What would happen to mankind if Christ gave into temptation

[benedictus2]

If it was not possible, then he would not have been truly human incarnate and his life would have been one great big facade.

How so? While Christ’s human nature is distinct from His Divine Nature, it is nevertheless impossible that His human will be in conflict with His Divine Will. This was defined by the Third Council of Constantinople: “And these two natural wills are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert, but his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will.”

It is not possible for God to sin.

Here is a link to Fr Barron’s explanation on the hypostatic union.

http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Faith-Clips.aspx#yt_video

 

[wanstronian]

You need to study history it seems.. Western morality is Biblical morality until of course the sons and daughters of mordernish and deconstructionism little by little started foisting upon us their own version of (IM)morality.

Correlation does not imply causation. Although in this case I believe there probably is causation, but in the opposite direction to what you state. What makes you think that the stories in the bible created morality, rather than the other way around? And how do you reconcile modern morals with the action of the God of the Old Testament?

Because without God everything is permissible.

A circular assertion. You are starting out with your belief, then saying, ‘wouldn’t things be awful if this “fact” weren’t true?’ It’s a nonsensical argument.

True in a way. The Bible does require faith. But so does I presume whatever it is you adhere to which probably has a lot less going for it .

You claim that ‘what I adhere to’ requires faith, but you don’t know what I adhere to! So how can you make such a statement?

And while the Bible may not be a historical book it has historical basis. Whether it was written by Christ’s followers after He died is beside the point. Most biographies are, by the way.

It probably has some historical basis. I don’t think it can be held as an accurate reflection of the things that Jesus did. Walking on water, raising the dead, turning water into wine, being resurrected, etc. None of these things are possible.

 

[wanstronian]

I’m not using it to reinforce what I already know, I’m discussing this as something that could be quite interesting to talk about, and for no other purpose.

Okay, fair enough!

Prove to me how my beliefs are speculative.

There is no proof that God exists, therefore a belief in him is by definition speculative.

I nowhere judge the future, I don’t think it’s actually possible for one to do so. You are also quite free to create your own thread along what would mankind would be like if nobody believed in God anymore… That’s off topic when it comes down to it.

I do agree with you, along your opinion of mankind is different then mine, mine is not only biblical, it’s based upon the real life, the real world we all experience, both in the now and throughout history, why would the future some how radically change for the good if God himself is removed from it? Perhaps that should be your focus upon, if you opt to follow my lead and create that thread.

I was talking about if religion had never existed. If tomorrow, it were somehow proved categorically and beyond doubt that God didn’t exist, I suspect nothing much would change. Christians would carry on believing in God anyway, Muslims would carry on believing in Allah, and so on.

There is great reward for it in this life, don’t get me wrong there, but it has to be done within proper context. Example, what if someone were to hack into your bank account, drain it all and send it to some charity. Would you press charges against the individual? Hey, they did something good, you could probably recover your funds eventually and since you are working, be on your way in short order. Yet, some how I’d feel, you rightfully so, would feel cheated. You see, that kind of context is what we get from taking a spiritual approach to things. If mankind was different by default, we all would give to the poor, never worry about it if our own lives took a spiral downwards, knowing full well, someone else would give to us in our time of need, but the reality is entirely different and it’s still the default mankind looking out for himself individually, not collectively, and we as Christians try to look at it collectively. Our approach itself, the model, if all followed, no where would any body been in want or need of anything at all.

Okay, but that’s not the point you made before.

Who said you are a good person? What standard do you gauge or model it upon, what is your criteria?

I can judge objectively by comparing myself to those around me. Unless everyone around me is also a bad person, then I’m probably not.

How does your model of this apply 2000 years ago, how will it likely apply 2000 years from now?

Nobody know - models of morality clearly change over time.

How many people have tested this model and found it to be true, tried and blameless?

None - this would be impossible as no objective datum exists.

And within this model, have you taken into account every conceivable variance for all of mankind in all of his stations in life?

No, but I can’t see how this makes any difference.

