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

[Idolater]

Certainly. But could there have been? Hard to know.

I think it's easy to know, and it's because the temptation is a key plot point in the story. The story doesn't go without a plot, and a plot doesn't go without a plot point. The primary plot point is the temptation.

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.

I think it's fair to ponder what it means that the only way God could make all this for us, is for there to be spiritual beings (disembodied minds) who are free to rebel against Him. If not for that feature, would we be impossible for Him to make? Is it like the logic just doesn't work unless there are spiritual beings with real freedom? Unless there are spiritual beings with real freedom, then there can't be physical beings with real freedom (us), is this what it means?

 

[Idolater]

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

Right. It's unnecessary to say so.

 

[JudgeRightly]

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.

Why do you deny what Scripture plainly says?

Hebrews 4:14-16:
Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Jesus was, in fact, tempted in all points as we are.

You sound like you're trying to give yourself some sort of excuse for some of your sin.

That's not a good thing.

 

[Derf]

I think it's easy to know, and it's because the temptation is a key plot point in the story. The story doesn't go without a plot, and a plot doesn't go without a plot point. The primary plot point is the temptation.


I think it's fair to ponder what it means that the only way God could make all this for us, is for there to be spiritual beings (disembodied minds) who are free to rebel against Him. If not for that feature, would we be impossible for Him to make? Is it like the logic just doesn't work unless there are spiritual beings with real freedom? Unless there are spiritual beings with real freedom, then there can't be physical beings with real freedom (us), is this what it means?

And you're saying that at least some of those spiritual beings with real freedom could sin without a tempter, right? Maybe not some, but at least one? I rest my case.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes?

Yes!

Get a Bible and learn about Him.

 

[Derf]

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.

If they've found actual truth that doesn't fit with Catholicism, give up on Catholicism.

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.

Yep.

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.

And in spite of the danger that they might bring to the faithful of your household?

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.

If the master says it's your duty, and you're in complete control and neglect your duty, are you being more merciful than your master? Are you in the position of the disobedient children now? Seems like eventually you would be kicked out with them.

So now you've got me subsidizing non-Catholics who won't take my correction.

I'd rather stick to the use of "Christians" rather than "Catholics". You've now chosen the side of non-Christians over Christ. That can't be a good thing.

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.

Jesus said to kick the dust off our feet in a parallel situation.

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.

He wasn't clapping the steward on the back...He didn't talk to the steward at that point. He merely said it was a wise thing to do once you know you're getting kicked out.

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.

Can you explain how (where) the Lord said this about the master?

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.

No, it's about somebody getting kicked out.

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.

They had left all they had to follow Him.

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.


Spell out what you're saying. I'm getting that you're suggesting the Devil wasn't literally tempting Him.

I don't know, since scripture doesn't say.

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.

Or something that isn't meant to be yet.
Luke 22:15 KJV — And he said unto them, With desire (concupiscence) I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

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.

It was "desired to make one wise", and "good for food", and "pleasant to the eyes". It was those things even without any input from Satan.

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?

He's about to be tortured to death.

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.

Yes, you do. You know how to lay up treasures in heaven where moth and rust don't corrupt.

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?

The last shall be first...

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.

Let's go back to the treasures in heaven bit. You still have your talent, right? Go dig it up and invest it.

 

[Lon]

Right. It's unnecessary to say so.

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

Okay, help me out then ( I'm open to it being wrong).

1) Adam and Eve, in the Garden are created 'good.'
2) They have a directive not to eat of the tree (I don't believe the complication "or even touch it" needful for this part of discussion)
.: ) Because they are good, and as beings made to be good, they will not eat of the tree without the temptation.

For me: What is missing is an 'impetus' to disobey. The desire nor ability seems possible given their own natures do not desire the 'not listen to God.' Pondered question: in your estimation, do Adam and Eve have a Spiritual relationship with God at this venture, or was the dichotomy between flesh and spirit only present as separate, after the Fall (or some other answer perspective)?

 

[Derf]

Okay, help me out then ( I'm open to it being wrong).

We're handicapped a little in understanding the other fall, but it needs to be considered with the same questions.

1) Adam and Eve, in the Garden are created 'good.'

Satan (Lucifer?) was also created 'good.'

2) They have a directive not to eat of the tree (I don't believe the complication "or even touch it" needful for this part of discussion)

He (light-bearer?) had a directive as well, probably to look after the new couple and "bear them up in his hands, lest they strike their foot against a stone."

