The argument of free will and suffering

[Bradski]

Not just anthropomorphic.
Homogenized and self enclosed anthropomorphic.

Bull Dust. It is incumbent upon you to explain how you can describe God as all loving when he displays none of the characteristics that we associate with that term. You obviously mean something else when you say it.

I have an understanding of what love means. It means, among other things, looking after and protecting others, especially those that love you. Your definition must obviously be different. If it isn’t, then it cannot be a term used to describe God.

 

[friardchips]

Part 3 continued…

I apologize for not answering your entire argument, hopefully I’ll be able to later.

I would like to respond to your whole post, but am unable to do so currently. I just wanted to address this point.

That’s okay.

That may be how you chose to read it, but that is not what I’m saying. Evil does not define freedom, true freedom is found only in choosing the good. However, freedom and free will are two separate subjects, which you seem to be conflating. The potential for evil DOES define free will, at least it is an aspect of the definition, because, as I have repeatedly said, if there is only one option, then there is no choice, and therefore no free will.

I only have freedom when I choose God, otherwise I am enslaved to my sin. You and I agree on this point. I also agree that previous sin, and the enslavement that accompanies it, may impede our ability to exercise our free will. (like how an addict has difficulty choosing against their addiction due to the manner in which that addiction damaged the brain.) HOWEVER, I have free will whether I chose God or not, and any choice against God as the result of my previous enslavement is still the effect of my initial free choice. My free will may lead to a deprivation of my freedom, but it is still my will, and it is necessary that I have the capacity to choose either for or against God, otherwise my will is not truly free. You cannot have free will if there is only one option.

Will have to slice this time (but will do so in sensible chunks) otherwise we end up with novel-sized posts that have to be split with the risk of losing them (again).

<< I have marked the post (at the top) so if you decide to carry on the debate we will know with greater ease where we are. >>

I agree that for freewill to exist, there has to be the option of choices, ranging from good to lesser-good actions (which be used for or towards finding a definition of ‘evil’), but for humans to choose God, then evil has to exist, but only as an abstract principle (‘The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil’) - as a remote possibility - but not as a significant temptation to disobedience (this came from Satan, directly). For two reasons: humans were given freewill before the temptation (made in God’s image); there was the possibility that Adam and Eve could have chosen not to sin (unless, of course, if Satan was to fall at some point, then Adam and Eve were inevitably going to sin, and yet, if that were the case, then they wouldn’t have been thrown out of Eden, presumably - in justice).

So yes, I concur, that freedom is a different term to that of freewill, in that freewill, is a term used to denote the freedom to choose between options - some good and some lesser good. While freedom is in itself, a condition of being. However, they are connected, as shown by the sentence: “freewill is the freedom to choose between options” - linkage. If one’s will is free then the only free choice for freedom is God. So the choice is only one. Therefore, freewill is the freedom to choose the good. But this is where the debate revolves around again because then we go back to discussing how free a will really is when it is has been subject to the fall. Soon, we start to see, that wills are in fact enslaved, and even if we think wills are free, and we use a term called ‘freewill’, we are only free and have a truly free will when we have been justified by faith (we have been bought and paid for) but even this is not the full realisation. So, in actual fact, I contest that it is more sensible to say that Adam and Eve had freewill before they fell but afterwards they were subject to darkened intellects and so their wills were not as free as before the fall. Of course, they still had the light of conscience. But it is a different relational unity to the state of humanity before the fall. It really depends on, to what degree, we look into the subject of ‘freewill’.

 

[friardchips]

Part 3 continued (second part)…

As a note, I’d argue against your assertion that Mary was immune to Satan because he had no way in. Even and Mary started on equal ground. They were both sinless and completely perfected in grace. Mary had just as much knowledge of evil as Eve did, far more in fact, considering that she lived during the time of Pagan Rome. However, it was their free choice which defined the course they took. They both suffered temptations. Eve succumbed, Mary didn’t. To argue that Mary didn’t suffer temptation is, frankly, asinine. Even Jesus, God incarnate, suffered temptation. If that’s not what you’re doing, I’ve misread, and I apologize.

Our Lady had knowledge of evil but in a wiser abstract form; in fact, Mary would have pitied the world and seen the world differently to how we would view it (mercy). She who saw with Mercy gave birth to Mercy.

