To Immanuel Can

[bahman]

You'll have to explain your question on that. I don't understand how that changes the answer.

We know that Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the forbidden tree. Is that correct or not?

Okay.

What's the question, though? I'm not seeing how "the real tree" presents a special problem...

I am wondering why God created the tree in the first place knowing the fact that it leads to the fall of man?

[Immanuel Can]

We know that Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the forbidden tree. Is that correct or not?

Okay.

What's the question, though? I'm not seeing how "the real tree" presents a special problem...

I am wondering why God created the tree in the first place knowing the fact that it leads to the fall of man?

The tree, in itself, doesn't. There's no reason to suppose it was magical, or had any properties of its own at all. Maybe it did, but we don't need to think it did. In describing this incident later, the apostle Paul writes, "For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." (Romans 5:19) He says it was the action of disobedience that caused the Fall -- not some magic in the tree itself.

One might say that it was just a "tree." What was crucial about the existence of the tree was that it was the one and only thing that permitted a choice contrary to the original purposes of the Creator. Thus, since man had an option to do one thing that was not the will of God, man could be free to choose the good.

As I said already: if there was no possibility of a single choice that would be contrary to the will of God, then neither was there any such thing as human choice or freedom. But we humans understand choice to be a very great good in itself. Some of us have died for freedom -- even just for the possibility of freedom for others. So having a choice was necessary...and thus, the tree was necessary.

[bahman]

Okay.

What's the question, though? I'm not seeing how "the real tree" presents a special problem...

I am wondering why God created the tree in the first place knowing the fact that it leads to the fall of man?

The tree, in itself, doesn't. There's no reason to suppose it was magical, or had any properties of its own at all. Maybe it did, but we don't need to think it did. In describing this incident later, the apostle Paul writes, "For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." (Romans 5:19) He says it was the action of disobedience that caused the Fall -- not some magic in the tree itself.

One might say that it was just a "tree." What was crucial about the existence of the tree was that it was the one and only thing that permitted a choice contrary to the original purposes of the Creator. Thus, since man had an option to do one thing that was not the will of God, man could be free to choose the good.

As I said already: if there was no possibility of a single choice that would be contrary to the will of God, then neither was there any such thing as human choice or freedom. But we humans understand choice to be a very great good in itself. Some of us have died for freedom -- even just for the possibility of freedom for others. So having a choice was necessary...and thus, the tree was necessary.

Do you create a situation that might put your children in danger?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you create a situation that might put your children in danger?

Yes, provided I know what I'm doing. It's how they learn to handle danger.

If I refused to allow them any danger, I would also be denying them freedom, growth and choice. Do you suppress your children's identity, choices and attempts to grow, out of fear that they might face peril?

[bahman]

Do you create a situation that might put your children in danger?

Yes, provided I know what I'm doing. It's how they learn to handle danger.

If I refused to allow them any danger, I would also be denying them freedom, growth and choice. Do you suppress your children's identity, choices and attempts to grow, out of fear that they might face peril?

And what if you know they cannot handle danger?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you create a situation that might put your children in danger?

Yes, provided I know what I'm doing. It's how they learn to handle danger.

If I refused to allow them any danger, I would also be denying them freedom, growth and choice. Do you suppress your children's identity, choices and attempts to grow, out of fear that they might face peril?

And what if you know they cannot handle danger?

Then you have to decide: do you want them to remain mere dependents, conformists, and robots or do you want them to have the chance to grow up?

Even if they fail, so long as you have a plan for their salvation from the danger, it's worth letting them try, fail, and then figure things out. It's the only way they'll become individuals, capable of freely choosing their way and deciding their own associations.

[bahman]

Yes, provided I know what I'm doing. It's how they learn to handle danger.

If I refused to allow them any danger, I would also be denying them freedom, growth and choice. Do you suppress your children's identity, choices and attempts to grow, out of fear that they might face peril?

And what if you know they cannot handle danger?

