Temptation and Virtue

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Please note I wrote this shortly after being brought back to God. There is undoubtedly room for improvement. Feedback is appreciated.

Temptation

I grew up as a Christian, in a Christian home. When I went out on my own, I lost faith, and began reevaluating all of my values. A year ago, God woke me up from my apathetic stupor and showed Himself to me - brought me back. Since then, I am re-reevaluating all the old questions - now more curious than the first time around about what the Bible has to say about all of it.

This study sought and found answers to (or despite) these questions:

Does being able to recognize a temptation point to a lack of virtue? In other words: is susceptibility to temptation a sign that a person is lacking in virtue? Can temptation never enter the head of the truly virtuous person, because they wouldn’t even recognize it (see “another personal note” before Matthew 4:1)? Or does virtue and moral strength of character show itself precisely in the face of temptation - because then you can make a conscious choice against adversity (see NASB footnote after Matthew 4:1)? Or is a person who enjoys and is inclined to doing good more virtuous than a person who has to struggle against inclination to give in to temptation? How do you know if you are being tempted or if you are being tested (discernment comes from reading the Word and doing it - read on… then do it… that’s what I’m doin’, anyway…)?

Note that ‘temptation’ is meant, rather than “evil surmising”. According to Brian Brodersen in “Spiritual Warfare” (2004) “Evil surmising originates from within. As Jesus said, ‘Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts…’ (Matthew 15:19). Evil surmising is within your power to control and has an element of delight in it. The flaming arrows of the wicked one, on the other hand, come from outside of you and are, to a certain degree,
beyond your power to control. They are also offensive to you. You not only do not want to think these thoughts, you consciously reject them,” (p. 39).

Some of what Zondervan’s NASB Study Bible has to say about temptation and testing:

Matthew 4:1-11 The Temptation of Jesus

Personal note: Jesus never sinned, and never, therefore, felt guilt. Never once had a guilty conscience. This despite being raised in an environment surrounded by sinners - because God the Father brought Him into maturity. When I was an atheist, I wrote, “If you are doing what comes naturally, you are not making a decision – morality is not a factor.” However, I was wrong, in that Jesus made moral decisions during His being tempted, based on what comes (super-) naturally to Him. A slip away from the Truth would be to say that His actions transcended morality, like some sort of Nietzsche’s Overman. Rather, Jesus exemplified a moral person. Also, what I wrote as an atheist neglects to note how guilt (always having to do with morality) is often, as a response, almost second-nature (without intention). Being converted makes life more interesting for a thinker, because you can win arguments against your old self, and not worry about hurting anybody’s feelings. :slight_smile:

NASB footnote excerpt: Jesus had no inward desire or inclination to sin, for these in themselves are sin (Matthew 5:22, 28). Because He was God, He did not sin in any way, whether by actions or word or inner desire (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 7:26; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:5). Yet Jesus’ temptation was real, not merely symbolic. He was “tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). He was confronted by the tempter with a real opportunity to sin. Although Jesus was the Son of God, He defeated Satan by using a weapon that everyone has at his or her disposal: the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (Eph. 6:17). He met all three temptations with Scriptural truth (vv. 4, 7, 10) from Deuteronomy. … He became the model for all believers when they are tempted.

Another personal note: before I was converted, and a little bit after, I used to think of Jesus as naive. I thought that since He is perfect, without sin, He is totally uninitiated to reality, like some kind of little innocent child. After I was converted, He taught me the reality - He knows every last detail about life in this universe (including the aspect residing in you) - the beautiful and the ugly. A lack of ignorance (an ability to recognize a temptation) does not equate to a lack of moral innocence, otherwise “all knowing” would equate to “completely evil”. Temptation, spiritual warfare, comes from without.

Matthew 4:1 “Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.”

