The Meaning of Atonement

[wenglund]

I think the notion of levels of knowledge and agency explicated above may help answer a question posed earlier by @Traveler or @brlenox  (I don't recall which) , that was something along the lines of: "Why was Satan permitted in the Garden?" Or, "What function did Satan serve in the Garden?".

We know that agency existed in the Garden at its most fundamental level simply by virtue of the choice between,, and Adam and Eve's awareness of, all the authorized fruit versus the forbidden fruit.

However, this level of agency wasn't sufficient to qualify even as a transgression, and was more like randomness or accident--similar to the example I gave earlier of putting the life and death push buttons in front of a hand-banging toddler. The toddler obviously has the agency to push either button,,  and one may logically assume that eventually the toddler will push the death  button, but tthe toddler doing so would be more an accidental act of agency rather than an informed decision.

In order to bring the level of agency up to the point of qualifying as a transgression, though not to the level of sin, required a greater than fundamental level of knowledge along with incentives/disincentives to make one choice over the other.

On the one had, God had provided an incentive to partake of the authorized fruit (eternal life), and a disincentive to partake of the forbidden fruit (it was forbidden by the Father and carried the consequence of death)

Logically, this extreme imbalance of incentives almost assured that the choice wouldn't be made in the negative except perhaps by accident, or in other words, there would have been no "meaningful" agency involved.

So,  perhaps Satan was allowed in the Garden to provide a counterbalance of incentives/disincentives, which he managed through beguiling and lies, just as he continues to do with Adam and Eve's posterity.

But, again, even given the more balanced incentives/disincentives, the choice could only rise to the level of transgression because of Adam and Eve's innocence or lack of sufficient knowledge of good and evil, not unlike children under the age of 8.

At least this is how things appear to me at this point.

Thanks, -Wade ENglund-

Edited February 18, 2018 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

I think the notion of levels of knowledge and agency explicated above may help answer a question posed earlier by @Traveler or @brlenox  (I don't recall which) , that was something along the lines of: "Why was Satan permitted in the Garden?" Or, "What function did Satan serve in the Garden?".

We know that agency existed in the Garden at its most fundamental level simply by virtue of the choice between,, and Adam and Eve's awareness of, all the authorized fruit versus the forbidden fruit.

However, this level of agency wasn't sufficient to qualify even as a transgression, and was more like randomness or accident--similar to the example I gave earlier of putting the life and death push buttons in front of a hand-banging toddler. The toddler obviously has the agency to push either button,,  and one may logically assume that eventually the toddler will push the death  button, but tthe toddler doing so would be more an accidental act of agency rather than an informed decision.

In order to bring the level of agency up to the point of qualifying as a transgression, though not to the level of sin, required a greater than fundamental level of knowledge along with incentives/disincentives to make one choice over the other.

On the one had, God had provided an incentive to partake of the authorized fruit (eternal life), and a disincentive to partake of the forbidden fruit (it was forbidden by the Father and carried the consequence of death)

Logically, this extreme imbalance of incentives almost assured that the choice wouldn't be made in the negative except perhaps by accident, or in other words, there would have been no "meaningful" agency involved.

So,  perhaps Satan was allowed in the Garden to provide a counterbalance of incentives/disincentives, which he managed through beguiling and lies, just as he continues to do with Adam and Eve's posterity.

But, again, even given the more balanced incentives/disincentives, the choice could only rise to the level of transgression because of Adam and Eve's innocence or lack of sufficient knowledge of good and evil, not unlike children under the age of 8.

At least this is how things appear to me at this point.

Thanks, -Wade ENglund-

Not seeing it honestly. God gave them commandments because they were aware and accountable of sin- good vs. bad. The commandment to not partake of the tree carried with it the penalty of "sin". Sin is transgression of the law.

Satan is not needed in the plan of salvation just as porn shops are not needed to overcome addiction to pornography.

[wenglund]

5 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Not seeing it honestly. God gave them commandments because they were aware and accountable of sin- good vs. bad. The commandment to not partake of the tree carried with it the penalty of "sin". Sin is transgression of the law.

Satan is not needed in the plan of salvation just as porn shops are not needed to overcome addiction to pornography.

