That's incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, impassible, impeccable, and immutable! - Oct 23 2023

[Idolater]

It is, but it's different from the ones where some are cast into outer darkness, with weeping and gnashing of teeth. The parable seems to be talking about an earthly kingdom of heaven, where some will be cast out of the kingdom and just be with other people (no gnashing?). So I would suggest God's love is withdrawn from the first group (weepers and gnashers), and effectively so with the second. If God's love (and therefore blessings) is withdrawn from someone on earth now, he can still survive, but to get ahead might require a little conniving.

Just a thought.

Admiral Rickover interviewed sailors to work on his nuclear submarine project. One of the candidates was intelligent and well-credentialed but Rickover couldn't get a good enough read on him through the interview and frustrated, gave him a weird challenge instead, "You have 10 seconds to make me angry: 10, 9, 8, ... " and the candidate, shocked, did something, and it worked! Rickover hired the sailor because of what he had done, but not really because it gave him any more technical information about his ability to design nuclear submarines, but because it showed him more of who he was as a man, and Rickover liked what he saw.

I think in part what the parable's telling us is that God loves a scrappy person. Or like Our Lord called the steward, Shrewd.

And I guess I take it to mean that God is looking for reasons to justify mercy and forgiveness, because He wants to. He doesn't want to kick anybody out on their head. So show Him something. Make Him mad in 10 seconds or under!

 

[Clete]

Agree, but was testing it on the road before learning to drive so to speak: Can I say I 'love' vanilla? Not only that, it seems pretty egocentric. Love is 'other-centric' as far as my working definition.

Agree. I'm never talking about 'choice not involved' just how/if it is part of its definition. It may be helpful to discuss what love is as well as if "Love=Choice" is accurate.

I wouldn't believe so either. I think we both agree it comes from the character and is part of the nature of God, thus ours is a display of imago deo (image/display) of God. It is important both because it expresses God's nature and because as such, does the highest good (both for the lover and the loved). How's that for a definition so far?

Isn't 'moral' just a reflection of God's image and goodness? IOW, isn't any condition (whether it moves or not - working definition of choice at this point) that reflects God's nature already good without the interaction? Let me sail this for a moment: What I 'think' you are talking about is an 'expression' of love between two entities. Another way then of asking if 'choice' is necessary is to ask: Must I have another to act upon, or can I be consistent with 'love' without that being first? Example: I was 'honing' my ability to love before I married. Granted I was honing it with others. Perhaps 'other' is the better descriptor than 'choice' on point? Thank you again for working on this. Also, if you have a good working definition of love that sort of handles and explains all of this already, I'd love to hear your or another's definition in thread (and ty). What a great thread for Christmas, btw!

Do you believe determinism and Freewill are compatible (the middle position)?
It doesn't however, to me, look like it is too involved in the premise: Love ≠Choice. I'm more interested in 'if' love can be defined without 'choice' in its defintion.

Yes, I realize it, but 'robot' is already both not capable of making a choice, nor loving. It'd be like saying, imho, 'rocks' don't love. Of course not but it doesn't seem to touch on the subject "Does love need to have choice in its definition?"

Exactly the question on the table. I don't ever recall any definition of love with 'choice' in the definition.

Sorry, forget it, I was just trying to show that 'robot' like 'rock' can do neither anyway. I was simply saying that 'robot' by any comparison is problematic because "I" can both love and choose, robot can do neither. Anytime we say 'robot' then, we already have neither but people are saying in argument "robots cannot love" when regarding 'choice' but robots cannot 'choose' either so it is already built into the definition of 'robot' that it can do neither. Point? Again: I'm hearing "if you cannot choose, you are just a robot" but I'm disagreeing that one is the other. "IF" I can make a robot love, then perhaps necessarily 'ability to choose' as well, but that's exactly my inquiry: Robot doesn't give me the answer because it can do neither. Again, if too confusing, I'm not really the one that brings up 'robot.' I'm simply trying to answer the premise often asked. I don't think 'robot' is a great talking point because, as I say, Robot cannot do a lot of things we can, so even if Double-pred Calvinist, Robot doesn't quite fit. So in a nutshell, I'm 'trying' to answer to robot but may not be any better than the accusation to begin with. I'd rather say in a nutshell "robot" isn't quite adequate for either of our discussion points.