NASB footnote excerpt: This testing of Jesus (the Greek verb translated “tempted” can also be rendered “tested”), which was divinely intended, has at its primary background Deut. 8:1-5 (Ichthus: see also verse 16, and the whole chapter) … There Moses recalls how the Lord led the Israelites through the wilderness 40 years “that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not.” (Ichthus: see also Heb. 2:17-18; Heb. 4:15-16). … God surely tests His people, but it is the devil who tempts to evil (see note on Gen. 22:1; see also 1 John 3:8; Rev. 2:9-10 and notes; Rev. 12:9-10). Like the Hebrew for “Satan,” the Greek for “devil” means “accuser” or “slanderer.” The devil is a personal being, not a mere force or influence. He is the great archenemy of God and the leader of the hosts of darkness.

Matthew 6:13 “And do not lead us into temptation” can also be translated “and do not put us to the test, but deliver us from evil.” I point that out because maybe there are others like myself who read that verse and at first think it implies God leads us into temptation (why else would we ask Him not to?) whereas other verses say God does not lead us into temptation. The temptation (by Satan) of Jesus was a divinely intended test – He was lead into it by the Spirit (Matt 4:1-11). It was Satan who afflicted Job, but God who allowed it, to prove Job’s faith was genuine and not all calamity is God’s judgment. [Rather than judgment, Job’s suffering was a trial that served to prove wrong the great adversary of God and man (and all his advocates)–those in relationship with God do not seek Him to avoid suffering or obstacles (including not knowing the divine purpose of the obstacle) or because it pays.] Neither tests resulted in sin, and both show how Satan is under God’s control. God does not tempt to sin, God does not want us to sin (James 1:13; 1 Cor 7:5). Does that mean that where there is sin, God’s sovereignty has stopped (another thought that entered my head)? No. Our freedom to reject love and responsibility to choose love is a built-in part of this grand creation over which God is sovereign. That we choose to reject love, that we choose to sin in His creation, does not equate to His endorsing what we chose – but it does equate to His endorsing choice. Without the possibility of rejecting God’s love (at the root of all sin), there is no possibility to choose it. Love must be chosen – it cannot be forced upon us. So Matthew 6:13 is acknowledging God as sovereign. Jesus just as well could have said, “Let us not wander off and get lost in sin, but lead us with the rest of the fold, away from the wolves who won’t come near your rod and staff without consequence.” Of course, Jesus said it much more concisely.

Hebrews 4:15 “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.”

NASB footnote: tempted in all things as we are. The author stresses the parallel between Christ’s temptations and ours. He did not have each temptation we have but experienced every kind of temptation a person can have. yet without sin. The way in which Christ’s temptations were completely different from ours was in the results-His temptations never led to sin.

Hebrews 4:16 “Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”

NASB footnote: Because Christ our high priest has experienced human temptation, He stands ready to give immediate and sympathetic help when we are tempted.

STOP! The doubt has entered my head: “Was God not sympathetic before Jesus? Was He not ready to help before Jesus? How is Jesus necessary?” But God’s counter-thought tells me: “I will keep talking to you.” He will keep teaching us about who He is to us, and who we are to Him. Jesus is the living Word of God, and His coming was foretold in the Old Testament, so that we would recognize Him. The grand narrative is still unfolding.

Genesis 22:1-18 The Offering of Isaac

Genesis 22:1 “Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, ‘Abraham!’ And he said, ‘Here I am.’”

NASB footnote excerpt: tested. Not “tempted,” for God does not tempt (James 1:13). Satan tempts us (see 1 Cor. 7:5) in order to make us fall; God tests us in order to confirm our faith (Ex. 20:20) or prove our commitment (Deut. 8:2).

James 1:13-15 “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.”

NASB footnote excerpt: tempted. In vv. 13-14 the verb refers to temptations that test one’s moral strength to resist sin. God cannot be tempted. Because God in His very nature is holy, there is nothing in Him for sin to appeal to. … The three stages (Ichthus: in verse 15)-desire, sin, death-are seen in the temptations of Eve (Ichthus: Gen. 2:16-3:24, emph. on Gen 3:6) and David (2 Sam. 11:2-12:25).

Exodus 20:20 “Moses said to the people, ‘Do not be afraid; for God has come in order to test you, and in order that the fear of Him may remain with you, so that you may not sin.’”