If seeing it that way works for you, then who am I to suggest otherwise? To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Traveler]

16 hours ago, wenglund said:

I think the notion of levels of knowledge and agency explicated above may help answer a question posed earlier by @Traveler or @brlenox  (I don't recall which) , that was something along the lines of: "Why was Satan permitted in the Garden?" Or, "What function did Satan serve in the Garden?".

We know that agency existed in the Garden at its most fundamental level simply by virtue of the choice between,, and Adam and Eve's awareness of, all the authorized fruit versus the forbidden fruit.

However, this level of agency wasn't sufficient to qualify even as a transgression, and was more like randomness or accident--similar to the example I gave earlier of putting the life and death push buttons in front of a hand-banging toddler. The toddler obviously has the agency to push either button,,  and one may logically assume that eventually the toddler will push the death  button, but tthe toddler doing so would be more an accidental act of agency rather than an informed decision.

In order to bring the level of agency up to the point of qualifying as a transgression, though not to the level of sin, required a greater than fundamental level of knowledge along with incentives/disincentives to make one choice over the other.

On the one had, God had provided an incentive to partake of the authorized fruit (eternal life), and a disincentive to partake of the forbidden fruit (it was forbidden by the Father and carried the consequence of death)

Logically, this extreme imbalance of incentives almost assured that the choice wouldn't be made in the negative except perhaps by accident, or in other words, there would have been no "meaningful" agency involved.

So,  perhaps Satan was allowed in the Garden to provide a counterbalance of incentives/disincentives, which he managed through beguiling and lies, just as he continues to do with Adam and Eve's posterity.

But, again, even given the more balanced incentives/disincentives, the choice could only rise to the level of transgression because of Adam and Eve's innocence or lack of sufficient knowledge of good and evil, not unlike children under the age of 8.

At least this is how things appear to me at this point.

Thanks, -Wade ENglund-

 

My friend.  I would not think very highly of a parent that placed a button pushing happy little child before two buttons – one of which would cause pain and death to the little child.  Then telling them not to push the one of the buttons that would cause death – Don’t even touch it.  And then think that the innocent child would be less to blame than the parent – especially if the child was knowingly left alone with a malcontent that had displayed complete hatred of both the parent and child – to tempt and “beguile” the child into pushing the wrong button. 

It is my opinion that what little we are given in the Eden Epoch is mostly symbolic and if interpreted literally will give false understanding – especially to something as critical as “agency”.  I am of the notion that agency is not an ignorant unknowing choice between opposing possibilities.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

14 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Not seeing it honestly. God gave them commandments because they were aware and accountable of sin- good vs. bad. The commandment to not partake of the tree carried with it the penalty of "sin". Sin is transgression of the law.

Satan is not needed in the plan of salvation just as porn shops are not needed to overcome addiction to pornography.

 

Something is obviously not exactly as it seems - Adam and Eve were given two commandments - the first to multiply and replenish the earth - the second not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  The problem being that to keep the one - they would have to transgress the other.  In fact, to transgress either would be the same (cause the same result) as only transgressing the latter.  I would agree that it might appear that Satan was not necessary - but I believe that to come to such a conclusion is not the actual intent of scripture – especially this scripture.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

13 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Something is obviously not exactly as it seems - Adam and Eve were given two commandments - the first to multiply and replenish the earth - the second not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  The problem being that to keep the one - they would have to transgress the other.  In fact, to transgress either would be the same (cause the same result) as only transgressing the latter.  I would agree that it might appear that Satan was not necessary - but I believe that to come to such a conclusion is not the actual intent of scripture – especially this scripture.

 

The Traveler

I would argue that Adam and Eve had not yet recieved any commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. The creation accounts differ but it can be strongly argued that man was not created until the seventh day and that the command to multiply had not yet heen given.  

[wenglund]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

My friend.  I would not think very highly of a parent that placed a button pushing happy little child before two buttons – one of which would cause pain and death to the little child.  Then telling them not to push the one of the buttons that would cause death – Don’t even touch it.  And then think that the innocent child would be less to blame than the parent – especially if the child was knowingly left alone with a malcontent that had displayed complete hatred of both the parent and child – to tempt and “beguile” the child into pushing the wrong button. 

