Adam & Logic, Third Edition, Original Relationship between Humanity and Divinity

[grannymh]

Granny dearest,
Let me review a couple of your latest decisions:

skip

A little later, you said that some suggestions made concerning original sin were of “danger” and possibly creating “damage”, I asked you what the danger and damage entail, and you have refused to answer for such thus far.

I have recognized modern Arianism for years. It appears, not in its formal name, in the last line of *CCC *389.

Here is a thread which better, than I, answers OneSheep’s question that I put in bold.
"A profound Article worth careful reading"
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=973311

From the link in the thread. Note: I put in bold the definitive statement, which in some geographical areas, points to the big tent, progressive Christianity, a better popular Catholic Church, etc. We are learning this from some, not all, of our popular preaching authors.
STEALTH ARIANISM

This cultural assessment is bleak. And I believe that underlying it all is a deeper evil, a more ancient and intractable error which gives rise to all the rest. Many have pointed to “Modernism” as the heresy of our times. Modernism, while it takes many forms, is basically a break or rejection of our past in favor of all things new. And, while it seems evident that our Church is fully infected with the heresy of Modernism, I believe that it, too, is a symptom of this more fundamental threat.

What am I referring to? Something that impacts the very nature of human existence and the opportunity for our salvation. Lacking an official name, I call this monster, “Stealth Arianism.” Students of history know that the Arian heresy – the worst crisis in the Church before our present age – was rooted in the belief that Jesus Christ was merely a created being, not equal to God the Father. Stealth Arianism follows the same fatal error, but with a twist: while the Arians of the fourth century openly denied Christ’s divinity, today‘s Arians will profess Jesus as God, and yet through their actions deny it. In other words, they don’t even know they are heretics. Many even believe that they are doing God’s work in their attempts to elevate Christ’s humanity at the cost of His divinity.

You see, once we diminish the identity of Christ as the Son of God, we are left to view Him as simply a historical figure that was a nice guy, a respectable teacher and a good example for how we are to live. Religion is then reduced to a nice organization that does nice things for people as we seek a kind of psychotherapy for self-actualization. And this is not only not what He came to give us, but it’s something He made sure to leave no room for.

How do we recognize this pervasive Stealth Arianism?” There is a story of two friends – a Catholic priest and a Protestant minister. They stood in the doorway of the priest’s church, staring at the tabernacle in the sanctuary at the other end. The Protestant minister said to his priest friend, “You don’t believe that is God in that tabernacle.” The priest was startled, and said, “What do you mean? Of course I do.” The Protestant minister said, “Listen, if I believed that was God, I would, right here and now, fall prostrate on my face and crawl toward that tabernacle, with tears of joy running down my face … you don’t believe that is God.”

Over the past 50 years, the Stealth Arians have done everything within their power to remove from our lived experience of Catholicism anything that would point to the divinity of Christ, and the supernatural quality of our faith.

 

[simpleas]

Granny dearest,
Let me review a couple of your latest decisions:

A while back you said you had concerns, and I asked what those were. Eventually, you said you had no concerns.

A little later, you said that some suggestions made concerning original sin were of “danger” and possibly creating “damage”, I asked you what the danger and damage entail, and you have refused to answer for such thus far.

From whence comes, my dear, the choice to instill fear when there is indeed nothing to fear? If there was something to fear, then you would surely have brought it forward by now. Some say fear, as the opposite of faith, comes from the devil. I disagree.

Fear comes from desire to protect that which we see is under threat. Are you saying that varying ideas about original sin are a threat? If so, you are fearing some possible outcome, that the doctrine itself may change a little. Is this what you fear?

God Bless your Monday.

How could the doctrine change, even a little? Isn’t the idea that man needed a savior because of the sin of the first human, the bases of the Christian faith? That is the “heart” of it, take away original sin, no one believes they are wounded, we do not need to eat and drink of the body of Christ in order to become higher than our fallen natures.

Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

How could the doctrine change, even a little? Isn’t the idea that man needed a savior because of the sin of the first human, the bases of the Christian faith? That is the “heart” of it, take away original sin, no one believes they are wounded, we do not need to eat and drink of the body of Christ in order to become higher than our fallen natures.

Thanks.

Hi Simpleas, good morning! er… afternoon…

"An alternative definition of original sin holds that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory for the acquisition of conscience. In this definition, mankind is not stained in any way by any deed, but instead misdeed is a result of our God-given drives and capacities limited by blindness and unawareness.

"In this alternative, Christ, as God incarnate, shows us God’s unconditional and constant forgiveness, a forgiveness “before always”, as depicted from the Cross. Christ comes in order to be a model of redemption from our fears, our wants, our resentments, all the trappings of our nature. In so doing He redeems the world in the call to love one another in the same way, to love and forgive without condition, creating the Kingdom of God on Earth as it is in Heaven. Word does not become incarnate to change God’s mind about man, but comes to change man’s mind about God.

“This alternative does not ascribe to Modernism or Arianism, especially when they disrespect or defy the value, place, and validity of the standard definition of original sin. This alternative is not a better or worse alternative, only one that stands upon a somewhat different tradition set forth by various saints and early writers in the Church.”

That, Simpleas, is some possible wording. It could stand a great deal of editing, but I hope it gets the point across. Of course, the alternative needs a lot of development, but it is a start.

Thanks! off to mass… Have a great week!

 

[fhansen]

In broad terms the doctrine of the Fall and OS could be described as this: man is free to reject God/grace but if he does so he lacks the capability of finding his way back to that which he rejected. He needs grace, he needs God, to come to him, to save him; man doesn’t even know how lost he is to begin with. And grace is necessary not only to save him but to sustain him, and further yet: to give him life and life abundantly.

The story of the Fall and redemption is the story of man coming to realize his absolute need for God, as he comes to realize just who man is, and, most importantly, just Who God is, with the help of grace. God doesn’t force this knowledge and relationship upon us; He calls us; He draws us into it. Our wills are the “prize”, so to speak; as they’re increasingly oriented to Him our justice is greater. This orientation cannot be faked; it occurs as a blossoming. It is demonstrated throughout our lives by how we live, and this is the basis of God’s judgment. As we’ve continued to walk by faith, without the benefit of sight, believing and trusting in God, our wills become more firmly solidified, more closely aligned with His, until, in the end, He welcomes us home where He, Himself, is our prize. He wants us to want it first, and He helps us to want it. The relationship, itself, consisting of faith, hope, and, ultimately, love, is what constitutes our justice.

 

[grannymh]

This alternative is not a better or worse alternative, only one that stands upon a somewhat different tradition set forth by various saints and early writers in the Church."

That is correct.

The stealth alternative proposal in post 318 is an attempt to establish a new and improved progressive Christianity/Catholic Church designed to be an emerging big tent happy replacement for the current Catholic Church founded by the Divine Jesus Christ.

Note for our gentle readers.

As a necessary preparation for understanding the protocol of the real visible Catholic Church, please study the entire article link presented in post 316
romancatholicman.com/stealth-arianism-the-pervasive-heresy-of-our-times/

which appeared in post 1, thread "A profound Article worth careful reading " in the Philosophy Forum. A sincere thank you to PTL.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=973311

I am going to wait a bit before doing my serious posting. I want to give people time to digest the linked article and possibly provide the very basic fundamental Catholic facts about Original Sin. And yes, one needs to understand the basic fundamental Catholic facts about the original relationship between humanity and Divinity.

In the article, there is a reference to 50 years.
When I read my first adult biography about Jesus Christ, I recognized a quiet attack on the Divinity of Jesus. It was called sharing one’s food with one’s neighbor. Because I believed that Jesus Christ is real in the Eucharist, I knew that the miracle pointed to Jesus, as having Divine power to nourish our soul, our very being, with Himself. That was a lot more than 50 years ago.

 

[cfauster]

For those interested in a brief look at some of the diverse views among evangelical protestants on Adam & Eve, original sin, etc. simply as a potential resource for enriching the Catholic discussion here (I’m not at all promoting any particular protestant view over any Catholic views), see
biologos.org/blog/books-and-culture-hosts-online-symposium-on-adam-and-eve

Clearly some of the evangelical protestant views are relatively close to the Catholic understandings, and others are less close.

 

[OneSheep]

That is correct.

The stealth alternative proposal in post 318 is an attempt to establish a new and improved progressive Christianity/Catholic Church designed to be an emerging big tent happy replacement for the current Catholic Church founded by the Divine Jesus Christ.

Granny, good morning!

Thanks for calling to my attention that thread. Please read the comments made by Dorothy and lynnvinc, for theirs are the voices that demonstrate a Christian response to the problems at hand.