Then you have to decide: do you want them to remain mere dependents, conformists, and robots or do you want them to have the chance to grow up?

Even if they fail, so long as you have a plan for their salvation from the danger, it's worth letting them try, fail, and then figure things out. It's the only way they'll become individuals, capable of freely choosing their way and deciding their own associations.

There is no need for all these complications, fall, plan for salvation, etc. Just don't create such a situation, creating the tree, and all problems are solved. It was not necessary. Was it? I didn't worth it. Worth it?

[Immanuel Can]

And what if you know they cannot handle danger?

Then you have to decide: do you want them to remain mere dependents, conformists, and robots or do you want them to have the chance to grow up?

Even if they fail, so long as you have a plan for their salvation from the danger, it's worth letting them try, fail, and then figure things out. It's the only way they'll become individuals, capable of freely choosing their way and deciding their own associations.

There is no need for all these complications, fall, plan for salvation, etc. Just don't create such a situation, creating the tree, and all problems are solved. It was not necessary. Was it? I didn't worth it. Worth it?

Well, it depends on whether or not you think things like having choice, being an individual, having identity, being able to select one's relationships, having a moral orientation, having custody of one's options, being able to grow up, and so on are "worth it." Are they "necessary"? Or would it have been better for God to have left man without any choice, any options, any ability to love, any freedom, any say about his relationships or direction of his own destiny?

That's up to you to decide.

I would say that they are surpassingly great goods...goods for which I, personally, would not be willing to sacrifice a great deal, or to take significant risks. In fact, I would even suspect that life without them is an extremely diminished and stunted kind of thing. But that's my view, and isn't automatically yours, of course.

Now, if there's no prospect of success or salvation, that's a different situation; but in this case, there is.

[bahman]

Then you have to decide: do you want them to remain mere dependents, conformists, and robots or do you want them to have the chance to grow up?

Even if they fail, so long as you have a plan for their salvation from the danger, it's worth letting them try, fail, and then figure things out. It's the only way they'll become individuals, capable of freely choosing their way and deciding their own associations.

There is no need for all these complications, fall, plan for salvation, etc. Just don't create such a situation, creating the tree, and all problems are solved. It was not necessary. Was it? I didn't worth it. Worth it?

Well, it depends on whether or not you think things like having choice, being an individual, having identity, being able to select one's relationships, having a moral orientation, having custody of one's options, being able to grow up, and so on are "worth it." Are they "necessary"? Or would it have been better for God to have left man without any choice, any options, any ability to love, any freedom, any say about his relationships or direction of his own destiny?

That's up to you to decide.

I would say that they are surpassingly great goods...goods for which I, personally, would not be willing to sacrifice a great deal, or to take significant risks. In fact, I would even suspect that life without them is an extremely diminished and stunted kind of thing. But that's my view, and isn't automatically yours, of course.

Now, if there's no prospect of success or salvation, that's a different situation; but in this case, there is.

Humans could still have the choice, could be in peace, and could live in paradise. No need for all these sufferings in God's great plan!

[Immanuel Can]

Humans could still have the choice, could be in peace, and could live in paradise. No need for all these sufferings in God's great plan!

Hmmm...think carefully.

I want to suggest that if we say somebody has "choice," it can be between no fewer than two different options. There's no sense in which we can intelligibly speak of a "choice" with only one possible alternative. You can't "have a choice" to do that which you could not have resisted doing, or that which you were compelled to do in all cases. You cannot be said to "have chosen" without a "between" of two options.

Fair enough?

[bahman]

Humans could still have the choice, could be in peace, and could live in paradise. No need for all these sufferings in God's great plan!

Hmmm...think carefully.

I want to suggest that if we say somebody has "choice," it can be between no fewer than two different options. There's no sense in which we can intelligibly speak of a "choice" with only one possible alternative. You can't "have a choice" to do that which you could not have resisted doing, or that which you were compelled to do in all cases. You cannot be said to "have chosen" without a "between" of two options.

Fair enough?

