posted on March 30, 2004 08:39:31 PM new
Very true profe51, BUT, the position of christianity of having the exclusive truth and the one true religion/god/faith lead the christian beleivers to abandon the faith argument. It is impossible to justify the exclusive positions of christianity through faith.
For those who think I am "picking" on christians, let me say that these same arguments apply to all religions.
posted on March 31, 2004 07:52:15 AM new
Excerpt from The Christian Taliban.
..... as President George W. Bush denounced the brutal Islamic fundamentalist regime in Kabul, he was quietly laying the foundations for his own fundamentalist regime at home. For the first time far right Christian fundamentalists had one of their own in the White House and the opportunity to begin rolling back decades of health and family planning programs they saw as un-Christian, if not downright sinful.
Since 2001 dozens of far-right Christian fundamentalists have been quietly installed in key positions within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Federal Drug Administration and on commissions and advisory committees where they have made serious progress. Three years later this administration has established one of the most rigid sexual health agendas in the Western world.
posted on March 31, 2004 10:07:12 AM new
First off, been working quite a bit this week, so I will post back when I am able to.
As to providing proof, isn't that what some of you here want? I mean, I have to look no further then what having Christ in my life has done for me for evidence that He exists: but some of you want facts, and I have provided them in such a way that your attempts to disprove them have come up very, very short.
I don't know where you get the thought track about "the position of christianity of having the exclusive truth and the one true religion/god/faith lead the christian beleivers to abandon the faith argument. It is impossible to justify the exclusive positions of christianity through faith." But it is one of the most lame excuses of an argument that I have ever heard.
Have you, reamond and company, even bothered to try to dispute the evidence I have provided here? No, you have not. All you have done is blather excuses and half thoughts about how, because you do not fully understand or wish to understand something, that you must be right. Playing so fast and loose with historical evidence just goes to show how weak your positions really are.
God is not cruel: He is pure and Holy, and cannot tolerate anything that is not pure and holy. That is why He sent Christ to die on the cross for our sins.
As to the testing of Abraham, it had nothing to do with being mean, but a test to see if Abraham would obey God. If you read the account in Gensis chapter 22. In case you need a refresher, here is it for you:
Genesis 22
Ge 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did prove Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham. And he said, Here am I.
Ge 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah. And offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
Ge 22:3 And Abraham rose early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son. And he clave the wood for the burnt-offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.
Ge 22:4 On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.
Ge 22:5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass, and I and the lad will go yonder; and we will worship, and come again to you.
Ge 22:6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt-offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son. And he took in his hand the fire and the knife. And they went both of them together.
Ge 22:7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father. And he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold, the fire and the wood. But where is the lamb for a burnt-offering?
Ge 22:8 And Abraham said, God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt-offering, my son. So they went both of them together.
Ge 22:9 And they came to the place which God had told him of. And Abraham built the altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood.
Ge 22:10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
Ge 22:11 And the angel of Jehovah called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham. And he said, Here I am.
Ge 22:12 And he said, Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him. For now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me.
Ge 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold, behind [him] a ram caught in the thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son.
Ge 22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh. As it is said to this day, In the mount of Jehovah it shall be provided.
Ge 22:15 And the angel of Jehovah called unto Abraham a second time out of heaven,
Ge 22:16 and said, By myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son,
Ge 22:17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is upon the seashore. And thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.
Ge 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Because thou hast obeyed my voice.
Ge 22:19 So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beer-sheba. And Abraham dwelt at Beer-sheba.
God commanded Abraham to do something, and he obeyed and was blessed, just as it was promised to him.
