The Problem of Parental Love (Or,

[Vort]

People Aren't Really This Stupid. Are They? They Can't Be. No, They're Just Faking It. But How Come The People Who Other People Think Are Smart Turn Out To Be The Stupidest? Are They Just Lying? Or Are They Really Stupid? Maybe There Is Something Called Spiritual Stupidity, And These Supposedly Smart People Are Really Just Spiritual Imbeciles. But That Doesn't Seem Too Likely, Does It? Does It? Hmmm. I Don't Know.)

Dearest Wormwood,

In your latest communication, you mention The Problem of Evil, but without any apparent understanding of the brilliance and cleverness of the argumentation. Really, Wormwood. I expect more from a promising nephew. This is a clear exercise in rhetoric, one you should be able to do in your sleep. Now pay attention, and let us discuss the Problem of Parental Love. Watch and learn.

• If parents love their children, then they will always protect those children from evil.
  • When capable of doing so, parents who love their children will never allow those children to experience evil.
  • Loving parents will keep their beloved children free from the taint of evil, so will disallow any choice that leads toward evil.
• All parents allow their children to experience evil, in practice as well as in consequence.
• Therefore, no parents love their children.

Do you see how easily this is done? How natural it sounds? The general form goes more or less as follows:

• Introduce an implicit paradox of the "Can-God-Create-A-Rock-So-Big-That-He-Can't-Lift-It?" variety.
  • But for heaven's sake, be subtle about it! E.g. "Can the works of an all-good God ever bring about evil ends?" can be hinted at, but never overtly stated, because it's a patently ridiculous proposition. Seriously, don't show your cards. Misdirection is your friend. If you do it right, it can even confuse you, so that you can more convincingly play the part of the virtuous truth-seeker. (Though as a journeyman devil, shame on you if you ever fall for your own tricks!)
  • Try using poorly defined words, such as "omnipotent" and "omniscient". You will be stunned at just how easily you can mislead these gullible fools by throwing around God's omnipotence. "Could God save Satan? Of course he could! God can do ANYTHING!" You may not believe me, but trust me, nephew, it is often exactly that easy.
  • Always remember: This is not about establishing truth. (As if.) This is about using words cleverly.
• Introduce framing parameters that are actually not solid parameters, but rather are implicit comparisons or metaphors, or even figurative usages. E.g. "God can do anything" is wonderful, because then you can state patently false and self-contradictory things, as shown above, and support it by saying, "Well, you said that God can do ANYTHING. We're just using your own conditions."
• Using the poorly or ambiguously defined words and the metaphorical framing parameters, assert a contradiction. If you have laid the groundwork properly, your opponent will likely not even recognize that you are blatantly shifting the goalposts.
• Conclude that your initial paradox cannot be resolved, and therefore that a foundational claim must therefore be false. Voilá! You win!

Seem too blatant? That's just because you're naïve and can't see how expertly this can be done. If anyone complains, assert that you have used simple, elementary logic, and all they must do is point out your logical flaws. This will work in literally 99+% of cases, because the large majority of people aren't practiced at pointing out logical flaws, if indeed they can even identify them at all. They almost always will back down in intimidation.

In the rare case that someone actually dismantles what you have said or tries to point out your dishonesty in moving the goalposts, don't despair! Most listeners won't have followed the conversation closely; the large majority aren't actually interested in what is being said, just in the conclusions reached. Roll your eyes, sigh, make it clear that you are exercising your patience in what would normally be an insufferable situation, and say something that implies (but doesn't outright say) that your opponent is being obtuse, probably intentionally so. Something like, "Look, I have clearly pointed out the logical position. If you can dispute it, go ahead, but don't try to obfuscate the issue behind picky argumentation." (Which of course is exactly what YOU are doing; this makes your victory all the sweeter.) If you are a real expert, then you can sometimes even convince the dissident himself that he's wrong or has missed something. But you care only about the opinions of those witnessing the exchange; you don't care about the person arguing against you, except to destroy his credibility in the eyes of others.

Be clever and say the right thing, and you will win the vast majority of such exchanges. Some few you will inevitably lose; if you're in such a situation, simply point out some logical flaw (real or imagined—it doesn't really matter) in your opponent's argument and then change the subject, perhaps with a generous-sounding, "Look, I don't want to pick your words apart."