.: ) Because they are good, and as beings made to be good, they will not eat of the tree without the temptation.

Because Satan (Lucifer?) was good, as a being made to be good, he will not fall into temptation.

For me: What is missing is an 'impetus' to disobey.

For Satan as well.

The desire nor ability seems possible given their own natures do not desire the 'not listen to God.'

Same with Satan.

Pondered question: in your estimation, do Adam and Eve have a Spiritual relationship with God at this venture, or was the dichotomy between flesh and spirit only present as separate, after the Fall (or some other answer perspective)?

For now, I'll leave this for others to answer.

 

[Lon]

We're handicapped a little in understanding the other fall, but it needs to be considered with the same questions.

Satan (Lucifer?) was also created 'good.'

Yes. We aren't told how he was capable of rebellion against God.

He (light-bearer?) had a directive as well, probably to look after the new couple and "bear them up in his hands, lest they strike their foot against a stone."

Have not heard this prior. Source?

Because Satan (Lucifer?) was good, as a being made to be good, he will not fall into temptation.

Seems legit but I've not seen much on contemplation regarding the fall of Satan. Here is a link that explains all I've ever heard regarding the subject: https://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-fall.html

A bit more, but all gets into tradition for interpretation and so is twice removed from questions concerning him: https://biblereasons.com/satans-fall/

For Satan as well.

At least we don't have a bullet and a smoking gun. Something, some impetus, allowed the awful change.

Same with Satan.

We are told plainly how/why/when Adam and Eve ate of the tree. We are not told about Satan other than according to traditional interpretation concerning the King of Babylon and Tyre. Even so, it talks of pride and 'fallen' without giving clarity on 'how.' I've no idea why we are not told at this venture, because he was involved in the fall of men.

For now, I'll leave this for others to answer.

 

[Derf]

Yes. We aren't told how he was capable of rebellion against God.

Have not heard this prior. Source?

Combination of this:
Psalm 91:10-12 KJV — There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling. For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.

And this, where it is also for our benefit:
Hebrews 1:13-14 KJV — But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for THEM who shall be heirs of salvation?

Seems legit but I've not seen much on contemplation regarding the fall of Satan. Here is a link that explains all I've ever heard regarding the subject: https://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-fall.html

A bit more, but all gets into tradition for interpretation and so is twice removed from questions concerning him: https://biblereasons.com/satans-fall/

Agreed, but not necessary for my point.

At least we don't have a bullet and a smoking gun. Something, some impetus, allowed the awful change.

But, according to you, there had to be one, right? And if it had to be external in A & E's case, the same would have to apply to S. But that thinking can only lead back to God as the impetus. And not "allowed", but instigated the awful change. That makes God the author of evil, as well as the tempter, which we know He is not. So the position isn't tenable.

We are told plainly how/why/when Adam and Eve ate of the tree. We are not told about Satan other than according to traditional interpretation concerning the King of Babylon and Tyre. Even so, it talks of pride and 'fallen' without giving clarity on 'how.' I've no idea why we are not told at this venture, because he was involved in the fall of men.

Again, we don't need those details to know that the position isn't tenable. If he was made good (can God make anything bad?), then he requires an external impetus, and that impetus needs an external impetus, and so on back to God.

Which only leaves us with the possibility of an internal impetus that God did not create/author/ordain, but made possible. This is the free will argument. God gave them the ability to choose, which has to include the ability to choose wrongly.

 

[Clete]

@Lon,

I think you might have missed Derf's point (or one of them anyway). Let me phrase the point in the form of a question...

IF Adam and Eve, having been created good, would not have eaten of the Tree (i.e. sinned) without temptation, then it would follow that the same would apply to Lucifer who was also created good. So...

Who tempted Lucifer?

 

[Lon]

Combination of this:
Psalm 91:10-12 KJV — There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling. For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.

And this, where it is also for our benefit:
Hebrews 1:13-14 KJV — But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for THEM who shall be heirs of salvation?

Thanks.

Agreed, but not necessary for my point.

But, according to you, there had to be one, right? And if it had to be external in A & E's case, the same would have to apply to S. But that thinking can only lead back to God as the impetus. And not "allowed", but instigated the awful change. That makes God the author of evil, as well as the tempter, which we know He is not. So the position isn't tenable.

It seems to be necessary for 'good' to become 'evil.' We know what caused it with Adam and Eve. Beyond we don't, but appreciate the discussion points.