The reason Jesus suffered temptation - which was a one-off occurrence - was because He ‘allowed’ Satan to tempt. Or it was that there had to be one time that Jesus’ humanity was tempted (maybe a better way of putting it). It was not mentioned anywhere else that He was tempted. His humanity was tempted in those moments because He ‘allowed’ Satan to attack. Do you really think that Jesus would allow Satan to attack his own Mother?!

There is no mention of Mary ever being tempted. Mary was the most important figure other than Jesus Himself. While Judas and Peter were mentioned as being attacked. Furthermore, it is said by saints, that various events ‘took place in God’s silence’. I feel uncomfortable discussing something so holy as Our Lady’s Immaculate soul: St. John Damascene (645-750) speaks of Mary, stating: “The serpent never entered that Paradise.”

The knowledge that Our Lady was not tempted makes sense when in relation to the soul: Intellect; psyche; vegetative… aspects. Before the fall, to Adam and Eve, satan was (I would logically assume) linked via the relational connection between humanity and angels. After the fall, enmity was put between Satan and the woman. The relationship changed. Satan would attack through our weaknesses, as said - through our fallenness. Satan cannot see us with temporal measure (the senses), and so, he goes by our weakness, he feels our vulnerability - tempting us away from the Intellect and into the area of psyche, in order that our wills do not act obediently. He projects temptation into us when he has estimated our frailty. If one’s will has been perfected and one’s Intellect and Psyche are so well ordered and Immaculate, then…there is no way in (no sight on the part of satan - he is blind). Mary’s humility always out-shined and outweighed Satan’s ability to go anywhere near her. Satan could not see she who was immaculately selfless. The Eastern Churches use the term: ‘The Protective Veil’. Where Our Lady was, satan was not.

I honestly think you and I are discussing two different things when it comes to freedom. I have been placing my focus on free will, while you have been placing your focus on freedom born of the proper exercise of that free will… I also think we actually agree on quite a bit, but are expressing it in very different ways. Let me ask if this sounds agreeable to you:

Okay…!

#1: Freedom and Free Will are separate subjects.

They are separate terms which are interwoven.

#2: Freedom is found only in the exercise of Free Will which is directed towards the Good (God).

From what we understand in our human capacity.

#3: A perfected nature is capable of choosing either for or against God. (Evidenced by Satan and the other fallen angels), but is more likely to choose evil when there is an external source of temptation.

This is a three-part question:

3a. A perfected nature can only choose God (think: Heaven).

3b. A nature yet to be perfected can be tempted to choose disobedience.

3b. Freewill can exist without evil ever being realised into existence, or being tempting.

#4: Evil is the deprivation of good to greater or lesser extents. However, no matter minor minor the degree of the sin, it is always a rejection of some aspect of God.

4a. Yes. Nice definition of evil.

4b. Yes. Sin is rejection of God.

#5: An intellect, once darkened, is significantly more likely to engage in further sin, to their further deprivation. Only an external infusion of God’s grace can restore a person to a state of grace.

Yes and yes.

 

[Wesrock]

Bull Dust. It is incumbent upon you to explain how you can describe God as all loving when he displays none of the characteristics that we associate with that term. You obviously mean something else when you say it.

I have an understanding of what love means. It means, among other things, looking after and protecting others, especially those that love you. Your definition must obviously be different. If it isn’t, then it cannot be a term used to describe God.

You’re thinking of what’s natural to human expressions of love. God is goodness because He is pure act, His being and goodness are convertible, not because He’s a human moral agent. God is love because He desires to draw creation closer to Himself – that is, He is the end to which creation is destined towards. He shares of Himself with all creation by allowing them a participation in existence, which is His own essence, though He is under no obligation to share and even though He receives nothing in return, thus this giving is done freely and based on no merit. He wills that certain essences become manifest, and that these operate according to their own nature. In human beings and angels, that includes intellect and voluntary will. He does desire that we all live to the fullest of our nature and find our end in Him, but does not contravene what is essential to the operation of our nature to force us to do so.

Going into revealed doctrine, God is love because He is Triune, and the three persons of the one nature love one another in eternity, regardless of whether God is a creator or not.

But God is not love because He behaves and acts as a human is morally obligated to, because He doesn’t act that way, because He’s not human.