I do love her exactly the same: She is my sister in Christ. Now certainly I'm 'one flesh' which is a commitment level beyond, but I certainly do love her as my sister in Christ. It is just that as my sister, I love here with Christ in all my interaction and meaningful exchanges. He is the pinnacle and the desire (exactly the same) for every person in my life. I just don't think you can love anyone any better than wanting 'Christ in His fullness for them.'

You are conflating 'same way' with love, between the two perhaps. God has called me to be 'one flesh' but I wasn't comparing that. I was comparing exactly how I love her in Christ to as much as I love another in Christ (granted I'm not exactly 'this' capable, she gets favoritism at this venture, naturally). BUT the best thing I could want for her, her greatest good, is the exact same thing I want for you: Christ. You are bringing some of the idea of 'oneness' into this. So the same highest good, certainly difference and dedications are different.

No, not an options because of all I am and all of who she is, in Christ. "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder." It is not a choice, not an option. Prior? Sure and don't think, yet again, I'm saying choice isn't part of who we are, how we love. I'm rather and only (ever) asking if it is part of the definition of love. You could make a case that I 'can' choose differently but honestly, it is about as 'tempting' as bread from a rock. I'm just not interested. Why? Because the 'pull of love' against 'choice otherwise' is much much stronger. It seems at times, to me, Love is the exact opposite of choice to 'not love' because "God did this and I'm blessed with her" and choice is odd and unnecessary for what is already better than the other choice. Secondarily, yes, trying to find its relation to love, but specifically not on the = level. That is all I'm questioning. I'm trying to see if I can write a definition of love 'with' choice or 'without' choice. It pretty much is trying to find out 'how' exactly choice is related to love. If you followed my 'no' above, I think you can at least appreciate that 'choice to do otherwise' is just not that meaningful to 'love' between my life and I. The actually 'good' choice and not the choice to do otherwise is actually Love's virtue. I realize you know this, I'm just dragging you with me through the 'not love' discussion. It just doesn't look that important to me with my relationship with my wife. "Choices" seems to have even and less and less of anything significance to me as I grow old with her. Simply 'being' seems to be the better descriptor of our marriage over and against 'choice to do otherwise.' I don't think we always have to have contrasts to grasp something and it 'seems' choice isn't the necessary part of grasping it. Is it needed? Yes. We live in a world of autonomy from God and our every endeavor is to grow closer to Him and dependent upon Him. I believe 'choice' diminishes and that eventually there will be no 'choice to do otherwise.' We'll just love Him at that point, not desire for 'choice to do otherwise' will contrast that 10 thousand years from now (may still not be explaining this well).

Right but change the emphasis "will never choose." That's the crisis (not exactly a crisis, just 'why' of the thread discussion for me). I can live with a mystery for awhile, just wanting to know the 'place' of choice in love. To date, 'choices' isn't really a part of my grasp of love definition.

Exactly, so 'as' water is wet (without choice) God is Love is the question/proposition. Is He love, by nature (I believe so, the identity principle 'is' means that), as water is wet? I've never seen a verse: "God chooses to love." We do see "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" with the caveat "this is love," and "not that we loved Him." It isn't the same as "God chose love." Would love to see that verse if you have it. The only one I know of is "God is love."

I don't see 'is' as a categorical error in scripture. "Is" is identity, and equals Moral by definition cannot be amoral (unless we used 'what man decides' from an awkward definition). Similarly love by definition can never 'be' not love. Notice the language is identity. I can 'be' loving. God is love. The scripture grammar on that verse is straightforward and a trait of identity. You can yet argue that choice is necessary part of love, just 'how' at this point and venture.

Right, but I'm arguing it is like you and I being 'man.' We cannot 'choose' to not be man but the absence of choice for identity is not an earmark for identity. You can certainly say I "still choose to be a man" thus that 'choice' is necessary for 'being a man' but I'd argue simply "I have no other option, no choice, yet a man without the choice." If 'love" is identity, there is no appreciable difference between it and identity as a 'man' and it can help us answer whether 'choice' is strongly tied or simply an aspect of it in expression. It 'seems' to me that this is the place of choice in love discussions.

That's the argument at any rate. I'm not convinced God ever has an ability to not love. I don't believe a God who "IS" Love 'can' not love. His hate isn't what anybody else's is. It is simply an expression toward anything 'not love' because He cannot/will not.