Here is some information on Satan from Smith's Bible Dictionary:
Satan
The word itself, the Hebrew satan , is simply an "adversary," and is so used in (1 Samuel 29:4; 2 Samuel 19:22; 1 Kings 6:4; 11:14,23,25; Numbers 22:22,33; Psalms 109:6) This original sense is still found in our Lord’s application of the name to St. Peter in (Matthew 16:23) It is used as a proper name or title only four times in the Old Testament, vis. (with the article) in (Job 1:6; 12; 2:1; Zechariah 2:1) and without the article in (1 Chronicles 21:1) It is with the scriptural revelation on the subject that we are here concerned; and it is clear, from this simple enumeration of passages, that it is to be sought in the New rather than in the Old Testament. I. The personal existence of a spirit of evil is clearly revealed in Scripture; but the revelation is made gradually, in accordance with the progressiveness of God’s method. In the first entrance of evil into the world, the temptation is referred only to the serpent. In the book of Job we find for the first time a distinct mention of "Satan" the "adversary" of Job. But it is important to remark the emphatic stress laid on his subordinate position, on the absence of all but delegated power, of all terror and all grandeur in his character. It is especially remarkable that no power of spiritual influence, but only a power over outward circumstances, is attributed to him. The captivity brought the Israelites face to face with the great dualism of the Persian mythology, the conflict of Ormuzd with Ahriman, the co-ordinate spirit of evil; but it is confessed by all that the Satan of Scripture bears no resemblance to the Persian Ahriman. His subordination and inferiority are as strongly marked as ever. The New Testament brings plainly forward the power and the influence of Satan, From the beginning of the Gospel, when he appears as the personal tempter of our Lord through all the Gospels, Epistles, and Apocalypse, it is asserted or implied, again and again, as a familiar and important truth. II. Of the nature and original state of Satan, little is revealed in Scripture. He is spoken of as a "spirit" in (Ephesians 2:2) as the prince or ruler of the "demons" in (Matthew 12:24-26) and as having "angels" subject to him in (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 12:7,9) The whole description of his power implies spiritual nature and spiritual influence. We conclude therefore that he was of angelic nature, a rational and spiritual creature, superhuman in power, wisdom and energy; and not only so, but an archangel, one of the "princes" of heaven. We cannot, of course, conceive that anything essentially and originally evil was created by God. We can only conjecture, therefore, that Satan is a fallen angel, who once had a time of probation, but whose condemnation is now irrevocably fixed. As to the time cause and manner of his fall Scripture tells us scarcely anything; but it describes to us distinctly the moral nature of the evil one. The ideal of goodness is made up of the three great moral attributes of God --love, truth, and purity or holiness; combined with that spirit which is the natural temper of the finite and dependent we find creature, the spirit of faith. We find, accordingly, opposites of qualities are dwelt upon as the characteristics of the devil.
III. The power of Satan over the soul is represented as exercised either directly or by his instruments. His direct influence over the soul is simply that of a powerful and evil nature on those in whom lurks the germ of the same evil. Besides this direct influence, we learn from Scripture that Satan is the leader of a host of evil spirits or angels who share his evil work, and for whom the "everlasting fire is prepared." (Matthew 25:41) Of their origin and fall we know no more than of his. But one passage (Matthew 12:24-26) --identifies them distinctly with the "demons" (Authorized Version "devils" who had power to possess the souls of men. They are mostly spoken of in Scripture in reference to possession; but in (Ephesians 6:12) find them sharing the enmity to God and are ascribed in various lights. We find them sharing the enmity to God and man implied in the name and nature of Satan; but their power and action are little dwelt upon in comparison with his. But the evil one is not merely the "prince of the demons;" he is called also the "prince of this world" in (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11) and even the. "god of this world" in (2 Corinthians 4:4) the two expressions being united in (Ephesians 6:12) This power he claimed for himself, as the delegated authority, in the temptation of our Lord, (Luke 4:6) and the temptation would have been unreal had he spoken altogether falsely. The indirect action of Satan is best discerned by an examination of the title by which he is designated in Scripture. He is called emphatically ho diabolos , "the devil." The derivation of the word in itself implies only the endeavor to break the bonds between others and "set them at variance;" but common usage adds to this general sense the special idea of "setting at variance by slander." In the application of the title to Satan, both the general and special senses should be kept in view. His general object is to break the bonds of communion between God and man, and the bonds of truth and love which bind men to each other. The slander of God to man is best seen in the words of (Genesis 3:4,5) They attribute selfishness and jealousy to the Giver of all good. The slander of man to God is illustrated by the book of Job. (Job 1:9-11; 2:4,5) IV. The method of satanic action upon the heart itself. It may be summed up in two words --temptation and possession. The subject of temptation is illustrated, not only by abstract statements, but also by the record of the temptations of Adam and of our Lord. It is expressly laid down, as in (James 1:2-4) that "temptation," properly so called, i.e. "trial," is essential to man, and is accordingly ordained for him and sent to him by God, as in (Genesis 22:1) It is this tentability of man, even in his original nature, which is represented in Scripture as giving scope to the evil action of Satan. But in the temptation of a fallen nature Satan has a greater power. Every sin committed makes a man the "servant of sin" for the future, (John 8:34; Romans 6:16) it therefore creates in the spirit of man a positive tendency to evil which sympathizes with, and aids, the temptation of the evil one.