Human love and goodness also has to be understood as not just something extraneous, but as something that completes and adds perfection to the human nature. It’s because it completes and perfects the human nature that makes it good, because goodness is convertible with being, and instantiating the human nature in a better way is objectively more good than instantiating the human nature in a lesser or more limited way. It’s not good or love because it’s some arbitrary thing floating out there outside of us, it’s good because it completes us.

God, being pure act and infinite being is pure goodness because goodness-itself is pure act and infinite being.

 

[Bradski]

You’re thinking of what’s natural to human expressions of love.

Good grief. I read the whole post three times and it made as much sense the third time as it did the first. But in any case, maybe you guys better think of another way to describe God. If his love is not the same love as we understand it, then you have a lot of very confused people out there in Christendom. Because everyone uses it exactly the same way.

‘He loves each and every one of us’.

I know my kids love me by the way that they act towards me. I know my wife loves me for the same reason. Extrapolate from that if you will.

 

[Wesrock]

Good grief. I read the whole post three times and it made as much sense the third time as it did the first. But in any case, maybe you guys better think of another way to describe God. If his love is not the same love as we understand it, then you have a lot of very confused people out there in Christendom. Because everyone uses it exactly the same way.

‘He loves each and every one of us’.

I know my kids love me by the way that they act towards me. I know my wife loves me for the same reason. Extrapolate from that if you will.

It is what love is. The giving of oneself to another and not receiving anything in return, no?

And I forgot from a revealed religion standpoint that God has reached out to man to assist them and guide them in returning to union with Him. He is not just passive.

Though here on the philosophy board we need to distinguish between what is natural theology and revealed theology, as one could in theory be convinced by the former without accepting the latter.

 

[Bradski]

It is what love is. The giving of oneself to another and not receiving anything in return, no?

Is that your complete definition? You don’t want to add anything? There is nothing more?

We are going to do some more anthropomorphising here, Wes. Because being a mere mortal, I can only understand the terms we use in the context of the way we live our lives. And if I love someone (I’m giving of myself and not expecting something in return), that means that I will want to protect them from harm. That is a concrete example of what love is.

Someone who appears to be indifferent to the harm a person suffers and does nothing to prevent that harm cannot, by any definition of the term, be said to love that person. Whatever he may claim, by his deeds shall ye know him.

 

[Wesrock]

Is that your complete definition? You don’t want to add anything? There is nothing more?

We are going to do some more anthropomorphising here, Wes. Because being a mere mortal, I can only understand the terms we use in the context of the way we live our lives. And if I love someone (I’m giving of myself and not expecting something in return), that means that I will want to protect them from harm. That is a concrete example of what love is.

Someone who appears to be indifferent to the harm a person suffers and does nothing to prevent that harm cannot, by any definition of the term, be said to love that person. Whatever he may claim, by his deeds shall ye know him.

Again, you’re speaking in terms of human action and duty.

Though God has taken action. Creation itself is a giving of Himself to others, as all existence is a participation in His existence. His goal to divinize men is a giving of Himself to others. Him reaching out to men repeatedly, despite them being entirely at fault and Him having no obligation to restore them, is a giving of self to others. Him taking on the flesh of men and so glorifying our human nature is a giving of Himself to others. God’s entire relationship with creation and men is a giving of Himself. That He cares to call each individual man and woman into communion with Him is a personal involvement.

That He allows us to operate according to our nature doesn’t undermine such things.

 

[Bradski]

That He allows us to operate according to our nature…

That simply means allowing evil. Doing nothing to prevent it. In what sense can He then be described as a personal, loving God?

 

[Wesrock]

That simply means allowing evil. Doing nothing to prevent it. In what sense can He then be described as a personal, loving God?

I’ve already explained in what sense He is called a personal, loving God.

Every human action has a good as its aim, even if it results in an evil. And evil is not the opposite of good as a negative charge can be said to be opposite of positive charge, but merely the absence of a good. Therefore it’s not a dualist world of good and evil, but a world in which there are various grades of being. If creation can be compared to the shining of light, with brighter light here, less there, red light here, green over there, you are not asking for there not to be any areas of absolute darkness (for indeed there are none among created things), but that there be no gradation at all, such that all there is constant, brightest white light everywhere. There is no diversity of creatures, no hierarchy of goods, no multiplicity at all. Free choice is not between good and evil, but between one good and another, and you ultimately demand that all lesser goods be eliminated, but here free choice is eliminated as well, as there’s no longer any order of goods but only the highest, and that’s not free choice at all. Finite being expressed in one mode, no created beings with free choice, no inequality such that one need give of oneself to another, and creation becomes less perfect, as infinite existence is not best represented by one finite mode, nor is God’s image captured by beings with no free choice and no giving of self. It is not the function of providence to totally remove evil from things.

