (HELL).

I was told that it is God’s eternal enemy and the reason for evil and its origin and perpetuation. This thing is almost as mighty as God is himself! (Light against darkness). It seemed to be some type of antigod? There is an Anti-Christ-why not an Anti-God, Maybe they are one and the same evil being?

If we do not accept my explanation, then one must go to the Bible and read Isaiah 45; 7 were GOD says" I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil: I the lord do all these things. This verse could be a very definite and clear indication of the origin of evil; namely evil originating from god himself and god having two natures.


On what basis do I justify my previous statements? They are justified on the basis of my own personal terrible confrontation with this evil monster that lurks deep in the "Void” or hell. (Three times during brought on by near death episodes).

This "void" monster is worshiped by Satan and I am convinced is the ultimate source and origin of all evil. Satan did not confront me during one of my near death experiences, but by something almost infinitely worse! Satan is the prince of darkness, not the king of Evil! This thing is god’s eternal enemy and has a diabolic almost infinite evil dark intelligence and power.

I experienced that God due to his innate perfection is forced to judge Evil (darkness) and remove it forever from his being. I felt this judgment more as an emotional separation from God, with feelings of utter darkness, desolation, despair, and fear terror, horror and everlasting dark cold hopelessness, the Void.

I was shown that totally depraved dark evil beings , would have to eternally exist, somewhere far together, forever, separate and remote from god’s love and could never enter his light. (Darkness cannot penetrate the light!). Because of their utter evil depravity and darkness, totally

Evil and Depraved beings would never enter Gods light and would be forgotten by God in their own Evil Depraved Perversions forever in the Void” A terrible thought".

When I was so very ill, I communicated with intelligence, who revealed these things to me? I got the impression that God would someday rescue persons of much lesser evil, who had some light (goodness) in them. From the lesser upper regions of the Void into His eternal blessed light. (Out of the eternal darkness).

Let me assure the reader that there is no love, joy peace or light in the Void. Only utmost hopeless desolation and everlasting despair.

There is Good and Evil throughout the Universe. I know this from personal experience! The battle is from Eternal past but God will destroy the Beast of the Abysses

But do not despair if you are reading this short essay of mine, you are safe because God is within you and you have a spark of eternal life energy that can never be extinguished. This light will one day become a blazing furnace of love.

God does not have two natures!
God is love!

GOD IS GOOD

"On what basis do I justify my previous statements? They are justified on the basis of my own personal terrible confrontation with this evil monster that lurks deep in the "Void” or hell. (Three times during brought on by near death episodes)."

Have you considered if this took place in an "afterlife" area similar to where lucid dreams happen? Might be that you viewed your own fears.

Alan:

There is no such thing as a being named Lucifer. The myth of Lucifer is due to a translational error. Below is something I wrote:

Regarding fallen angels, this way of thinking is primarily the result of later versions of the Book of Isaiah. Initially Isaiah spoke of a fallen king of Babylon, a physical person. It is believed that Isaiah (depending upon which chapter is considered) was written somewhere between 681 and 734 B.C. More than 1,000 years later (A.D. 382) a man named Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damascus to make an official revision of the Latin versions of the Bible.

Jerome made a translational error and changed the Hebrew word heylel to the Latin word Lucifer. Lucifer means light (lux) bearer (ferrous), which is different than what heylel means. Heylel comes from the primitive root word halal. Halal is used 165 times in the Old Testament and means either praise (117 times), glory (14 times), boast (10 times), mad (8 times), shine (3 times), foolish (3 times), fools (2 times), commended (2 times), rage (2 times), celebrate (1 time), give (1 time), marriage (1 time) or renowned (1 time). Heylel is used just one time in Isaiah 14:12 (depending on the translation) and in this case means Satan. Not a fallen angel, but a fallen king, a physical person. It is just that Jerome’s erroneous use of the word Lucifer has caused many people to believe that a fallen angel named Lucifer (aka Satan) exists.

Here is the relevant verse from Isaiah 14:12: “How are thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer (“Heylel” in the Hebrew version), son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”

Regarding the usage of the word heaven, this way of speaking was romantic, not literal. A similar approach can be found in Exodus 20:22, when God told Moses “Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.” Heaven in this case means the mountain in which Moses saw a burning bush.

As a side point, there are a number of new age sources of information that speak of Lucifer as if he is in fact a fallen angel. They speak of Lucifer in different ways and therefore contradict each other. Some of these sources are the words of an allegedly channeled high level spirit being. I find it hard to believe that such a being would believe that a fallen angel named Lucifer exists. For, even if such a being didn’t know about the mistranslation Jerome made, why would it speak of a being that doesn’t exist?

