Homework assignment from Dr. S

Originally posted by kingdanwa
By "temptation" and "test," are we dealing with man's daily struggles or with the Genesis 3 account of Adam and Eve?

Let us focus on the pre-fall era, in which, according to Genesis, the serpent's temptation was Man's only struggle.

Genesis relates one incident of temptation, but I don't think it indicates that previous such temptations didn't occur, which if they did, would have presumably been withstood.

To say that there were no prior attempts at temptation is to accept that Man failed his very first test, if in fact it was a test - which is one subject up for debate here.

To say that there were no prior attempts at temptation is to accept that Man failed his very first test, if in fact it was a test - which is one subject up for debate here. [/b]

If the temptation were a test, who do we suppose, and on what basis, was the proctor?

I propose that it was not a test.

We may regard the negative results after the temptation as a sort of failing grade handed down from the cosmic professor, but I would like to put foward the idea that consequences are necessarily bound to any decision.

Originally posted by kingdanwa
If the temptation were a test, who do we suppose, and on what basis, was the proctor?

I propose that it was not a test.

We may regard the negative results after the temptation as a sort of failing grade handed down from the cosmic ...[text shortened]... the idea that consequences are necessarily bound to any decision.

If the temptation were a test, who do we suppose, and on what basis, was the proctor?

I propose that it was not a test.

Lewis asks, "And if the temptation were not a proving or testing, why was it allowed to happen at all?", presumably under the assumptions that
1. There is a God who is omnipotent, and thus could have prevented the temptation altogether.
2. That God is also omniscient and thus knew that there was a possibility (or certainty, depending on one's view of free will and the essence of omniscience in such a universe) that Man would succumb, thereby ruining God's perfect creation and Man's perfect life.

I suppose it could be said that (1) and (2) make God the default proctor for any decision that Man faces.

Are Lewis's assumptions correct, and how do you answer his question?



I would like to put foward the idea that consequences are necessarily bound to any decision.

I think theists and atheists alike can agree upon this. However, it's only applicable to the matter at hand if Man's reaction to the temptation was in fact a decision; that is, if Man ultimately had an alternative to succumbing. That's what makes the quoted passages interesting. If Man overcame the temptation, would it occur over and over and over again, and if so, in the presence of all that temptation, would Eden really be a paradise?

""Lewis asks, "And if the temptation were not a proving or testing, why was it allowed to happen at all?", presumably under the assumptions that …(1) and (2).""

Because, for the most part, we are limiting our discussion to the worldview offered in the Bible, it seems only appropriate to consider what else the Bible has to say in matters relating to this issue.

(I apologize for my lack of formal training in logic and in the presentation of logical arguments, and I beseech you to consider my list with mercy in terms of language and structure. Please let the content of my words dominate your thoughts)

A. God wants people to love him.
B. Love cannot be forced
B.1. Love requires the possibility of rejection
C. Genuine love requires free will
D. Choices have consequences
E. Removing the consequences of choices results in a loss of free will
F. Removing the possibility of rejection, free will, or the consequences of free will negates the possibility for love.


""If Man overcame the temptation, would it occur over and over and over again, and if so, in the presence of all that temptation, would Eden really be a paradise?""

My theological background has conditioned me to resist the temptation to extrapolate too far beyond what the text says, so please allow me to speak from personal experience. First, I do not know if this was the first time Adam and Eve were tempted. It is interesting to note that Eve didn’t flip out when a snake talked to her. Perhaps she had dealings with this snake before, while maintaining a pure relationship with the Creator. Second, I do not know how long the temptations would persist. But, perhaps the presence of a possible temptation would not necessarily destroy the idea of paradise. For example, I have the option of smoking crack and raping a baby today. This, in some sense, is a genuine possibility. But, the possibility of giving into this potential, present evil, does not prevent me from enjoying my life. I can be perfectly happy, and perfectly aware that the possibility of evil is at hand. Some “temptations,” are no longer tempting. But I repeat, this idea is not purely biblical, nor do I know how it fits into the context of Lewis' argument (not having read the Trilogy in some time).

Originally posted by kingdanwa
""Lewis asks, "And if the temptation were not a proving or testing, why was it allowed to happen at all?", presumably under the assumptions that …(1) and (2).""