To quote Thomas Aquinas, “…Boethius introduces a certain philosopher who asks: “If God exists, whence comes evil?” [De consolatione philosophiae I, 4]. But it could be argued to the contrary: “If evil exists, God exists.” For, there would be no evil if the order of good were taken away, since its privation is evil. But this order would not exist if there were no God.”

 

[Bradski]

IEvery human action has a good as its aim, even if it results in an evil. And evil is not the opposite of good as a negative charge can be said to be opposite of positive charge, but merely the absence of a good.

That’s a flight of fancy. If I steal someone’s money simply because I want more without having to work for it, then there is no ‘good as it’s aim’. We simply call that, to use your term, evil.

If I give someone money because they are in need through no fault of their own then we call that good.

So what do you describe the situation when nothing is done. When no money is given or taken? There is no good, so according to you, it must be evil.

Does that not strike you as odd?

But to continue your line of thought…

If you prayed for a child to be cured of cancer and your prayer was answered by God, then you would call that good. In the absence of a cure, in the absence of that good, according to you, we have evil.

And evil is…but merely the absence of a good.

Does that sound right to you?

 

[Vonsalza]

It seems that you would expect, if not demand, that we are all obliged to prevent evil if it is our power so to do. And this covers everyone, not just those we love. You wouldn’t ignore the terrorists actions simply because nobody you know is going to the theatre that night.

Yet when it comes to God…

God didn’t deprive the world of innocence. Humanity did. It is our obligation to act (perhaps as a species-wide penance) for the betterment and protection of our earthly siblings. Moreover, it is precisely the potential events like these that obligate the godly (if not the Catholic) to exercise their will for the good in affirmation of their orientation toward the divine; even if this orientation is not explicitly labeled.

But when the theatre does go up in flames, at least we can take comfort in the fact that it was for the greater good.

I’m not fond of the use of the word “good” in this case. I think “unknown purpose” is a more comprehensive descriptor, if obviously not the best - As all things are ultimately woven into the end-will of God. Probably why Tolkien wrote the creation myth of his fantasy as a song where the evil chords are harmonized back toward goodness.

“Greater good” seems rather trite to me these days.

 

[Bradski]

I’m not fond of the use of the word “good” in this case. I think “unknown purpose” is a more comprehensive descriptor…

AKA ‘I don’t know’. But there’s not much comfort to be derived from that, is there…

And I’m the one that’s constantly being told that atheists are the ones sadly lacking in offering condolences to the grieving child. That telling them: ‘I really don’t know why bad stuff happens – it just does’, is bleak and empty. It looks like you’ve joined the ranks. But I guess you can always add: ‘But Mummy might be in heaven now. Unless…’

And for God’s sake (literally perhaps) don’t take it any further. The kid is distraught enough already.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Part 3 continued (second part)…

Our Lady had knowledge of evil but in a wiser abstract form; in fact, Mary would have pitied the world and seen the world differently to how we would view it (mercy). She who saw with Mercy gave birth to Mercy.

The reason Jesus suffered temptation - which was a one-off occurrence - was because He ‘allowed’ Satan to tempt. Or it was that there had to be one time that Jesus’ humanity was tempted (maybe a better way of putting it). It was not mentioned anywhere else that He was tempted. His humanity was tempted in those moments because He ‘allowed’ Satan to attack. Do you really think that Jesus would allow Satan to attack his own Mother?!

There is no mention of Mary ever being tempted. Mary was the most important figure other than Jesus Himself. While Judas and Peter were mentioned as being attacked. Furthermore, it is said by saints, that various events ‘took place in God’s silence’. I feel uncomfortable discussing something so holy as Our Lady’s Immaculate soul: St. John Damascene (645-750) speaks of Mary, stating: “The serpent never entered that Paradise.”