It is my opinion that what little we are given in the Eden Epoch is mostly symbolic and if interpreted literally will give false understanding – especially to something as critical as “agency”.  I am of the notion that agency is not an ignorant unknowing choice between opposing possibilities.

That may be true were "death" in this case to a be a really bad thing rather than a really good thing.  If it was the latter, then "blame" would be relatively insignificant for the child (and this only because he and/or she did the really good thing that was forbidden), and completely irrelevant to the parent.

Since I believe the later to be the case, I don't know that I would need to understand much more of the Eden Epic  to liken it for the better in my life--particularly after grasping that essentially we all will ultimately face the same binary choice, though in our case "death" is a really bad thing.. (2Ne 2:27-29) 

However, to be clear, I don't know to what degree the Garden choice was informed or ignorant. All I know is that it was insufficient to qualify as knowing good from evil as the Gods-, though still sufficient to qualify as "innocent," which may have factored into differentiating between the act being a transgression or a sin--just as is the case in mortality with children under the age of 8. 

The point being, aside from differentiating between transgression and sin, is that there are different levels of agency depending upon: 1)  the level of knowledge when making the choices; 2) the depth and breadth in variety and quantity of choices, as well as  3) the timing (immediate or deferred)  or severity (full or moderated) or uncertainty (potentially waived or affixed) of the punishment. The agency of premortal spirits was less than the agency in the  Garden, and the agency in the Garden was much less than that which is plausible in mortality.

To me, understanding this gives new meaning to Satan's attempts to destroy the agency of man, while not objecting to his own use of agency to rebel against God, and also his use of agency to beguile the Garden couple, and their use of agency to choose between the bidden and forbidden fruit, and now his use of agency to destroy the agency of mankind within the probationary state of mortality. The irony is that Satan used agency to attempt to destroy the agency of others after failing at each level. of agency Whether he fails or succeed at this second-to-last  level (the final level being that of the final judgement, if not beyond) will depend upon us and who we ultimately choose to serve.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

However, to be clear, I don't know to what degree the Garden choice was informed or ignorant. All I know is that it was insufficient to qualify as knowing good from evil as the Gods-, though still sufficient to qualify as "innocent," which may have factored into differentiating between the act being a transgression or a sin--just as is the case in mortality with children under the age of 8. 

The point being, aside from differentiating between transgression and sin, is that there are different levels of agency depending upon: 1)  the level of knowledge when making the choices; 2) the depth and breadth in variety and quantity of choices, as well as  3) the timing (immediate or deferred)  or severity (full or moderated) or uncertainty (potentially waived or affixed) of the punishment. The agency of premortal spirits was less than the agency in the  Garden, and the agency in the Garden was much less than that which is plausible in mortality.

Im curious, how do you suppose we come to know the difference between good and evil? Where, when, and how does the light of Christ come into play?

I think that understanding is crucial to understanding Adam and Eves predicament as their spiritual fall is no different than our own.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[wenglund]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im curious, how do you suppose we come to know the difference between good and evil? Where, when, and how does the light of Christ come into play?

I think that understanding is crucial to understanding Adam and Eves predicament as their fall is no different than our own.

For the most part, I agree.  We, along with Adam and Eve, as well as the Gods, come to know good and evil by experiencing the eye-opening opposition in all things found within the probationary or preparatory state of mortal life, and being free to choose between the good and evil. (2Ne 2L5,18-27, Alma 12:26-32;  29:5; Hel 14:31 

In short, we come to know good and evil through the exercise of mortal agency--the very thing that Satan wished to destroy.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, wenglund said:

For the most part, I agree.  We, along with Adam and Eve, as well as the Gods, come to know good and evil by experiencing the eye-opening opposition in all things found within the probationary or preparatory state of mortal life, and being free to choose between the good and evil. (2Ne 2L5,18-27, Alma 12:26-32;  29:5; Hel 14:31 

In short, we come to know good and evil through the exercise of mortal agency--the very thing that Satan wished to destroy.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

So, if someones agency is held captive, such as Satans followers, do they know evil?

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, if someones agency is held captive, such as Satans followers, do they know evil?

That is a good question. Satan's followers are figuratively swimming in evil. So, how could they not know evil?

Well, without the agency to experience and come to know good, they may be as unconscious and unknowing of evil as fish are of water..