And I find Helen's "Christian Taliban" to be quite comical. After all these years of failed social programs, to try to imply that the changes by President Bush will make things worse is a joke.
posted on March 31, 2004 03:20:53 PM new
Reamond, how can you say he doesn't know what he's talking about, when he seems obviously well read on this subject.
Ok, you don't believe. He does. I don't think either of you can turn the other.
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on March 31, 2004 04:24:32 PM new
Because I have demonstrated he doesn't know what he is talking about.
"Well read" doesn't mean you have read something about the subject, it means you have read qualitative and substansive material on the subject.
The books he has listed is the equivilent of saying that because you have read the funny pages and editorial pages of the newspaper you are "well read".
None of the authors he has listed are critical thinkers in theology. They are all erstwhile preachers that have written nothing but specious persuasive material that appeals to the emotional rather than the intellectual reader.
I am not trying to "turn" anybody. He threw down the challenge and obviously bit off more than he can chew.
If you wish to chastise someone for trying to "turn" people, please direct your comments to the christian churches.
But it seems that whenever someone gets the better of a christian in an argument about religion, critical analysis of religion all of a sudden becomes out of bounds.
I think I may in fact be having an effect or you wouldn't be asking me to stop.
posted on March 31, 2004 08:31:27 PM newAs to providing proof, isn't that what some of you here want? I mean, I have to look no further then what having Christ in my life has done for me for evidence that He exists
You are speaking of the proof required of faith. A personal experience that has worked for you. More power to you. Your biblical "proofs" on the other hand, may work for you, but because they don't work for others does not make them people who offer "lame excuses". Your assumption that you know what's best for anyone else but yourself is the height of arrogance, hardly what I would characterize as "pure and holy".. if that kind of bald faced holier-than-thou smugness isn't a sin in the eyes of god, it damned well should be.
Discussing anything with the "born again" is an exercise in frustration at best. You have cut yourself off from the glorious powers of reason, thought and inquiry which the creator gave you. Or if he didn't intend for you to use them, and was plotting to trip you up when you dared use them, and condemn you to some eternal punishment, what a mean spirited, petty human-like god! No thank you, the creator I believe in transcends that kind of pettiness, and can tolerate things and people that are less than "pure and holy".
posted on March 31, 2004 09:11:49 PM new
Reamond, Ok I admit, how would I know if he is well read on the subject. He has his faith. You argue that belief in asking for proof. (I think thats what this was all about???? but I could be wrong) thats what I was reading into it all.
Since he gave his testimony to his faith, you kept on calling Christianity a mythology.
He would come back and *try* to debate how it was not.
by my saying that both of you were not going to 'turn' the other, I meant, it looked like a 'standoff' -neither one of you were going to budge.
There really was a Jesus of Nazereth. That he existed CAN be proved. Whether you believe him to be the Messiah that the Jews were waiting for, is all up to you, or rather 'faith'.
