Re: I find the Fall perhaps the most interesting part.
Jeordam Send a noteboard - 02/03/2012 06:26:06 PM
That whole free will thing is a big deal.
Very much so, yet it seems paradoxical, or nearly so, as well. How could there be free will before sin? Yet how could there be sin before free will?
Well you bring up an interesting topic. Can there be free will before sin? The answer to that is yes. And the Bible tells explores this for us. Ok...pre-time, creation or whatever...there was God in heaven, with all the angels. It was perfect. It was heaven. Then Lucifer *chose* to rise up and defy God...and a whole third of the angels agreed with this move. So notice this....in an existence of perfection, one individual rebelled against God (that would be sin) because he wanted to (that would be free will).
Now if this was an isolated incident, it would cloud the issue a bit, but it wasn't. A full third of the angels went along with the defiance. That's a pretty good example of the existence of free will within perfection. And also a good example of there being a choice between something you know and something you want (even if its a foreign concept).
Again, my personal dogma, but the best resolution I can find is that Adam and Eve had free will before the Fall, but did not have choice until the serpent tempted Eve. Prior to that there was free will and the ABILITY to disobey God, but without AWARENESS of that ability. They could disobey at any time, but it was so foreign to their comprehension they never did. I never had a nicotine craving until I started smoking, but now cannot go more than an hour or two without wanting a cigarette very badly. Even though I know it does me no good, does significant harm and will ultimately kill me if I continue doing it—I do it anyway, knowing all that, because I am an idiot. And because I made a very bad choice that tainted my body with something it now demands regularly, and I grant that demand.
Using your own example, you had both ability (to smoke or not to) and awareness (its effects short/long term). Its just that awareness was not personal. For you, it was theory...it was a story told to you by someone else. For whatever reason, you exercised your free will. You made a decision. Your personal motivations, thought process, or expectations are beside the point. The point is that you made a decision.
The same can be said of Eve. She had the ability to make a decision (which she obviously did). And she was aware of the consequences (death). And just like you...that awareness was not personal. It was theory, a concept, that was communicated to her by someone else. As for her motivations, the word alludes to her having a desire to be "over" man...not just his equal. And the fact that she was tempted/tricked into by the serpent that she wouldn't die *right then*. Well, the best lies are tinged with truth, yes? She didn't die right then. And the argument can be made that it wasn't a physical death being referred to at all, but a spiritual death.
Yet where is choice without appreciation for the consequences of the options? Even stating, "in the day that you eat from it you will surely die," is not terribly informative for a being that has never witnessed, let alone experienced, death (and reverting to "dying you shall die" does not help matters.) But all the other harmful consequences (e.g. ones son murdering another of ones sons) are not just unknown but literally unimaginable. God could have explained every single detail of the negative things that would result from the Fall and Adam and Eve would have just stared in confusion like the simpletons they were. "Death" and "suffering" had no more meaning to them than "television" or "Certs, with Retzyn™."
So are you saying that God is somehow obligated to explain every little detail? Or is it just enough that God, who well, spoke existence into reality told you to not do something. Yes, death and suffering were foreign concepts to them. What wasn't foreign to them is God telling them something. God *literally* speaking with them...like out loud.
Since they could not choose disobedience, they could not truly choose obedience either; it was both the default option and the ONLY option. The Fall changed all that, because once they knew evil first hand they could reject it, or not, and could obey God from love, or not. It changed a lot of other things, too; it enabled the ultimate demonstration of Gods love, justice, glory and power in the Crucifixion. In that light the Fall seems both inevitable and necessary.
Well here's a fun thought. Was the crucifixion destined to happen from the onset of Creation, or was it a just destined to happen from The Fall? I've pondered this thought, and here's my brain on the matter. Now of course, in this thought process I'm equating Lucifer and the serpent. From however long Lucifer has been in existence, he knows God. He knows God's love. Upon creation of humanity, I think that Lucifer was going to test God. How far does God's love extend? Even if those He loves disobey Him....will He still love them?
What I'm getting to is this. Its my pet-theory that Satan tested to see what God would do. Is this whole "love" thing gonna actually play out long term? Would God "go to the mat" for these humans? I'm not saying that Lucifer can tell the future, or that he's omnicient in any way...I'm just saying that he was testing God.
The one thing I cannot really understand is whence comes the serpent, whom a perfect God could not create evil. Even if we say enticing man to sin was not itself sinful, the bible says the serpent lied (in fact, that the serpent accused GOD of lying when He said eating the forbidden fruit was fatal.) All the same issues seem to apply even if free will is assumed as a given. If the Devil tempted Eve to Fall (which Genesis does not explicitly state, though strongly implying it,) who or what tempted him? The only answer I can suggest is not one I like: That the devil is as infinitely knowledgeable as God is, and inferior principally in that God is inherently greater.
I think that this may be where you're getting caught up. God didn't create something evil. He created something with free will which itself *chose* evil. That's a very, very big distinction to grasp onto. God created the angels perfectly...yet Lucifer (and the fallen third) chose to do evil. God created humanity perfectly...yet we chose to do evil.
If anything, this should demonstrate that God doesn't want love-robots. He wants someone to choose to love him. To use one of your phrases, love cannot be coerced. To address your question, who tempted Lucifer? I'd saying nothing overtly did. I'd say, if anything, his own "heart" did. By heart, I mean his free will, his emotions, his intelect. The Bible does state that the heart is deceitful. Our emotions are deceitful and lead us to make poor decisions.