NASB footnote excerpt: Do not think that God’s display of His majesty is intended simply to fill you with abject fear. He has come to enter into covenant with you as your heavenly King. … fear of Him. See note on Gen. 20:11: A conventional phrase equivalent to “true religion.” “Fear” in this phrase has the sense of reverential trust in God that includes commitment to His revealed will (word).

Matthew 5:28 “but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

Mark 14:38 “Keep watching and praying that you may not come into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” NASB note: Here the temptation is to be unfaithful in the face of threatening circumstances confronting them. When that part of man that is spirit is under God’s control, it strives against human weakness.

That study answered most my questions - but a few other verses not directly related to temptation help answer the rest - first - no one is perfect but God (Romans 3:23) - and second, He loves us despite that fact (Romans 5:8). The virtue questions are just a guilt trip in disguise.

“A guilty conscience that precedes sincere repentance is the conviction of the Holy Spirit. A guilty conscience following sincere repentance is condemnation that is not coming from God.” – Beth Moore

Here’s biblical backing for the Beth Moore quote: 2 Corinthians 7:10 (Godly sorrow versus worldly sorrow); Luke 7:40-43 (the one whom He forgives more, loves more); 1 John 3:19-20 (for the over-sensitive conscience).

1 Cor 10:13 “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.”

Always look for the way of escape – recognize it as provided by God. There is no greater feeling of victory than to overcome temptation by the power of God.

“Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good,” Romans 12:21.

Another thread relevant to this is found here:
jesuschristsonofgodsavior.blogsp … ughts.html

Hold every thought captive, rather than being held captive by your thoughts.

2

While I recognize that Milton is far from canonical, was he so far off in suggesting that Jesus offered himself to the cross (I honestly do not know)? If so, I think one could argue that Jesus did indeed feel guilt because the pre-existing situation was too stringent. So, he came to fulfill the old law and having fulfilled it, shifted it towards a gentler system whereby salvation was offered to everyone as opposed to a very limited tribe.

As for temptation, I’ll use the nifty search function that another poster provided:

1 Corinthians 10:13

No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

To me that would seem to suggest that temptation is only offered to the virtuous, since they are able to bear it. An ignorant person cannot be ‘base’ because to be ‘base’ one must be aware of a state which is not.

3

Xunzian (John 14:6) – I apologize for the delay in my response, though I do have good reasons. Thankyou upfront for constructing your reply in such a way that it gave me opportunity to research certain things I had forgotten I wanted to look into further. Mucho appreciado…

– Xunzian

While I have not read or digested any work of Milton’s, I did check out from the library his complete poetry and selected prose, put out by Random House in 1950. I just happened to turn right to page 151 (Paradise Lost, book III), where it reads, “Behold mee then, me for him, life for life / I offer, on mee let thine anger fall…” and later, on page 156, it reads, “…offerd himself to die / For mans offence.” [I have such a long list of “to-read”s and so little patience for authors who do not yet know how to spell… that’s a joke (what, pray tell, is “fealtie”?)… Milton is on my list, but not at the top… I am attracted to his subject matter – angels and temptation, mainly – I will reserve my other impressions for after I have fully digested all his material].

ANYway… Milton was not far off – he was right on the mark (however, please see this page… though it is put out by a Catholic… there are points of agreement between Catholics and “other”, afterall) (there’s also a nice little quote from Milton on the page):

socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/08/ … hrist.html

Here’s the beginnings of a paper on Milton’s take of the atonement:

links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8 … size=LARGE

Also – referring to a quote in the link directly above – contrary to Milton’s view of the Father, it is God Himself who in Christ reconciles the world to Himself (2 Cor 5:18-19) – God takes the initiative (Rom 5:8, John 3:16).