Thats all, I can't say anymore about it. I can't debate it, as I haven't read every chapter and verse in the Bible, nor many other theology books. Well, OK yes I have, some, but only under duress (12 years of Catholic school does that, if you want to pass and go on to the next grade )
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on March 31, 2004 10:41:31 PM new
One good thing about all the furor over Gibson's film--they willnow be re-releasing Monty Python's Life of Brian.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on April 1, 2004 04:03:21 AM new
Near the Sea, that is really the crux of the matter. reamond and others don't want to believe history.
He seems to think that these authors are preachers: they are that and more. They all have more initials after their names then I would care to add here: but according to reamonds "logic", they must be mytholoigical people as well.
See, when evidence for the truth of the Bible , Christ, God and Christianity is placed in terms even "an invisable rabbit" could understand, they would rather believe in the theory of evolution then that. Or that we have been seeded by aliens from another planet or some such thing. You are right in the sense that either one of us will change our position: his heart (as well as his head, for that matter) are hardened beyond reach. There is another reason for everything I have written here, though.
See, there are people here, as well as elswhere, who have never realized the powerful evidence we have for the truth of Christianity. Christians are called to "give a reason for why they believe", and that is what I am doing here. Providing solid evidence for why the claims of Christianity are true. I understand that there are hard-hearted people here, people who will not believe even if the proof is right in front of their nose. Those ones I know I will have no effect over. But there are others out here that need to hear the truth, and I will provide it for them.
Going to bed now, hopefully I will not be too tired tonight when I get home from work to log back on and see where this is going. If anyone wishes to email me, I have provided my email in an above post.
posted on April 1, 2004 08:35:28 AM new
ChristianCoffee
The fact that other people don't accept your faith does not indicate that they are lacking in sympathetic understanding. Incidentally, I haven't seen any evidence here that you have such understanding. So, who is really "hard hearted"?
It amazes me how religious proselytizers persist in assuming such arrogant attitudes and expect to attract converts.
posted on April 1, 2004 10:30:26 AM newThere really was a Jesus of Nazereth. That he existed CAN be proved. Whether you believe him to be the Messiah that the Jews were waiting for, is all up to you, or rather 'faith'.
How many Roman emperors claimed to be gods too ? And how many of them can we "prove" their existence ?
What I am driving at and what the prof saw early on is that all mythology is faith based.
Once you accept that it is faith based, the rational arguments cease - all arguments cease because there is no longer any basis for argument.
When someone who uses reason rams his/her head into a wall, they have individual proof that there is a wall there. The scientists will run a few more people into the wall and claim a wall exists. The person of faith will pummel themselves to death against a wall their religion claims does not exist.
Faith requires that not only you deny all evidence contrary to your faith, but that evidence is unnecessary and will not be addressed in any event, no matter if the evidence supports or denies the existence of your mythological beliefs. Few if any "christians" have been able to maintain this type of faith. And naturally Darwinian principles kept the true faithful from growing very large. What do you think fostered the monastery movement ? It was the fully vested faith idea.
But the full faith position is a double edged sword.
If you believe based on faith then there is no rational reason that your religion is any better or worse than a faith based belief in any other mythology.
In faith based mythology, it is no better or worse to worship god or Donald Duck.
But I am not the author of these ideas, they were proposed by "christian heretics" over 1500 years ago. And they offered very sound and sincere arguments.
When I challenge modern fundementalist pagan christians about christianity I do so more out of respect and honor for these men and woman who were murdered by their "fundementalist" christian brethren for thinking outside the box than for any proselytzing of my own atheism.
I feebly attempt to speak for them, because you will not hear any christian church speak their name much less give voice to any of their ideas on faith versus reason.
posted on April 1, 2004 01:33:36 PM new
This is one of the best threads I've read in a long time. Reamond, you're right on. Some of the ones that claim to be religious are so blind, it's sad. If you are basing your whole belief system on what's written in the Bible, your mind is already closed.
posted on April 1, 2004 01:55:41 PM newIf you are basing your whole belief system on what's written in the Bible, your mind is already closed.