You are going to hate this and I know why you are going to hate this, but "no." Temptation doesn't require that I'm sucked in, it simply requires a tempter. Look at the temptation 'bread.' His flesh wanted 'bread' but He didn't want the bread from rock. He could have, without Satan's help, eaten a loaf of bread He made from a rock on His own. His desire was to say "Look, my body wants bread, but I'd literally starve! God's Word causes life (likely referring to himself as the bread of Life?). His 'flesh' would have wanted bread, but He absolutely didn't need to bow to Satan. That doesn't, however mean I'm opposed to anyone saying "yes." It only means that in His perfect nature, He cannot be 'tempted' but say no every time. In the flesh, He could be tempted by 'what His body wants' but not give in because He is God built to say 'no.' Matthew 4:1-11 It is a huge 'other' discussion on TOL. My stance is He can and was 'tempted' but no, that He'd not ever 'choose' against His divine perfect nature. Why? The tree in the Garden was 'the knowledge of Good and Evil." He knows fully what evil is and has a nature completely against it.

Lon,

I literally don't know what you are talking about. I honestly have no idea what point it is you are trying to make.

I very much wish I hadn't asked you that last question because it enticed you to blaspheme your Lord and Savior in one breath and then in the next breath you changed the subject from whether Jesus could have to whether He would have which isn't the same thing at all and has nothing to do with the question at hand nor the topic we're discussing.

In fact, its as if you are incapable of understanding the topic except that you keep contradicting your own desire to find some way of defining love that does not implicitly include choice by offing alternative definition that do precisely that. I don't know how to respond to that because I don't understand how to even understand it.

The closest thing I've that makes some sense of what you're saying is Euthyphro's dilemma which directly touches on the idea that God is love and it is precisely the fact that God is a Trinity that resolves the dilemma in that the three persons of the Trinity are able to interact and love one another.

Lastly, do not, under any circumstances, allow your wife to read your post. If she ever discovers that you're willing to state that you love her the same one you love me, it will not be a pleasant outcome for you. Indeed, the whole purpose of comparing your love for your wife to your love for anyone else was to provide a contrast that no one could fail to distinguish. I keep making that same error on this website. It seems that there is nothing at all that people on the internet are unwilling to shut their eyes too if leaving them open means that they'll have to move an inch off their position.

 

[Derf]

Lon,

I literally don't know what you are talking about. I honestly have no idea what point it is you are trying to make.

I very much wish I hadn't asked you that last question because it enticed you to blaspheme your Lord and Savior in one breath and then in the next breath you changed the subject from whether Jesus could have to whether He would have which isn't the same thing at all and has nothing to do with the question at hand nor the topic we're discussing.

In fact, its as if you are incapable of understanding the topic except that you keep contradicting your own desire to find some way of defining love that does not implicitly include choice by offing alternative definition that do precisely that. I don't know how to respond to that because I don't understand how to even understand it.

The closest thing I've that makes some sense of what you're saying is Euthyphro's dilemma which directly touches on the idea that God is love and it is precisely the fact that God is a Trinity that resolves the dilemma in that the three persons of the Trinity are able to interact and love one another.

Lastly, do not, under any circumstances, allow your wife to read your post. If she ever discovers that you're willing to state that you love her the same one you love me, it will not be a pleasant outcome for you. Indeed, the whole purpose of comparing your love for your wife to your love for anyone else was to provide a contrast that no one could fail to distinguish. I keep making that same error on this website. It seems that there is nothing at all that people on the internet are unwilling to shut their eyes too if leaving them open means that they'll have to move an inch off their position.

Maybe long-winded, meandering posts indicate that very thing--trying to wrap one's mind around a foreign concept. I'd be hesitant to say people CAN'T move off their position, but there's plenty of evidence that it's very difficult for them (and us) to do.

 

[Derf]

Admiral Rickover interviewed sailors to work on his nuclear submarine project. One of the candidates was intelligent and well-credentialed but Rickover couldn't get a good enough read on him through the interview and frustrated, gave him a weird challenge instead, "You have 10 seconds to make me angry: 10, 9, 8, ... " and the candidate, shocked, did something, and it worked! Rickover hired the sailor because of what he had done, but not really because it gave him any more technical information about his ability to design nuclear submarines, but because it showed him more of who he was as a man, and Rickover liked what he saw.