– Xunzian

You seem to have in mind two different definitions of guilt… one referring to a change of mind or regret (without guilt)… and one referring to remorse over immoral actions or thoughts. Jesus felt neither in this situation [btw, here’s a little side-track on guilt that does not refer to an emotion: Is 64:6, Rom 3:23 (NASB note: “glory of God.” What God intended man to be. The glory that man had before the fall, the believer will again have through Christ… see Heb 2:5-9), Rom 5:12-14, Gal 3:22]. Jesus did not regret the way things were and decide they should all the sudden be different – you can think of the whole thing as “building on a theme” – fulfillment of prophecy is not God changing His mind – it is God doing what He promised (more on that later). Back to your use of the word guilt – it reminded me of old testament verses which speak of God “regretting”, “repenting” and “relenting”. So I did a little study on those verses. I’ll give you a list you can look up yourself, and then quote from some of the Zondervan NASB Study Bible (1999) footnotes: Gen 6:6 (see Eph. 4:30), 2 Sam 24:16, 1 Sam 15:11, 29, 35, Num 23:19, Ps 110:4, Jer 4:28 (NASB note: unless His people repent, see Jer 18:1-11), Mal 3:6, James 1:17.

NASB note on Gen 6:6: “The Lord was sorry… He was grieved in His heart.” Man’s sin is God’s sorrow (see Eph 4:30).

NASB note on 1 Sam 15:29: “will not lie or change His mind.” There is no conflict between this statement and vv. 11, 35, where the Lord is said to “regret” that He made Saul king. God has real emotions (one of the marks of personality).

NASB note on Num 23:19: “God is not a man, that He should lie.” These sublime words describe the immutability of the Lord and the integrity of His word. Balaam is a foil for God—constantly shifting, prevaricating, equivocating, changing—a prime example of the distinction between God and man.

NASB note on Mal 3:6 “do not change.” See James 1:17. Contrary to what many in Malachi’s day were thinking, God remains faithful to His covenant.

Personal note on Jeremiah 18:1-11 – God communicates to us on our level of understanding, according to where we are at in the learning process. As Raphael said in Paradise Lost, “…what surmounts the reach / Of human sense, I shall delineate so, / By lik’ning spiritual to corporal forms…” (p. 211).

– Xunzian

The pre-existing situation (Law) served the purpose of “revealing sin, which alienates God to man, and … show(s) the need for the salvation that the promise offers,” (NASB note Gal 3:21). The promise being referred to is the Abrahamic covenant (start with Gen 12:1-3).

– Xunzian

Jesus’ death did make it obvious that God loves us no matter what (nothing changed – but it was something we had to learn in time) – but that does not mean we no longer strive for excellence. A true interaction with God motivates us toward excellence, because we know He loves us regardless of imperfection. It makes slipping into the muck (made discernable by the Law) seem so utterly pointless. Jesus affirms the continuing authority of the law in Luke 16:18, 31 (for starters). Also research Romans 6:15, Hebrews 10:26-39, Jeremiah 31:33, John 14:16-26. See Hebrews 8-10, Romans 1-11, and always read the referenced OT verses (hopefully you have a good study bible).

– Xunzian

That was God’s plan since the Abrahamic covenant (see Gen 12:3b), though many Jews rejected that. Even after Jesus (who fulfilled this “all peoples” promise, see Acts 3 and Galatians 3), Paul had to set some Jewish Christians straight. Remember it is all building on a theme – some things take time to learn, to sink in – some things we are used to now, would have been incomprehensible to a tribal mindset. As we learn more and more, the question may occur to us, “Why didn’t You just tell me that?” – the answer always is, “You would not have understood.” If we ask – He will answer to the best of our ability to understand. Remember my personal note up there on Jeremiah 18:1-11.

An after-note – if you view Jesus as merely man – then everything you said about him fulfilling and shifting – would have meant/accomplished nothing from God’s perspective. He was God’s provided Lamb (John 10:18, Acts 2:23).

– Xunzian

Love your use of “nifty”. To what search function are you referring?

I have this underlined in my Bible.

– Xunzian

The verse said the opposite of “virtuous” – it said “common … man”. To suggest that temptation is “offered” contradicts other scripture – refer to the original post. Also – no one is virtuous relative to God (Rom 3:23), and no one is able to bear temptation without the strength of God (Eph. 6:12-17).