Some people believe that the Book of Revelation supports the fallen angel concept when it speaks of a dragon with seven heads and ten horns (Revelation 12:3). In the form of a letter, Revelation was written by a man named John while He was a prisoner on the Island of Patmos. Christians were going through a lot of difficulty at the time, and John wrote them a letter that was very symbolic so the Romans wouldn’t be able to understand what he was talking about. The seven heads of the dragon have a double meaning. They represent seven hills in Rome and seven kings. They don’t represent a literal description of how an odd looking fallen angel looks. As far as I’m concerned, a dragon with seven heads and ten horns has a stranger look than a man with red skin, a tail, a pitch fork, and just two horns. The ten horns also have a double meaning, they refer to ten future kings and ten provinces of the Roman Empire.

The antichrist that is referred to with the number 666 is Emperor Nero Caesar. In Hebrew, Nero Caesar’s name was Nrwn Qsr – n,e,r,o,n; q,s,r. Archaelogical findings show that a first century Hebrew spelling of Nero’s name provides the value of 666. Some Biblical manuscripts read 616. The difference between 666 and 616 isn’t an accident, because the two aren’t similar in appearance in the original Greek. However, a strong case can be made that John (the author of Revelation), a Jew, used Hebrew in order to spell Nero’s name and resultantly came up with 616. It is hard to believe that it is just mere coincidence that whether you use 666 or 616 it is reasonable to conclude that Revelation 13:18 refers to Nero. There are other reasons for believing that 666 refers to Nero; however, it is beyond the scope of this book to them. I recommend Reverend Kenneth L. Gentry Jr’s article The Beast of Revelation Identified, if you can find it, it used to be available on the internet. He does have a DVD.

Some of the Words attributed to Christ in the Book of Revelations show how the names Satan and Devil could very possibly refer to a physical person, not a fallen angel. Consider the following verses from Revelation 3:9-10:

“I know about your suffering and your poverty—but you are rich! I know the blasphemy of those opposing you. They say they are Jews, but they are not, because their synagogue belongs to Satan. Don’t be afraid of what you are about to suffer. The devil will throw some of you into prison to test you. You will suffer for ten days. But if you remain faithful even when facing death, I will give you the crown of life.”

I believe John meant a Roman leader of the time period when he said Satan, not a supernatural being. Even today there are examples of people referring to people as Satan, such as when Saddam Hussein referred to the United States as Satan. Perhaps it wasn’t appropriate for the members of the referred to synagogues to give in to Roman control to the extent they did; however, it is a bit much to contend that they had it in mind to follow a supernatural being known as Satan, and that Satan actually controlled their synagogues. To the extent they were devoted to God and had a higher purpose, God was in their synagogues.

Certainly God is wise enough to realize that we often get confused about what divine truth is. This being the case, it is hard to believe that he would abandon somebody’s synagogue so quickly and allow an evil being to take over. Perhaps John’s anger with what was going on during the time period caused him to be overly zealous and accusatory with his words. It is also important to remember that he was required to use symbolic words, so he probably couldn’t name the Roman leader he was speaking about.

Regarding the statement about the devil throwing some people into prison, does it make more sense to conclude that a Roman leader referred to as the Devil will throw some Christians into prison, or that a supernatural being known as the Devil would do so?

Revelation 2:13 reads: “I know that you live in the city where Satan has his throne, yet you have remained faithful to me.” When considering if a supernatural being is referred to with this verse, it is important to note that when the messages to the churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatria, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea are given, only Pergamum is named as the city where Satan has his throne. Pergamum is the city where a temple with a statue of the mythological Greek God Zeus was kept. Some scholars believe that Revelation 2:13 refers to this statue. Perhaps John was opposed to the fact that such a temple and statue existed within Pergamum.

Another example of when a supernatural being isn’t referred to when the word Satan is used can be found in Matthew 16:21-23:

“From then on Jesus began to tell his disciples plainly that it was necessary for him to go to Jerusalem, and that he would suffer many terrible things at the hands of the elders, the leading priests, and the teachers of religious law. He would be killed, but on the third day he would be raised from the dead.

But Peter took him aside and began to reprimand him for saying such things. “Heaven forbid, Lord,” he said. “This will never happen to you!”

Jesus turned to Peter and said, “Get away from me, Satan! You are a dangerous trap to me. You are seeing things merely from a human point of view, not from God's.”