Right now, I am acting upon faith that deep down you are a good person, or at least, the potential to become a good person, so will simply give you the benefit of the doubt and the only thing I have to go upon, is some texts you posted in this little forum. It’s easy for me to do, it’s because there are some things I’ll never find an answer for in this life, and I simply leave it in God’s hands and have faith that he has my best interest in mind, just as he has proven to me in the past to be so true.

That’s fine if it works for you!

I do not assume you do nothing but look out for number one at every opportunity. But, honestly, outside of learning from us here, what possible gain can you get by derrailing some persons spiritual beliefs? Do we believers cause so much trouble in your life, you decide to spend time trying to get them to no longer believe? It is either that, or something in side of you sees what we have and desires to acquire it for themselves, yet doesn’t know how to go about it.

I haven’t tried to derail your belief - but you have asked your question on a public forum, and I have every right to respond with the flaws that I see in your speculation. It’s not a personal attack on you.

I’m going to give you a little bit more to know more along what we actually have that’s going to give you even more incentive to do so, if the latter is the case, regardless if you admit it here, or to yourself or not. You go through life alone, an island unto yourself, even with having wife and family, it’s all you, and you alone in the journey. We go through life with his presence, his companionship, and during times where we are physically utterly alone, we recognize and feel his presence, we are absolutely never alone, not ever. We also experience a peace of mind that cannot be reproduced on any level within any kind of material gain. Think about this in comparison. You win all of the worlds lotteries, you own a continent, your wildest dreams, all just laid at your feet with complete and total success in absolutely all areas. This is the kind of peace you could use in comparison. You are used to dealing with an entirely different model, that if you could walk in a true believers shoes long enough, even if it was only experiencing the joy they felt, you would want to do anything you could, just to reproduce those same feelings.

Again, if this is the way your belief makes you feel, that’s fine by me. I don’t care what you believe!

There is more, much more I can convey here, but I’ve already gone way, way off topic, and I feel, others would enjoy continuing the discussion.

 

[Katholish]

Here is a link to Fr Barron’s explanation on the hypostatic union.

http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Faith-Clips.aspx#yt_video

Do you disagree with the proposition that Christ was not able to sin?

 

[mangy_dog]

You mean, “what if He had given in”

But He didn’t and , here we are.

 

[benedictus2]

Correlation does not imply causation. Although in this case I believe there probably is causation, but in the opposite direction to what you state. What makes you think that the stories in the bible created morality, rather than the other way around? And how do you reconcile modern morals with the action of the God of the Old Testament?

As I said, study history. Western civlization is essentially Christian Civilization. And this is simply a FACT.

The actions of God in the Old Testament is not to be understood in isolation. The whole Bible is the story of our salvation (yep, yours too whether you believe it or not ) and this only makes sense when you read through the lense that is Jesus Christ.

A circular assertion.

No it is not. It is only circular if I had not taken God as a given.

And I can take God as a given becuase of my first statement that the western morality is essentially Christian morality until the evils of modernism and deconstructionism took hold.

You are starting out with your belief, then saying, ‘wouldn’t things be awful if this “fact” weren’t true?’ It’s a nonsensical argument.You claim that ‘what I adhere to’ requires faith, but you don’t know what I adhere to!

Any belief system requires faith, even science. As a matter of fact, much more so science.

So how can you make such a statement?It probably has some historical basis. I don’t think it can be held as an accurate reflection of the things that Jesus did.

We are talking about morality not miracles. My statement is / was that western morality is essentially Christian so Biblical.

Walking on water, raising the dead, turning water into wine, being resurrected, etc. None of these things are possible.

Only to unbelievers. Yes, if you look at the natural world miracles are not possible. Yet miracles have happened time and again. And well documented to boot.

 

[benedictus2]

There is no proof that God exists, therefore a belief in him is by definition speculative.

There are plenty of proofs that God exists but what I think you mean is that there is no scientific proof.

If you hold science to be the be-all and end-all of knowledge then you will not find that proof.

There are philosophical, teleological and metaphysical proofs for God’s existence.

If you exert a little bit of effort you can actually read up on it by simply googling the subject.

 

[benedictus2]

Do you disagree with the proposition that Christ was not able to sin?

No. I think that is the whole point for my posting Fr Barron’s commentary.