– Xunxian

So – do we automatically become base when we become aware of baseness against our will (rhetorical)? So God is base because He is omniscient (rhetorical)? (No… and no.) Besides – as was stated in the original post, those sorts of questions/statements are guilt trips in disguise and completely miss the point – we are all screwed up in our own way – and God loves us despite all that – nothing we do could make Him love us more – and for those of us who desire true excellence (Love), rather than the muck – God is the only source of that sort of strength.

I would like to conclude by providing Hebrews 10:1-18 (pasted from biblegateway.com/passage/?se … version=49), and sprinkle in some NASB notes:

Hebrews 10:1-18 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB) Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

One Sacrifice of Christ Is Sufficient

1For the Law, since it has only (A)a shadow of (B)the good things to come and not the very form of things, [a]can (C)never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, (D)make perfect those who draw near.

NASB note: “the Law.” Together with the Levitical priesthood to which it was closely linked under the Mosaic system (see note on 7:11). “only a shadow.” The sacrifices prescribed by the law prefigured Christ’s ultimate sacrifice. Thus they were repeated year after year, the very repetition bearing testimony that the perfect, sin-removing sacrifice had not yet been offered.

2Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had (E)consciousness of sins?
3But (F)in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year.
4For it is (G)impossible for the (H)blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

NASB note: An animal cannot possibly be a completely adequate substitute for a human being, who is made in God’s image.

5Therefore, (I)when He comes into the world, He says,
"(J)SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED,
BUT (K)A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;
6(L)IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE.

NASB note 5-6: The different terms used for the Levitical sacrifices represent four of the five types of offerings prescribed by the Mosaic Law (Lev 1-7), namely, fellowship, grain, burnt and sin.
NASB note 5: “when He comes into to world, He says.” The words of this psalm of David (40:6-8) express Christ’s obedient submission to the Father in coming to the earth. The Mosaic sacrifices are replaced by submissive obedience to the will of God (v. 7).
NASB note 6: “You have taken no pleasure.” These offerings were only preparatory and temporary, looking forward to the one perfect and final offering—that of the incarnate Son of God.

7"(M)THEN I SAID, 'BEHOLD, I HAVE COME
     (IN (N)THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME)
     TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.'"

NASB note: The will of the Father was the Son’s consuming concern (see Luke 22:42; John 4:34).

8After saying above, “(O)SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND (P)WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices (Q)FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them” (which are offered according to the Law),
9then He said, “(R)BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

NASB note: His perfect sacrifice, offered in complete submission, supersedes and therefore replaces all previous sacrfifice.

10By this will we have been (S)sanctified through (T)the offering of (U)the body of Jesus Christ (V)once for all.

NASB note: “been sanctified.” Justified, set apart in consecration to God, and now experiencing the process of continual sanctification (see “are sanctified,” v. 14; see also note on 1 Cor 1:2).

11Every priest stands daily ministering and (W)offering time after time the same sacrifices, which (X)can never take away sins;
12but He, having offered one sacrifice (Y)for sins (Z)for all time, (AA)SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,
13waiting from that time onward (AB)UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET.
14For by one offering He has (AC)perfected (AD)for all time those who are sanctified.

NASB note 11-14: A contrast between “standing” and “sitting.” The Levitical priest always stood, because his work was never finished.
NASB note 11: “offering…the same sacrifices.” Because these sacrifices were unable to accomplish what they signified. They could not remove sin, and thus had to be offered over and over again.
NASB note 12: “He…sat down at the right hand of God.” In contrast to the work of the Levitical priests, which was never done (v. 11; see notes on 1:3,13), Christ’s work was completed. His one sacrifice atoned for all the sins of all time, making any further sacrifice unnecessary (v. 14).

15And (AE)the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,
16"(AF)THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART,
AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,"
He then says,
17"(AG)AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS
I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."
18Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

NASB note 15-18: The two quotations included in these verses are from Jer 31:31-34 (already cited in 8:8-12). The new covenant guarantees that sins will be effectively and completely forgiven (v. 17), with the result that no additional sacrifice for sins is needed (v. 18).