A very useful phrase in such situations is, "Let's just agree to disagree." It is truly amazing how often this little phrase will do the trick, rescuing a victory from the very jaws of defeat. Be sure to say it as if you're making a generous offer to move the conversation along, wherein you are willing to stop humiliating your opponent by just going to the next topic. If your opponent refuses to let it go, point this out in some way, so you can establish your own virtue and your opponent's lack of good faith. If he continues pressing and you can't escape his logic, simply refuse to continue the conversation. Do NOT attempt to address his concerns; at that point, you are unlikely to be able to deceive everyone, and You Never Want To Lose. So refuse to lose by refusing to continue the conversation.

If you do it right, this will look like you are the mature one who is unwilling to continue in a contentious debate. That's what you're after, Wormwood. Appearance is everything. Truth is what you manage to convince people it is.

Your voraciously affectionate uncle,

Screwtape

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

People Aren't Really This Stupid. Are They? They Can't Be. No, They're Just Faking It. But How Come The People Who Other People Think Are Smart Turn Out To Be The Stupidest? Are They Just Lying? Or Are They Really Stupid? Maybe There Is Something Called Spiritual Stupidity, And These Supposedly Smart People Are Really Just Spiritual Imbeciles. But That Doesn't Seem Too Likely, Does It? Does It? Hmmm. I Don't Know.)

Quote

... in coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/04/revelation-for-the-church-revelation-for-our-lives?lang=eng

When it comes to truth vs error, it is not just about mortal intelligence.  No mere mortal will be able to compete with someone who has maintained his memory and has had thousands of years of practice to hone the rhetoric and logical twists that so called "smart people" usually don't fall victim to.

But the Lord is always wiser and more knowledgeable than the Devil.

Quote

... but treasure up in your minds continually the words of life, and it shall be given you in the very hour that portion that shall be meted unto every man.

 -- D&C 84:86

We (as mortal men) may not be able to out-wit the Devil.  But the Lord's words, not our own, will be the protection against the folly of the Devil.

[Traveler]

Season’s Greetings @vort

CS Lewis has been an evolutionary force in my thinking – especially concerning Satan and his fallen angles.   However, I have struggled with Satan and his followers as the traditional evil character that was once a barrier or bringer of light.  From latter-day scripture and modern revelation, we learn that the problem of Lucifer was his opposition towards agency.  The only logical reason to be against allowing agency is the problem of those exercising agency to embrace darkness and cause problems for others.  But this is exactly what Satan did.  G-d was able to cure all the Satan did to hurt others but G-d was not able to cure what Satan and his angles did to themselves.

I have mitigated this logical flaw that not allowing agency prevents others from falling into evil darkness with the understanding that whatever evil one inflicts on others can be overcome by the rather simple process of forgiveness and mercy.  It would appear (at least to me) that the real problem with darkness that is brought upon by opposing agency is not what it does to others but rather what it does to those the embrace such spiritual folly.  And that the greatest offense to oneself is to attempt to deny others their agency.  I have postulated that denying agency requires a lie to convince oneself that other’s “evil” folly is the prime source of damage that other’s can inflict upon us – but in reality, it would seem that evil is best defined by that which we inflict upon ourselves for which there is no cure without our forgiveness and mercy towards not just others but more so for ourselves.

 

The Traveler

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

From latter-day scripture and modern revelation, we learn that the problem of Lucifer was his opposition towards agency.

Kinda no.

Lucifer wanted glory without the effort.  He never was opposed to agency.  In fact, his example is to exercise selfish agency despite overwhelming evidence of its pitfalls and consequences.

He used a contrived argument to confuse and provide an excuse for himself and his followers.

A very Screwtape thing to do btw.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

42 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Kinda no.

Lucifer wanted glory without the effort.  He never was opposed to agency.  In fact, his example is to exercise selfish agency despite overwhelming evidence of its pitfalls and consequences.

He used a contrived argument to confuse and provide an excuse for himself and his followers.

A very Screwtape thing to do btw.

 

Kinda depends on what you mean by "opposition to". There's no question that he was in opposition to our having our agency for our mortal probation. That's just scriptural fact as plain as written word can be.

[mikbone]

29 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Kinda depends on what you mean by "opposition to". There's no question that he was in opposition to our having our agency for our mortal probation. That's just scriptural fact as plain as written word can be.

Sure, that was his political platform.  He is a well know liar though.

Like many other politicians…

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, mikbone said:

He is a well know liar though.