 

[wanstronian]

As I said, study history. Western civlization is essentially Christian Civilization. And this is simply a FACT.

I don’t disagree with that, I just disagree that the bible is the source of morality (since you have chosen to make this interchangeable with ‘civilisation’) in the western world. I think, rather, that it is a reflection of such morality. Well, the NT largely is, anyway. The OT just reflects a time when people believed in a vengeful God who would punish out of all proportion to the misdemeanor. NT = carrot, OT = stick.

The actions of God in the Old Testament is not to be understood in isolation. The whole Bible is the story of our salvation (yep, yours too whether you believe it or not ) and this only makes sense when you read through the lense that is Jesus Christ.

Well, that’s mighty convenient. What you seem to be saying is that if you count yourself as a true believer, you can justifiably ignore all the bad stuff because being a true believer gives you special dispensation to choose which bits to interpret in which way.

No it is not. It is only circular if I had not taken God as a given.

So you admit you start from a point of unquestioning belief, and extrapolate your reasons from your conclusion? Well then, there’s nothing more to say!

And I can take God as a given becuase of my first statement that the western morality is essentially Christian morality until the evils of modernism and deconstructionism took hold.

As I have shown, you can’t show causality, only correlation. And of course, there’s the obvious failing that the existence of the bible is not proof of the existence of God. So you may well take God as a given, but your stated reasons for doing so are fallacious.

Any belief system requires faith, even science. As a matter of fact, much more so science.

How so? How does repeatable, objective, predictive experimentation with consistent results require faith? Other than, perhaps, faith that my eyes aren’t deceiving me when I view the results?

We are talking about morality not miracles. My statement is / was that western morality is essentially Christian so Biblical.

And I have shown that this proves nothing of any objective value.

Only to unbelievers. Yes, if you look at the natural world miracles are not possible. Yet miracles have happened time and again. And well documented to boot.

Name one? I admit, if you choose to interpret unlikely events as miracles, then you will see miracles quite often. However, if you can give me documented proof of an impossible event having occurred, then you’ve got a point for discussion.

 

[wanstronian]

There are plenty of proofs that God exists but what I think you mean is that there is no scientific proof.

If you hold science to be the be-all and end-all of knowledge then you will not find that proof.

There are philosophical, teleological and metaphysical proofs for God’s existence.

If you exert a little bit of effort you can actually read up on it by simply googling the subject.

I mean empirical proof. The only proof that can be shown to be consistent, independently verifiable and true. Proof in the same way that we can prove that gravity exists, or electricity, or radio waves.

The only real proof is scientific proof. That doesn’t mean it has to be the result of a physics experiment, just that the nature of proof makes it scientific.

‘Proof’ in the context of philosophy etc. is just a misnomer. It doesn’t mean ‘proof,’ it means ‘answer.’

 

[mangy_dog]

Sorry, I don’t see your point. Nothing in the current state of the world can be taken as any indication of what might have been different if one person had acted differently two thousand years ago.

Why hypothesize indeed.

Jesus Christ is God incarnate, book or no book.

The fact that God holds all people, places and things in existence by his very Word is proof that the premise of this thread is moot.

The 3 temptations in the desert were successfully rejected.

 

[wanstronian]

Why hypothesize indeed.

Jesus Christ is God incarnate, book or no book.

The fact that God holds all people, places and things in existence by his very Word is proof that the premise of this thread is moot.

The 3 temptations in the desert were successfully rejected.

Well, if you believe all that, it must be true.

 

[prodigalson12]

I mean empirical proof. The only proof that can be shown to be consistent, independently verifiable and true.

The number of believers throughout the ages, all experienced the same God, his nature is consistant, and this is something we can verify through shere numbers, after the fact. The reason you don’t get it, I’ll put it in terms you can understand, just as a way to get your mind to grapple along the concept. What if you were to describe to a blind person that has never had sight in their lives before, what the color blue looks like. The person is blind so has no way of comprehending what that color looks like, all they see is darkness, yet the fact remains, the color blue does exist and is provable by those with sight because they can see it for themselves.

I have a bigger question for you, prove that God does not exist. Prove how matter that makes up the universe came into existence.

Proof in the same way that we can prove that gravity exists, or electricity, or radio waves.