The same may be true for premortal spirits who figuratively swim deep within an ocean of good. Until they have the agency to experience evil, they may be as unconscious and unknowing of good as fish are of water.

Hence the need for opposition in all things and the necessity of the fall, which came, not coincidentally, by partaking of the forbidden fruit of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil.

As previously mentioned, this is explained in Second Nephi, Chapter 2,- 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

18 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Well, without the agency to experience and come to know good, they may be as unconscious and unknowing of evil as fish are of water..

The same may be true for premortal spirits who figuratively swim deep within an ocean of good. Until they have the agency to experience evil, they may be as unconscious and unknowing of good as fish are of water

Im not sure I agree. Satan knew evil- he sought it in the pre-existence and became it and became miserable from it-

17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God. (2 Nephi 2:17)

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im not sure I agree. Satan knew evil- he sought it in the pre-existence and became it and became miserable from it-

17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God. (2 Nephi 2:17)

You have the agency not to agree with Lehi in full--who isn't suggesting that Satan is without awareness or familiarity or even to some degree knowledge of evil.

However, in addition to what is explained through the whole of 2Ne 2, since evil is darkness and lies, and intelligence is light and truth (D&C 93:29-30-36), and given that wisdom is also a product of light and truth (D&C 52:17), and because intelligence cleaves unto intelligence and wisdom unto wisdom (D&C 88:40), and presumably vice versa, there are clearly some distortions of, and limits to Satan's capacity to understand or comprehend or intelligently or wisely grasp evil, let alone good.

But, even if you assume that Satan has an advanced knowledge of evil, it is only half of the divine equation. Certainly, Satan doesn't know good , and thus doesn't know good and evil as the Gods, for "he knew not the mind of God." (Moses 4:6-7) The mysteries of God are withheld from him, and thus he is, to an extent, ignorant.(see HERE)

Besides, there are a number of scriptural passages that speaking of "knowing good from evil" (emphasis mine, see HERE). Even if you grant that Satan has an advanced knowledge of evil, he lacks the capacity of the Gods, as well as Adam and Eve and potentially many of their posterity, to discern good from evil, and this by way of the Spirit unto a "perfect knowledge,"  (Moroni 7:15-17).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 20, 2018 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, wenglund said:

You have the agency not to agree with Lehi in full--who isn't suggesting that Satan is without awareness or familiarity or even to some degree knowledge of evil.

However, in addition to what is explained through the whole of 2Ne 2, since evil is darkness and lies, and intelligence is light and truth (D&C 93:29-30-36), and given that wisdom is also a product of light and truth (D&C 52:17), and because intelligence cleaves unto intelligence and wisdom unto wisdom (D&C 88:40), and presumably vice versa, there are clearly some distortions of, and limits to Satan's capacity to understand or comprehend or intelligently or wisely grasp evil, let alone good.

But, even if you assume that Satan has an advanced knowledge of evil, it is only half of the divine equation. Certainly, Satan doesn't know good , and thus doesn't know good and evil as the Gods, for "he knew not the mind of God." (Moses 4:6-7) The mysteries of God are withheld from him, and thus he is, to an extent, ignorant.(see HERE)

Besides, there are a number of scriptural passages that speaking of "knowing good from evil" (emphasis mine, see HERE). Even if you grant that Satan has an advanced knowledge of evil, he lacks the capacity of the Gods, as well as Adam and Eve and potentially many of their posterity, to discern good from evil, and this by way of the Spirit unto a "perfect knowledge,"  (Moroni 7:15-17).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would then ask- Was not Lucifer "lightbearer" before he chose evil and fell?

We surely cant say Satan is ignorant of truth, he was once a bearer of truth and in a position of authority in heaven.

I think the crux of the issue is- what does having a physical body do that creates a fulness of joy? And, does not having a fulness make one ignorant or unknowledgable of good and evil?

I can agree that Satan knew not the mind of God and subsequently doesnt know the true joy and happiness that God knows and feels. Where I disagree though is that it requires having a mortal experience to know good and evil. Its obvious that we had agency before we came here. Having agency means that we knew the law existed and what good and evil was being able to choose one or the other. Obviously, Satan and 1/3 the hosts of heaven chose evil over the good. This was not an ignorant choice. 