I think in part what the parable's telling us is that God loves a scrappy person. Or like Our Lord called the steward, Shrewd.

And I guess I take it to mean that God is looking for reasons to justify mercy and forgiveness, because He wants to. He doesn't want to kick anybody out on their head. So show Him something. Make Him mad in 10 seconds or under!

I still don't see it as an act of love to even call such things shrewd. Just like saying "the serpent was more subtil than any other animal" is not expressing love, but a mere statement of fact.

 

[Derf]

Do you think He told them that because it was arbitrary, or do you think He told them that because morality is objectively true and real? iow did God just make up the law about abstaining from that one tree? as a sort of test maybe? or did He merely tell them the morally necessary truth, which is (under this theory) that as human beings, morality attaches, and that there's just metaphysically no escaping the fact that sin is a real possibility for us?

I suspect somehow it's both, even though it makes no sense on its face rn to me tbh. Can morality exist pretty much almost eternally, and God exist eternally also at the same time? How do two eternal things interface or interact? And I think that it's important to keep in mind that wherever logical conflicts arise, that God prevails.


100%

Of course.

That was the whole point of the story.
The serpent silently whispered into Eve's mind. And the rest is history. And history ended, we are told as Biblical inerrantists, in or around the year AD 33. We are playing out the tremors from that socio-politico-cultural quake, but the quake is over.

And I'm noting that demonic proposals (thoughts) and suggestions (ideas) are not unique to those of us suffering under concupiscence (this word appears three times in the KJB if you want to look up its context). In fact of Our Lord it's said, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin." This is why it is 100% fair to believe He is a real man and not like a Zeus or Hercules (this is basically Arianism, they felt like they are magnifying Jesus by envisioning Him as a Thor-like entity, rather than the humble ---- and in their eyes humiliating ---- Jesus of Nazareth).

Our Lord heard the Devil silently whispering into even His mind. But as tempting as Satan is, Our Lord withstood it. And as so many Evangelical ministers have pointed out, the way He resisted the Devil's temptations was by quoting the Scripture, which is authored by the Holy Spirit. Also, confer 1st John 4

(@Lon, too)

James tells us we are tempted by our own desires.
James 1:14-15 KJV — But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Satan isn't needed for us to be tempted, merely the option to obey or disobey. I believe Satan was mainly a catalyst to get them to choose the wrong more quickly (for reasons better left to another thread).

 

[Idolater]

I still don't see it as an act of love to even call such things shrewd. Just like saying "the serpent was more subtil than any other animal" is not expressing love, but a mere statement of fact.

We believe that God is love, right? And we believe this parable is about the kingdom of Heaven, right? So I'm thinking that the master in the parable represents God, and if God is love, then love must be in the parable somewhere, coming from the master, the master must be loving in some way, maybe the master is loving someone else besides the steward? What about his debtors, whom the steward had negotiated with and partially forgiven their debts? Maybe those are the parties the master loved, and not the shrewd steward.

 

[Idolater]

(@Lon, too)

James tells us we are tempted by our own desires.
James 1:14-15 KJV — But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Satan isn't needed for us to be tempted, merely the option to obey or disobey. I believe Satan was mainly a catalyst to get them to choose the wrong more quickly (for reasons better left to another thread).

OK but how is it said of Christ that He was "tempted in every way, just as we are"? The only example explicit in the Scripture of Him being tempted is when the Devil was literally tempting Him. Or are you suggesting Our Lord was "drawn away of his own lust?" As if that's possible? What are you saying?

 

[Derf]

We believe that God is love, right? And we believe this parable is about the kingdom of Heaven, right? So I'm thinking that the master in the parable represents God, and if God is love, then love must be in the parable somewhere, coming from the master, the master must be loving in some way, maybe the master is loving someone else besides the steward?

What do you do with a child (whom you love) who won't take correction?

What about his debtors, whom the steward had negotiated with and partially forgiven their debts? Maybe those are the parties the master loved, and not the shrewd steward.

Perhaps.

OK but how is it said of Christ that He was "tempted in every way, just as we are"? The only example explicit in the Scripture of Him being tempted is when the Devil was literally tempting Him. Or are you suggesting Our Lord was "drawn away of his own lust?" As if that's possible? What are you saying?