Again, we don't need those details to know that the position isn't tenable.

I believe we do. It is part and par for what actually did happen.

If he was made good (can God make anything bad?), then he requires an external impetus, and that impetus needs an external impetus, and so on back to God.

Right, how does a 'good' system go bad? We at least know, one point where it is a perpetuation rather than originality.

Which only leaves us with the possibility of an internal impetus that God did not create/author/ordain, but made possible. This is the free will argument. God gave them the ability to choose, which has to include the ability to choose wrongly.

Such implies putting in a 'faulty' trigger because freewill necessitates an ability to 'do otherwise (sin).' It is my estimation it does the same: moves the goal post and implicates God in the fall. I'd rather, at this point, entertain "God is light and in Him is no darkness at all." as well as "God does not tempt."

 

[Lon]

@Lon,

I think you might have missed Derf's point (or one of them anyway). Let me phrase the point in the form of a question...

IF Adam and Eve, having been created good, would not have eaten of the Tree (i.e. sinned) without temptation, then it would follow that the same would apply to Lucifer who was also created good. So...

Who tempted Lucifer?

I know! As I told Derf 1) We are told 'how' with Adam and Eve. 2) We are never told how Satan fell. I've wrestled with this over years and have no answer. If I read you and Derf correctly, the answer for you and freewill theists is God created us with freewill. My problem with the idea in a nutshell (it gets deeper than this cursory): It makes God the Creator of a faulty switch, a switch that is never supposed to be flipped.

What I know from Genesis 2,3:
There is a prohibition, not to 'create a dilemma' but to keep Adam and Eve from partaking of something in the Garden that is God's alone (Huge discussion about the tree itself, who was it for? why was it specifically there? etc.).

I'm not opposed to the freewill discussion but 'free' at our venture is free 'from' God and thus isn't desirable (no longer a gift if it ever was).
In the sense we are created in God's image, we are made to fellowship which, at the Garden, had them as unique stand-alone entities (sorry, haven't tried to explain this before so I realize it is hazy description). For me then, there is a need for a better word and descriptor than 'freewill.' We are talking about imago deo and an attribute that is able to respond to the Creator, as creation somehow like Him in image. Freewill is okay, but not quite where I think the definition needs to be, especially because 1) Freewill definition after the Fall conflates and 2) It yet points to God making a switch that 'can' make an evil decision (will let you expound, I'm over my word-limit).
I'll leave it there. Right Divider has called me on lengthy verbosity and I'm guilty as charged.

Again, thank you. -Lon

 

[Derf]

Thanks.

It seems to be necessary for 'good' to become 'evil.' We know what caused it with Adam and Eve. Beyond we don't, but appreciate the discussion points.


I believe we do. It is part and par for what actually did happen.

Right, how does a 'good' system go bad? We at least know, one point where it is a perpetuation rather than originality.

Such implies putting in a 'faulty' trigger because freewill necessitates an ability to 'do otherwise (sin).' It is my estimation it does the same: moves the goal post and implicates God in the fall. I'd rather, at this point, entertain "God is light and in Him is no darkness at all." as well as "God does not tempt."

So we're using the same characteristics of God to come to opposite conclusions. In my case, no other entities are necessary to the story, but in your case unnamed others are.

You don't you think God can make a being that can choose evil over good without being responsible for that evil. I think it's the only way to end up with a created being that sins. Else you're driven to propose a being that God did not create. Can you give any scripture that says there is a being, beside himself, that God did not create? I can give several that say there is no such being.

And if created by God, and if God only creates good beings, then the possibility of evil rests with the created being, rather than his creator. I would suggest that the possibility of doing evil is bound up in the definition of "good".

And "triggerable" evil is better than "determined" evil.

 

[Lon]

So we're using the same characteristics of God to come to opposite conclusions. In my case, no other entities are necessary to the story, but in your case unnamed others are.



And "triggerable" evil is better than "determined" evil.

All fair. I'm sure you are following Clete and my discussion in Our Moral God. I'm having a few 'ah ha' moments (may be serviceable for our discussion). My attempt has comfortably allowed an "I've no idea" answer such that God is never accused because we have no known trigger on my position. "Freewill" has always been suspect because of that 'triggerable' switch. My 'ah ha' moment in Moral God is that it isn't 'freewill' for me as the best descriptor, but 'imago deo.' Freewill is a conflation of our fallen state. We are 'free from' God which is no place to be thus I've never seen it as a 'gift.' My epiphany today is that freewill theists aren't so much talking about freewill, as imago deo: An ability to interact with God as entities like Him. There is no relationship with God, without being conscious of self as separate identity (where Freewill description comes from).