So, it really comes down to what does the experience of mortality do that makes us more like God? Are the senses and feelings just stronger in the physical body?

[wenglund]

6 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I would then ask- Was not Lucifer "lightbearer" before he chose evil and fell?

We surely cant say Satan is ignorant of truth, he was once a bearer of truth and in a position of authority in heaven.

I think the crux of the issue is- what does having a physical body do that creates a fulness of joy? And, does not having a fulness make one ignorant or unknowledgable of good and evil?

I can agree that Satan knew not the mind of God and subsequently doesnt know the true joy and happiness that God knows and feels. Where I disagree though is that it requires having a mortal experience to know good and evil. Its obvious that we had agency before we came here. Having agency means that we knew the law existed and what good and evil was being able to choose one or the other. Obviously, Satan and 1/3 the hosts of heaven chose evil over the good. This was not an ignorant choice. 

So, it really comes down to what does the experience of mortality do that makes us more like God? Are the senses and feelings just stronger in the physical body?

Yes, if I remember correctly, Lucifer was"lightbearer" as well as a star of the morning.

However, you are assuming that he retains that light and knowledge after immersing himself in darkness. I don't have the time right now to lookup references, but I believe that Satan and his follows lose the light and intelligence and thus knowledge and wisdom and truth when hey chose darkness.

And, even if they didn't lose their prior intelligence and  knowledge of good it would  still be absent the insights into good made possible by the mortal experience.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

37 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Yes, if I remember correctly, Lucifer was"lightbearer" as well as a star of the morning.

However, you are assuming that he retains that light and knowledge after immersing himself in darkness. I don't have the time right now to lookup references, but I believe that Satan and his follows lose the light and intelligence and thus knowledge and wisdom and truth when hey chose darkness.

And, even if they didn't lose their prior intelligence and  knowledge of good it would  still be absent the insights into good made possible by the mortal experience.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I actually think we are both getting close to being on the same page here. I agree that as one chooses the dark they no longer are in the light and not being in the light is not knowing the truth. It can and does get to a point where they no longer know what good is, what it feels like etc. At that point they no longer have agency having become subject to the will of another. Thus, the preserverence of agency hinges off of doing whats right. Knowledge itself thus hinges off of being righteous to have agency and through that experience realize that joy truly comes from knowing and doing what is right while acknowledging at the same time where disobedience wouldnt bring that joy.

[wenglund]

If someone has never felt physical pain, can they entirely know evil? And, if they have not experienced physical joy, can they entirely know good?

Something to think about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 22, 2018 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

8 hours ago, wenglund said:

If someone has never felt physical pain, can they entirely know evil? And, if they have not experienced physical joy, can they entirely know good?

Something to think about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would say that certainly our spirits have some kind of senses similar to the physical as we know spirits have shouted with joy, wept, gotten mad, learned, made choices, felt torment, felt loss, felt comforted. One thing I have wondered is that spirits, both good and bad, can possess our frames. So, if they can possess them, can they feel the senses of the physical realm? Do demonic spirits possess people to feel the senses of the flesh?

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I would say that certainly our spirits have some kind of senses similar to the physical as we know spirits have shouted with joy, wept, gotten mad, learned, made choices, felt torment, felt loss, felt comforted. One thing I have wondered is that spirits, both good and bad, can possess our frames. So, if they can possess them, can they feel the senses of the physical realm? Do demonic spirits possess people to feel the senses of the flesh?

I agree that spirits are able to experience sensations and emotions, but I suspect that the physical adds a whole new dimension. How could it not?

As for whether they evil spirits experience the sensations of the physical bodies they possess, I doubt that they do directly. They may experience it somewhat vicariously via the spirit of the person whose body they possess, not unlike how the person may somewhat experience the evil sensations of the devils possessing them.  But, I doubt it is the same as for the person whose body it is. 

And, even if they could experience the pain, I don't think they have the capacity (physical or otherwise) to process it and remember it in a meaningful and enlightening and empowering way--which is an intended aspect of mortal life and the way we may come to "know good from evil."

Whatever they experience, it seems there is enough of a compelling desire to possess physical bodies that they are even willing to possess the bodies of swine. (Mt. 8:31)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Traveler]

@wenglundand @Rob Osborn

 

Before you guys get too far off into left field – may I make a few observations.