We have 3 examples you are showing here, and all 3 of them require a completely different science to explain. Think of this as just one more you haven’t discovered yet.

The only real proof is scientific proof. That doesn’t mean it has to be the result of a physics experiment, just that the nature of proof makes it scientific.

And I’ll go and test the electrical box in my house with a garden hose, surely I can fix it using that. This is precisely the same logic you are using here.

‘Proof’ in the context of philosophy etc. is just a misnomer. It doesn’t mean ‘proof,’ it means ‘answer.’

For your limited understanding, it’s a worldly manner of describing to you proof of his existence, you aren’t capable of knowing what a believer knows. Here is another way you can see how your logic if flawed. I place you into a room, in some experiements, I’ll run an electrical charge through it and write down your understandable, predictable reaction. In another, I’ll place several plates of food before you, yet since I don’t know your personal preferences, I have no way of knowing which one you will pick first. I then take note as to you picking one over the other, write it down and can predict what you will take in the future, running this same experiment. This is one of the reasons we have a bible to reference, it already tells us what God prefers which gives us a starting point to go by.

 

[prodigalson12]

Who said you are a good person? What standard do you gauge or model it upon, what is your criteria?

I can judge objectively by comparing myself to those around me. Unless everyone around me is also a bad person, then I’m probably not.

And which people are you comparing yourself with? In some parts of the world, there are extremists that are committing ha nous atrocities, they compare themselves to each other and think they are good, yet you and I consider it just the opposite. I can continue on with example after example with cases just like this, simply comparison to other human beings is a poor way to determine if you are good or not.
Quote:
How does your model of this apply 2000 years ago, how will it likely apply 2000 years from now?
Nobody know - models of morality clearly change over time.

• But the authority that we follow never changes even an iota, he’s the same God then as he is now.

Quote:
How many people have tested this model and found it to be true, tried and blameless?
None - this would be impossible as no objective datum exists.

• You don’t have the senses to analyze the data.

Quote:
And within this model, have you taken into account every conceivable variance for all of mankind in all of his stations in life?

No, but I can’t see how this makes any difference.

• Because if you are going to make up your own rules, your own moral model, be sure they are going to actually work in all situations, not just a few, not just for now, otherwise it’s a flawed reasoning to rely upon because you are making it up along the way, and in reality, you don’t have a tried and tested model, “we do”.

 

[LilyM]

Wanstronian, a lot, although not all, of even ‘secular’ Western morality is still bible-based.

What other reason apart from the Biblical idea that in marriage ‘two become one flesh’ is there to view marriage as existing only between two partners “to the exclusion of all others” as most Western legal definitions have it, and not, say, allow for multiple spouses as Islam does? Or even have no concept of fixed, permanent, exclusive marital partnerships as at least some indigenous cultures don’t?

Even if you merely view marriage as a social or legal contract, surely it is one that in a purely secular moral code could be permitted between multiple contracting parties and not just two. But that bit of non-biblical morality certainly hasn’t taken off.

Why is murder considered wrong? Why is theft considered wrong? Why do most married people still, in spite of the secular media glamourising marital infidelity, get so upset when their partners cheat? It’s very much to do with the culture, which took to heart the biblical injunctions against those things.

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t disagree with that, I just disagree that the bible is the source of morality (since you have chosen to make this interchangeable with ‘civilisation’) in the western world. I think, rather, that it is a reflection of such morality. Well, the NT largely is, anyway. The OT just reflects a time when people believed in a vengeful God who would punish out of all proportion to the misdemeanor. NT = carrot,
OT = stick.

Nope. This is why I keep saying study history. Christian morality is the what shaped western civilization not the other way around.

Maybe one day you just might take my advise and read up on it

Well, that’s mighty convenient. What you seem to be saying is that if you count yourself as a true believer, you can justifiably ignore all the bad stuff because being a true believer gives you special dispensation to choose which bits to interpret in which way.

Nope again. But for me to explain that to you would be like explaining the complexities of Nuclear physics to a 5 year old.

Here is Father Barron with a short explanation of what I mean.

So you admit you start from a point of unquestioning belief, and extrapolate your reasons from your conclusion? Well then, there’s nothing more to say!