The knowledge that Our Lady was not tempted makes sense when in relation to the soul: Intellect; psyche; vegetative… aspects. Before the fall, to Adam and Eve, satan was (I would logically assume) linked via the relational connection between humanity and angels. After the fall, enmity was put between Satan and the woman. The relationship changed. Satan would attack through our weaknesses, as said - through our fallenness. Satan cannot see us with temporal measure (the senses), and so, he goes by our weakness, he feels our vulnerability - tempting us away from the Intellect and into the area of psyche, in order that our wills do not act obediently. He projects temptation into us when he has estimated our frailty. If one’s will has been perfected and one’s Intellect and Psyche are so well ordered and Immaculate, then…there is no way in (no sight on the part of satan - he is blind). Mary’s humility always out-shined and outweighed Satan’s ability to go anywhere near her. Satan could not see she who was immaculately selfless. The Eastern Churches use the term: ‘The Protective Veil’. Where Our Lady was, satan was not.

Okay…!

They are separate terms which are interwoven.

From what we understand in our human capacity.

This is a three-part question:

3a. A perfected nature can only choose God (think: Heaven).

3b. A nature yet to be perfected can be tempted to choose disobedience.

3b. Freewill can exist without evil ever being realised into existence, or being tempting.

4a. Yes. Nice definition of evil.

4b. Yes. Sin is rejection of God.

Yes and yes.

The only point of what you’ve written that I would contest is your assertion that Mary could not be tempted. If Jesus could be tempted, Mary could be tempted. Jesus is greater than Mary and yet still underwent temptation, so it is placing Mary on too high a pedestal to say that she would not be subject to the same difficulty. Holy people are always tempted in one form or another, you only have to read the writings of the saints to see that. Just because there is no direct mention of it in the Bible does not mean that it did not happen.

Apart from that though, I think you and I agree on just about everything. That was a whole lot of typing to figure out that we agree on something XD

 

[Vonsalza]

AKA ‘I don’t know’.

If one were to subscribe to reductionism and conflations, then sure.

But for the one professing, “I don’t know” in the face of the chaotic unknown and “I don’t know” in the face of some form of system (divine or otherwise) don’t mean the same thing.

You penchant here is the same shared by Dawkins and Harris that was pretty fully revealed and eviscerated by Peterson.

But as you say. Horses and water. We ultimately believe what we want.

 

[friardchips]

The only point of what you’ve written that I would contest is your assertion that Mary could not be tempted. If Jesus could be tempted, Mary could be tempted. Jesus is greater than Mary and yet still underwent temptation, so it is placing Mary on too high a pedestal to say that she would not be subject to the same difficulty. Holy people are always tempted in one form or another, you only have to read the writings of the saints to see that. Just because there is no direct mention of it in the Bible does not mean that it did not happen.

The idea that this knowledge takes away from Jesus somehow is needless as the whole point of our faith is that EVERYTHING, including salvation - Our Lady, the Church and all of Salvation History, even the prophets before, and God’s “people, Israel” - is all because of God, through Jesus’ Resurrection. Everything, is because of the merits of His saving sacrifice. The whole picture!

Our Lady, in the Magnificat, clearly sings: “And my spirit exalts/rejoices in God, my Saviour.” In other words, Our Lady knows full well that not only is Jesus her Saviour but that He has already saved her, for the very fact that Mary sings: “My Saviour”. It is prophetical. And inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Just to say, that it is understood by the Church that Our Lady was saved from sin and its consequences because of her role as Mother of God in light of the suffering her own soul would have to endure, which was more than any other human could take - other than Jesus - because of the sword that was to pierce her heart. The lack of temptation does not mean that Mary did not suffer. The world can cause immense suffering without a person being tempted. In fact, if Mary were Immaculate, which she was, then she would have been more sensitive to the reality of truth, not less.

Very holy people - saints - are not the Immaculate Conception.

I could go into more detail but I think enough has been said for reflection on this point in this and previous posts. If one analyzes the Marian Dogmas (in relation to the rest of Scripture) i.e:- not as a separate subject to Christ, but rather, entwined, then one can immerse oneself to the point of absorption.

Apart from that though, I think you and I agree on just about everything. That was a whole lot of typing to figure out that we agree on something XD

If writing is what it takes!

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The idea that this knowledge takes away from Jesus somehow is needless as the whole point of our faith is that EVERYTHING, including salvation - Our Lady, the Church and all of Salvation History, even the prophets before, and God’s “people, Israel” - is all because of God, through Jesus’ Resurrection. Everything, is because of the merits of His saving sacrifice. The whole picture!