Footnotes:
a. Hebrews 10:1 Two early mss read they can

Cross references:
A. Hebrews 10:1 : Heb 8:5
B. Hebrews 10:1 : Heb 9:11
C. Hebrews 10:1 : Rom 8:3; Heb 9:9; 10:4, 11
D. Hebrews 10:1 : Heb 7:19
E. Hebrews 10:2 : 1 Pet 2:19
F. Hebrews 10:3 : Heb 9:7
G. Hebrews 10:4 : Heb 10:1, 11
H. Hebrews 10:4 : Heb 9:12
I. Hebrews 10:5 : Heb 1:6
J. Hebrews 10:5 : Ps 40:6
K. Hebrews 10:5 : Heb 2:14; 5:7; 1 Pet 2:24
L. Hebrews 10:6 : Ps 40:6
M. Hebrews 10:7 : Ps 40:7, 8
N. Hebrews 10:7 : Ezra 6:2; Jer 36:2; Ezek 2:9; 3:1
O. Hebrews 10:8 : Ps 40:6; Heb 10:5
P. Hebrews 10:8 : Mark 12:33
Q. Hebrews 10:8 : Rom 8:3
R. Hebrews 10:9 : Ps 40:7, 8; Heb 10:7
S. Hebrews 10:10 : John 17:19; Eph 5:26; Heb 2:11; 10:14, 29; 13:12
T. Hebrews 10:10 : John 6:51; Eph 5:2; Heb 7:27; 9:14, 28; 10:12
U. Hebrews 10:10 : Heb 2:14; 5:7; 1 Pet 2:24
V. Hebrews 10:10 : Heb 7:27
W. Hebrews 10:11 : Heb 5:1
X. Hebrews 10:11 : Mic 6:6-8; Heb 10:1, 4
Y. Hebrews 10:12 : Heb 5:1
Z. Hebrews 10:12 : Heb 10:14
AA. Hebrews 10:12 : Ps 110:1; Heb 1:3
BB. Hebrews 10:13 : Ps 110:1; Heb 1:13
CC. Hebrews 10:14 : Heb 10:1
DD. Hebrews 10:14 : Heb 10:12
EE. Hebrews 10:15 : Heb 3:7
FF. Hebrews 10:16 : Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10
GG. Hebrews 10:17 : Jer 31:34; Heb 8:12

I hope this reply was long enough to answer you sufficiently, but not so long that it was bad e-tiquette.

4

A lot of your post (well, the latter half) seems to demand that the Christian God loves people no matter what.

That doesn’t particularly make sense, and I’ll throw this thread your way to ponder:

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … 94&start=0

I believe it also has the searchable bible I mentioned in it.

5

Xunzian…

If you read and study, you will understand what it means – that God’s love is unconditional.

That people can choose hell is no different than people choosing negative consequences in this life. It does not negate the fact that God loves them.

It is an expression of love to allow your loved ones to learn from their mistakes.

This is getting way off-topic.

I cannot read all three pages of that thread, but if you narrow it down for me – after studying my reply to you (I ain’t doin’ all the work here, heh), if you still have the same question – then I will give it a shot. And I prob’ly will have something ready for you, lol…

I am off-line for the day.

6

Xunzian, I am replying to the thread you referenced (“Does God Love You?”) – have you digested my reply?

7

Xunzian, have you decided not to reply? Have you thought about it?

Some stuff I was chewing on…

Matthew 6:13 “And do not lead us into temptation” can also be translated “and do not put us to the test” – “but deliver us from evil.” I point that out because maybe there are others like myself who read that verse and at first think it implies God leads us into temptation (why else would we ask Him not to?) – whereas other verses say God does not lead us into temptation. The temptation (by Satan) of Jesus was a divinely intended test – He was lead into it by the Spirit (Matt 4:1-11). It was Satan who afflicted Job, but God who allowed it, to prove Job’s faith was genuine and not all calamity is God’s judgment. Neither tests resulted in sin, and both show how Satan is under God’s control. God does not tempt to sin, God does not want us to sin (James 1:13; 1 Cor 7:5). Does that mean that where there is sin, God’s sovereignty has stopped (another thought that entered my head)? No. Our freedom to reject love and responsibility to choose love is a built-in part of this grand creation over which God is sovereign. That we choose to reject love, that we choose to sin in His creation, does not equate to His endorsing what we chose – but it does equate to His endorsing “choice”. Without the possibility of rejecting God’s love (at the root of all sin), there is no possibility to choose it. Love must be chosen – it cannot be forced upon us. So Matthew 6:13 is acknowledging God as sovereign – Jesus just as well could have said, “Let us not wander off and get lost in sin – but lead us with the rest of the fold, away from the wolves who won’t come near your rod and staff without consequence.” Of course, Jesus said it much more concisely.