Good point. Lust is already a sin, though (Thou shalt not covet). When Jesus was growing up, probably fairly poor, did He have opportunity to envy the possessions of others?

And aren't we told about His struggle in Gethsemane about whether to go forward to the cross? Angels came and ministered to Him, but Satan's presence is lacking, at least in scripture.

When we are with the Lord in the resurrection, will some have more than others? Like the 10 talent guy who was given the 1 extra talent?

But by then, I think, we will have learned that the Lord can determine what we can handle, and that we can be happy with what He gives us.

 

[JudgeRightly]

OK but how is it said of Christ that He was "tempted in every way, just as we are"? The only example explicit in the Scripture of Him being tempted is when the Devil was literally tempting Him. Or are you suggesting Our Lord was "drawn away of his own lust?" As if that's possible? What are you saying?

He was tempted (the option to sin was clearly presented to Him) but was not tempted (did not even for one second consider choosing the option (cf. lust in heart = adultery)).

 

[Clete]

Maybe long-winded, meandering posts indicate that very thing--trying to wrap one's mind around a foreign concept. I'd be hesitant to say people CAN'T move off their position, but there's plenty of evidence that it's very difficult for them (and us) to do.

Yeah, I agree. It's definitely an instinctive thing. Part of our fallen flesh, I'd say. Perhaps there is some utility to it in some circumstances but it seems to me that it it is our duty to fight this instinct as best we can when discussing such as issues as whether or not it makes sense to say that God chooses to love us.

 

[Clete]

He was tempted (the option to sin was clearly presented to Him) but was not tempted (did not even for one second consider choosing the option (cf. lust in heart = adultery)).

Not only temptation but actual evil is so endemic to our human existence that I think people often blur the line between the two and think that lust and envy are merely temptations rather than actual sins.

 

[Right Divider]

We believe that God is love, right?

Among many other things.

 

[Lon]

(@Lon, too)

James tells us we are tempted by our own desires.
James 1:14-15 KJV — But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Satan isn't needed for us to be tempted, merely the option to obey or disobey. I believe Satan was mainly a catalyst to get them to choose the wrong more quickly (for reasons better left to another thread).

We are today under sin, so James is correct (obviously). Huge difference. There was no 'fall' without the serpent in the Garden.

 

[Derf]

We are today under sin, so James is correct (obviously). Huge difference. There was no 'fall' without the serpent in the Garden.

Certainly. But could there have been? Hard to know. To say "the way things worked out is the only way things could have worked out" is to presuppose Calvinistic determinism, and probably God being bound by it Himself, eternally.

 

[Clete]

There was no 'fall' without the serpent in the Garden.

Historically true but it does not follow to then conclude that there could not have been any fall without the serpent.

 

[Idolater]

What do you do with a child (whom you love) who won't take correction?

OK, good question.

"In essentials, unity." What can we unite around? Maybe my children won't be Catholics. Maybe they won't take my correction. What do I do.

Seems at this point familial relations have to regress backward to sanitary and sterile politics. Human rights. I have a right to attempt to evict a tenant who refuses to pay rent, so maybe I protect my own rights by telling my children who won't take correction, to pay up or move out.

If they refuse, maybe I exercise my right as steward and extend to them free room and board anyway, in spite of my right to stop this from happening. My master might even consider it my duty to him, that I attempt to evict them. But as steward, I have the power to delay eviction. The master's just not going to get directly involved in this minutiae. I'm in complete control, and I opt to let them stay here.

So now you've got me subsidizing non-Catholics who won't take my correction. I have the right to evict them, but I opt instead to let them stay. Why? In the hopes of converting them one day of course.

Perhaps.

Even from silence you could make the case. The master heard what the steward had done and the end of the story is him clapping the steward on the back with a smile. It wasn't like, "Oh I'm going to go tell my debtors to give me it all back." He seemed pleased, not upset. So I'd just say, although it's silent, that the master's response is congruent with him agreeing to forgive the debtors, and is inconsistent with him not forgiving them all. The Scripture's silent, Our Lord doesn't say explicitly, but what He did say the master did is consistent and congruent and comports with and corroborates and is consonant with him forgiving all the debtors the shrewd steward had forgiven for him.