In the history of the Church, there have been many instances where people either overemphasize Jesus’ divinity or His humanity. I looked for- but did not find - a quote I heard recently that said something like “for many Christians today, if God the Father did not exist, it would not affect their prayer life.”

Jesus is not to be equated with God the Father. Jesus holds His place in the trinity as God-incarnate, fully human, fully divine, and Jesus reveals to us that we share in this divinity. God is present in all of us.

Was God present in Adam? Yes. Was Adam divine, omniscient? The view that Adam and Eve should have been condemned is the view that Adam was omniscient. Adam and Eve did not know what they were doing.

Which voices on that thread, Granny, reflect love, charity, and forgiveness?

Let’s see, Jesus embraced those who were outside the tent of those acceptable to His Jewish contemporaries. He used Samaritans as examples of good behavior and ate with “sinners”. It seems to me that He intended to create a big, happy tent. Catholic means “univeral”. Religion itself is re - ligare, “ligare” being the Latin word for “bind”. We are called to bind, Granny, to be universal and to re-bind, not to be xenophobic and exclusive. Will you give me the name of one modern Pope who is opposed to the idea of a big, happy tent? You won’t find one Granny.

Do you share the fears presented by Fr. Heilman? If so, communicate those fears, Granny. What do you fear? Bring it to Light!! Stop hiding your fears!!

God Bless your day

 

[grannymh]

For those interested in a brief look at some of the diverse views among evangelical protestants on Adam & Eve, original sin, etc. simply as a potential resource for enriching the Catholic discussion here (I’m not at all promoting any particular protestant view over any Catholic views), see
biologos.org/blog/books-and-culture-hosts-online-symposium-on-adam-and-eve

Clearly some of the evangelical protestant views are relatively close to the Catholic understandings, and others are less close.

Thank you for the link.

May I gently point out that in contrast to the popular proposal of an alternative progressively emerging Catholic Church (refer to a brief example in post 318 above) the real Catholic Church does not have fundamental basic understandings of Original Sin in the plural. Granted that there are various acceptable ways of explaining the basic truth. Nonetheless, the Catholic truth does not change from the reality of one original sin freely committed by one original human to considering the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin as a simple disturbing fly in our beautiful blessings of creation. This fly idea is sad.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, good morning!

Thanks for calling to my attention that thread. Please read the comments made by Dorothy and lynnvinc, for theirs are the voices that demonstrate a Christian response to the problems at hand.

In the history of the Church, there have been many instances where people either overemphasize Jesus’ divinity or His humanity. I looked for- but did not find - a quote I heard recently that said something like “for many Christians today, if God the Father did not exist, it would not affect their prayer life.”

Jesus is not to be equated with God the Father. Jesus holds His place in the trinity as God-incarnate, fully human, fully divine, and Jesus reveals to us that we share in this divinity. God is present in all of us.

Was God present in Adam? Yes. Was Adam divine, omniscient? The view that Adam and Eve should have been condemned is the view that Adam was omniscient. Adam and Eve did not know what they were doing.

Which voices on that thread, Granny, reflect love, charity, and forgiveness?

Let’s see, Jesus embraced those who were outside the tent of those acceptable to His Jewish contemporaries. He used Samaritans as examples of good behavior and ate with “sinners”. It seems to me that He intended to create a big, happy tent. Catholic means “univeral”. Religion itself is re - ligare, “ligare” being the Latin word for “bind”. We are called to bind, Granny, to be universal and to re-bind, not to be xenophobic and exclusive. Will you give me the name of one modern Pope who is opposed to the idea of a big, happy tent? You won’t find one Granny.

Do you share the fears presented by Fr. Heilman? If so, communicate those fears, Granny. What do you fear? Bring it to Light!! Stop hiding your fears!!

God Bless your day

The modern Pope who definitively opposed a big happy tent aka an “eirenism” is Pius XII in Humani Generis. Thank you for reminding me of the total brilliance of Pius XII. Too often, people only read the evolution part in this great encyclical. Thank you for bringing Humani Generis to our gentle readers.

As for these questions by OneSheep.

“Do you share the fears presented by Fr. Heilman? If so, communicate those fears, Granny. What do you fear? Bring it to Light!! Stop hiding your fears!!”

Answer.
I share the fear that some people do not understand Arianism in today’s world.

Regarding the earlier question
“Which voices on that thread, Granny, reflect love, charity, and forgiveness?”

My answer is that all did. Is that the answer you want?

What do I fear? o.k. I will bring it to light as I was asked to do.

I fear heights higher than a curb. I fear the return of cancer. I fear that serious depression will kill one of my children. I fear that I will miss a typo when I am editing. I will never forget the time I missed a typo in the name of a major contributor to the institution I worked for and whose son worked near me in the same institution building that I did. I think the reason my job was intact is that I had the reputation for being fearless when it came to acquiring information.

Do I have fears about my faith in the Catholic Church?
H * E * double hockey sticks, no.

Note to our gentle readers.
I still believe that it is important to allow time for people to explore the issue of Catholic and perhaps share some of the information on Church protocol before I delve into it. Frankly speaking, I hope there is additional (name removed by moderator)ut because originally I missed the Pentecost experience of Acts 2: 14 and following.

 

[grannymh]

The modern Pope who definitively opposed a big happy tent aka an “eirenism” is Pius XII in Humani Generis. Thank you for reminding me of the total brilliance of Pius XII. Too often, people only read the evolution part in this great encyclical. Thank you for bringing Humani Generis to our gentle readers.

As for these questions by OneSheep.

“Do you share the fears presented by Fr. Heilman? If so, communicate those fears, Granny. What do you fear? Bring it to Light!! Stop hiding your fears!!”

Answer.
I share the fear that some people do not understand Arianism in today’s world.

Regarding the earlier question
“Which voices on that thread, Granny, reflect love, charity, and forgiveness?”

My answer is that all did. Is that the answer you want?

What do I fear? o.k. I will bring it to light as I was asked to do.

I fear heights higher than a curb. I fear the return of cancer. I fear that serious depression will kill one of my children. I fear that I will miss a typo when I am editing. I will never forget the time I missed a typo in the name of a major contributor to the institution I worked for and whose son worked near me in the same institution building that I did. I think the reason my job was intact is that I had the reputation for being fearless when it came to acquiring information.

Do I have fears about my faith in the Catholic Church?
H * E * double hockey sticks, no.

Note to our gentle readers.
I still believe that it is important to allow time for people to explore the issue of Catholic and perhaps share some of the information on Church protocol before I delve into it. Frankly speaking, I hope there is additional (name removed by moderator)ut because originally I missed the Pentecost experience of Acts 2: 14 and following.

There is nothing new under the sun.
I am still making typos trying to edit in 20 minutes.

Note to our gentle readers.
I still believe that it is important to allow time for people to explore the issue of the **protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth when it comes to declaring a Catholic doctrine **and perhaps share some of the information on Church protocol before I delve into it. Frankly speaking, I hope there is additional (name removed by moderator)ut because originally I missed the Pentecost experience of Acts 2: 14 and following

 

[OneSheep]

The modern Pope who definitively opposed a big happy tent aka an “eirenism” is Pius XII in Humani Generis. Thank you for reminding me of the total brilliance of Pius XII. Too often, people only read the evolution part in this great encyclical. Thank you for bringing Humani Generis to our gentle readers.

Granny,

I looked it up. Pope Pius was not advocating that people who wish to shun controversy be excluded from the tent. No, he was saying that such questions are to be addressed, and that there are issues that divide people. Does that mean that we are to exclude those who love their Church, have faith in the Trinity, but avoid questions that divide people? No, Granny, its not there. Pope Pius does not downplay a big, happy tent.

Answer.
I share the fear that some people do not understand Arianism in today’s world.

Arianism: A heresy which arose in the fourth century, and denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

Okay, when you think of people not understanding Arianism, you feel fear. Thanks, Granny! So, what might be the ramifications of people not understanding Arianism. What is the danger in such lack of understanding? Please do not read my tone as accusatory. I am interested in the source of the fear.

Complete the sentence if you like: If people do not understand Arianism, then ________________________.

BTW: I have plenty of fears too, similar to the personal ones you stated. Pray with me.

Off to work. Thanks Granny!

 

[grannymh]

Granny,

I looked it up. Pope Pius was not advocating that people who wish to shun controversy be excluded from the tent. No, he was saying that such questions are to be addressed, and that there are issues that divide people. Does that mean that we are to exclude those who love their Church, have faith in the Trinity, but avoid questions that divide people? No, Granny, its not there. Pope Pius does not downplay a big, happy tent.

Those readers, who are seriously interested in what Pius XII actually said, should start reading *Humani Generis at its beginning, *and keep reading through section 12.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Those readers who are having trouble with the sections in which “eirenism” appears, please know that it takes a bit of dictionary research to determine the meaning. These sections, especially need to be read very slowly. Those readers who already follow the pied piper will probably miss the obvious meaning of the words “union of all.”

 

[grannymh]

Granny,

Arianism: A heresy which arose in the fourth century, and denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

Okay, when you think of people not understanding Arianism, you feel fear. Thanks, Granny! So, what might be the ramifications of people not understanding Arianism. What is the danger in such lack of understanding? Please do not read my tone as accusatory. I am interested in the source of the fear.

Complete the sentence if you like: If people do not understand Arianism, then ________________________.

Please accept my sincere apology.

I am very busy working on the protocol of the Catholic Church regarding the expression of Divine Revelation. For your information, Devine Revelation is recognized as an important part in declaring unchanging Catholic doctrines. Old alternatives do not remain as formal Catholic doctrines. That only works in the world of some, not all, public pundits.

Therefore, I am not interested in playing you game of 20, more or less, questions.

By the way, Divine Revelation, Genesis 1:27 for example, plays an important part in the original relationship between humanity and Divinity.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas, good morning! er… afternoon…

"An alternative definition of original sin holds that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory for the acquisition of conscience. In this definition, mankind is not stained in any way by any deed, but instead misdeed is a result of our God-given drives and capacities limited by blindness and unawareness.

"In this alternative, Christ, as God incarnate, shows us God’s unconditional and constant forgiveness, a forgiveness “before always”, as depicted from the Cross. Christ comes in order to be a model of redemption from our fears, our wants, our resentments, all the trappings of our nature. In so doing He redeems the world in the call to love one another in the same way, to love and forgive without condition, creating the Kingdom of God on Earth as it is in Heaven. Word does not become incarnate to change God’s mind about man, but comes to change man’s mind about God.

“This alternative does not ascribe to Modernism or Arianism, especially when they disrespect or defy the value, place, and validity of the standard definition of original sin. This alternative is not a better or worse alternative, only one that stands upon a somewhat different tradition set forth by various saints and early writers in the Church.”

That, Simpleas, is some possible wording. It could stand a great deal of editing, but I hope it gets the point across. Of course, the alternative needs a lot of development, but it is a start.

Thanks! off to mass… Have a great week!

Can I ask where you got that section of writing from? I’ll assume it was not by you as it doesn’t seem to be your style of writing.

Have a good week too.

 

[cfauster]

Thank you for the link.
May I gently point out that in contrast to the popular proposal of an alternative progressively emerging Catholic Church (refer to a brief example in post 318 above) the real Catholic Church does not have fundamental basic understandings of Original Sin in the plural. Granted that there are various acceptable ways of explaining the basic truth. …

My plural in “understandings” can be taken to mean diversity of aspects or dimensions rather than alternative views on the same aspects or dimensions. Or, as you say, it can be taken to mean diversity of ways of articulating or expressing the same understanding(s).

Indeed, I acknowledge that in contrast to the many tents in the protestant Christian campground, the Catholic tent is singular, under the authority of one human headmaster, the pope (with the Magisterium).

I leave it to Catholics to discuss the size of the tent, or who (among self-identifying Catholics) are truly in vs. out of the tent, etc. I also appreciate that usually Catholics discuss these matters amongst yourselves with charity, always expressing the hope that those outside might be brought inside.

When it comes to the protestant campground, there are indeed much more diverse understandings, and the linked symposium displays that. I appreciate that in some arenas, including BioLogos, the exchange of ideas is usually done with Christian charity. Alas, in some other arenas, no so much.

 

[PTL]

Catholic means “univeral”. Will you give me the name of one modern Pope who is opposed to the idea of a big, happy tent?

Do you share the fears presented by Fr. Heilman?

Universal means encompassing. It means the Catholic Church welcomes all sinners to follow Jesus and the one true faith. Jesus told the woman in adultery that He would not condemn her, but he emphasized to “sin no more”.

Be careful to use words of “a big happy tent”. That could fall into the category of “ambiguity”. There has never been a big happy tent in the sense of inviting sinners stay in sin. Repentance and conversion are the key. Make no mistake.

Fr. Heilman is not in fear. He is rightly concerned about the ignorance of people and the misleading muddy water that could drown many.

 

[OneSheep]

Can I ask where you got that section of writing from? I’ll assume it was not by you as it doesn’t seem to be your style of writing.

Have a good week too.

It was mine, Simpleas! If it was someone else’, I would have given the source.

What do you think? How would you edit it?

