Brad Messenger

I don't think this is true. If you put into place one's desires, you have determined their actions. A person always does what s/he wants to do. Sometimes there are desires that conflict, but the strongest desire wins always. You must want to do an action that should be done before that action can be done. So, I think talking about where these desires originate from is extremely important.

Tercel

Doesn't that merely prove the existence of Satan, rather than disproving God???

Probably Satan and friends.

Hmmm. Good idea: It could well be partly that too.

Well, for me it's only relevant for Lucifer. The Bible relates that the "snake" which is identified (I think correctly) in Revelation as being a metaphor for the devil, was the one that first brought up to idea of rebellion to Adam and Eve.
So your question is: "what made Lucifer want to disobey?"
I would say that we don't really know and the bible doesn't tell us.
But I can still guess.

The original question was asking why we get "dark impulses" (if I may call them that). -The apparently random desires we experience when we suddenly and for no apparent reason want to do something we know is wrong. Now if Satan experienced those then the theist is quite possibly in trouble (athough it might be possible for the calvinist to escape by asserting that God was responsible for those).
But we have no reason to think that Satan experienced any of these "dark impulses". So the question becomes merely, where did he get the idea to disobey God if it wasn't implanted.
I would suggest that he got it from himself. Presumably he was a knowledgeable, intelligent being moderately like us in those respects. He knew he could obey God and that he could disobey God and presumably knew or could imagine at least some the likely consequences. He perhaps became more interesting in looking out for himself than anything else and thought the benefits for himself warrented rebellion.
The Bible places him as the current ruler of the world. That is certainly no little amount of power. It seems entirely possible for ambition and greed to have influenced Satan. What would have made him different to us was his power to resist and lack of dark impulses. Yet it still seems possible that he would have found the temptation worth taking....

Tercel

daemon

As an aside, you are obviously out of touch with the Catholic Church, Albert. Fundamentalist movements are on the rise within it, primarily through special interest groups such as, if I recall their name correctly, the Soldiers of God.

You've completely dodged the issue here. If we are rendered imperfect by the actions of Adam and Eve, what made them do such a thing, especially if they were perfect?

Furthermore, it is decidedly un-Catholic to state that mankind is born evil--if I recall correctly, that is specifically part of the Manichaean heresy.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Jamie,
You assert:


Only a totally depraved being does not resist temptation. Indeed, for such a creature, temptation is beyond their ability to experience. Perfection in some measure is required for a creature to have the capacity to be tempted.

A totally perfect being would still need to resist temptation to the degree it was not all-knowing. Since only God qualifies in that category, we are all game to temptation. Thus, it is our necessarily incomplete knowledge that's the crack wherein imperfection wedges its way into perfection. It's no wonder that the tree responsible for Adam's fall was called the tree of knowledge.

You ask:


That means God would have had to make them automatons or gods. God knows, this universe has enough automatons already. And God can't make God any more than He can lift Himself by His own non-existent bootstraps. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Jamie_L

Albert:

Then Adam and Eve could not possibly have been expected to resist temptation. So why are we punished for this original sin? Why do you consider us imperfect compared to them, if by your own argument they could not resits tempation any more than we can.

Transworldly Depraved:

Obviously the definition of perfect is in play here. I'm merely trying to point out that I think Albert's argument that we are the way we are because of what "our first parents" did has holes in it, because to commit the act they already were the way we are. (Was that real grammar I just used?)

Jamie

pug846

JC said:

Although I know you aren’t a Christian, this is a typical Christian fallacy. Free will doesn’t entail there being both “good” and “bad” options. Our nature could be such that we would only choose amongst “good” options. Even if we were of a very “good” nature, we would still have the ability to choose amongst differing “good” options.

Maybe if you are a Kantian. If this was the case, who the hell would even want to be moral?

Albert Cipriani

Dear Pug846,
You are correct. Part of JC's problem is that he's confusing gratification with immorality when actually gratification is the currency in which morality is paid. -- Albert

Albert Cipriani

Dear Jamie,
You've misread me:


Perfect beings and imperfect beings can and do successfully resist temptation and unsuccessfully resist temptation. When we resist temptation, whether successfully or unsuccessfully, we prove that there is some perfection within us, that we are not totally depraved. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Jamie_L

Albert:

Apologies if I misunderstood. However, I stand by some of my other posts which aren't directed at your wordings. If God created Adam and Eve (or whoever they represent if its a parable) and thus created their innate nature, why should they be punished if that nature lead them astray and into temptation. If God wanted them to resist temtation, he could have given them stronger willpower to do so. Why do we bear the responsibility for original sin? He made us the way we are in the first place.

Jamie

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Kantian? Haven't read him yet.

Anyhow, what I stated was that for morality to exist, you have to have a choice between good and evil. The examply you put forward was from among many "good" choices. I didn't intend to say that free will was choosing between good and evil, but morality was using free will to make that decision. Maybe I cleared my posistion up.