Think of Lucifer's situation. God is worshiped. God is God...He always has been. Lucifer, on the other hand, is a created being. He isn't being worshiped...he's the one doing the worship. how far of a reach is it to think that sometime Lucifer thought "I'd like to be worshiped sometime." That started the ball rolling. It wouldn't be long before that turned into overt rebellion, not just an interal thought/concept.
*hisses menacingly but enticingly*
You theological tease.
~Jeordam
ex-Admin at wotmania (all things wot & art galleries)
Saving the Princess, Humanity, or the World-Entire since 1985
Saving the Princess, Humanity, or the World-Entire since 1985
Do you know the best way to anger an atheist?
28/02/2012 07:10:57 PM
- 1858 Views
Or, you could baptize one of them, posthumously.
28/02/2012 07:32:48 PM
- 1190 Views
I can't think of any reason for an atheist to be annoyed by that.
28/02/2012 11:08:44 PM
- 946 Views
Well, for starters, it's really effing rude.
28/02/2012 11:31:36 PM
- 986 Views
It is an act of love.
29/02/2012 12:34:03 AM
- 1010 Views
Everyone does it for that reason? (edits for clarity)
29/02/2012 10:27:02 AM
- 899 Views
I have some disturbing news for you...
29/02/2012 06:42:41 PM
- 947 Views
For anyone reading this: the guy above is wrong, and I am admitting that to you on his behalf, so
29/02/2012 07:15:38 PM
- 956 Views
Maybe without realizing it, you have articulated....
29/02/2012 07:24:13 PM
- 812 Views
I actually find that conversation quite interesting.
29/02/2012 08:18:35 PM
- 935 Views
Re: I actually find that conversation quite interesting.
29/02/2012 09:07:06 PM
- 957 Views
I cannot possibly agree more with these two paragraphs of yours...
29/02/2012 09:28:09 PM
- 969 Views
I find the Fall perhaps the most interesting part.
02/03/2012 09:05:29 AM
- 1331 Views
Re: I find the Fall perhaps the most interesting part.
02/03/2012 06:26:06 PM
- 1110 Views
There are 3 critical distinctions: 1) Ability to sin, 2) Awareness of sin and 3) Appreciation of sin
05/03/2012 04:08:36 AM
- 879 Views
It is not an act of love to defy the beliefs of a loved one.
29/02/2012 02:32:45 PM
- 1055 Views
Rape? That is ridiculous.
29/02/2012 05:26:13 PM
- 959 Views
It's a bit of hyperbole, but not too far from it, imo
29/02/2012 05:45:39 PM
- 990 Views
"Spiritual rape" might be going a bit far, but otherwise that sounds about right.
02/03/2012 08:06:48 AM
- 1020 Views
Isn't religion different than faith, though?
28/02/2012 07:44:07 PM
- 1015 Views
Yeah that's pretty much what I said
28/02/2012 08:21:56 PM
- 803 Views
that won't work on Buddists
28/02/2012 09:21:48 PM
- 953 Views
For some reason I always imagine Buddhists as the monk class on RPG games... *NM*
28/02/2012 10:13:27 PM
- 473 Views
That's always been my view of the issue. Half-assed non-religious types are just as obnoxious too.
28/02/2012 10:34:12 PM
- 1168 Views
Seems a got both a pat on the back and a scathing rebuke. I call that a good day
28/02/2012 11:57:45 PM
- 1237 Views
Best way to anger an atheist, by declaring all atheists are the same. *NM*
28/02/2012 10:38:51 PM
- 616 Views
Common error number 1: "Atheism isn't a lack of belief, but rather a belief that God doesn't exist."
28/02/2012 11:18:23 PM
- 1098 Views
Curiously, anger at statements of simple obvious facts is a hallmark of religious fundamentalism.
29/02/2012 10:27:29 AM
- 1038 Views
What you're doing there is defining "atheist" and "agnostic" in a way that suits you, but...
29/02/2012 11:50:27 AM
- 836 Views
What I am doing is using the terms as they were universally used until about the time I was born.
05/03/2012 01:11:21 AM
- 973 Views
So what do you call this position?:
05/03/2012 08:43:20 AM
- 929 Views
I call them both agnostic, but the former leans toward atheism while the latter has no lean.
05/03/2012 10:53:02 AM
- 982 Views
See, there you go again, defining atheism in such a way as to make it sound ridiculous.
05/03/2012 11:21:17 AM
- 807 Views
Well, is unswerving belief a good thing, or not?
05/03/2012 11:57:05 AM
- 1034 Views
What's happening
05/03/2012 02:24:41 PM
- 1016 Views
Conversationally, DKs use of "atheism" at the start of this convo is the only practical definition.
07/03/2012 03:10:18 AM
- 1323 Views
Oh really? The guy who was doing it to annoy people?
07/03/2012 09:53:38 PM
- 920 Views
The guy who was doing it to annoy atheists based on the terms technical and popular meaning, yes.
11/03/2012 04:04:36 AM
- 797 Views
Whatever.
12/03/2012 12:39:24 AM
- 1237 Views
I understand that as "I completely agree."
13/03/2012 12:11:18 AM
- 1074 Views
I have known very few people who "believe" their religion from rearing and actually understand it.
29/02/2012 12:08:01 PM
- 1165 Views
I thought that was "best way to make an atheist roll his/her eyes at you"? *NM*
29/02/2012 11:05:21 PM
- 566 Views