I'd bet the 75 - 86% of American's who say they're Christians....wouldn't agree KD. Including President Carter, clinton and his wife Hillary. I don't think any of them would even suggest their faith in God could be equated with Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck.
In faith based mythology, it is no better or worse to worship god or Donald Duck
posted on April 1, 2004 02:05:08 PM new
If their belief is based on faith then it is equal to a belief in Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse.
It really doesn't matter if the individual christian believes it or not, on a rational basis they are equal.
99% of christians when they critically analyse their beliefs are neo-pagans. The christian orthodoxy flies right out the window when they realize what it entails.
There is also a huge difference between an "individual savior" and a savior that is "individually defined" by each person. The latter is what 99% of "christians" will do when they are forced to critically analyse christianity.
Again, when you hear people say we are a "christian" nation, have them define "christian". You'll soon see that we are not a "christian" nation as defined by christian orthodoxy, but rather neo-pagans who re-define god to suit their particular belief.
posted on April 1, 2004 03:19:01 PM new
This said by prof "the creator I believe in" is also Jeffersonian and typical of the free religious expression as espoused by our founders.
The Declaration of Independence did NOT say "endowed by the creator, it said "endowed by their creator.
"Their creator" can be god, Thor, Zues, mother nature, or evolutionary primordial ooze.
Don't believe it when they try to tell you this is a "christian" nation. It is not and never was.
We are a nation that the government allows for free religious belief, and the government itself can not promote or favor any religion.
posted on April 1, 2004 03:20:07 PM new
Yes, reamond, I understand you think everyone is wrong but you.
"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors." --George Washington
posted on April 1, 2004 03:38:35 PM new
"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors." --George Washington
And no where in that quote does it mention Jesus or the "christian" god. Aknowledging god doesn't make one christian. Muslims, Jews and all religions recognize some sort of god.
I would add that Washington's quote has no force of law, and is not in the Constitution. But this "christian" nation could have easily put that in the Constitution, but in fact did the opposite by clearly stating that there could be no religious test for holding public office.
We are not and never have been a christian nation.
It is not a matter of me being right and everyone else being wrong. It is a matter of fact.
Now if the fundementalists want to re-phrase the assertion to: This is a nation wherein most people call themselves christian, but really don't know what christian orthodoxy is, but call themselves christians because they want to feel they belong to the group and their preacher says they are christians, then that is fine.
But it is one huge self serving lie when they claim that this is a "christian" nation. Never was and is not now a "christian nation".
posted on April 1, 2004 03:40:50 PM newYou believe in this creator, but how do you know there is a creator?
Sounds like you want me to prove it to you. Sorry, can't do that....
I've said before in other threads on this topic, I believe that most religions are just man's way of trying to interface with the infite. To put words and form to that which has neither. I think man seeks god based on his needs, many of which are culturally based..my ancestors were spanish jews who hid their jewishness and became catholic before coming to the new world..when we got to the southwestern wilderness, there were no priests to give us mass, and so we began what is now called the "Penitente" cult, preserving the mass and other rites for ourselves...this gave us a healthy disrespect for the structure of the church and the dogma of Rome...protestant and born again dogma is all the same to me, just another way to control the minds of people who are desperate for answers...My faith is now fully my own..it won't work for you, and it will bear no argument from somebody who thinks they know what's good for me. If people need to believe in only one god, or many, or none, I don't have a problem with that at all. My beliefs are based upon my own personal experiences. The only "proof" I need is that it works for me. Like I've said before, I find the creator in the scream of the lion down canyon, in the birth of lamb, in the graceful death of an aging mare, in spring's fragile new growth. I would never presume to think my vision of god would work for anyone else, and I consider it the epitome of arrogance for anyone else to do that to me.
___________________________________
posted on April 1, 2004 03:41:07 PM new
So the profe was saying that in a 'Jeffersonian-typical of the free religious expression as espoused by our founders' kinda way. Ok thank you.