I am talking about God's plan and I am thinking carefully. We could live in paradise in peace if there was no tree of life. Now, we are living in a state of suffering waiting for Jesus second coming. Give me a good reason why humans should live in a state of misery. There was another option: a paradise without the tree but God didn't choose it. More on that, there are people who are going to be in Hell eternally. Which type of merciful and wise God He is?

[Immanuel Can]

We could live in paradise in peace if there was no tree of life.

Yes, you could. However, that wasn't the question. It's not "could you have lived," but "what kind of being would you have had to be, if that was the sort of arrangement God had made?" And you would have been one without free will.

If there had been no alternative but to do whatever God wished of you, could you be said to be free? Could you be a person? Could you have independent volition? Could you "choose" anything?

These things require an alternative to obedience. If you "chose" to obey, it must have been the case that you had a choice also NOT to obey, one you chose not to take. If you made a "free" decision, it must have been that you also had freedom to choose to make a different decision. If your relationship with somebody was of your volition, it must have been the case that you had a choice to discontinue or never start such a relationship...and if you had none of these alternatives, then in no sense were they free, chosen or yours.

Now, we are living in a state of suffering...

Hardly.

The sun still shines, the river runs and the fish swim. This may not be heaven, but it's also certainly not Hell.

There was another option: a paradise without the tree but God didn't choose it.

Yes, God could have done that. His freedoms are not in question here, of course.

But if He had, what would have happened to your ability to choose? That's the more important question.

More on that, there are people who are going to be in Hell eternally. Which type of merciful and wise God He is?

One merciful and wise enough to secure those people two great goods: first, personal freedom and volition, and secondly, a free offer of salvation. As for those whose disposition is otherwise, I point you back to the sage words of C.S. Lewis:

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”

[Dubious]

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.

It goes to show how god and religion can make an idiot even out of the more intelligent and talented. These and other sayings by C.S. Lewis prove how mentally toxified the brain can get in the total submission to such lunatic beliefs. A god who would condemn based on that distinction is no better than any other human tyrant who ever lived. If people would do what god commands half the time we'd hang the bastards for crimes against humanity!

[Immanuel Can]

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.

A god who would condemn based on that distinction is no better than any other human tyrant who ever lived.

Quite the contrary: a "tyrant," by definition, never gives you what you ask for. Instead, he tells you what he thinks you need or should want, and totally disregards your will in the matter. If you protest, he overrides your will with force. And he may even regard himself as benign...after all, he believes that he knows what you should want, even if, as he thinks, you don't.

God gives you freedom. There's no tyranny in that. But what you choose to do with it, that's on you. Nowhere is it ever the case that choices come without consequences. What you choose, that's what you get -- if your choice is being honoured, that is.

A tyrant will never grant you so much.

[Dubious]

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.

A god who would condemn based on that distinction is no better than any other human tyrant who ever lived.

Quite the contrary: a "tyrant," by definition, never gives you what you ask for. Instead, he tells you what he thinks you need or should want, and totally disregards your will in the matter. If you protest, he overrides your will with force. And he may even regard himself as benign...after all, he believes that he knows what you should want, even if, as he thinks, you don't.

God gives you freedom. There's no tyranny in that. But what you choose to do with it, that's on you. Nowhere is it ever the case that choices come without consequences. What you choose, that's what you get -- if your choice is being honoured, that is.

A tyrant will never grant you so much.

Completely incorrect! Everyone by now knows you like to turn facts into pretzels or simply refute it without further ado in defence of your god!

Lewis specifically states: "...and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it."

It couldn't be clearer that deciding to think for oneself will result in damnation. So obviously, being so explicitly stated, choosing independence of thought will amount to a crime as it would to any tyrant who insists on conformity...or else the eternal gulag! It's all there! The entire sentiment reeks of tyranny! Something so definitively stated requires no further interpretation.

So again! Where's the "choice" when god guarantees the consequences of not holding the line as he would have it? Where's the freedom?