#1.  The Fall is one of the 3 great pillars of the Plan of Salvation.  It is not something that just happened on accident void of a specific and detailed plan to happen.  (Note the phrase “Plan of Salvation”)

#2. The Fall – according to the very plan of G-d – happened by partaking (tasting) of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. 

#3. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is not to be mistaken for knowledge of something or anything good and as well as or opposed to something or anything evil.  For example – Adam and Eve had knowledge of good in Eden because they spoke directly to G-d.  Since G-d is good, Adam and Eve had knowledge of something good.  Also, Adam and Eve had knowledge in Eden of something evil because they spoke directly to Satan.  Since Satan is evil, they had knowledge of something that was evil.   Thus, by the very witness of sacred scripture – Adam and Eve had knowledge of good and evil before they partook of the furit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Why then and what then, was the difference of the fruit of Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil as opposed to just plain and direct knowledge of good and evil?

 

The Traveler

Edited February 22, 2018 by Traveler

[wenglund]

18 minutes ago, Traveler said:

@wenglundand @Rob Osborn

 

Before you guys get too far off into left field – may I make a few observations.

#1.  The Fall is one of the 3 great pillars of the Plan of Salvation.  It is not something that just happened on accident void of a specific and detailed plan to happen.  (Note the phrase “Plan of Salvation”)

#2. The Fall – according to the very plan of G-d – happened by partaking (tasting) of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. 

#3. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is not to be mistaken for knowledge of something or anything good and as well as or opposed to something or anything evil.  For example – Adam and Eve had knowledge of good in Eden because they spoke directly to G-d.  Since G-d is good, Adam and Eve had knowledge of something good.  Also, Adam and Eve had knowledge in Eden of something evil because they spoke directly to Satan.  Since Satan is evil, they had knowledge of something that was evil.   Thus, by the very witness of sacred scripture – Adam and Eve had knowledge of good and evil before they partook of the furit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Why then and what then, was the difference of the fruit of Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil as opposed to just plain and direct knowledge of good and evil?

 

The Traveler

I appreciate you bringing us back out of the speculative weeds and into focus on the KEY points of the fall and atonement.

In my own way I have been attempting to answer your last question. To me, there is something about the mortal experience that makes the difference--i.e. physical pain and joy, as well as physical processing and memory capacity,which may add a new level of knowledge.

However, I would value any insights you may wish to offer. I know you have mentioned "death" as something to consider, and I promise to give that more thought.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

I think the main argument here is if it requires mortality to truly know evil. No, it doesnt.

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I think the main argument here is if it requires mortality to truly know evil. No, it doesnt.

I like these three cs lewis quotes

Quote

I mean, the more a man was in the Devil's power, the less he would be aware of it, on the principle that a man is still fairly sober as long as he knows he's drunk.

C. S. Lewis

“You will never know how much you believe something until it is a matter of life and death.” – God in the Dock, page 52.

Quote

“No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good. A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is. After all, you find out the strength of the German army by fighting against it, not by giving in. You find out the strength of a wind by trying to walk against it, not by lying down. A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness — they have lived a sheltered life by always giving in. We never find out the strength of the evil impulse inside us until we try to fight it: and Christ, because He was the only man who never yielded to temptation, is also the only man who knows to the full what temptation means — the only complete realist.”

― C.S. Lewis

This last quote is made all the more meaningful when considering the 3 temptations of Christ, which he experienced in mortality. (see HERE)

Thanks, -Wade ENglund-

Edited February 22, 2018 by wenglund

[wenglund]

30 minutes ago, wenglund said:

This last quote is made all the more meaningful when considering the 3 temptations of Christ, which he experienced in mortality. (see HERE)

This exchange between a christian philosopher and a former christian and tentative atheist is instructive:

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund

 

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I think the main argument here is if it requires mortality to truly know evil. No, it doesnt.

What argument?  Sacred scripture tells us the result of sin (tasting evil) is death.  It appears your thought process is only accounting for evil or sin associated with that which is physically mortal.  There is also a spiritual element of evil and sin - thus a spiritual (non mortal) death.

 

The Traveler

Edited February 22, 2018 by Traveler