1 Cor 10:13 – “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.”

Always look for the way of escape – recognize it as provided by God. There is no greater feeling of victory than to overcome temptation by the power of God.

“Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” – Romans 12:21.

8

– myself

Haha. Merriam Webster defines fealty as “intense fidelity” and lists ‘fidelity’ as a synonym. In the definition for fidelity, a better definition for fealty (as a synonym of fidelity) is given: implies a fidelity acknowledged by the individual and as compelling as a sworn vow .

As for the Beth Moore quote:

– here’s biblical backing: 2 Corinthians 7:10 (Godly sorrow versus worldly sorrow) –Luke 7:40-43 (the one whom He forgives more, loves more), 1 John 3:19-20 (for the over-sensitive conscience).

9

[size=150]“A temptation is an act that looks appealing to an individual. It is usually used to describe acts with negative connotations and as such, tends to lead a person to regret such actions as a result of guilt.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temptation

Good topic.

I sense you seek perfection though, which smacks of the pride disease…another pitfall of human imperfection.

You seek to be ‘perfectly virtuous’ and ‘never have temptation’ enter you mind?

No such thing as perfection when it comes to humans.

Even if we are more perfect than not when young, as our minds age we sometime lose some of this perfection with debilitating mental capacities.

I find it is good to ‘look for direction and forget perfection’ if we wish to be at peace with this subject.

I heard a story one time in a Yoga lecture that illustrates this point. “Range is of the ego - Form is of the soul.” The only thing we need to be concerned with is how is our form when it comes to our practice.

Perfection is a journey I take and direction I head in - but I never arrive at in life.

Perfection is the nature of gods ~ Imperfection is the nature of humans.

We can see this with logic.

What is logical is not always practical when it comes to humans…is it?

Despite this fact, we can all do better if we try at perfecting inner peace within and with all.

Temptation and virtue coexist, as one defines the other. For without temptation one could not practice virtuous qualities.

But before we can get into a discussion of this subject in depth. We must note that ‘virtue’ and ‘temptation’ differs around the globe.

In addition, many of ‘temptations’ are man made and must be implanted by man through study before they can be recognized as taboo. Even then, within the same groups, the exact same taboos may change as allowable behavior after time passes.

Evil deeds are not universally evil deeds it seems.

For instance. The age of consent for sexual intercourse varies in the US from age 14 to age 18 depending on which state your in.

One state you are fine with your sex, step over the border and have sex at the wrong age you are in jail for eons.

In other countries it varies even further.

avert.org/aofconsent.htm

Who is right? Who has the virtue?

Well, what does ‘natural law’ say on the subject?

When a girl starts menstruating she is ready for sex it seems.

So what is virtuous to one may not be virtuous to all.

Even going back to the ‘Good Book’, what was OK then would land you in jail many times for such behavior now.

But speaking in general terms most can agree about good and bad virtues if they give it some thought. The problem is people act without thinking many at time, so ‘without thought’ is where the trouble starts.

You hit the nail on the head when you wrote:

“Or does virtue and moral strength of character show itself precisely in the face of temptation - because then you can make a conscious choice against adversity”

Which is echoed in what a Hindu sage once told me:

“Just as water floes downhill without effort but requires outside forces and energy to make it move uphill. So the human consciousness falls to its lowest levels of the senses without effort and energies to make our consciousness gravitate to more than our base desires.”

Some people get confused when the question of anger or temptation pops up in their head and beat themselves for ‘still experiencing’ these emotions thinking they should be a ‘perfectly spiritual individual’ and above such lowly emotions as getting angry or being tempted. They think they can perfect their lives and wipe out natural law with one blow called spirituality.

