Re: Natural Evil (was: The Curse - Upon All Creation...?)

From: <>
Date: Thu Sep 30 2004 - 15:47:29 EDT

I agree, that the only timeline that makes sense is that
these things are a result of the fall of Lucifer which
would have to been long ago in the geologic history of the
Earth. There is no doubt that these things occurred
before Man was on the scene.

But there is no physical or scriptural evidence for the
effect Lucifer's fall had on creation one way or another
so any thoughts about this would be pure speculation.

We do know that through the first Adam death came to man,
and the second Adam came to correct that.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:20:41 -0400
  "Alexanian, Moorad" <> wrote:
>It seems to me that the only timeline that makes sense,
>if you believe
>in the fall of Lucifer, is that Lucifer fell after the
>creation and
>before the fall of man. If so, what was the effect of the
>fall of
>Lucifer on the existing creation?
>-----Original Message-----
>[] On
>Behalf Of
>Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 2:34 PM
>To: Loren Haarsma; _American Sci Affil
>Subject: Re: Natural Evil (was: The Curse - Upon All
>I agree with everything that you say here. My contention
>all along is that there is no curse upon all of creation
>from the fall of Man. Creation was very good before
>and remains very good. The work of Christ on the cross,
>was to reconcile Man to God. There is no need for
>salvation of creation.
>Nevertheless, sinful Man has done his fair share to put
>himself in harms way of these natural occurences, to make
>it seem that God is either taking his vengeance out on
>via natural disasters, or that God is sitting back and
>allowing these things to ocurr seemingly randomly.
>But, how much does our lifestyle, diet, sedentary
>existence, allow things like oncogenes, and genes for
>coronary artery disease, contribute to our susceptiblity
>to them? How much does our tendency to reproduce lead to
>poverty, unsanitary conditions, and overcrowding? How
>often does our wealth lead us to build where we shouldnt,
>and become vulnerable to hurricanes, etc.
>Man was created to lived in a sheltered garden, in
>communion with God and the tree of life. In that state
>Man would have been immoral. Certainly, all of the other
>things that you describe would have continued forever
>outside the garden, and had been going on for millenia
>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:54:23 -0400 (EDT)
> Loren Haarsma <> wrote:
>> "Natural evil" is a category name given for things like
>>earthquakes and
>>parasites and disease which hurt, destroy, and kill, but
>>which are not
>>caused by anyone's specific immoral decision. Is all
>>"natural evil" a
>>result of the Fall and the Curse?
>> Bivalve wrote:
>>> Paleontological evidence clearly indicates the death of
>>> (including predation) long before the existence of
>>> At least four explanations exist:
>>> Paleontological evidence is incorrect.
>>> Death of animals is not inherently a moral evil.
>>> Satan's fall was allowed to affect animals.
>>> The state of the world reflected humanity's future
>>>fall (cf. salvation
>>> of OT believers before Jesus' earthly life).
>>Sheila Wilson wrote:
>>> Formation and creation are not the same thing. Stars
>>>are a
>>> "re-formation" event, formed from existing material. Is
>>>it possible
>>> that thorny plants existed before but they were more
>>>controllable or the
>>> thorns were blunted so they didn't stick?
>>Mike Tharp wrote:
>>> Your comment regarding "very good, not perfect" got me
>>>to thinking. (I
>>> know; scary concept!) Wouldn't God, in His perfection,
>>>have created
>>> perfection originally? In other words, wouldn't the
>>>original creation
>>> have been perfect until God cursed it because of man's
>> The laws of nature which allow stars and planets to
>>form also allow for
>>asteroid impacts. The laws of nature which make plate
>>tectonics happen,
>>which keep the continents from eroding into the sea and
>>bring new mineral
>>nutrents to the surface and make life on land possible,
>>also make
>>earthquakes and volcanoes. The laws of nature which make
>>it possible for
>>DNA to exist also make occasional mutations inevitable.
>> The laws of
>>nature which allow amazing lichen to grow tenaciously on
>>bare rock also
>>allow tenacious weeds to spring up everywhere. The laws
>>of nature which
>>allow beautiful symbiosis to develop also allow predation
>>and parasitism.
>>The laws of nature which allow cells to repair themselves
>>also allow for
>>cell malignancy and disease.
>> You can't tweak the fundamental laws of nature a little
>>bit and get a
>>universe without natural evil. Moreover, astronomy tells
>>us that the
>>fundamental laws of nature haven't changed all the way
>>back to the Big
>> We live in an amazing creation, but natural evil seems
>>to be part of a
>>package deal. If we hypothesize that natural evil is due
>>to the fall of
>>humanity or the fall of Satan -- if we hypothesize a
>>creation like ours
>>but without natural evil -- then either we are talking
>>about a radical
>>re-write of all the laws of nature going all the way back
>>to the begining,
>>or we are talking about a creation in which God is
>>intervening in natural processes to stop natural evil.
>> In either case, it
>>calls into question what is meant by a "good" creation.
>> As has been pointed out, Genesis 1 also talks about
>>"subduing." Creation
>>was declared good, but also in need of subduing. I
>>wonder if this is the
>>theological category where we should place natural evil.
>>Loren Haarsma
Received on Thu Sep 30 16:20:11 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 30 2004 - 16:20:13 EDT