But God is not. The plain scripture I mention is not the words of Satan. It is the words of God.

"And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying...

...Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;" (Moses 4:1, 3)

There can be no question that Satan sought to destroy the agency of man. Unless one wants to argue that God was deceived by a lie.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

Lucifer wanted glory without the effort.  He never was opposed to agency.  In fact, his example is to exercise selfish agency despite overwhelming evidence of its pitfalls and consequences.

Some day I want to do a glory-versus-honor thread. My scripture study seems to indicate that "glory" is a property of God, a manifestation of his power that he possesses because of his righteousness and perfection. On the other hand, "honor" seems to be the praise and laud given him by other intelligent beings. It was God's honor that Satan coveted, not his glory, which Satan could never possibly have and can only imitate like costume jewelry. So while I agree with the thrust of what you wrote, I would put the word "honor" in place of "glory".

[mikbone]

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But God is not. The plain scripture I mention is not the words of Satan. It is the words of God.

"And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying...

...Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;" (Moses 4:1, 3)

There can be no question that Satan sought to destroy the agency of man. Unless one wants to argue that God was deceived by a lie.

Yup.

Lucifer used his political platform of ease and security to convince the third part to follow him.

Lucifer’s plan did destroy the agency of the third part.  Their choices have been significantly curtailed.

And Lucifer continues to try to bind the rest of us with his chains.

But Lucifer’s plan is a lie.  What Lucifer was actually peddling was disobedience.  

There is no free agency.  That is a football term.

There is moral agency and free will.

 

[mordorbund]

On 11/27/2023 at 2:42 PM, Vort said:

People Aren't Really This Stupid. Are They? They Can't Be. No, They're Just Faking It. But How Come The People Who Other People Think Are Smart Turn Out To Be The Stupidest? Are They Just Lying? Or Are They Really Stupid? Maybe There Is Something Called Spiritual Stupidity, And These Supposedly Smart People Are Really Just Spiritual Imbeciles. But That Doesn't Seem Too Likely, Does It? Does It? Hmmm. I Don't Know.)

Dearest Wormwood,

In your latest communication, you mention The Problem of Evil, but without any apparent understanding of the brilliance and cleverness of the argumentation. Really, Wormwood. I expect more from a promising nephew. This is a clear exercise in rhetoric, one you should be able to do in your sleep. Now pay attention, and let us discuss the Problem of Parental Love. Watch and learn.

• If parents love their children, then they will always protect those children from evil.
  • When capable of doing so, parents who love their children will never allow those children to experience evil.
  • Loving parents will keep their beloved children free from the taint of evil, so will disallow any choice that leads toward evil.
• All parents allow their children to experience evil, in practice as well as in consequence.
• Therefore, no parents love their children.

Do you see how easily this is done? How natural it sounds? The general form goes more or less as follows:

• Introduce an implicit paradox of the "Can-God-Create-A-Rock-So-Big-That-He-Can't-Lift-It?" variety.
  • But for heaven's sake, be subtle about it! E.g. "Can the works of an all-good God ever bring about evil ends?" can be hinted at, but never overtly stated, because it's a patently ridiculous proposition. Seriously, don't show your cards. Misdirection is your friend. If you do it right, it can even confuse you, so that you can more convincingly play the part of the virtuous truth-seeker. (Though as a journeyman devil, shame on you if you ever fall for your own tricks!)
  • Try using poorly defined words, such as "omnipotent" and "omniscient". You will be stunned at just how easily you can mislead these gullible fools by throwing around God's omnipotence. "Could God save Satan? Of course he could! God can do ANYTHING!" You may not believe me, but trust me, nephew, it is often exactly that easy.
  • Always remember: This is not about establishing truth. (As if.) This is about using words cleverly.
• Introduce framing parameters that are actually not solid parameters, but rather are implicit comparisons or metaphors, or even figurative usages. E.g. "God can do anything" is wonderful, because then you can state patently false and self-contradictory things, as shown above, and support it by saying, "Well, you said that God can do ANYTHING. We're just using your own conditions."
• Using the poorly or ambiguously defined words and the metaphorical framing parameters, assert a contradiction. If you have laid the groundwork properly, your opponent will likely not even recognize that you are blatantly shifting the goalposts.
• Conclude that your initial paradox cannot be resolved, and therefore that a foundational claim must therefore be false. Voilá! You win!