Due to the diversity of thought we humans are capable of we have all sorts of thoughts and emotions that pop up in our heads. Without this ability we could not think as we do…we do not think in a vacuum.

But, just because thoughts or emotions pop up in our heads the choice is ours alone whether we foster and build on any particular thought or emotion.

Spirituality does not eliminate such thoughts - it just helps decide what we do with them.

But, as was noted earlier. Just as virtues varies around the globe, so spiritual studies.

For instance Buddhist monks suggest you picture the sexually enticing women in more basic disgusting ‘human’ forms such a pus, feces, mucus, vomit. Or look deeper within them to see their organs such as liver, intestines or lungs as help with countering sexual thoughts.

On another hand, tantrics make sex their god so to speak and put much effort in combining the spiritual realm with sex.

So who really has the virtue?

The sexless monk trying to escape natural thoughts through unnatural means or the sex based tantric practitioner whose spiritual world revolves around sex?

Authenticity may shed some light on where the virtue resides. The study of philosophy that deals with developing virtue stems back to the early Greek philosophers. Virtue can be defined as ‘excellence of the soul’ or moral excellence.

Although the Greeks thought of ‘soul and form’ in different terms than say Christians think of soul. For example, the soul of an eye would be its ability to ‘see’ and whether this ability was good or bad would decide whether the soul of an eye had ‘virtue’ or excellence.

The concept of understanding virtue can be told in a story of the ‘Ring of Gyges’ or ‘Myth of Gyges’.

This story was taken from Plato’s Republic and recounts how the shepherd Gyges finds a ring on a hand extending from a crack in the earth and removes the ring from the hand and puts it on. Gyges discovers the magic ring gives him powers to be invisible at will and then uses these powers to kill the king, rape the queen and take over the kingdom.

In readily understandable terms we can define virtue for us from this story of Gyges and ask ourselves the question, “What would we do if no one was looking or we knew we would not get caught?”

No heaven, no hell, no karma, no police, nothing but us and our virtue?

Would our actions promote our inner peace as well as the inner peace of others or would our actions destroy our peace and the peace of others?

Is the person’s virtue authentic or is it fear based?

Ask yourself why you wish to do something?

Is it for inner peace? Or to massage your ego? Or because it feels good? Or to improve ones karmic debt? Or to fit in? Or because others say so? Or to hurt another? Or to try and escape the consequences of our actions?

What is your driving force?

Fear based reasons for doing something are not authentic and natural actions.

The persons actions are based on negative consequences otherwise they would not do them.

My actions are based on inner peace and if I stray - there goes my peace - it is my choice.

Put your inner peace foremost and you will have your answer.

When you align real and authentic actions with those that promote inner peace you have found enlightenment.

Take away the fear of pain of karma or hell and you have a different person?

A truly virtuous life remains the same irrespective of such fears and is not based on them

Virtue is not learned from the classroom, other than memorizing definitions.

Remember, a fool can only say what he knows ~ it takes a wise man to know what he says.

How do we become a success at living a virtuous life and really know what we say?

As a lecture on Aristotle mentioned: “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.”

We develop it by practice. Practicing ‘excellence of the human soul’ is how.

After all is said and done, virtue, temptation and the human condition can be boiled down to what James Allen tells us in “As A Man Thinketh” ~ “Circumstances does not make the man - it reveals him to himself” [/size]

10

– vfr

You quoted and replied to only part of the original post, giving you an incomplete view of what was offered. I don’t deny I struggle with pride, with perfectionism, however. But my post was a struggle against pride and perfectionism, never mentioning the goal of being “perfectly virtuous”. I referred to it as a guilt trip.

We can have a more genuine discussion if you will read and process my full communication. Until then, I cannot spend more time on this thread, as I am very short on time…

<><

11

I’m short too. I commented on what I could. If I read you wrong…my apologies.

12

No problem, vfr. Read when you have time. I’ll do likewise.

Here’s the last post I provided which floated this thread to the surface of the Religion forum (sparking vfr’s response)… don’t want anyone to miss it: