The Fortunate Fall/Paradise Lost

[Orionsbelt]

Well I read Paradise Lost and the Inferno sometime ago. Now I want to go back and read it again. My memory serves me badly. Anyway... My thinking ... or weak recolection is, according to Genesis, man and woman were created in a state of innocence. We were forbidden the fruit for what it would do. We being us went ahead and ate the fruit anyway. I love us. After the dramatic discovery, God asks Adam "who told you that you were naked" indicating a change of state.. self awareness.. whatever.... So this change of mind is "the fall" our current condition. Perhaps the begining of truely free will. The birth of compassion as well. God now has the choice to restore us or leave things as they are. We were out of paradise... or in it if you ask me.. not the place.. Now man is self aware and capable of deciding what is right and wrong. Prior to this point in time we could not put ourselves in the other's place. So we may now make the knowlegable choice to hurt someone or something .. or not.. Depending on your perspective ... furtunate fall. I agree. There is some notion that "sin" exists without will. This view puzzles me but hey!... It is mankind that lives between the poles of opposites. Good and evil..... God is beyond both... simply put there is nothing done that cannot be un-done.

[weepingforloman]

Ok, I am currently re-reading Milton's Paradise Lost along with Dante's Divine Comedy for the first time. I had been considering posting this in the Milton sub-forum but decided it'd probably have a better chance of being seen here.

My copy of PL is the 2003 Penguin Classics edition which has an introduction by John Leonard. The part I want to discuss can be found in the intro on pages xxvi & xxvii in this edition. For those of you without this edition I'll post the relevant parts here:

Firstly the free-will argument:



Now the Fortunate Fall:



Answering Empson:



So what am I interested in finding out:

Well firstly I am not particularly interested in another "free-will" discussion, they tend to go round in circles.

I would like opinions on the following:

Do you agree with Empson that the idea of a Fortunate Fall implicates God?

Could the goodness of God come from any way other than the original Fall?

Does God need evil?

The idea of a Fortunate Fall can be construed two ways: a.) God forced the Fall b.) the Fall set the stage for the greatest good ever to enter the universe.

I agree with "b" but not "a," in that God did not force the Fall, though He knew it would happen, and that the complex, sacrificial good of the Crucifixion is the best thing that could possibly ever be done.

I don't understand the second question.

No, God does not need evil. Eventually, God's good will triumph over all, and then all will be good, Christianity is a western, dualistic religion, not an eastern, balanced-morality religion.

[Orionsbelt]

... , Christianity is a western, dualistic religion, not an eastern, balanced-morality religion.

Hence Milton's dilema ... you cannot be one pole of a magnet without brining about the opposite pole..

[weepingforloman]

No. That is once again balanced-morality thought. One of the inherent differences between the Semitic/Judaic faiths and the Eastern religions is the origin of evil. The Eastern religions say "Oh, it's always been there." The Semitic faiths point to a specific historical event, thereby asserting that the universe was originally completely good (I know this of Judaism and Christianity, and I assume this of Islam... Someone correct me if I am wrong with regards to Islam).

So, you're from Pittsburgh? I was born there, and most of my family still lives in the area- what neighborhood are you from?

[kilted exile]

The idea of a Fortunate Fall can be construed two ways: a.) God forced the Fall b.) the Fall set the stage for the greatest good ever to enter the universe.

I agree with "b" but not "a," in that God did not force the Fall, though He knew it would happen, and that the complex, sacrificial good of the Crucifixion is the best thing that could possibly ever be done.

I don't understand the second question.

No, God does not need evil. Eventually, God's good will triumph over all, and then all will be good, Christianity is a western, dualistic religion, not an eastern, balanced-morality religion.

In a nutshell, the idea of the fortunate fall is your point B, point A is a requirement in the fortunate fall theory and is therefore a given. This is why Danielson disagrees with Empson: he sees the implication on God and as a result disagrees that the fall is fortunate, he instead suggests God could show his goodness even if man had not originally sinned and required redemption (too long to post entire excerpt, would prob help to have a copy of the book)

For clarification, question 2 deals with Danielson theory that God could show his goodness even without sin & redemption. My question is can you think of any ways this would be possible and what are they?

Regarding your answer to question 3: Do we not need evil in order to see the comparison to God's goodness?