I believe it is clear that Peter spoke as he did not because he had evil intent, but because Jesus was dear to him and he was concerned about his welfare. Since the Bible hadn’t been completely written at the time and wasn’t available to the extent it is today, it is very possible that Peter didn’t understand that it was Jesus’ divine destiny to be crucified. In fact, his statement shows that he didn’t have such an understanding. I find it hard to believe that Jesus actually believed that Peter was Satan or being influenced by Satan. Yet according to Matthew 16:23, Jesus used the name Satan.  Jesus' high regard for Peter is made clear in Matthew 16:13-19:

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”

“Well” they replied, “some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.”

Then he asked them, “but who do you say I am?”

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John, because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being. Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it. And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.”

Then he sternly warned the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

It is interesting to note that there are no verses between when Jesus praised Peter and when Jesus rebuked Peter. I don’t know how accurately Matthew 16:13-23 portrays the chronological order of events; but perhaps it is significant that Jesus’ praise and admonishment of Peter can be found within one range of verses. Perhaps, such an occurrence provides people with an opportunity to consider what precisely the name Satan refers to. Perhaps as Jesus says, “Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand.”

John 6:70 provides an example of the word Devil being used in a generic way rather than referring to a specific being:

Then Jesus said, “I chose the twelve of you, but one is a devil.” He was speaking of Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, one of the Twelve, who would later betray him.

Here are some additional thoughts that don't refer to the Bible as much:

If a person really thinks about it, he is liable to find that the fallen angel concept doesn’t make sense. For one thing, if as some people believe, angels are created by God to be servants of God, could they fall? I for one believe that God is completely capable of creating angels that don’t fall. Some people would suggest that it is a matter of free will. Having a free will doesn’t mean that you have to act like a dummy. It means that you are able to make an intelligent choice when the right data is available. I figure an angel would have access to all kinds of data that would enable it to make the right choice.

An angel would understand that no matter how powerful God created it to be, it is nothing but a little speck compared to the infinity of God. Therefore, it would see no use in trying to take on God and all of the beings who side with him. Also, I believe that what each of us truly wants is to have beauty, happiness, peace and love in our lives. If an angel isn’t able to have these qualities even though it abides with God, it certainly wouldn’t be able to obtain them elsewhere. This being the case, an angel wouldn’t look for them in another location. When I say this I make the not too bold assumption that angels know that there isn’t a place separate from God where true fulfillment can be found.

Some people contend that Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, whoever, went against God because he was jealous of God’s position. I don’t believe an angel would be jealous of God’s position; nevertheless, to make certain that the factors relevant to this discussion are covered, I’ll go ahead and suggest why an angel “might” be jealous in such a way. It would want to feel as if it is loved and respected as much as possible, and then conclude that by being considered greater than God, it would obtain its goal. If you believe that such a possibility sounds ridiculous, then I agree with you, because any angel that is created by God and abides with God would be too wise to believe that it is more important than God and could get other beings to believe that it is.

Also, angels have access to love to an extent that is so complete, there is no way one would need to seek it in a completely idiotic way. Anybody who has experienced a heavenly realm during an experience such as a near death experience clearly understands that all the love a being could ever want is available in a heavenly realm.

Some people would contend that an angel would be jealous of God’s power. The desire for power is hard for me to speak about in a knowledgeable way because fortunately, I haven’t had a problem with such a desire. I figure the desire for power occurs for various reasons. One reason is that people want to feel secure. Some people believe that if they have a lot of power, they can insure their security. I really doubt that angels who abide with God have a problem with security.

Another reason some people want power is because they get into this thing where one person or group of people is against another person or group of people, and they want to insure that they end up on the supposed winning side. Unless they do so, they don’t feel as if things are as they should be. Angels who abide in heaven are all on the winning side, because they abide in a realm of perfection. If one doesn’t believe this is so, where is one hoping to go after one’s life in this world is over?

When you consider human beings, it becomes understandable how some souls become corrupted. This world is filled with many negative influences including our fleshy nature. Things are set up so we have to compete with each other. Obtaining complete and perfect love isn’t an easy thing to do. Therefore, some of us get confused and influenced in a negative way and become negative minded souls for however long. Angels don’t have this problem, because they always have at least one foot, or should I say one ray of light, in heaven. If you spoke to one it would probably say this ray is its heart; an angel’s heart is always in touch with the love of God.

Going by my experiences of divine love, it is incredibly significant to have your heart in contact with the love of God. As I stated before, when I’ve had such contact I felt like I was in contact with the most beautiful thing ever, even though I didn’t see or hear anything. I felt so much gratitude and humility during such experiences, I couldn’t imagine having irreverent and ungracious thoughts towards God. I figure angels see things the same way I see them, probably even more so.