Wrong again. The only reason I am saying it is not circular reasoning is because I had predicated that with an assumption that Western Christianity is Biblical Christianity.

That is the only way it ceases to be circular reasoning.

As I have shown, you can’t show causality, only correlation.

And as I have said before, if you will only bother to read Western history you will know that there is direct causality. Get the simplest and probably the most fun one to read, “European History for Dummies”. Both factual and entertaining at the same time.

And of course, there’s the obvious failing that the existence of the bible is not proof of the existence of God.

And I never ever claimed that it is. THAT would be circular

So you may well take God as a given, but your stated reasons for doing so are fallacious.

Okay, take three.

Because in my first statement I said that Western Civilization is essentially Biblical (which is simple FACT if you bother to read history) then I can very well say (without falling into the fallacy of circular reasoning) that without God everything becomes permissible because we have no point of reference for morality outside of ourselves. Man becomes the arbiter of morality not God.

This is evident in the kind of morality that we have going around these days: “do it if it feels good”.

 

[benedictus2]

How so? How does repeatable, objective, predictive experimentation with consistent results require faith? Other than, perhaps, faith that my eyes aren’t deceiving me when I view the results?

Because it is not only those that can be put through “repeatable, objective, predictive experimentation.” Is cognizable.

Otherwise, Evolution will not be THEORY.
To believe that we are here by sheer chance, that the complex universe is here by chance rather than by design requires more faith than to believe in a God who created all.

That my computer came to be assembled by sheer chance and natural selection is harder to believe than to say that a computer technician put it all together.

And I have shown that this proves nothing of any objective value.

No you have not. I on the other hand have told you time and again that if you will go back through history and read up on western civilization, you will realize that Christianity for two thousand years is what shaped its morality and not the other way around.

As Pope John Paul II said, the Church evangelized the world. The world did not evangelize the Church.

Name one? I admit, if you choose to interpret unlikely events as miracles, then you will see miracles quite often. However, if you can give me documented proof of an impossible event having occurred, then you’ve got a point for discussion.

The miracle of the sun at Fatima is the one that is most forcefull as this was witnessed by over 70,000 people. There is a film out titled “The 13th Day” based on this.
This link gives you quite a lot of details on this event and the films website http://www.the13thday.com/index.htm has a facts section.

In a gist, Our Blessed Mother promised a great miracle at a little town in Fatima Portugal. Because of word of mouth, thousands gathered at this town. The night before the miracle, it had been raining heavily and in the morning, some parts of the town are still knee deep in water.
Then the miracle happened. The spectators ran in fear because they all saw the sun spin and dance and then it seemed as if it was actually falling, hurtling down to earth. Then it started to go back up again. After this, they noticed that the ground was completely dry.

A scientist commented that only a nuclear blast is capable of drying up earth that quick in seconds.

Many atheists were converted on the spot. Many sick people were healed.

Another example is Lourdes where they have a team of doctors, yes even atheist doctors, examine patients before and after and even them are forced to conclude healing without any apparent cause.

 

[benedictus2]

I mean empirical proof. The only proof that can be shown to be consistent, independently verifiable and true. Proof in the same way that we can prove that gravity exists, or electricity, or radio waves.

Life is more than just matter and energy

The only real proof is scientific proof. That doesn’t mean it has to be the result of a physics experiment, just that the nature of proof makes it scientific.

Who says that the only real proof is scientific? You are not the authority on what constitutes sufficient proof.

Science has botched so many things so how can you hold it up so high in your esteem. Thallydomide victims comes to mind. We see science debunking science all the time so no.

And if the Existence / Being that we are trying to proove is beyond matter and energy, then quantifiable matter and energy will be far too limited to be able to even scratch the surface in providing proof.

Father Barron expresses this in an excellent manner in this video youtube.com/watch?v=p8YTre3xqXg&feature=related

Pay particular attention to 4:04 to 5:30

‘Proof’ in the context of philosophy etc. is just a misnomer. It doesn’t mean ‘proof,’ it means ‘answer.’

It means proof precisely because of what I have said before. Proof is not limited to what is quantifiable.