The preview to conversation there then is: I don't believe we are talking about freewill alone, but freewill with clarification less broadly and the greater (overarching) idea of imago deo, rather. IOW, I 'think' I finally get what freewill theist are trying to say, but I think the term freewill to constricted for what they are actually trying to describe. If my elucidation is correct, freewill serves somewhat, but isn't really what freewill theists are talking about, Imago Deo is.

 

[Derf]

All fair. I'm sure you are following Clete and my discussion in Our Moral God. I'm having a few 'ah ha' moments (may be serviceable for our discussion). My attempt has comfortably allowed an "I've no idea" answer such that God is never accused because we have no known trigger on my position. "Freewill" has always been suspect because of that 'triggerable' switch. My 'ah ha' moment in Moral God is that it isn't 'freewill' for me as the best descriptor, but 'imago deo.' Freewill is a conflation of our fallen state. We are 'free from' God which is no place to be thus I've never seen it as a 'gift.' My epiphany today is that freewill theists aren't so much talking about freewill, as imago deo: An ability to interact with God as entities like Him. There is no relationship with God, without being conscious of self as separate identity (where Freewill description comes from).

The preview to conversation there then is: I don't believe we are talking about freewill alone, but freewill with clarification less broadly and the greater (overarching) idea of imago deo, rather. IOW, I 'think' I finally get what freewill theist are trying to say, but I think the term freewill to constricted for what they are actually trying to describe. If my elucidation is correct, freewill serves somewhat, but isn't really what freewill theists are talking about, Imago Deo is.

I don't care so much about what it's called, as long as the descriptor is descriptive enough. "Free will" suggests things in my mind that are more descriptive than "imago dei", mainly because that term is used by so many for divergent meanings.

For instance, some people think the image of God verses tell us that God is around 6 foot 3 in height.

I think your issue with "freewill" is that it has a traditional (to you) negative connotation you can't get past. I think this is the right time to consider the distinction posed by several here that says a "will" is by definition "free". In other words, if a person only wants (wills) what they are told to want, they have no will at all. They are merely a conduit for the higher being's will.

 

[Lon]

I don't care so much about what it's called, as long as the descriptor is descriptive enough. "Free will" suggests things in my mind that are more descriptive than "imago dei", mainly because that term is used by so many for divergent meanings.

Understood but for posterity, imago Deo should produce the question "How are we in His image?" Ideas of 'self' suggest a freewill notion, but it is more an 'independence' a 'separate mind.' The implications of such are far reaching, if you meet another after me that isn't too keen on 'freewill' it might serve to have this in the back of your mind. It can/does solve discussion problems. While you adopt 'freewill,' you are actually trying to account for something much larger in picture: How we are created in His image and the 'gift' that the specific is. Freewill, at this venture, I believe is selling your theology too short as well as assuming some problematics with the misapprehension, as well as causing further problematic assumption into the rest of theology understanding.

For instance, some people think the image of God verses tell us that God is around 6 foot 3 in height.

Sad because we know "God is Spirit." Either ignorance or a different religion altogether on point.

I think your issue with "freewill" is that it has a traditional (to you) negative connotation you can't get past. I think this is the right time to consider the distinction posed by several here that says a "will" is by definition "free".

"Free" in what sense? This is where the circular reason begins on every conversation I've had with the freewill theist. For me, it is either to be considered an obfuscation or a move on the goalpost. I believe 'entity' can solve this, but no freewill theist has naught but double-down on it being a must. At this venture, I don't believe it is. "Free" is a complication. "Entity" (created in God's image) is the sense that we are somehow autonomous (free, not exactly). The better descriptor is "conscious" and "able to follow commands." Such 'looks' like freewill, but I'm of the current observation freewill isn't what you are talking about. It is too broad a stroke and too narrow at the same time, for what I believe Freewill theists are intending to say, thus my 'ah ha' moment. You don't really mean freewill but consciousness, identity, and a ability to reciprocate among other traits of imago deo. Moses used the term: "In our own image" so despite the problematic of other's use, it should be a talking point when we are discussing the topic of freewill that largely comes from Genesis 1-3

In other words, if a person only wants (wills) what they are told to want, they have no will at all.