The Book of Revelation states that when the dragon swept its tail a third of angels came with him (Revelation 12:4). If one interprets this literally, then despite all of the factors I wrote about above, either one third of angels were forced to fall, which is hard to believe since God and his angels wouldn’t allow such a thing to happen, or one third of angels chose to fall. It is hard to figure why so many angels who abided in the glory of heaven and knew about God’s infinite power would choose to fall. If they could fall, then what would prevent any of us from falling once we find our way to heaven? Isn’t heaven supposed to be a place of eternal attainment?

It is important to remember that the dragon who swept his tail wasn’t an actual being, but a symbolic representation of the rulers who caused problems for the Christians who were alive when John wrote Revelations. In Hebrew writing Sun, moon and stars often refer to various rulers of the people (e.g, see Genesis 37:9-10).

Even if an angel did start to fall, I figure God would be well aware of this fact, and he and his angels would probably do all they could to help this angel. Even if they didn’t, the more an angel fell, the farther it would find itself from God’s love and power. When things are considered in vibratory rate terms, its vibratory rate would decrease. After a while it wouldn’t be any different than a former human spirit that has taken on a negative way of existence.

I believe the above paragraph is significant, if one considers how some people think of Satan as a being who is really powerful. If everything comes from God, where would a Satan like being get power from? It doesn’t make sense to conclude that God would give such a being power. If you agree with what I said about fallen angels, including the parts about Lucifer and the dragon spoken of in the Book of Revelation, you probably don’t believe that the fallen angel explanation provides an answer for how a Satan like being could have a lot of power.

Guys,

In this thread I am not referring to Lucifer as the prime agent of evil, I see him as a victim to some mysterious entity I call Evilian , this monstrous beast is in line with the Zoroastical (Spelling) believe of two mighty forces in an eternal battle for our universe

But your posts are both fairly long so please give me some time to digest each one and hopefully come back with a meaningful response

Alan

Can the problem of evil be solved without giving up any of the divine attributes?

Evil, a God which is omnipotent and a God which is morally perfect; the problem of evil is the problem that revolves around the co-existence of the above. Arguably, when any two of these exist, it would be impossible for the third to co-exist. For if God is morally perfect, he would have created a world without evil. Yet evil exists, thus we are forced to conclude that either God is not morally perfect, or that he does not have the omnipotence to create a morally perfect world.

The credibility of some of the various defenses against this problem of evil will be examined in the following paragraphs. But first, what is evil? The commonly adopted definition of evil consists of two sub-classes, physical evil and moral evil. Physical evils consist of diseases, pain, and natural disasters such as earthquakes, famine etc etc.

The problem of evil here is quite straight forward, why would a morally perfect God inflict such suffering on human kind if he had the power to prevent it. Moral evil, on the other hand, is the human capacity to perform evil actions. The question here is why an omnipotent God would allow humans to be capable of such deeds.

One of the theists' replies to the problem is the means-ends defense which claims that evil is required as a means to good. This defense is mainly used to explain the physical component of the problem of evil. The theists argue those evil (suffering) serves as a warning, a punishment and as a test. Suffering exists to warn us of the consequences of morally evil actions. Punishment acts as an operant conditioner to discourage us from such evil actions.

Physical evil also trebles as a test. These three functions combined, serves to increase the amount of good in the world; and given that a morally perfect God would want to maximize the amount of good in the world, evil was required to exist as a means to greater good.

The problems with this defense range from the non-selective nature of some forms of punishment (earthquakes), to the question of whether the means (of justified ends) themselves require justification. But here, I shall touch on another problem: the speciesistic nature of the argument.

The world, which God created, does not consist of the human kind alone. There are innumerable alternate forms of life in the world. Most of these animals do not have the ability to understand or to heed warnings. Less-complex life forms do not even have the capacity to learn from punishment.

Yet all life can and will experience death. Animals (and some plants) have sensory systems that are capable of experiencing pain. Mammals and other higher-order animals have limbic systems with which to feel emotions such as stress and fear. Quite clearly all life forms are subjected to some sort of physical evil. The question is why? Why should these living things be cursed with the damnation of suffering when they are not even capable of making moral judgments?

Were these billions and trillions of other forms of life simply denied the goodness and benevolence of the morally perfect being? The point here is that since all life forms experiences suffering, the justification of evil must remain logically applicable to all sentience beings. The means-ends explanation fails thoroughly in this aspect.


Alan