Because, for the most part, we are limiting our discussion to the worldview offered in the Bible, it seems only appropriate to consider what else the Bible has to say in matters relating t ...[text shortened]... now how it fits into the context of Lewis' argument (not having read the Trilogy in some time).

Why a choice between good and evil?
Why not a choice between two or more goods?

Originally posted by frogstomp
Why a choice between good and evil?
Why not a choice between two or more goods?

Perhaps any restriction of choices would be a restriction on free will, thus a restriction on love.

Originally posted by kingdanwa
Perhaps any restriction of choices would be a restriction on free will, thus a restriction on love.

Perhaps not, at any rate the originator of the choices was whoever put the serpent in the garden. Unless you think part of love is exposing defensless loves ones to evil, you ought to rethink what lesson is being conveyed.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Perhaps not, at any rate the originator of the choices was whoever put the serpent in the garden. Unless you think part of love is exposing defensless loves ones to evil, you ought to rethink what lesson is being conveyed.

I don't know if you are a parent, but could you imagine a parent who, out of love, never exposes his child to any possibility of evil? Think of that loving parent who keeps his child locked in the atic so that nothing bad ever happens to him. What a dad.

Originally posted by kingdanwa
I don't know if you are a parent, but could you imagine a parent who, out of love, never exposes his child to any possibility of evil? Think of that loving parent who keeps his child locked in the atic so that nothing bad ever happens to him. What a dad.

Oh ,yeah , I aint the Daddy of this world either. and I know for a fact I aint never tossed a snake in my kids playpen.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Oh ,yeah , I aint the Daddy of this world either. and I know for a fact I aint never tossed a snake in my kids playpen.

I contend that the genuine possibility rejection is necessary for genuine love.

Originally posted by kingdanwa
I contend that the genuine possibility rejection is necessary for genuine love.

and I contend that what you contend requires God to create evil, and I further contend that the creator of evil cannot possibly be good.
So you need to rethink your contention .
Also, by the time Eve gave the fruit to Adam she had to have known that she wasn't dead, so she had good reason to believe that it was the serpent and not God that had told the truth.

content edit:

while Im at it: it's not a really choice between love and evil

Originally posted by frogstomp
and I contend that what you contend requires God to create evil, and I further contend that the creator of evil cannot possibly be good.
So you need to rethink your contention .
Also, by the time Eve gave the fruit to Adam she had to have known that she wasn't dead, so she had good reason to believe that it was the serpent and not God that had told the truth.

Again, God created the possibility of evil. In fact, this demonstrates his goodness because it permits love.

Adam was with Eve, so it's not like she had to run and find him. And, as a matter of fact, they did die as a result of their sin.

Originally posted by kingdanwa

B.1. Love requires the possibility of rejection.

I'm not sure that I understand B.1.

Aren't these two propositions true:

1. It is possible to love God.
2. It is not possible for God to reject one's love. (By 'possible', I intend to connote a degree of certainty whether the event would ever occur, not whether such rejection is in the power of an omnipotent God.)

Could you construct an example of an instance of love that disappears upon the removal of the possibility of its rejection?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I'm not sure that I understand B.1.

Aren't these two propositions true:

1. It is possible to love God.
2. It is not possible for God to reject one's love. (By 'possible', I intend to connote a degree of certainty whether the event would ever occur, not whether such rejection is in the power of an omnipotent God.)

Could you construct ...[text shortened]... ple of an instance of love that disappears upon the removal of the possibility of its rejection?

I suppose we ought to clarify what we mean by the word "love."

If I'm giving you a box that you are unable to reject, you are forced to have it. If I'm giving you love that you are unable to reject, we could call that rape. God isn't a cosmic rapist, according to the biblical perspective.

Originally posted by kingdanwa
I suppose we ought to clarify what we mean by the word "love."

If I'm giving you a box that you are unable to reject, you are forced to have it. If I'm giving you love that you are unable to reject, we could call that rape. God isn't a cosmic rapist, according to the biblical perspective.

Ah, I understand now. This is probably the most persuasive argument I have seen that a benevolent God's existence necessarily implies human free will.

There is a Calvinist named Coletti who frequents this forum, often parading claims about the determinism of God's universe. In particular, it is his claim that God controls exactly who does and doesn't receive his gift of salvation, which seems to be to be exactly the sort of forcible love that you refer to. I'd be interested in seeing how he would refute your argument.

Calling out Coletti...