This is the hang-up and 'is' freewill specifically defined as 'a will to disobey God.' It yet makes Him the author of sin, if indirectly. Rather, there is no switch: Imago Deo itself is an independence that 'can' (not intended in the creation of) choose otherwise, but not 'made' to be able to choose otherwise, if you follow. Briefly: Freewill IS the switch embraced where what you are actually trying to accomplish is a being with 'no switch.' Freewill thus, becomes the proverbial nail that we others dismiss readily because it makes God do something nebulous as well as affects your theology there after wrought with assumptions tied to the notion of that switch and moreover 'as a gift.' I believe the freewill analogy on point flawed, freewill theists are more directly talking about imago deo - no switch, consciousness. self-awareness etc. to respond in relationship with God.

They are merely a conduit for the higher being's will.

Such causes God to make a 'switch' in man 'to do otherwise' (definition of freewill). It is why it is rejected at the starting gates of discussion. Better: There is no switch. God made man with an 'other' consciousness. Freewill is unnecessary and problematic because it is a 'switch' theory. Consciousness of self (part of imago deo) is a qualifier of relationship better than a 'choice switch.'

 

[Derf]

Understood but for posterity, imago Deo should produce the question "How are we in His image?" I believe an idea of 'self' suggest a freewill notion, but it is more an 'independence' a 'separate mind.' The implications of such are far reaching so perhaps too broad for short conversation, but if you meet another after me that isn't too keen on 'freewill' it might serve to have this in the back of your mind. It can/does solve discussion problems. While you adopt 'freewill,' you are actually trying to account for something much larger in picture: How we are created in His image and the 'gift' that that specific is. Freewill, at this venture, I believe is selling your theology too short as well as assuming some problematics with the misapprehension.

Sad because we know "God is Spirit." Either ignorance or a different religion altogether on point.

"Free" in what sense? This is where the circular reason begins on every conversation I've had with the freewill theist. For me, it is either to be considered an obfuscation or a move on the goalpost. I believe 'entity' can solve this, but no freewill theist has naught but double-down on it being a must. At this venture, I don't believe it is. "Free" is a complication. "Entity" (created in God's image) is the sense that we are somehow autonomous (free, not exactly). The better descriptor is "conscious" and "able to follow commands." Such 'looks' like freewill, but I'm of the current observation freewill isn't what you are talking about. It is too broad for what I believe Freewill theists are intending to say, thus my 'ah ha' moment. You don't really mean freewill but something different.


See, this is the hang-up and 'is' freewill specifically defined as 'a will to disobey God.' It yet makes Him the author of sin, if indirectly. Rather, there is no switch. Imago Deo itself is an independence that 'can' (not intended in the creation of) choose otherwise, but not 'made' to be able to choose otherwise, if you follow.

Not following very well. If "can", on purpose, that equals "made to be able", according to the definitions of "can" and "on purpose": (surely you agree that God was purposeful in His creating, and that nothing He created turned out unexpected, or "not very good"?)

Briefly: Freewill IS the switch embraced where what you are actually trying to accomplish is a being with 'no switch.'

Can we back up and talk about what switched? I would say there was a switch between innocent and guilty. What about you?

Freewill thus, becomes the proverbial nail that we others dismiss readily because it makes God do something nebulous

What did God do that was nebulous in my view?

as well as affects your theology there after wrought with assumptions tied to the notion of that switch and moreover 'as a gift.'

I think you're talking about the idea that we can choose to love or not love, and you're wondering how "not love" is something good, right? If so, you should review your conversation with @Clete. I thought you and he were making progress in this area. In short, there is no "love" without the possibility of "not love".

I explained it to a coworker as someone creating a robot who constantly says "I love you," and to attend to your every wish, because you programmed it to do so. It's not "love", BECAUSE there's no choice. Concious (in some way) and able to follow orders. But not able not to follow orders.

I believe the freewill analogy on point flawed, freewill theists are more directly talking about imago deo - no switch, consciousness. self-awareness etc. to respond in relationship with God.

I don't see how you can avoid the same conundrum you want to foist on me. If your imago dei allows someone to disobey God, how is it any better? Surely it is God's image, specifically, that is now disobeying its creator. In what way is disobedience part of God's image?

 

[Lon]

Not following very well. If "can", on purpose, that equals "made to be able", according to the definitions of "can" and "on purpose": (surely you agree that God was purposeful in His creating, and that nothing He created turned out unexpected, or "not very good"?)