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on April 1, 2004 03:45:33 PM new
Don't sneak up on me again like that profe
I don't want to 'debate', 'argue' whatever with you on it. You keep calling 'it' creator. A creator creates things. Usually people would mean the creator 'created the world, universe, us.....'
Ok never mind, so my 'talking' to your creator wouldn't help me, as it is your creator all to yourself?
nevermind
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on April 1, 2004 03:45:35 PM new
There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution either.
You appear to be forgetting that thread where I posted the pre-emble for each state as it came into the Union. Each made a reference to God/Almighty Father/etc.
You as an atheist, thank GOD, are in the minority and it will be a long time before an atheist is ever elected to run this country. Until then...our presidents will continue to be Christians and each will turn to their God for guidance in all issues. Whether it sits well with you or not.
posted on April 1, 2004 03:46:04 PM new
I think it is safe to say that the prof is well read. He doesn't miss much which leads me to believe that he has "been there, done that" when expoused to these ideas.
posted on April 1, 2004 03:46:35 PM new
Washington didn't speak of Jesus. He was a Freemason. A very good case can be made that if this country's gov't. is inspired by any organized creed, it is inspired by Masonry rather than Chrisianity. I'd suggest giving The Hiram Key and Holy Blood, Holy Grail a read, for an alternative view...not saying I buy all of it mind you, but it gives pause....
___________________________________
posted on April 1, 2004 03:49:25 PM new
I know about the masons (not the brick layer dudes ) or rather the Freemasons
I remember asking my dad when I was younger (since he always belonged to the Elks, Shriners all those) if he was a Mason... he looked at me in HORROR and said 'I am Catholic God dammit!'
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on April 1, 2004 03:50:04 PM new
Near, I guess what I meant was that if you pray in your way, and I pray in mine, we're both trying to plug in to the same infinite force....if it works, doesn't matter what we call he-she-it-they
___________________________________
This topic is 10 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new
who had power to possess the souls of men. They are mostly spoken of in Scripture in reference to possession; but in (Ephesians 6:12) find them sharing the enmity to God and are ascribed in various lights. We find them sharing the enmity to God and man implied in the name and nature of Satan; but their power and action are little dwelt upon in comparison with his. But the evil one is not merely the "prince of the demons;" he is called also the "prince of this world" in (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11) and even the. "god of this world" in (2 Corinthians 4:4) the two expressions being united in (Ephesians 6:12) This power he claimed for himself, as the delegated authority, in the temptation of our Lord, (Luke 4:6) and the temptation would have been unreal had he spoken altogether falsely. The indirect action of Satan is best discerned by an examination of the title by which he is designated in Scripture. He is called emphatically ho diabolos , "the devil." The derivation of the word in itself implies only the endeavor to break the bonds between others and "set them at variance;" but common usage adds to this general sense the special idea of "setting at variance by slander." In the application of the title to Satan, both the general and special senses should be kept in view. His general object is to break the bonds of communion between God and man, and the bonds of truth and love which bind men to each other. The slander of God to man is best seen in the words of (Genesis 3:4,5) They attribute selfishness and jealousy to the Giver of all good. The slander of man to God is illustrated by the book of Job. (Job 1:9-11; 2:4,5) IV. The method of satanic action upon the heart itself. It may be summed up in two words --temptation and possession. The subject of temptation is illustrated, not only by abstract statements, but also by the record of the temptations of Adam and of our Lord. It is expressly laid down, as in (James 1:2-4) that "temptation," properly so called, i.e. "trial," is essential to man, and is accordingly ordained for him and sent to him by God, as in (Genesis 22:1) It is this tentability of man, even in his original nature, which is represented in Scripture as giving scope to the evil action of Satan. But in the temptation of a fallen nature Satan has a greater power. Every sin committed makes a man the "servant of sin" for the future, (John 8:34; Romans 6:16) it therefore creates in the spirit of man a positive tendency to evil which sympathizes with, and aids, the temptation of the evil one.
)