I mean what does it even mean to be a steward if you have no authority to do anything? That's not a steward, that's a peon. This isn't a parable about a shrewd peon.

Good point. Lust is already a sin, though (Thou shalt not covet). When Jesus was growing up, probably fairly poor, did He have opportunity to envy the possessions of others?

When He went to Jerusalem and the temple he saw all the priests. Were there Jerusalemite merchants who were wealthier than normal, and maybe He saw them in Jerusalem at times as well? Those two pairs of brothers He called disciples were small business owners, I'm sure they were of above average wealth. Not opulent like perhaps Herod or Roman supervisors, but was there anything for Our Lord to covet?

I guess.

But if concupiscence precedes the temptation to covet for us, and for Our Lord He never had concupiscence then He wouldn't be tempted like how we are tempted, because of our concupiscence. But if the Devil whispers silently into your mind, "Wouldn't that be nice to own?" or, "Why does he get to have that, and you don't?" then I would say you are being tempted in the same way as Our Lord was tempted, and He was without sin.

And aren't we told about His struggle in Gethsemane about whether to go forward to the cross? Angels came and ministered to Him, but Satan's presence is lacking, at least in scripture.

Spell out what you're saying. I'm getting that you're suggesting the Devil wasn't literally tempting Him. But what was His experience of this temptation? I suspect concupiscence is something like a longing or thirst which is constant in us for sin. This isn't something Adam and Eve had, otherwise the test in the Garden was simply unjust and God is not unjust, and this was the Garden, pronounced "very good." Adam and Eve were tempted by the Devil. That's a key plot point in the story.

But at Gethsemane, where we're told nothing about Satan being there with Him, it looks as if He's being tempted, I think you're right. But what exactly do you think is happening?

When we are with the Lord in the resurrection, will some have more than others? Like the 10 talent guy who was given the 1 extra talent?

Those were stewards too, right? I couldn't believe the power the first two stewards had exercised. I was more like the last steward, who was punished for not using the power that he had. My reason is more that I don't know how to make the talent grow, it's not that I'm afraid I'll lose it all, it's that I want to make a good investment but I don't know anything about investing. If I do something stupid then it will all be gone. But the point of the story is that the master would have said, "Well done good and faithful steward," even if I had lost it all. He just wanted me to use the power I had inherently as his steward, and do something to try to help my Master. That's the point of the story.

But are there like a billion saints in line ahead of me in line in Heaven, and I'll never be anybody of note in Heaven, compared to Our Lady and the Apostles and the Patriarchs? And compared to prophets and martyrs and heroes of the faith? Yeah, I'm betting on that. I'm definitely not going to be a big-shot in Heaven, there's so many saints ahead of me, and yes they will forever have more than me. That's guaranteed.

But by then, I think, we will have learned that the Lord can determine what we can handle, and that we can be happy with what He gives us.

Safe bet.

 

[Idolater]

He was tempted (the option to sin was clearly presented to Him) but was not tempted (did not even for one second consider choosing the option (cf. lust in heart = adultery)).

There's a reason particular options are presented to each of us. I don't think being tempted because of our concupiscence is of a different scale, it's of the same quality as being presented tempting options, but it's like we're on fire for tempting options, always wanting to hear them. "I feel like, 'Who's got some tempting options for me?' constantly." People who tell me that I'm being sinful and I should just stop being like this, are not my allies. People who acknowledge I've got something called concupiscence, and it's not my fault that it's there but it is there, and that's why I'm so attracted to tempting options, are not my enemies.

Our Lord had no concupiscence, and neither did Adam and Eve. But we do. So He was tempted in some way as we are tempted, and there is a way in which we are tempted that He was not tempted, He did not have a hunger for temptation like we have, He did not search for it constantly.

 

[Idolater]

Not only temptation but actual evil is so endemic to our human existence that I think people often blur the line between the two and think that lust and envy are merely temptations rather than actual sins.

The idea of meditating on it comes to mind. We are presented with options, and if we choose to meditate on a wrong option, then that's the sin of lust and envy. The temptation is not sin, but it is endemic to our human existence, even Adam and Eve and Our Lord were tempted.

 

[Idolater]

Among many other things.

Yes?

 

[Idolater]

We are today under sin, so James is correct (obviously). Huge difference. There was no 'fall' without the serpent in the Garden.

Yep. Key plot point in the story.