Imago Deo doesn't demand that. Simply, man is created with a sense of 'other'/consciousness. Freewill suggest independence/autonomy, but they are not the same thing. It is rather that in the knowledge that we exist and "aren't" God, we are separate. Separate doesn't equal 'free' exactly but such a word can be part of these discussions. The problem with 'free' especially as a gift is the definition of free 'to do otherwise.' Autonomy, consciousness doesn't need "freedom 'from' God." It is problematic to what is actually the gift, not an ability, a switch, a choice, but an identity and consciousness. The 'switch' isn't the intention of God, but rather created by a being, created in God's image. I yet believe the serpent was instrumental to explaining the fall, but this allows us to get into the original sin of Satan discussion as well.

Can we back up and talk about what switched? I would say there was a switch between innocent and guilty. What about you?

Continuing: A sense of consciousness is part of imago deo. Adam is a thinking being already, in a sense 'free' but independent 'self' are better descriptors because 'free will' is going to cloud this up very quickly as a good identifier for what we are seeing in Adam's original state. He is a 'separate' entity, not with a switch to 'do otherwise.' That he knows he exists, is not God. This required 'relationship' for connection but also part of imago deo is the commonality (last at the Fall). Relationship (commonality) is the reciprocation between God and His creation. There is a genuine love because they are both alike (nothing to hate or 'not like').

What did God do that was nebulous in my view?

Continuing: If I am made with the design of 'disobedience' as an option, the problem is we are made 'to be able to disobey.' That wasn't the goal, but rather the problem that came afterward. It, itself wasn't the gift. Imago deo was. An "ability to do otherwise" is problematic in that God did not make man to 'do otherwise.' Such makes God the indirect author. Such isn't needed when I grasp what the Freewill theists actually want: To describe imago deo. That is actually where they are headed, need to get. Imago deo is where relationship rests, not the 'ability to choose so or choose not so.'

I think you're talking about the idea that we can choose to love or not love, and you're wondering how "not love" is something good, right? If so, you should review your conversation with @Clete. I thought you and he were making progress in this area. In short, there is no "love" without the possibility of "not love".

This is Eastern philosophy and dualism (yin/yang), upon a cursory glance. It has a thing existing alongside God (God is love, not not-love). He is the only. It has to be seen logically as untenable unless there are certain logical hurdles that can be cleared or avoided. If your proposition were right, God would be able to 'not-love' any of us John 3:16 by proposition. That is, if Love MUST be contrasted with "not love" then when He eradicates sin and death, love will no longer be possible, if the proposition were correct, upon the observation. A question: Can love exist in the future without 'not-love?' It seems the answer has to be 'yes' such that the 'not love' proposition cannot be shown to be true.

I explained it to a coworker as someone creating a robot who constantly says "I love you," and to attend to your every wish, because you programmed it to do so. It's not "love", BECAUSE there's no choice.

It isn't choice that describes love. It is imago deo, rather. As I said, this is where the 'freewill' idea affects one's further theology. It is the assumption that steers other thoughts and grasp upon scripture. Granted 'freewill' defines autonomy but it is not the only thing that means autonomy. IOW, 'free' doesn't equal 'freewill.' It isn't the right assumption, goes to far without the proof. The only thing required for love, is to made in the image of the One Who Loves. We do not believe God 'does not love us' because 'He can do otherwise.' "God is faithful, for He cannot disown Himself." The verse means God doesn't have the contrast, but IS the definition in the first place. Freewill theists are not talking about 'ability to do otherwise' but 'ability' itself. I 'can' love. Choice is rather 'how/when' I love, not 'to do otherwise.' Relationship with God is 'how' we are related and communicate. It doesn't need 'ability to do otherwise.' I've argued with you before: Adam wasn't created a robot, he was created in God's image that he had a sense of self, understood he was not God, and because of that, relationship was the foundation of how they were the same (relationship) and different not ability to do otherwise, but rather a sense of self apart from being 'not God Himself' (consciousness and a need realization of reciprocation with A[a]nother). Adam, thus, loved Eve, not because he had a 'switch to do otherwise' but because he was made both separate, and in the image of God (same and different, a good difference, not a switch to do otherwise).

I don't see how you can avoid the same conundrum you want to foist on me. If your imago dei allows someone to disobey God, how is it any better?

