Not necessarily, the classic Augustinian position is to see evil not as a thing but rather the absence or corruption of a thing, namely, good. For Augustine, sin and evil result from what he calls disordered and corrupted loves that warp the desires and actions away from virtue. In this sense, evil is an adjective (describing the condition of a thing, action, state, or desire) but not a noun.
3 Likes
I think there might be more than one partā¦!
I suppose that some āevilā actions are zero-sum and some are not. Some acts cost others without benefit to self. Perhaps that division could be used to refine the broader topic of good v. evil. Or maybe crossing that line addresses another moral trait imbedded in conscience? I also note that LM77 has a different idea of evil as only an adjective rather than noun or verb.
When we discuss notions of good and evil, especially as it pertains to our human acts and proclivities, we are dealing with everything (feelings, intentions, conscience, etc) that we may do and think. I think Christianity seeks to start with how evil has started (and not a thing created), which is that Lucifer rebelled (or contradicted) God, and thus acted against goodness. From this we may deduce acts and intentions by us that result in harm, destruction, hatred, and thus everything we conclude is non-beneficial and problematic. If viewed in this way, evil is a negation or absence of good in so far as it originates from contradicting goodness itself (God).
Obviously, this approach brings up other theological problems, namely why God would allow Lucifer to rebel, and why we are permitted to follow the devil in acting in evil ways - perhaps a topic for another discussion.
1 Like
A separate additional video or more?
Well i thought there would be a part 2, but it sounds like maybe they had some bonus content if you signed up for their newsletter 
Oh thatās right. I Remember that being said. But at least I got to hear Collinsā song which wasnāt half bad.
Oh you did?!?! i watched the video version and I missed it somehow. 
Me too. It was right at the end if memory serves (instead of being dodgy as usual).
1 Like
Maybe iāll tune in again
1 Like
I am particularly interested in the Gospel accounts of Jesus being subjected to attempts by the devil to sway Him from His course.
Seen some comments critisizing both dawkins and collins, even on who said they read collins book and that it strengthened their atheism, and then replied to a commenter as to why they couldnāt grasp āThe God Delusionā is because they are looking at it through a biased (christian) lens. I do wonder what exactly determines the strengthening or weakening of oneās position.
Oh, and the video was good.
1 Like
I like how all his answers in Matthew 4 are from the much maligned Pentateuch.
Indeed. The finality of Mat4:10-11 IMO answers most of the questions regarding evil done in this world:
Matthew 4:10-11 (KJV)
Mt 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
1 Like
I remember struggling with Collinsā perspective on this in āLanguage of God.ā At times he seems inconsistent. Sometimes talking like miracles do fit within the scientific explanation of things and some times not. That is why I seem to be more like Dawkins and simply pushing for a change in the definition of miracles. Though it seems to me that every time this gets talked about on the forum it ultimately comes to question of Jesusā resurrection, which isnāt a problem for me because of Paulās explanation in 1 Cor 15 of resurrection to a spiritual body rather than to a physical/natural body. Eventually this has people ask me what happened to the physical/natural body of Jesus then? And for me that is the old rabbit disappearing from the hat trickā¦ something for which the possible explanations are endless. Because I certainly do not believe in bodies rising from graves which is frankly like a zombie/vampire movieā¦ only making Christianity into something creepy rather than hopefulā¦ This is beside the fact that it doesnāt make much sense in general since there is nothing special about the matter the body is made up of at any particular time.
The gospel accounts of the risen Jesus paint a more complete picture of how āthis mortal body must put on immortality.ā
1 Like
Nope. The gospels do not say anything whatsoever about the transition to a resurrected body. It simply shows us what the resurrected body of Jesus can do. Which includes much of what the physical/natural body can do and more.
Itās like the creation account in Genesis, we are not told how God made man in his image, it just says that he did it.
I like how you said the resurrected body can do much of what a physical body can do and more.
The gospels also inform us that the tomb was empty, his body was not there, āthe dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.ā
Thanks, Niobium. Agreed!!
removed this post