Our Lady, in the Magnificat, clearly sings: “And my spirit exalts/rejoices in God, my Saviour.” In other words, Our Lady knows full well that not only is Jesus her Saviour but that He has already saved her, for the very fact that Mary sings: “My Saviour”. It is prophetical. And inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Just to say, that it is understood by the Church that Our Lady was saved from sin and its consequences because of her role as Mother of God in light of the suffering her own soul would have to endure, which was more than any other human could take - other than Jesus - because of the sword that was to pierce her heart. The lack of temptation does not mean that Mary did not suffer. The world can cause immense suffering without a person being tempted. In fact, if Mary were Immaculate, which she was, then she would have been more sensitive to the reality of truth, not less.

Very holy people - saints - are not the Immaculate Conception.

I could go into more detail but I think enough has been said for reflection on this point. If one analyzes the Marian Dogmas (in relation to the rest of Scripture) i.e:- not as a separate subject to Christ, but rather, entwined, then one can immerse oneself to the point of absorption.

If writing is what it takes!

Well written, but it still doesn’t change the fact that if Jesus, God Himself, could be tempted in his human nature, then Mary, a mere human being, could not be free from that temptation. There was no internal temptation born of her own perfected nature, I agree with you there, but you cannot discount the external temptations the the world placed on her, or the direct temptations Satan likely placed on her in an effort to destroy her purity.

I am writing this in reflection of the Marian Dogmas, as well as in reflection of her relationship with Jesus, so we both have the same starting point as far as that’s concerned.

 

[fhansen]

Excuse me, if I may step in. I think there’s sometimes a conflict with the concept of temptation, between simply being asked to do something wrong, by an external source, and actually considering, internally, whether or not to do something wrong. Anyone can be tempted by asking, as Jesus was in the desert, but He was, simultaneously, not tempted in the sense of needing to struggle with the options.

 

[friardchips]

Well written, but it still doesn’t change the fact that if Jesus, God Himself, could be tempted in his human nature, then Mary, a mere human being, could not be free from that temptation. There was no internal temptation born of her own perfected nature, I agree with you there, but you cannot discount the external temptations the the world placed on her, or the direct temptations Satan likely placed on her in an effort to destroy her purity.

I am writing this in reflection of the Marian Dogmas, as well as in reflection of her relationship with Jesus, so we both have the same starting point as far as that’s concerned.

Hi. Yes, that is the ONLY argument - that Jesus was tempted in the desert. However, Jesus had to suffer in this way because He was the one who was dying for our sins, and had to carry the weight of the world on His shoulders. Why this happened when Our Lady is human while Jesus was human AND Divine can only be because He had to undergo this particular type of suffering for our sake. Our Lady, however, was and is the perfect realisation of the Church. The perfect realisation of Jesus’ saving sacrifice. Heaven accomplished in Him.

Purity begins in the heart. Jesus said it and there is no way around it. And if one is immaculate - in the heart - then nothing is tempting. Jesus was also Divine and could allow His Divinity to be subject to His humanity, for a while, and allow for the temptations to happen. Being sinless, He fought Satan and won.

Having addressed the point about temptation from ‘without’ already I will reiterate anyway because it is an important point. ‘Without’ is dependent on ‘within’. If one sees with impurity then those tempting (from without) will not be tempters but just objectively pitiful creatures.

And satan, as said, never entered Our Lady’s being, on any level. Satan can only attack if there is a way in. Or let in. No way in, no attack.

This is understood in light of the Dogmas.

 

[friardchips]

Excuse me, if I may step in. I think there’s sometimes a conflict with the concept of temptation, between simply being asked to do something wrong, by an external source, and actually considering, internally, whether or not to do something wrong. Anyone can be tempted by asking, as Jesus was in the desert, but He was, simultaneously, not tempted in the sense of needing to struggle with the options.

It’s a good point.

Already taken this into account.

‘Tempting’ is actually an awkward word because it means more than one thing. As you said, it means a suggestion, but also the considering of the suggestion.

The fact remains, that there are not endless accounts of Jesus being tempted by Satan; just one. And this is significant. It was a momentous occasion because God abased Himself so much so in meekness that He was prepared to undergo a direct attack from Satan.

The fact also remains, that Our Lady was not mentioned as having been tempted, even once. Divine Motherhood was a true reflection of Heaven on earth (Mary was Assumed into Heaven underlines this truth) as it is a state of being untouchable. Accomplished in the merits of Christ’s Resurrection.