Because God is no longer the author of the switch. He is the author of another entity both relational to God, in His image, but different, not to do otherwise, but to exist in relationship, apart. It solves the freewill dilemma.

Surely it is God's image, specifically, that is now disobeying its creator.

Remember the consequence of the Tree? A knowledge of good and evil. Man wasn't made with that as a switch. He 'became' that at the Fall.
The tree was the switch, or part of it. It was a good switch 'for God.' Remember the serpent "You'll become like God, (Adam and Eve already were), knowing good and evil."

In what way is disobedience part of God's image?

Disobedience is not part of God's image. Rather acting as a 'separate being' is part of God's image. It was 'acting as a separate being' to disobey, like using a wrench as a hammer. God in this instance made Adam (wrench in crude analogy) never to be used as a hammer (tree in analogy). A wrench never is made to be used as a hammer in the same manner Adam was never made to 'do otherwise' (wrench as a hammer). If I'm reading freewill theists correctly, this is where I think their argument has to go. In the past, I've simply argued from my own none-freewill perspective, but this comes from entertaining the freewill paradigms. It seems this is what is really the freewill point.

 

[Derf]

Imago Deo doesn't demand that. Simply, man is created with a sense of 'other'/consciousness. Freewill suggest independence/autonomy, but they are not the same thing. It is rather that in the knowledge that we exist and "aren't" God, we are separate. Separate doesn't equal 'free' exactly but such a word can be part of these discussions. The problem with 'free' especially as a gift is the definition of free 'to do otherwise.' Autonomy, consciousness doesn't need "freedom 'from' God."

Whether it needs it or not, "autonomy" means freedom from God's law (specifically "self-law"). An autonomous person can have or not have consciousness of others. Consciousness of others can exhibit itself in either love or not love (hate, for instance). I don't see why consciousness of others is somehow imago dei, though I would agree it is a necessary component.

It is problematic to what is actually the gift, not an ability, a switch, a choice, but an identity and consciousness. The 'switch' isn't the intention of God, but rather created by a being, created in God's image. I yet believe the serpent was instrumental to explaining the fall, but this allows us to get into the original sin of Satan discussion as well.

I don't disagree that the serpent was instrumental, but only as it happened, not as it might have happened.

Continuing: A sense of consciousness is part of imago deo. Adam is a thinking being already, in a sense 'free' but independent 'self' are better descriptors

Let's do the same thing with "independent". It means:

• Not governed by a foreign power; self-governing.
• Free from the influence, guidance, or control of anotheror others; self-reliant.
  "an independent mind."
• Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent.

because 'free will' is going to cloud this up very quickly as a good identifier for what we are seeing in Adam's original state.

And free will:
free will, in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe. (we could add "other entity", but secular definitions don't usually consider that).

He is a 'separate' entity, not with a switch to 'do otherwise.' That he knows he exists, is not God. This required 'relationship' for connection but also part of imago deo is the commonality (last at the Fall). Relationship (commonality) is the reciprocation between God and His creation. There is a genuine love because they are both alike (nothing to hate or 'not like').

Sometimes the ones you are most like are the ones most annoying to you. Like my son...he gets on my nerves, until I realize he acts like I do (or like I did at one time).

Continuing: If I am made with the design of 'disobedience' as an option, the problem is we are made 'to be able to disobey.'

Right.

That wasn't the goal, but rather the problem that came afterward.

Yes.

It, itself wasn't the gift. Imago deo was. An "ability to do otherwise" is problematic in that God did not make man to 'do otherwise.'

No, He didn't "make man to do otherwise". He "made man capable of doing otherwise". Do you see the difference?

Such makes God the indirect author.

I don't think this is a problem, as long as the direct author is capable of not doing otherwise (sorry for the double negative).

Such isn't needed when I grasp what the Freewill theists actually want: To describe imago deo.

I'm sure freewill theists want to describe that as much as others, but that's not the emphasis, as far as I understand. In other words, the use of free will to describe humans is an attempt to explain why they sin, when God made them good. The image of God doesn't have to come into play. They were made good, they sinned, end of story.

That is actually where they are headed, need to get. Imago deo is where relationship rests,

Do humans have the capability to have relationship with beings that are NOT in the image of man? Of course they do. "Dogs are man's best friend."

not the 'ability to choose so or choose not so.'

I think you are misunderstanding. The ability to choose so or not so is merely descriptive of the way any relationship works. Is not the goal, just a description. And any relationship that doesn't work that way is not really a relationship (in the love, category, at least).