Seem too blatant? That's just because you're naïve and can't see how expertly this can be done. If anyone complains, assert that you have used simple, elementary logic, and all they must do is point out your logical flaws. This will work in literally 99+% of cases, because the large majority of people aren't practiced at pointing out logical flaws, if indeed they can even identify them at all. They almost always will back down in intimidation.

In the rare case that someone actually dismantles what you have said or tries to point out your dishonesty in moving the goalposts, don't despair! Most listeners won't have followed the conversation closely; the large majority aren't actually interested in what is being said, just in the conclusions reached. Roll your eyes, sigh, make it clear that you are exercising your patience in what would normally be an insufferable situation, and say something that implies (but doesn't outright say) that your opponent is being obtuse, probably intentionally so. Something like, "Look, I have clearly pointed out the logical position. If you can dispute it, go ahead, but don't try to obfuscate the issue behind picky argumentation." (Which of course is exactly what YOU are doing; this makes your victory all the sweeter.) If you are a real expert, then you can sometimes even convince the dissident himself that he's wrong or has missed something. But you care only about the opinions of those witnessing the exchange; you don't care about the person arguing against you, except to destroy his credibility in the eyes of others.

Be clever and say the right thing, and you will win the vast majority of such exchanges. Some few you will inevitably lose; if you're in such a situation, simply point out some logical flaw (real or imagined—it doesn't really matter) in your opponent's argument and then change the subject, perhaps with a generous-sounding, "Look, I don't want to pick your words apart."

A very useful phrase in such situations is, "Let's just agree to disagree." It is truly amazing how often this little phrase will do the trick, rescuing a victory from the very jaws of defeat. Be sure to say it as if you're making a generous offer to move the conversation along, wherein you are willing to stop humiliating your opponent by just going to the next topic. If your opponent refuses to let it go, point this out in some way, so you can establish your own virtue and your opponent's lack of good faith. If he continues pressing and you can't escape his logic, simply refuse to continue the conversation. Do NOT attempt to address his concerns; at that point, you are unlikely to be able to deceive everyone, and You Never Want To Lose. So refuse to lose by refusing to continue the conversation.

If you do it right, this will look like you are the mature one who is unwilling to continue in a contentious debate. That's what you're after, Wormwood. Appearance is everything. Truth is what you manage to convince people it is.

Your voraciously affectionate uncle,

Screwtape

 

[zil2]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

Lucifer’s plan did destroy the agency of the third part.  Their choices have been significantly curtailed.

But that's not what God said.  I'm with @The Folk Prophet on this one.  God is no liar.  God is telling us what Satan tried to do.  God was not fooled by Satan's lies, nor repeating them, he was telling Moses what Satan tried to do.

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, mikbone said:

Kinda no.

Lucifer wanted glory without the effort.  He never was opposed to agency.  In fact, his example is to exercise selfish agency despite overwhelming evidence of its pitfalls and consequences.

He used a contrived argument to confuse and provide an excuse for himself and his followers.

A very Screwtape thing to do btw.

 

The first offence of Satan was to rebel against G-d and the primary offense of that rebellion was an effort to destroy the agency of man.  Moses 4:3

Quote

3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

4 And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.

A few things of note:  

1. Satan sought to destroy the agency of man.

2. Agency is a gift from G-d

3. All that followed Satan and did not hearken unto the “voice” of G-d became captive to Satan and lost their agency that G-d had given them.  Being captive to someone else’s will is the opposite of agency.  (See 2Nephi 2:11)

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

One comment – my personal logic and interpretation of scripture.

There is a stark difference between agency and freewill.   Because agency is a divine gift from G-d it is an external power granted to man as a gift.  Whereas freewill is an inner characteristic that is one of the primary distinctions of an individual’s individuality.   I am of the belief that agency is the power to make one’s will an eternal reality.

With this understanding and definition – Satan has lost his agency that was initially given to him by G-d.  This is because Satan desired and still desires to destroy the agency of the children of G-d (especially those that covenant with G-d) and bind them to his will making them captive and in bondage to him.  This is why those that do not keep the covenants of G-d have not other option but to become captive to the will of Satan.

I also speculate that his intent to captivate others of necessity requires that he lie concerning all things associated with him – which is why he became the “Father” of lies.  The state of lying is itself a bondage which is why the agency of Satan is a lie of his own making – thus a lie to which he must first convince himself.

 

The Traveler