 

[OneSheep]

Universal means encompassing. It means the Catholic Church welcomes all sinners to follow Jesus and the one true faith. Jesus told the woman in adultery that He would not condemn her, but he emphasized to “sin no more”.

Be careful to use words of “a big happy tent”. That could fall into the category of “ambiguity”. There has never been a big happy tent in the sense of inviting sinners stay in sin. Repentance and conversion are the key. Make no mistake.

Fr. Heilman is not in fear. He is rightly concerned about the ignorance of people and the misleading muddy water that could drown many.

Brother,

Yes, repentance is extremely important in following Christ. All of us need to repent in some way, so it is not really our place to be pointing at others’ need and possibly imply that we are not all in the same boat. Unless you are perfect, of course.

In the mean time, we are all sinners. If the big tent were to kick out all the sinners, well, sounds kind of empty. Sinners who want to stay in sin have a lot to learn. Do we kick them out, or do we teach them, empower them, and guide them?

And well, you do not know whether Fr. Heilman is fearing or not, and neither do I. It depends on the person’s definition of fear. Concern is “fear lite” in my book.

Thanks for the note about drowning. Do you fear drowning? Do you fear others drowning? What is “drowning” to you? Let’s get to the bottom of it, shall we? oops… no pun intended…

Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

Those readers, who are seriously interested in what Pius XII actually said, should start reading *Humani Generis at its beginning, *and keep reading through section 12.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Those readers who are having trouble with the sections in which “eirenism” appears, please know that it takes a bit of dictionary research to determine the meaning. These sections, especially need to be read very slowly. Those readers who already follow the pied piper will probably miss the obvious meaning of the words “union of all.”

Granny Dearest,

Yes, it would be a disservice, for example, to say to the addict, “It’s just fine if you keep on using. No harm done.” No, the Church needs to continue the preaching of discipline and repentance, or people will continue in their slavery to sin.

There is nothing in Humani Generis about rejection of a “big happy tent”, Granny, it is not there. People who live in sin but do not think they are need to be corrected, but we don’t kick them out. The tent remains big, and happy as long as grumpies don’t point and say that others need to be kicked out. We can talk to the grumpies too! We can teach them to forgive and understand, and see that we all belong in the big happy tent. And what, no comments about Jesus’ stance toward the Samaritans and sinners? Are you going to simply ignore the Gospel?

“Pied Piper”? Have you forgotten charity? I’m in a great mood today. Names will not hurt me. Hit me with something harder, here, I offer you the other cheek!

God bless you Granny, you are a feisty one…

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas, good morning! er… afternoon…

"An alternative definition of original sin holds that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory for the acquisition of conscience. In this definition, mankind is not stained in any way by any deed, but instead misdeed is a result of our God-given drives and capacities limited by blindness and unawareness.

"In this alternative, Christ, as God incarnate, shows us God’s unconditional and constant forgiveness, a forgiveness “before always”, as depicted from the Cross. Christ comes in order to be a model of redemption from our fears, our wants, our resentments, all the trappings of our nature. In so doing He redeems the world in the call to love one another in the same way, to love and forgive without condition, creating the Kingdom of God on Earth as it is in Heaven. Word does not become incarnate to change God’s mind about man, but comes to change man’s mind about God.

“This alternative does not ascribe to Modernism or Arianism, especially when they disrespect or defy the value, place, and validity of the standard definition of original sin. This alternative is not a better or worse alternative, only one that stands upon a somewhat different tradition set forth by various saints and early writers in the Church.”

That, Simpleas, is some possible wording. It could stand a great deal of editing, but I hope it gets the point across. Of course, the alternative needs a lot of development, but it is a start.

Thanks! off to mass… Have a great week!

My apology, I didn’t think it was you!

Ok I have read it a few times, I just couldn’t understand what your point was, but I get it now.

*He redeems the world in the call to love one another in the same way, to love and forgive without condition, creating the Kingdom of God on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Yes it seems Jesus does ask this of us, but our church teaches there is a condition, we have to be truly sorry for our sin, but I can’t be sure (as I don’t think the church is) that God has not or does not forgive without us being truly sorry first.
What I do think, is, if we are not truly sorry for a sin, and ask forgiveness, it doesn’t work that way, because a person is most likely to commit the sin over an over until THEY recognize it within themself.

I suppose I’m thinking you see it as the both/and, like you said a few posts back, that original sin has a place in doctrine and the above view does too.