No. That is once again balanced-morality thought. One of the inherent differences between the Semitic/Judaic faiths and the Eastern religions is the origin of evil. The Eastern religions say "Oh, it's always been there." The Semitic faiths point to a specific historical event, thereby asserting that the universe was originally completely good (I know this of Judaism and Christianity, and I assume this of Islam... Someone correct me if I am wrong with regards to Islam).

While this may be the correct response from a theological standpoint, what I am interested in the contradictions and religious philosophy contained in Paradise Lost. As I mentioned earlier I posted the question here because it will be more likely seen, but my questions arent really looking for a biblical answer, more of a philosophical one. Have you read PL?

[Orionsbelt]

No. That is once again balanced-morality thought. One of the inherent differences between the Semitic/Judaic faiths and the Eastern religions is the origin of evil. The Eastern religions say "Oh, it's always been there." The Semitic faiths point to a specific historical event, thereby asserting that the universe was originally completely good …

So, you're from Pittsburgh? I was born there, and most of my family still lives in the area- what neighborhood are you from?

While this may be the correct response from a theological standpoint, what I am interested in the contradictions and religious philosophy contained in Paradise Lost. As I mentioned earlier I posted the question here because it will be more likely seen, but my questions arent really looking for a biblical answer, more of a philosophical one.

I agree with the distinctions. I'm thinking that the problem in the context of PL is that God is part of the history… he represents the ultimate cause and the ultimate good. Evil exists. In the end, as the ultimate cause, God is responsible for it. As the ultimate good, then, Evil must in some way serve a good purpose. (neutralized? Paradox?) It is not possible in human experience to see without contrast. So without the existence of evil, what does it mean to be the ultimate good? There has to be at least the slightly bad for this statement to make any sense. (by the way I have volunteered for this job) In eastern thought the creative force is outside of those fields…It is causal and sustaining but not judgmental. A man lives and a man dies. As part of the great cycle it is the way of things. In the end what is the distinction between the two lines of thought? In the Semitic system God lives forever. Outside of time.. Outside of history.. sustaining… evil exists…. Interesting observation as a result of this discussion, how Greek gods were outside time and sustaining but playing in history as well… things just kind of go on forever…

I was raised in the East End of Pittsburgh. I left for a while and moved back. I live out in a corner of Allegheny County now. A half an hours drive from town. Where is your family?

[weepingforloman]

I agree with the distinctions. I'm thinking that the problem in the context of PL is that God is part of the history… he represents the ultimate cause and the ultimate good. Evil exists. In the end, as the ultimate cause, God is responsible for it. As the ultimate good, then, Evil must in some way serve a good purpose. (neutralized? Paradox?) It is not possible in human experience to see without contrast. So without the existence of evil, what does it mean to be the ultimate good? There has to be at least the slightly bad for this statement to make any sense. (by the way I have volunteered for this job) In eastern thought the creative force is outside of those fields…It is causal and sustaining but not judgmental. A man lives and a man dies. As part of the great cycle it is the way of things. In the end what is the distinction between the two lines of thought? In the Semitic system God lives forever. Outside of time.. Outside of history.. sustaining… evil exists…. Interesting observation as a result of this discussion, how Greek gods were outside time and sustaining but playing in history as well… things just kind of go on forever…

I was raised in the East End of Pittsburgh. I left for a while and moved back. I live out in a corner of Allegheny County now. A half an hours drive from town. Where is your family?

I have cousins in York, Selinsgrove, and Squirrel Hill, where my grandmother lives as well.

God is not the source of evil, He merely allows it to exist, as a result of granting free will, first to the angels (Satan) and secondly to Adam and Eve.

[Unbeliever]

God is not the source of evil, He merely allows it to exist, as a result of granting free will, first to the angels (Satan) and secondly to Adam and Eve.

God Himself says, in Isaiah 45:7 (KJV), that he creates evil:
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

[weepingforloman]

Never liked the KJV. Here's the NIV: "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I the Lord do these things."

Much different, no?

By the way, God Himself did not write Isaiah... Isaiah did (with divine inspiration, it is true).

In that phrasing, it would seem to imply that the "evil" that God creates would more resemble what some people call "bad luck" than moral evil, or perhaps even war (often in the Bible the conquering or destruction of a people is referred to as their "evil day").

[kilted exile]

Just a general request: Can we keep the differences in biblical translation to one of the other threads? Would really like on-topic discussion as much as possible......