This is Eastern philosophy and dualism (yin/yang), upon a cursory glance. It has a thing existing alongside God (God is love, not not-love). He is the only. It has to be seen logically as untenable unless there are certain logical hurdles that can be cleared or avoided. If your proposition were right, God would be able to 'not-love' any of us John 3:16 by proposition.

Are you saying God has always been required by some outside force to love us? Of course God can "not-love" us. Of course God didn't have to send His son to be the savior of sinful man. Of course Jesus didn't have to agree to die for us. But because God did...because Jesus did..., we have hope. Why would you say God cannot "not-love" us?

That is, if Love MUST be contrasted with "not love" then when He eradicates sin and death, love will no longer be possible, if the proposition were correct, upon the observation. A question: Can love exist in the future without 'not-love?' It seems the answer has to be 'yes' such that the 'not love' proposition cannot be shown to be true.

My answer is a resounding "NO"...or at least love can't exist in the future without the ability to "not-love". But I'll agree that there won't be any exercising of "not-love" then. I don't see that the ability is the issue, rather that we will have all seen that love is the best way to relate to both God and man, and have all decided to only and always choose to love...even though we could choose otherwise.

It isn't choice that describes love. It is imago deo, rather. As I said, this is where the 'freewill' idea affects one's further theology. It is the assumption that steers other thoughts and grasp upon scripture. Granted 'freewill' defines autonomy but it is not the only thing that means autonomy. IOW, 'free' doesn't equal 'freewill.'

I don't think I ever said it did. And autonomy seems like the greater evil, since it is defined as following your own law. Freewill at least allows one to follow God's commands.

It isn't the right assumption, goes to far without the proof. The only thing required for love, is to made in the image of the One Who Loves. We do not believe God 'does not love us' because 'He can do otherwise.'

No, we don't. We believe God "does love us", and that means "He can do otherwise."

"God is faithful, for He cannot disown Himself." The verse means God doesn't have the contrast, but IS the definition in the first place.
Freewill theists are not talking about 'ability to do otherwise' but 'ability' itself. I 'can' love. Choice is rather 'how/when' I love, not 'to do otherwise.' Relationship with God is 'how' we are related and communicate. It doesn't need 'ability to do otherwise.' I've argued with you before: Adam wasn't created a robot, he was created in God's image that he had a sense of self, understood he was not God, and because of that, relationship was the foundation of how they were the same (relationship) and different not ability to do otherwise, but rather a sense of self apart from being 'not God Himself' (consciousness and a need realization of reciprocation with A[a]nother). Adam, thus, loved Eve, not because he had a 'switch to do otherwise' but because he was made both separate, and in the image of God (same and different, a good difference, not a switch to do otherwise).

Because God is no longer the author of the switch. He is the author of another entity both relational to God, in His image, but different, not to do otherwise, but to exist in relationship, apart. It solves the freewill dilemma.

Remember the consequence of the Tree? A knowledge of good and evil. Man wasn't made with that as a switch. He 'became' that at the Fall.

This fits with the "switch" I proposed earlier. A switch from "innocent" to "guilty". When you say "man wasn't made with that as a switch", you're going back to saying that Satan was the one that flipped the switch. I don't think that's true, because if it were, then Jesus, also made without that switch, who was also tempted by Satan, would have flipped as well. The power to flip a switch rested with the person, not in Satan. The difference is that Adam "flipped his own switch" (succumbed to temptation), but Jesus didn't.

The tree was the switch, or part of it. It was a good switch 'for God.' Remember the serpent "You'll become like God, (Adam and Eve already were), knowing good and evil."

Disobedience is not part of God's image. Rather acting as a 'separate being' is part of God's image. It was 'acting as a separate being' to disobey, like using a wrench as a hammer.

I'm losing your point.

God in this instance made Adam (wrench in crude analogy) never to be used as a hammer (tree in analogy). A wrench never is made to be used as a hammer in the same manner Adam was never made to 'do otherwise' (wrench as a hammer). If I'm reading freewill theists correctly, this is where I think their argument has to go.

I think you're making this more difficult than it needs to be, and it's from some presupposition you have that you can't seem to shake.

In the past, I've simply argued from my own none-freewill perspective, but this comes from entertaining the freewill paradigms. It seems this is what is really the freewill point.

Would you like to ask some of us if that's the "freewill point"? I think it's not.